Okay, let's do some tag-teaming here
. Initially scrap it all so you can rebuild it from the ground up to make all possible tax forms simpler for people to read. There is no reason for it to be so complicated. Then you get the changes.
Over what duration? Will she lose her job in the transition?
This is almost the opposite what many economists support, which is the elimination of the corporation tax and a more progressive income and consumption tax system. The arbitrary rates shows a lack of marginal thinking. For example, if the consumption tax has only two tiers - 20% vs. 0% - wouldn't firms lobby to classify their product as a necessity, given the significant drop-off in tax if they succeed?
Similarly, with a 30% tariff on outsourcing and transaction costs for a company to look for new contractors, there will be a serious contraction in economic activity in anticipation of the policy being law.
The whole point of a fund is so that politicians can't just seize the whole thing if they want to pursue some project of their own.
No, what this sounds like is a single-payer system that deprives the government of ways to ensure its solvency. What stops doctors, pharmaceuticals and hospitals to independently decide to overbill the government?
Ditto the above, except now the actors are 50 states instead of healthcare firms. Not to mention one of the purposes of the DoE is to address within-state education inequality, which may be worse than between-state inequality.
This plan sounds like your mother thinking what makes her work the easiest, as an accountant, is also what is best as public policy. This kind of thinking is narcissistic and self-defeating.
