No, they really can't. Even the rich follow where the jobs are. You can't live in Mexico and be an investment banker in New York. There is choice in location, but it is not unlimited choice. And sometimes you can have more net income in a high tax area than you can in a low tax area with less gross income.
What is the ideal taxation scheme?
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
No, they really can't. Even the rich follow where the jobs are. You can't live in Mexico and be an investment banker in New York. There is choice in location, but it is not unlimited choice. And sometimes you can have more net income in a high tax area than you can in a low tax area with less gross income.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
If it were my decision it would go something like this...
"flat" 10% income tax on all income(corporation and personal) after say $10,000 and no deductions. The federal government would be constitutionally unable to raise taxes higher than this or spend more money they take in unless the a super majority of congress(house + senate) votes to instate a national "state of emergency"(SoE). Declaration of war counts as an SoE. This has a number of advantages. First it restricts the POTUS from unilaterally starting a "police action" and must instead get congress' upport as should happen. Also it restricts congress from instantiating every dumb or excessive program under the sun.
Of course the government can choose to tax less than 10% or spend less than it brings in to save for future use like a responsible organization should.
If we must have large social programs(for example Social Security) the money never goes into the hands of the government but instead gets placed in a variety of approved private accounts under the control of the people whose money it is. The only restrictions on the accounts being under what circumstances the money can be used.
"flat" 10% income tax on all income(corporation and personal) after say $10,000 and no deductions. The federal government would be constitutionally unable to raise taxes higher than this or spend more money they take in unless the a super majority of congress(house + senate) votes to instate a national "state of emergency"(SoE). Declaration of war counts as an SoE. This has a number of advantages. First it restricts the POTUS from unilaterally starting a "police action" and must instead get congress' upport as should happen. Also it restricts congress from instantiating every dumb or excessive program under the sun.
Of course the government can choose to tax less than 10% or spend less than it brings in to save for future use like a responsible organization should.
If we must have large social programs(for example Social Security) the money never goes into the hands of the government but instead gets placed in a variety of approved private accounts under the control of the people whose money it is. The only restrictions on the accounts being under what circumstances the money can be used.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
How about nearly any other country in the world?where the hell are they going to go?this isn't state taxes we're talking about.
And take home less after tax income. If they wanted to lower their income, they can go now.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
Just what does the FEDERAL government need to do? If it abolished medicare, social security, and all that other crap it spends money on that it shouldn't, it should be just fine. Hell, it might even start being able to pay down the debt a bit.
This has been bugging me since I read it....I fear it's too simple. I think it's pretty unrealistic to think that two people would have the exact same expenses and such a divergence in their salaries. Person A wouldn't stay at the $500 very long before finding a way to reduce those expenses. Eating cheaper is the first alternative, up to finding a different place to live or car to drive. Conversely, Person B would look at all the extra money they have and probably find a more expensive car to drive or place to live. Of course, I'm probably reading too much into it.
Been doing thinking about that too. First off, I would legalize drugs. All of them. Legalize them and tax the crap out of them. I would regulate it to whatever standard is needed to ensure that someone doesn't go to their corner dealer and buy a dime bag that isn't laced with bleach or whatever. Take a good portion of the money earned on taxes and set it up for the inevitable need of rehabilitation services. Then I open the boarders up to all the drug manufacturer's down south and tariff it to bring more money in.
That of course won't be enough, so i also introduce a federal sales tax. Call it whatever, 5 or 10%.
And just for grins, I nationalize all the lotteries, and either have a federal one with the ones out there combined into it, or keep it like it is and add a federal one as well.
While we're at it, let's legalize gambling, and tax that as well.
The money's out there....you just need to figure out how to take it from the shadier places and reroute it to a more 'legal' one.
Gustave5436
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,319
What do we do with all the old and disabled people?
'cuz it has been historically shown that charity alone is not enough to alleviate poverty to sane levels? I mean social security etc is one of the major reasons why the elderly don't die poor and homeless, for example.
Well I suppose we could turn old people into soylent green and give it to the poor.VRWCAgent said:
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Taxtion is not theft, but public policy. Private property is also a public policy imposed through governmetn and law.
If taxation is wrong in a democratic state, then private property must also be morally wrong, because both systems, in the end, coercively restrict some to the benefit of others. From the perspective of the strict non-aggression philosophy, they are moral equivalents.
----
Anyway, I support a progressive tax with unnecessary complexities removed, such as all the loopholes and exemptions. I also like some of integrals ideas.
Berzerker
Deity
user fees, lotteries and donations
I'd get rid of taxes except for emergencies like wars
"I legalized robbery, called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, The Man's Too Strong
I'd get rid of taxes except for emergencies like wars
"I legalized robbery, called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, The Man's Too Strong
Hooray for free riders!
a_propagandist
The Light Brigadier
Ideal changes. During a recession, you should have tax cuts. Tax hikes during an expansion. It's hard to say. One thing my liberal mind has modified: the Fair (pshh)Tax. On all non-capital goods, use a formula to derive tax rates depending on price. For example, a 4000 dollar TV would have a tax rate of, say 35-40%. A piece of fruit at the market would have a 5% tax. These percentages are only examples, but you get the idea, I hope.
