What is the ideal taxation scheme?

[Atlas14]

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?

Lowering salaries of politicians, not throwing a trillion $ into Iraq War, limits on campaign spending, greater taxes on corporations that have reached a certain size (based on profit and site locations), not buying into a universal health care, programs similar to cap n trade.

 

[JollyRoger]

Are you sure?

It seems like it would be rather easy to give them only to those within the country.

The fair tax system doesn't contain this limitation and the proponents of the fairytale tax insist that we accept the entire proposal with no changes.

 

[civ_king]

Lowering salaries of politicians, not throwing a trillion $ into Iraq War, limits on campaign spending, greater taxes on corporations that have reached a certain size (based on profit and site locations), not buying into a universal health care, programs similar to cap n trade.

it's only 20 something million a day

 

[a_propagandist]

If a thief steals a watch from you and then sells it to another person, does the buyer legally possess that watch? Or should it still be yours? Knowing you, I think you probably believe that the watch is still rightfully and legally yours. Only that an act of theft/aggression has changed the circumstances.

What if the thief steals your watch and then sells it to someone who sells it to someone else who sells it? Let that continue on for 100 transactions. Legally, do you believe that the last guy who buys the stolen watch possesses it? Or should it still be yours?

Now, suppose hypothetically you live in California and live in the suburbs. Well, the house (more specifically land) you hypothetically own, you bought from the previous inhabitant. But go farther back in history, you'll see that it's land won from the Spanish by force/aggression/theft(you could say). And farther back, the Spanish stole the land from the Native Americans. Now, I ask you, in this hypothetical situation, would you still be the rightful owner of the land? Because all land (the factor of production) has been taken by force.

xarth, please address my points. Thanks.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Propagandist: Rothbard talks about it here http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp

Summary version for those who don't feel like wading through thousands of words:

libertarian theory deduces the absolute morality and justice of all current titles to property except where the origin of the current titles is criminal, and (1) the victim or his heirs can be identified and found, or (2) the victim cannot be found but the current title-holder is the criminal in question. In the former case, the property reverts in common justice to the victim or his heirs; in the latter, it becomes the property of the first appropriator to alter its unowned state.

 

[Bill3000]

Propagandist: Rothbard talks about it here http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nine.asp

That is not an argument. That is a website.

 

[a_propagandist]

So, understandably, California should revert back to Native American control and ownership?

And what gave the very first person to claim land as property that right?

Final point: Libertarian principles seem to be quite self-serving, selective, and arbitrary.

 

[Princeps]

Slavery requires aggression.

Obviously.

Punishment is not aggression,

Yes, absolutely it is. Must I repeat? It appears I have to. So Ill go into detail.

The libertarians insist that their system of laws is natural and unaterable, therefore requiring no consent or recognition on individual or public level, anywhere, at all (universalism). (A lot of their anti-government rhetoric is entirely based on this assumption) This is the fundamental anti-freedom, authoritarian exception within Libertarianism. Punishment, as I see it in your libertarianism, is nothing but the regime aggression toward the individual for having violated this arbitrary arrengement, which doesn't need democratic or individual constent, but may be imposed by private property owning dictators at will.

If the individual A does not recognize the property of individual B, how can he be punished for violating it, since has not contractually recognized the ownership of that property?

By Rothbardian definition:

How fancy, Rothbardian.

So, next time, whenever you say "taxation is theft", don't. Instead say, "Rothbard thinks taxation is theft". That's the entirety of your argument.

coercion is aggression against legitimate property(where legitimate means that is got through homesteading or voluntary exchange).

Acquisition of property, even through "homesteading" or "free" exchange, must be backed by a convincing threat of violence, explicit or implicit, for the property regime to effectively exist and restrict those who might violate it. There is nothing voluntary about this: it is just as authoritarian as any law or regime, and in a world where the top 1 % own 40 %, it would without a doubt be used to strictly impose the status quo as libertarians dismantle the democratic state which could regulate property.

That is what libertarians mean by that term. What you are describing here is a different meaning of the word, so it is a sort of straw man, it does not criticize the meaning of the word that libertarians apply to it.

