Then we will continue to see wealth concentrate until disaster ensues (revolution, collapse of democracy, or a populist campaign that makes any previous ones look moderate).

This will even further help the concentration of wealth to occur. The only way around it is to target by using an exemption that is far above what any middle class (even upper middle class) family is likely to spend... but then you could not replace income tax, partially because this would make it so that few people are even paying taxes.
It's good to have multiple types of taxation. What's bad is loopholes.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

The problem with this line of thinking is that wealth isn't finite. Just because one person has wealth doesn't exclude someone else from acquiring it. Fiscal growth is healthy and the more people who accumulate and amass wealth the better for our nation as a whole.


I disagree, this will allow people to make decisions with their own money instead of letting the imperial federal government do it. You went to work and earned that money, it should be yours to decide how to spend it.

Sort of like where we are heading now, where only the upper 50% of income earners pay into the system, but the lower 50% reaps the benefits.

Simplified taxation and government transparency, if they want to spend my money they should be obliged to tell me why what they want to do is more important than anything I could possible spend it on.

__________________

Only if everyone gains in quality of life to an extent that seems well enough proportioned as to not build excessive animosity.
As it is since the '80s, the upper-uppers have seen quite an upward move while the rest have seen about the pace of inflation.


Ever hear of the idea of eating dinner before dessert?
There are public goods the nation needs to take care of. Take care of that, then you can do whatever you want with the rest.

Everyone is gaining the benefits. A middle class person gaining more security is arguably gaining more than a welfare recipient from government.
And of course the primary beneficiaries (regardless of party) are the biggest corporations and the upper .1% of the wealth scale.

I'm for transparency in taxation and government. But I also realize that not every government program or policy will appear to be in the direct interest of the individuals scrutinizing. Public goods seem to be invisible to those in the "tax reformist" camp.
I also don't think simplifying taxation is best done by lowering the number of types of taxes. It's done by throwing out a lot of complex deductions.
Exemptions however are a necessity to any working tax system.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Of course there are public goods, however most of these are handled through excise taxes, those tax based on usage, and that's trully fair.
Firstly, corporations pay no taxes, only consumers pay taxes and secondly, allowing a business to keep more money allows them expand, create more jobs, pay their employees more, and reduce the costs of their products. The Irish understand this, when are we going to catch on.

That's because the vast majority of them aren't in the best interests of tax payers, hence why they shouldn't be funding it.

Not really, our definitions of what is a public good and what is in the publics interests vary greatly.

__________________