And look, my justification for taxes is this: the accumulation of power, wealth, and influence has inherent, underlying externalities. You hurt other people by having more than them. You dilute their political influence. You decrease their social mobility for the most part. You keep most of what you earn for what you have contributed. But the very existence of your wealth negatively affects others. Therefore, the government taxes to compensate just as the government should fine a chemical plant for dumping dangerous substances into a river. Because it hurts other people.
Pre-tax income (what the market has valued as your contributions to society) - taxes (compensations for the negative externalities created when you participate in stratifying society and the political arena) = post-tax income(your net contribution to society) See, the market can only value your contributions, not your externalities.
In essence, how you help - how you hurt others = net income.
And look, my justification for taxes is this: the accumulation of power, wealth, and influence has inherent, underlying externalities. You hurt other people by having more than them. You dilute their political influence. You decrease their social mobility for the most part. You keep most of what you earn for what you have contributed. But the very existence of your wealth negatively affects others. Therefore, the government taxes to compensate just as the government should fine a chemical plant for dumping dangerous substances into a river. Because it hurts other people.
Pre-tax income (what the market has valued as your contributions to society) - taxes (compensations for the negative externalities created when you participate in stratifying society and the political arena) = post-tax income(your net contribution to society) See, the market can only value your contributions, not your externalities.
In essence, how you help - how you hurt others = net income.
Berzerker
Deity
Yer a liberal, thats the ideology of free riding. User fees aint riding free, but if me and my neighbors hiring a cop makes your life a bit safer too, fine by me.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Not a response. White noise.
Not only does fees encourge free riding, but it also creates its own externalities. The cheapest route from A to location B might not be the shortest toll road, but tresspassing through the propery of others, thus inflicting property damage, lowering property values, etc.
Berzerker
Deity
He wrote a song for you
User fees encourage free riding? No, liberalism encourages free riding. Hell, its based on it... Tax the rich and give the money to the poor.
trespassing's illegal, so is destroying other people's property. But with my user fees, and the user fees of other motorists, we can build a road. See how that works?
I'm reasonably happy with the Australian tax system, but I would make modifications.
Firstly, I wouldn't get rid of the GST. I'd just counteract its effect on income inequality with more steeply progressive tax thresholds.
Secondly, I'd up the rate of compulsory superannuation (if we're counting that as part of the tax system) to, perhaps 12% (up from 9%). And I would get rid of salary sacrifice. It's just a legalised tax fraud method.
Thirdly, I'd transfer all state taxes to the federal level. Ideally this would come with the abolition of the states as anything more than geographic groupings.
Fourthly, I'd crank up taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and on fuel, to a small degree. I would legalise most illicit drugs, and then tax them to hell and back.
And finally, income tax. This is what it is currently, with the marginal rates.
Firstly, I wouldn't get rid of the GST. I'd just counteract its effect on income inequality with more steeply progressive tax thresholds.
Secondly, I'd up the rate of compulsory superannuation (if we're counting that as part of the tax system) to, perhaps 12% (up from 9%). And I would get rid of salary sacrifice. It's just a legalised tax fraud method.
Thirdly, I'd transfer all state taxes to the federal level. Ideally this would come with the abolition of the states as anything more than geographic groupings.
Fourthly, I'd crank up taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and on fuel, to a small degree. I would legalise most illicit drugs, and then tax them to hell and back.
And finally, income tax. This is what it is currently, with the marginal rates.
And this is what I would change it to something like this:
So, someone that earns the average tax payer, earning $A48 000 would currently pay $A8250 tax, whilst someone who earns $20 000 would pay $2100. Someone earning $80 000 would pay $17 850, and someone earning $150 000 would pay $45 850. Under my system, the average earner would pay $9450, and the $20 000 earner would pay $1400. The $80 000 earner would pay $22 150 and the $150 000 earner would pay $55 650. It would promote much better equality, IMO, whilst allowing for greater government spending and economic control.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Again. Property is a coercive regime just as taxation is. You could very well say the same for taxing the poor to protect the assets of the rich and to further enrich them, which precisely what conservatives do by, for example, inflating the costs of goods up to 4000 % through patent entitlements.
Furthermore, the rich are obviously not rich only for their own merits: their prosperity derives from their exploitation of the community and its resources. And furthermore, the wealthy have no inherent or natural right to their wealth: their right to their wealth is political.
And preferably you don't want a system that incentivizes illegal behaviour.
User fees are by definition impossible for a public good. By definition, a user fee is a fee in which if a person does not pay it, he would be excluded from the good. Also by definition, a public good is non-excludable. So it is an improper method of payment for public goods such as national defense, lighthosues, clean air, road construction and maintenance, et cetera.
As for being a liberal, last time I checked, I'm not the one calling for taxes to be abolished for public goods.
Similar threads