Full stop. You cannot accuse others of fallacies if you do not argue what those fallacies are. Tell me EXACTLY what in my argument doesn't correctly describe your ideology.

Property in libertarianism is an entitlement that is unalterable by democratic institutions (majoritarianism is evil after all, isnt it?). Libertarian natural property law does not require the individual's personal consent for it to be imposed on him individually (a direct violation of libertarian individualist atomism). How is this incorrect? Since the libertarian natural law does not derive its legitimacy from either individual consent nor any democratic process, then where does it?

The term coercion doesnt have any meaning without having ownership as a precondition. How can something be coerced against if it isnt owned by someone?

Control and ownership are not the same concepts, and how is this relevant?

 

[Godwynn]

Dear xarthaz,

Please stop using words.

Thanks,

Godwynn

 

[Princeps]

Godwynn is a fan of grunts and gurgles.

 

[BasketCase]

What is the ideal taxation scheme?

There isn't one.

Economies are too big, too complicated, and too rapidly-changing for there to be any such thing. Mathematician Martin Gardner parodied the attempt to find such a thing with his own interpretation of the famous "Laffer Curve"--his version of said curve was a random squiggle.

People are smarter than politicians (duh). There's no way governments can beat the taxpayer, so they shouldn't bother trying. They're going to have to learn to live with limited budgets--they will either do that or go broke and lose ALL their revenue. The end result will be the same, one way or the other. But the first way is a lot less damaging to a nation, so there you have it.

 

[Karalysia]

Ideally a progressive one as we have now, but with much larger % for the wealthy. Up to 70% at least at the top brackets. For the bottom 0.

 

[PiMan]

And the human labour is unmistakably clear, be cause it is the only form of labour in nature, that is guided by reasoned ends of the individiual, rather than predetermined instinctual ends of animals.

I disagree. We know too little about animal psychology to say whether a beaver's dam or an ant's nest is instinctual or intelligent. Consider that an advanced and very different alien civilisation from us might see Earth and think that humans are building by instinct.
When I see the full complexity of an ant's nest, I see some semblance of intelligence, where most would see instinct (either evolutionary or supernaturally bestowed).

 

[luiz]

I would much prefer if we would debate alternative taxation schemes (the point of this thread!) instead of engaging in an argument about whether or not taxes are theft, since the two sides will never agree.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would much prefer if we would debate alternative taxation schemes (the point of this thread!) instead of engaging in an argument about whether or not taxes are theft, since the two sides will never agree.

So do you prefer the crowbar break-in at night or the armed heist in the middle of the day as the best collection scheme?

 

[Tani Coyote]

I would much prefer if we would debate alternative taxation schemes (the point of this thread!) instead of engaging in an argument about whether or not taxes are theft, since the two sides will never agree.

Finally some sanity is restored to my thread... while I think taxation is theft(as it is taking from one person, be it legalised), I view it was a necessary evil for the betterment of all, as it finances governing bodies. (No different than making the freedom to murder illegal, for the sake of the fact it would infringe on another individual's freedom to live) So, let's focus on how to most efficiently apply the necessary evil, rather than debating the evil itself.

So, where are all the taxation schemes?

The Georgists? The FairTax advocates? Flat tax? Negative income tax? Progressive taxation reform? Socialism(not to abuse the word like the far right tends to; I mean it in the sense there is a 100% "tax" on everything so as to ensure it can be distributed according to need)?

Just to name a few examples.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Lowering salaries of politicians, not throwing a trillion $ into Iraq War, limits on campaign spending, greater taxes on corporations that have reached a certain size (based on profit and site locations), not buying into a universal health care, programs similar to cap n trade.

It's good to see some people see that it's pointless to reduce tax revenue x without reducing expenses y...

I agree with pretty much all of this! Especially the Iraq War part, which I won't go into due to this thread being tax-related.

Economies are too big, too complicated, and too rapidly-changing for there to be any such thing. Mathematician Martin Gardner parodied the attempt to find such a thing with his own interpretation of the famous "Laffer Curve"--his version of said curve was a random squiggle.

