RE: General Ideas for a Tax System

RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 9:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello, DesideriScuri. I am sorry if my answer sounds dry sometimes, there are discussion I consider distracting here. By other side, I trust your intelligent to understand somethimes what I mean (first answer). quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster General Rule: We tax only what we want to discourage. - Let us tax environmental damage, but covering many times the probable cost of repairing the damage done (even for nuclear waste we can estimate the way to eliminate the damage in the future and the necessary investment today to be able to repair it later). With "one time" we repair it (or plan its repair). With the rest we finance the state. So, tax the industries that create the environmental damage, right? That won't really motivate them to stop, you realize? Any extra cost (the tax) gets rolled into the cost of goods and sold to the consumer anyway. Consumers have no real way to pick and choose which power sources they get their power from, so you'll just be taxing consumers, rather than producers. You are supposing that all companies have the same environmental problems and that the customer has no influence on his needs, not matter the price. This only happens in an infinitely inelastic monopoly. This is not the real situation, almost nowhere, and even where it is, it does not have to last forever: they are wonderful opportunities for new technologies. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: - Let us tax inequality, but only above a limit considered "natural" (number to be found by democratic consensus). Let us motivate the rich to help the poor... so that they themselves pay less taxes when the inequality indexes decrease towards that natural limit: but only then. No tax reduction for one individual help "Democratic Concensus" isn't a "natural number" (other than in a mathematical sense), and will be open for political manipulation. "Democratic Concensus" is, in and of itself, pretty much an oxymoron. 50%+1 vote isn't concensus. How would you tax "inequality?" No oximoron, consensus is not unanimity. I told already how would I tax inequality, below. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: - tax reduction for all when inequality actually decreases. - While doing this, let us tax inequality in properties, not in income. We have nothing against income. We have nothing against a very poor guy earning suddenly a bunch of money. We have something about many people having few and few people having many (beyond the natural limit). How are you defining "property?" Is an investment a "property," or are you thinking of physical things like houses, buildings, real estate, etc.? I do not think that I have to explain what is property. No, I did not mean real estate, I meant property. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: - Let us not tax profit: we want people to have profit. Nor building companies: we want people to building companies. Nor getting a job: we want them to have a job. What is left to tax? Are you saying to tax whatever is "saved?" That is, if a person makes a profit (which would be exchanging their time-labor input for money), what they don't spend of that profit gets taxed? That is still taxing the profits and income. I told already what is left to tax. Work labor is not the only source of capital. I would tax the capital (the property), no matter where it comes from. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: - Let us tax the abuse of the state institution, but not the use of state institutions. A normal use should be for free, because we do not want to discourage it. Exaggerated use should be punished by law with many times the damage done. This includes particularly the abuse of the legal system. The devil of this last part lies in the details that define it. That's the reason why this is called "general ideas" (see title) and not a set of law proposals including regulations for every country. I would like to see some cash if you want me to do that :) . quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: Let us tax only what we want to discourage. And that, let us tax is heavily, so heavily that the society actually changes. The issue is who gets to decide what "we" want to discourage, and what we are allowed to discourage. Placing heavy tax loads on derogatory speech is most definitely an infringement of free speech, regardless of what the majority may or may not decide. 1. We decide democratically what is defamation and we tax it with with penalties, so I do not see your problem here with the authority of the state regarding the free speech. If you want to put in question this, then please open another thread. If you accept that authority, then we could, at least in theory, define and tax derogatory speech. 2. But please realise that I wrote "let us tax only what we want to discourage" and *NOT* "let us tax everything we want to discourage". It was A into B, not B into A. 3. Anyway, I do not want to discourage derogatory speech. It's funny :D . Best regards. But there is otherwise no reduction in the money available for dividends if the tax or fine is recouped with service rates. The reason DS is correct is that money is always fungible. What I do pay can be recouped and often is included in dividends what I don't pay is also available for distribution as dividends.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 11:05:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How will the tax burden be no different on the individual? I see a reduction in tax burden on the individual. Where? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Since the German Government is getting revenues from individuals' incomes (right?) and Corporate taxes, how is it that reducing the former won't require an increase on the latter, to maintain revenue levels? Who is saying you that the former will be reduced? Why do you identify "taxes on things we want to discourage" with "taxes for corporations only"? How do you do this, why?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 11:07:48 AM)
Hello and welcome, MrRodgers: quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers But there is otherwise no reduction in the money available for dividends if the tax or fine is recouped with service rates. The reason DS is correct is that money is always fungible. What I do pay can be recouped and often is included in dividends what I don't pay is also available for distribution as dividends. Hello, Mr. Rodgers. I do not understand you, sorry. Please have a bit of mercy with my English, words like "recouped", "service rates", "fungible"... are not easy for me. Please take in account my sentence to DS before: There is no reason to suppose that the average tax burden on companies and / or citizens will be higher or lower as before. Now, can you please explain your point again, possibly with simple words? Thank you.

