The case for public tax information.

[Berzerker]

I could respect this opinion more if it wasn't in the language of Trump. Also you persecution complex is showing. And finally I do not believe any "leftist" you'd name here is pro-war and all of us are against actual waste and fraud.

Trump didn't come up with the swamp and he sure as hell wouldn't support earmarking taxes, but persecution complex? If leftists wont fund war, waste and fraud, why are they voting for the people responsible for war, waste and fraud? Earmarking taxes would reduce that problem.

 

[Hygro]

We should be allowed to earmark all or most of our taxes. That way we pay for stuff 'we' want and not what the swamp wants.

Taxes go to taxes not to spending.

 

[Estebonrober]

Taxes go to taxes not to spending.

It seems to me if we are in a functional finance age or whatever then open ledgers are even more important. I'm not an expert though, it just feels intuitive. I also completely understand people's reservations about these things, although I find these same people are the type of people who typically line their homes in wifi connected security camera systems or at least have an alexa like device in their home.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wall Street and the megarich would immediately snap up every 100 and 200 acre parcel of farmland and non-prime housing unit maintained more out of sentiment and loyalty than min/maxing profit extraction. Unless there's an aspect I'm missing, this is balls to the wall awful. Holders of the public debt have been setting the rules and the have the money, and money is 1:1. I mean, are we killing them and taking their pretend stuff before we do this?

I really appreciated this point. A potential solution is to have a ramp-up of the wealth tax so that it 'makes sense' to price some of your property in ways that no one will gobble it up. If the first $1 million are not taxed (or the first $10 million, or first $50 million (or whatever)) then you could easily price your home at $900k even if it's only worth $200k on the open market. Yeah, you still run into the issue of someone being allowed to buy it for $900k, but that's pretty good compensation. I know there are problems with any taxation system, it's why I like the idea of taxing in more than one way. But we're running into the world where we're scrambling to own less and less while there's more and more available.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure what the pricing effects are when you change from a consensually open market to a mandated market, everything must be for sale, and much of it ultimately priced by amateurs with professional eyes scanning the entirety of possession like sharks sniffing for blood, police in tow. Seems like capitalism absolutely ascendant over all.

What, ultimately, are the perceived benefits to this over constant grinding 3% inflation combined with sharply scaling progressive taxation? I mean, I don't see particularly compelling reasons to not scale personal income taxes(capital gains and whatnot upon sales) such that it becomes functionally impossible to earn more than 10x the national median income. Maybe leave 1% of income past that point as keepable. I mean, I'm pretty sure we'd all still be enamored with Bezos in 2018 if he was only making ~14,000 times the amount of money as the median household(I realize that's net worth, but hey, just playin).

Corporations play with different protections and don't have a natural expiration date. They can play with different rules to compensate society for those protections.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If they're essential they wont be ignored. I'm talking about the swamp, we cant drain it if its constantly refilled with our taxes.

There are lots of essential things that are either underfunded, or not funded at all. The problem is that while they may not be essential for everyone, they are essential for some. And unless the "some" are able to make politicians sit up and notice them and realize that this is an essential thing, they're just going to continue to be ignored.

Personal life example: There is no public transportation for disabled people that travels between cities in my province, unless it's for medical reasons - and that costs $$. So people like me who don't drive and don't have anyone to take us places are stuck.

Then I find a news article about this fabulous bus route between Calgary and Banff-Canmore, and the people who set it up are yakking that "the mountains should be accessible for everyone."

Well, that's nice - but first we have to get to Calgary. And right now, I can't.

How many people are going to be willing to say "put my tax money into funding disabled busing for people to travel between cities?

Not very damn many. The only person I've ever heard speak in favor of such things was my doctor, when I told her I wasn't able to visit my dad when he was in a nursing home an hour north of here.


As for this "swamp," you're going to have to explain wtf that actually means.