I suppose that is quite a valid point. Different times and situations will require different measures. A sales tax is nice when there's enough consumer spending to support it, but is it viable during say, a recession, when people spend less and thus tax revenue plummets?

Of course not. I should have named this thread, "What is the most SUSTAINABLE taxation scheme?"

People are smarter than politicians (duh). There's no way governments can beat the taxpayer, so they shouldn't bother trying. They're going to have to learn to live with limited budgets--they will either do that or go broke and lose ALL their revenue. The end result will be the same, one way or the other. But the first way is a lot less damaging to a nation, so there you have it.

Now if only we could get rid of the warmongers on one side and the welfaremongers on the other, governments living within limited means certainly becomes possible. We'll have to find some way for them both to agree to cut their own dreamland-construction-funds, rather than eachother's.

We can easily have a powerful military and a successful welfare state with half the current expenses for each, I feel. All it will take is a few politicians willing to do the math to cut costs and improve efficiency, and above all willing to possibly sacrifice their job to do unpopular measures for the greater good.

...Unfortunately, America's politicians tend to not meet either of those two requirements...

Ideally a progressive one as we have now, but with much larger % for the wealthy. Up to 70% at least at the top brackets. For the bottom 0.

Could you define "wealthy", however?

Let me use my personal anecdote again, from the beginning. My father runs a small business and the money he makes from it tends to put him in the uppermost income bracket, or more likely, the second-highest bracket(so he pays at least 33-35% of his income above 171,000).

With all that said, should he be taxed at the same rate as somebody with billions dollars to call upon? Or would you instead raise the tax brackets so that a net tax cut is enjoyed by the majority?

I think not, for while a tax increase of 5% cannot really hurt the extremely wealthy(absolute values come into play), it will hurt those low enough.

Instead, I think that rather than creating a messy tax code that becomes more complex the more money you make, we should try to attain a flat tax or a near-flat tax(so as to make sure the less fortunate get taken care of). This can be supplemented by taxes on land, sales, and other things I describe in the OP.

But of course, the "people worked for their money" argument falls apart with inheritances. I say, on that, the wealthy kids who inherit daddy's fortune are on their own. They should be able to keep a few million at best, and be able to take over their parents' company/companies. That way, if they work for it, they can be just as successful as their parents.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Don't forget Estate Taxes, Excise Taxes, and Tariffs.


I would tend to prefer something akin to the Fair Tax but at a lower rate, combined with highly progressive estate taxes and high excise taxes and tariffs based on the externalities (pollution, mostly, although I'd also include human rights abuses, support for terrorism, and market manipulation by cartels as worthy of being punished by tariffs).

 

[Tani Coyote]

Don't forget Estate Taxes, Excise Taxes, and Tariffs.

Ah yes, of course, I couldn't forget about those! I was just naming a few examples.

I would tend to prefer something akin to the Fair Tax but at a lower rate, combined with highly progressive estate taxes and high excise taxes and tariffs based on the externalities (pollution, mostly).

I'm definitely a fan of a flat tax with high estate taxes, so you can more or less count me in one the first part.

I'm also in full agreement with the second proposal. While some might see tariffs being imposed on polluting imports as a form of protectionism - even if unintentional - the negative effects would of course be offset somewhat by imposing those same taxes on domestic companies, therefore there is no real protectionism. It is more or less a pollution tax, imposed on everybody, foreign or domestic. Thus, the competitive market of free trade is still unharmed as the same restrictions are applied to both, and whoever becomes green first gets to see healthier profit margins.

Those who don't... well...

...That's the free - or competitive, anyways - market.

 

[Cutlass]

Of course not. I should have named this thread, "What is the most SUSTAINABLE taxation scheme?"

There is no such thing as a taxation program that will not have huge drops in revenue if the wrong economic conditions happen to come along. Look up a few articles about the Connecticut tax and budget situation over the past year for examples. CT added an income tax to help stabilize revenue less than 20 years ago. Yet in 2008-09 income tax revenue plummeted. Other revenue did as well, but it was the income tax that really devastated the state budget. However in past recessions the state had problems because of over reliance on the sales tax. And the taxpayer has a lot of problems with the property tax, because that does not fall as income falls. At least not right away.