thompsonx -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 11:25:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Only someone who desires tyranny of the minority would oppose tyranny of the majority. Sometimes I am glad I hid some people. thompsonx, if you cannot separate "tyranny of the majority" (democracy with no control whatsoever, direct and popular) from a modern democracy, which keeps its basic democratic character but protecting the minorities which republican controls, a constitution, etc... then sorry but please learn first, participate later. Another post filled with moronic opinions based on ignorant assumptions. Why assume that that "tyranny of the majority" means (democracy with no control whatsoever, direct and popular) quote: please learn first, participate later. Good advice

thompsonx -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 11:37:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: quote: quote: What happens when consumption takes a nosedive and you no longer have enough money coming in to support the level of government you have? Prima facia evidence that a consumption tax is stupid? quote: Actually, it's evidence that you support a large size and scope of government. That would be an asanine evaluation based on both ignorance and perconcieved notions. quote: The answer to the question is that you you reduce the size of government to meet the revenues produced. Or one could stop the war in the sandbox. quote: And, isn't that happening? How much has it cost this year so far? How much will it cost to maintain our pressence there per year? quote: Yet, all the projections are for increased spending, year after year after year. On what? quote: So, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? It is part of govt . spending that what the fuck it has to do with what this discussion is about. quote: I'm all for removing our troops from "the sandbox" All of them and all u.s. personel? quote: Completely unlike what we have in the US. quote: Since, as pointed out, that does not exist in the u.s. how do we explane the u.s being the most powerful economy in the world? quote: You do realize that increased government spending is going to have an upward effect on the economy in and of itself, right? Government spending has an upward effect on the economy and stopping this upward effect is what you want to do?

eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 12:36:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How will the tax burden be no different on the individual? I see a reduction in tax burden on the individual. Where? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Since the German Government is getting revenues from individuals' incomes (right?) and Corporate taxes, how is it that reducing the former won't require an increase on the latter, to maintain revenue levels? Who is saying you that the former will be reduced? Why do you identify "taxes on things we want to discourage" with "taxes for corporations only"? How do you do this, why? you told in the OP: quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster - Let us not tax profit: we want people to have profit. Nor building companies: we want people to building companies. Nor getting a job: we want them to have a job. these are the former

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/21/2013 9:14:19 PM)
Hello again, DS. Let me make a PS, DS ;) . quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Since the German Government is getting revenues from individuals' incomes This is also wrong. The government in Germany is getting taxes from individuals spending (VAT), from their activities with the bureaucracy and from many other sources. You are right that I propose to eliminate the INCOME taxes, I am sorry I oversaw this in the last message, but apparently you say that ALL taxes on individuals would be eliminated and this is what I do not understand. Why do you think that only corporations (big companies, yes?) would pay taxes? Following my proposal, taxes would be still applies on individuals and small companies, depending on who is doing the concrete activity under tax. In the example is "emitting CO2". And not only corporations emit CO2 ! A private person burning oil for pleasure in a massive scala WOULD pay the same tax as a company emitting the same CO2 for any other reason. The reason does not matter. Maybe it is to make art, maybe to make home experiments on science, maybe he wants to simulate a fire pit of a cartoon, maybe he wants to drive his car with it - it does not matter. He is emitting CO2 => he pays the taxes for emitting CO2. So, again: Before, individuals and companies small and big pay taxes. After, individuals and companies small and big pay taxes. Why do you assert that the tax burden on individuals would be eliminated? Why do you assert that the taxes for corporations would be the only ones remaining? Why?

