When will our political representatives revise our twisted, incomprehensible tax system versus their latest suggested tinkering?

They dither, dawdle and then dash from creating a comprehensive proposal, the proof of serious action. On occasion, they wring their hands, admit the system is all but broken with its intricacies favoring interest groups while continually exhibiting stymie — lobbying? Herein may lay the paradigm issue: The entire separation of the State’s socio- economic policies from those of tax extraction.

I’ ll float a “ strawman” and if you have a better one, I’m listening: Separate and remove our socioeconomic policies from the tax extraction policies within the tax code. The tax code would then focus only on equitable tax extraction from all based upon total wealth and income without exceptions, while our socio-economic policies would focus only on disbursing those tax revenues for all the appropriate requirements and programs on a granular basis. At least we would then understand which agencies, organizational entities or individuals were receiving what amounts of total programming, relief and subsidies and why — ouch, transparency.

A definitive revenue disbursement system could be progressive: Why should organizations or individuals in the upper 10 percent have their property tax subsidized at the same level as the rest or the upper 5 percent receive the same mortgage rate subsidy as the lower 60 percent; or etc.? There are hundreds of inequities due to tax revenue/socio-economic policies being combined within our confounded tax code. Why continue the practice?

Politicians fear goring someone’s specific tax ox; on the other hand, they dread nicking everybody’s. Sadly, it’s this lobbied-fed dread that prevents an equitable, innovative, tax and socio-economic paradigm shift. Rather than create the necessary tax code revision in the best interest of the whole, they, by choice, dither, dawdle and just doodle with incremental changes, why?

Stephen Gorden
Yarmouth