Actually, the kinds of people who adopt are often not well off. They borrow from friends, family, church, etc. Then they pay it back using these credits.
> electric car credits,
Lets talk in 5 years when even the poorest will be driving EV's. They'd be stupid not to considering how cheap electricity is compared to gas.
Not to mention in a country of high class mobility putting in "donut holes" in the tax code is just stupid. Now you'll be incentivized to not go past making $50,000 unless you suddenly want to be hit with taxes. Employers will cap salaries at arbitrarily $50,000 to avoid tax concerns. These kinds of "one fits all" caps are often economically destructive. Look at India, where if a company is larger than x employees, it is illegal to fire anyone. You need to petition the government to fire that person. That's why there are so many small companies there and why they struggle to compete with China and other nations in their development class who don't have weird one-size-fits all legislation.
> Actually, the kinds of people who adopt are often not well off. They borrow from friends, family, church, etc. Then they pay it back using these credits.
Yes, these people aren't helped by the process of taking deductions because they are basically covered by the standard deduction to have zero tax anyways.
>Now you'll be incentivized to not go past making $50,000 unless you suddenly want to be hit with taxes.
Huh? if you make 50,010 you're not going to be paying 14.5% of 50,010, you're going to be paying $1.45 in taxes.
>These kinds of "one fits all" caps are often economically destructive.
No doubt, and the US idiotically implements these, too, like in the ACA where small businesses are exempt below certain sizes, unless you are wal-mart and can obtain a backdoor administrative exemption.
Now, if you want to rail against "donut holes" the american welfare system has plenty of those, but that's a separate debate.
>Lets talk in 5 years when even the poorest will be driving EV's. They'd be stupid not to considering how cheap electricity is compared to gas.
If the lowered expense of the cars is matched by the cheapness of the electricity to make it economical for 'the poorest', then there would be no need for a credit. As it is, the credit (like most tax credits) only helps rich people.
If there is a 14.5% flat tax, then it wouldn't make sense to have a salary anywhere between $50,000 and $58,479.54. That still leaves a company free to offer a "competitive" $60,000 salary to lure employees away from a competitor who would cap salaries at $50,000.
This argument goes away if we only tax the money after $50,000.
Either way, salaries won't be arbitrarily capped at $50,000.
> electric car credits,
Lets talk in 5 years when even the poorest will be driving EV's. They'd be stupid not to considering how cheap electricity is compared to gas.
Not to mention in a country of high class mobility putting in "donut holes" in the tax code is just stupid. Now you'll be incentivized to not go past making $50,000 unless you suddenly want to be hit with taxes. Employers will cap salaries at arbitrarily $50,000 to avoid tax concerns. These kinds of "one fits all" caps are often economically destructive. Look at India, where if a company is larger than x employees, it is illegal to fire anyone. You need to petition the government to fire that person. That's why there are so many small companies there and why they struggle to compete with China and other nations in their development class who don't have weird one-size-fits all legislation.