MrRodgers -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 2:26:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, tax the industries that create the environmental damage, right? That won't really motivate them to stop, you realize? Any extra cost (the tax) gets rolled into the cost of goods and sold to the consumer anyway. Consumers have no real way to pick and choose which power sources they get their power from, so you'll just be taxing consumers, rather than producers. And, that's a big boot in the ass to a "captive audience." which was the whole point in taxing the shit out of the corporations and not the individual in the first place. the corps have enormous leverage that the individual does not. High taxes on corps benefit the private sector by opening up opportunities. If they are captive you just described a monopoly, break it up. Corps should be limited to a small number of people and conglomerates completely abolished. A "captive audience" is always going to be had in the case of power provision. FirstEnergy is the largest provider, by far, and could send down rate increases with no option for the customer but to pay. Sure, PUCO (Public Utility Commission of Ohio) is supposed to provide a limit on the rate increases, but I can't see how they would act considering the kowtowing they do after the preliminary dance to show off the facade that is their support of Ohio customers. Case in point: First Energy came up with a plan to deliver a certain number of CFL's to each and every customer. The cost of the bulbs would have been inserted in your bill for 2 or 3 cycles - it's been a while since this bullshit went on. The CFL's would end up costing the customer $10-12 each. PUCO signed off on the plan as a good idea. Well, the CFL's they were sending out could be bought for around $8 at the time, and the plan would have charged every customer, regardless of the customer's choice to participate or not. Captive Audience, American style. Yes, it is American style if you are talking about how our 'natural' monopolies are coddled and given pretty much a green light to do as they wish. By law they get a minimum return on capital and that capital often takes on a whole new meaning with utilities. Some utilities even charge a federal tax that doesn't exist. It is impossible to have energy truly in a free market given our technological barriers. So they must be regulated and I think more stringently so especially with respect to rates and just what meets a minimum return.

MrRodgers -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 2:51:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello and welcome, MrRodgers: quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers But there is otherwise no reduction in the money available for dividends if the tax or fine is recouped with service rates. The reason DS is correct is that money is always fungible. What I do pay can be recouped and often is included in dividends what I don't pay is also available for distribution as dividends. Hello, Mr. Rodgers. I do not understand you, sorry. Please have a bit of mercy with my English, words like "recouped", "service rates", "fungible"... are not easy for me. Please take in account my sentence to DS before: There is no reason to suppose that the average tax burden on companies and / or citizens will be higher or lower as before. Now, can you please explain your point again, possibly with simple words? Thank you. Recoup means to get back or recover. For all of the 'capital' a utility expenses in its operation, [it] is allowed to get that back plus a minimum return in addition. They do this via a natural monopoly and the ability to raise rates as they see fit but are regulated at least somewhat. Money being fungible means from whatever money it does get, it allows them to spend it on anything so money not spent on one thing can always be spent on another. Most companies operate on what's called a unified budget. That means all monies are accounted for in the same place and is fungible...i.e., available for anything. Service rates are your utility rates...what you pay each month say per K/Hr.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 3:06:22 AM)
Dear Mr. Rodgers: quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Now, can you please explain your point again, possibly with simple words? Thank you. Thank you for the attempt, but believe it or not, my target here is not to learn financial English :) I do not clearly understand your explanation, I would have to ask more about it and spend more time on it, and really, it is not my target. Can you simply explain the problem, is there is still any problem, with my proposal in the OP? The way we tax changes. Particulars, small and big companies are still taxed, as before. But they are taxed for different things. This will of course affect some activities, both the behaviour of the customers as of the companies, their deliverers, strategies, uses, plans, etc. However, the total tax burden on the society remains equal, and nothing says me that one part of it (particulars / small companies / big companies) will be taxed more or less, in average, as before. So... is there any problem? Thank you. Best regards.

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 3:31:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello again, DS. Let me make a PS, DS ;) . quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Since the German Government is getting revenues from individuals' incomes This is also wrong. The government in Germany is getting taxes from individuals spending (VAT), from their activities with the bureaucracy and from many other sources. You are right that I propose to eliminate the INCOME taxes, I am sorry I oversaw this in the last message, but apparently you say that ALL taxes on individuals would be eliminated and this is what I do not understand. Why do you think that only corporations (big companies, yes?) would pay taxes? Following my proposal, taxes would be still applies on individuals and small companies, depending on who is doing the concrete activity under tax. In the example is "emitting CO2". And not only corporations emit CO2 ! A private person burning oil for pleasure in a massive scala WOULD pay the same tax as a company emitting the same CO2 for any other reason. The reason does not matter. Maybe it is to make art, maybe to make home experiments on science, maybe he wants to simulate a fire pit of a cartoon, maybe he wants to drive his car with it - it does not matter. He is emitting CO2 => he pays the taxes for emitting CO2. So, again: Before, individuals and companies small and big pay taxes. After, individuals and companies small and big pay taxes. Why do you assert that the tax burden on individuals would be eliminated? Why do you assert that the taxes for corporations would be the only ones remaining? Why? We might have to take this step-by-step so my lack of knowledge of the tax code of Germany can catch up a bit. What taxes are levied on individuals in Germany?

