What is the ideal taxation scheme?

The kind of people who make over a million a year can leave the country pretty easily, and likely take their business with them. He didn't mention any tariffs, so if the business deals with any physical product at least they would be better overseas.

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.
 
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.
 
Aren't you afraid you'd drive out the rich if they're taxed so punitively? 75% marginal rate? Even the most communally-minded Western European nations are not so suffocating...

They can love it or leave it.

:)
 
If everyone only paid 10% tax, how could the government collect enough money for all the stuff it needs to do?

Where would the rest of the money come from?

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.
 
The issue with a flat tax is that there is a certain incompressible amount of expenses that you have to do to basically survive (food, utilities, rent/mortgage,...)
And as such, low salaries are penalized by a flat tax because this incompressible amount of expense eats a very large percentage of their salaries - and the flat tax just eats more of their remaining expenses.

Basically:
incompressible expenses=$500. Flat tax is 10%.
Someone earning $600 dollars will have $40 left, someone earning $1000 will have $400 left.
That is 10 times more savings for the higher salary (compared to 5 times more without the flat tax).

Highly simplified but that's the idea.

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.

So what do you tax then Turner?

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.
 
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.

What do we do with all the old and disabled people?
 
Let State governments implement any social programs they choose to on a State by State basis. Also, why does government have to be the answer? Family, private charity, etc.

soylent green...
 
Let State governments implement any social programs they choose to on a State by State basis. Also, why does government have to be the answer? Family, private charity, etc.

'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.

VRWCAgent said:
soylent green...
Well I suppose we could turn old people into soylent green and give it to the poor. :p
 
Did your parents tell you that stealing is wrong?

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.
 
user fees, lotteries and donations

I'd get rid of taxes except for emergencies like wars

Taxtion is not theft, but public policy.

"I legalized robbery, called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, The Man's Too Strong
 
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.
 
"I legalized robbery, called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, The Man's Too Strong

Not a response. White noise.

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.

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.
 
Not a response. White noise.

He wrote a song for you ;)

Not only does fees encourge free riding, but it also creates its own externalities.

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.

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.

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.
$0-$6000-----------> 0%
$6001-$35 000------> 15%
$35 001-$80 000----> 30%
$80 0001-$180 000-> 40%
$180 001+ ----------> 45%
And this is what I would change it to something like this:
$0-$12 000-----------> 0%
$12 001-$30 000------> 17.5%
$30 001-$60 000----> 35%
$60 001-$100 000--> 42.5%
$100 001-$150 000-> 50%
$150 001-$500 000-> 60%
$500 001-$1 000 000> 67.5%
$1 000 001+ -------> 75%
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.
 
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.

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.

trespassing's illegal, so is destroying other people's property.

And preferably you don't want a system that incentivizes illegal behaviour.
 
User fees aint riding free, but if me and my neighbors hiring a cop makes your life a bit safer too, fine by me.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom