Dan, even more than direct/indirect, you need to specify what is "neutral". Given democracy, one (adult) person, one vote, a strong case can be made for a "neutral" poll tax. Of course it is not "progressive" like most income taxes. Flat rate taxes, sales/VAT taxes, even land taxes, affect some more than others.
My own preferences are more towards a flat(er) tax, with a large (poverty level) deduction, and rates tending down (to zero?); a land tax, split between local, state, and federal (1/3 each? 50-25-25?); and ever increasing taxes on pollution. I am constantly annoyed at the greens wanting huge regulation but unwilling to support higher pollution taxes. Um, to get rid of the last 5% of income taxes, I'd even support deficit spending printing money (inflation, another fairly "neutral" tax, of about 2-3% per year). But of the course the MAIN problem is on the benfit side -- so many voters want, claim, demand, and only-vote-for those politicos who offer their favorite benefits. The demand for benefits drives the demand for tax revenue. And the coming (2020) Social Security baby boomer elephant-sized funding gap is gonna be a HUGE increase in benefit demand. Europe is even more vulnerable than the US or the UK. Sigh. "What is to be done?" (someone said that... I know, what's is name the commie!) Tom Grey > But this assumes that taxes can be neutral. I would tend to > agree with > Larry Sechrest here -- viz., there are no neutral taxes. (Sechrest's > position is laid out in his "Rand, Anarchy, and Taxes" in _The Journal > of Ayn Rand Studies_ 1(2).) > > Do any of you agree? > > Cheers! > > Dan > http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/ > > >