MrRodgers -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 3:33:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Dear Mr. Rodgers: quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Now, can you please explain your point again, possibly with simple words? Thank you. Thank you for the attempt, but believe it or not, my target here is not to learn financial English :) I do not clearly understand your explanation, I would have to ask more about it and spend more time on it, and really, it is not my target. Can you simply explain the problem, is there is still any problem, with my proposal in the OP? The way we tax changes. Particulars, small and big companies are still taxed, as before. But they are taxed for different things. This will of course affect some activities, both the behaviour of the customers as of the companies, their deliverers, strategies, uses, plans, etc. However, the total tax burden on the society remains equal, and nothing says me that one part of it (particulars / small companies / big companies) will be taxed more or less, in average, as before. So... is there any problem? Thank you. Best regards. If I understand you correctly, then be aware that taxing CO2 emissions from utilities is no disincentive to continue those emissions unabated when they can get every penny back of that tax from my customers by raising their bills. In fact, if that tax results in lowering demand, rates could rise even further to make up that difference too.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 4:53:30 AM)
Hello! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We might have to take this step-by-step so my lack of knowledge of the tax code of Germany can catch up a bit. What taxes are levied on individuals in Germany? * The VAT ends up by the customers, for example. Is proportional to the consume and the companies charge it on each product / service to the customer. * There are taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, pretty heavy. * There are taxes on the use of plastics and aluminium, which can be recovered when you give the used plastic / aluminium back (cans and bottles). * There are taxes on the use of highways. * There are taxes on the income. * There are some little taxes on property. * There are taxes ( fees ) every time you make something in the bureaucracy. * There are taxes on hiring somebody to work some hours for you per week. So called mini-jobs (up to 400€ / month), these taxes are very * small. * There are fees and penalties for damaging the environment in different forms. This is more or less the current situation. This is what comes to my mind about individuals. Of course, between individuals and "corporations" there are also millions (or maybe one million) of tiny, small and middle-sized companies.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 5:16:06 AM)
Hello, MrRodgers, quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers If I understand you correctly, then be aware that taxing CO2 emissions from utilities is no disincentive to continue those emissions unabated when they can get every penny back of that tax from my customers by raising their bills. In fact, if that tax results in lowering demand, rates could rise even further to make up that difference too. Ok, CO2 emission taxes in Germany, the example I gave to DesideriScuri. And your message points out the same problem DesiderScuri wrote me and I answered already. First we have the fact that those companies are winning more money from other sources - taxes they are no longer paying. According to your logic, that would mean that they would drop their bills to the customers too. Or the companies always just raise the bills and never again drop them when the costs decrease? Really? In Germany they do, it is a result of free market and competence. Second, we have these companies in competence with themselves. They have means of production which emmit more, and less, CO2. Now they have a powerful incentive to invest in the ones which emmit less. Third, even if they all decide to raise the prices in coordination... by the way, this is forbidden in Germany... they would just create a huge incentive for any newcomer who can live with less profit: they come in, prices sink again. Fourth, the consumer is being motivated on consuming less. Usually he can, but even when he can't, this is only a motivation for the technological development to make it possible. Fifth, there may be companies offering the same product without emmitting CO2 at all. So... you are supposing, as DesideriScuri, an inlelastic monopoly (he... now it is me with the economic gibberish) where the demand can never drop so much that the company looses by rising the prices. And this is simply not real. At least not in nothing we produce emitting CO2, AFAIK, and not in a free market. And particularly not in the energy production in Germany. And not only are you supposing an inelastic monopoly... you are also ignoring the other side of the medal! You are only considering the rise of taxes, not the drop. Not surprising that in "this the worst of all possible worlds" seeing "only the void half of the glass" my idea sounds horrible. Every idea would sound horrible in this situation. For all these reasons, and I think that they are many many good reasons, I do not believe in your scenario. Best regards.

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 6:48:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We might have to take this step-by-step so my lack of knowledge of the tax code of Germany can catch up a bit. What taxes are levied on individuals in Germany? * The VAT ends up by the customers, for example. Is proportional to the consume and the companies charge it on each product / service to the customer. You listed this as a tax that would be deleted because it was levied on something you would want to promote. Not going to agree/disagree because you've already put it out there. quote: * There are taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, pretty heavy. * There are taxes on the use of plastics and aluminium, which can be recovered when you give the used plastic / aluminium back (cans and bottles). * There are taxes on the use of highways. Would these continue, rise, or end? quote: * There are taxes on the income. As you've stated, these would end. quote: * There are some little taxes on property. As you've stated, these would not end. quote: * There are taxes ( fees ) every time you make something in the bureaucracy. * There are taxes on hiring somebody to work some hours for you per week. So called mini-jobs (up to 400€ / month), these taxes are very * small. Would I be correct in assuming that these, too, would end? quote: * There are fees and penalties for damaging the environment in different forms. Obviously, these would not end. quote: This is more or less the current situation. This is what comes to my mind about individuals. Of course, between individuals and "corporations" there are also millions (or maybe one million) of tiny, small and middle-sized companies. No question, but, for right now, we are discussing individuals. To resort your list into the "positives" and "negatives" looks like this: Positives (would end) The VAT ends up by the customers, for example. Is proportional to the consume and the companies charge it on each product / service to the customer. There are taxes on the income. There are taxes ( fees ) every time you make something in the bureaucracy. There are taxes on hiring somebody to work some hours for you per week. So called mini-jobs (up to 400€ / month), these taxes are very * small. Negatives There are taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, pretty heavy. There are taxes on the use of plastics and aluminium, which can be recovered when you give the used plastic / aluminium back (cans and bottles). There are some little taxes on property. There are fees and penalties for damaging the environment in different forms. Not sure yet/ Need your response There are taxes on the use of highways. If you are going to not change the total amount paid by individuals, you will jack up the rates on the negatives. But, if someone quits smoking and drinking, that revenue stream is gone, at least from that individual. I assume the overall goal of the plastic/aluminum "deposit" is for it to be revenue neutral (that is, everyone is returning their recyclables to get their deposits back). Jacking up the deposit rate will likely result in an increased compliance with recycling. I think at best (from a revenue generating view), you'll see no change. Does this tax hit aluminum foils and plastic films that are used for a culinary purpose (ie. "Reynolds Wrap" or "Saran Wrap" products)? If you increase the taxes on those products you'll see a decline in their use (and revenues) unless there is already a system in place to return that tax upon recycling (which would, again, probably result in a neutral revenue change). Since you mentioned there are different forms of damaging the environment that come under taxation, increasing those rates will likely reduce the amount of damage being done. All these things combined don't really look like they are going to add up to more revenue. On to "property" taxes. You mentioned they are "little." They would have to become big to make up for the loss of revenue from the VAT or income taxes. But, here, again, we'd need more of a definition of "property" to properly assess the situation. If you want to increase the ownership of real estate property, you won't be continuing to tax it, reducing revenues more. This is why I think you'll be losing tax revenues from individuals. And, that would have to be made up on taxes on business. Then, we get to the increased taxes on business simply raising the costs of goods. While that will likely end up a zero sum game for individuals, it won't be that way for government or business. Business will get more money and government will get less.

tweakabelle -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 7:08:13 AM)
The need for a more equitable tax system was underlined by a new report from UK charity, Oxfam: "Lost tax revenue from money salted away offshore is costing governments more than $150bn (£99bn) a year, Oxfam has found – enough to eliminate extreme poverty across the globe twice over. [...] According to Oxfam's estimates, almost $18.5tn is being held for individuals in tax havens, one third of it in British Overseas Territories and crown dependencies. The charity said that even on conservative assumptions, the $18.5tn would yield $156bn to tax authorities around the world, whilst the cost of providing every person on earth with an income of $1.25 a day would be $66bn. Emma Seery, Oxfam's Head of Development Finance and Public Services, said: "These figures put the UK at the centre of a global tax system that is a colossal betrayal of people here and in the poorest countries who are struggling to get by, and they put the government on the side of the privileged few. If they want to get on the right side of this debate, now is the time to take action." http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/22/tax-lost-offshore-end-poverty-oxfam So, if the wealthiest people paid their share of tax instead of hiding it away in offshore tax-free havens, it would generate enough revenue to eliminate world poverty . And probably make the US budget deficit disappear too. These figures make a mockery of the claims from the billionaire-friendly Right of politics that taxes are too high, and that taxing the rich isn't a feasible option.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 7:19:54 AM)
Hello again, DesideriScuri: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri To resort your list into the "positives" and "negatives" looks like this: I would welcome political discussion about which taxes to rise, drop or create, based on the general ideas I am proposing. I am not proposing a whole tax system ("winning songs") but criteria to decide how it should look like ("how to vote the winning songs"). Please keep this in mind. In general, however, your classification seems correct. I do not see how the ones you mentioned under "positives" could be kept using my criteria. But with some exceptions... - Certain consumes could be considered to be discouraged. Then, they would keep something similar to a VAT. - Income due to certain activities could be considered something to be discouraged (politicians with a different view as me, for example, could like to discourage prostitution). - An abuse of the bureaucracy could be discourage, for example those attorneys who delay legal processes by artificially objecting things they know they are right. - Some mini-jobs could also be discouraged for any possible reason. So, in general, these taxes have no support to exist, but in particular cases, they could. The same applies to the use of highways. They can be seen as using a state investment (and we do not want an investment to rotten unused) or as a way to tax private transportation over public railways. It depends. My proposal is not "left-wing" or "right-wing", it does not decide which "song wins". It is a motor for the society. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you are going to not change the total amount paid by individuals, you will jack up the rates on the negatives. Wrong. You are assuming that no new taxes appear, see? Why do you assume this? Do you understand that this sentence of yours is only valid as long as no new taxes appear due to my criteria? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri if someone quits smoking and drinking, that revenue stream is gone Besides supposing that the taxes there rise dramatically (which does not have to be true if other taxes appear), this logic, which you use in other examples too, has two other errors: - The first is, that many people won't do this. They will just reduce the consumption. - The second is, that you do not suppose that we can then, in that moment, create new taxes. Consider the infinite amount of possible behaviours of a human being. Infinite, and increasing with the technology every day. Classify them in a line between "most derisable" and "less desirable". Take the ones in one extrem and tax them. They are reduced. Maybe they disappear. Ok, then take the next group and tax them. And so on, indefinitely. Which is the result? The progress of the human race. And a brutal progress it is!! The whole society motivated to abandon bad behaviorus and embracing good behaviours. Technology, economy and consume oriented to improve our sustainability, equality of opportunities, and any other value we consider positive. Don't you realise what this means also in terms of economical growth!? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Since you mentioned there are different forms of damaging the environment that come under taxation, increasing those rates will likely reduce the amount of damage being done. All these things combined don't really look like they are going to add up to more revenue. They could... if we create more taxes in a higher ratio as the old get obsolete. Or could not, if we do the opposite. Anyway, it is not the target - the target is not to increase the revenue. But I think that I have proved you that there is no reason to assure that it would shrink either. Later you repeat a previous errors (IMO, of course)... "On to "property" taxes. You mentioned they are "little." They would have to become big to make up for the loss of revenue from the VAT or income taxes." - this repeats the error mentioned above, that you suppose no new taxes. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Business will get more money and government will get less. Even if you were right on the rest, you would not be right here, for the reasons I explained up to exhaustion already. You can see the post #113 for the last repetition. Permanent perfectly inelastic monopolies do not exist (fortunately) and if you have something similar in the US nuke it ASAP [:D] . Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 7:32:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle So, if the wealthiest people paid their share of tax instead of hiding it away in offshore tax-free havens, it would generate enough revenue to eliminate world poverty . And probably make the US budget deficit disappear too. These figures make a mockery of the claims from the billionaire-friendly Right of politics that taxes are too high, and that taxing the rich isn't a feasible option. Hello, tweakabelle, it goes a bit off-topic, but one of the reasons I think it is better to tax property as to tax income is, that it is easier to find. A company can hide its profit in an offshore haven. It cannot hide its factories. I do not pretend that my strategy would eliminate that problem, of course. Just help a bit. The real help has to come from firm political action against offshore havens.

mnottertail -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 7:47:23 AM)
But it is not hard to find the offshore havens, In fact that is one of the things we should tax. money that is parked in other countries. Jobs that are sent overseas, tax and build a supercleanup fund rather than let them throw a couple dollars in the kitty and put the rest on the american public. We should tax multi national corporations at about 90% and stockholding corporations at about 80%.

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 8:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello again, DesideriScuri: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri To resort your list into the "positives" and "negatives" looks like this: I would welcome political discussion about which taxes to rise, drop or create, based on the general ideas I am proposing. I am not proposing a whole tax system ("winning songs") but criteria to decide how it should look like ("how to vote the winning songs"). Please keep this in mind. In general, however, your classification seems correct. I do not see how the ones you mentioned under "positives" could be kept using my criteria. But with some exceptions... - Certain consumes could be considered to be discouraged. Then, they would keep something similar to a VAT. - Income due to certain activities could be considered something to be discouraged (politicians with a different view as me, for example, could like to discourage prostitution). - An abuse of the bureaucracy could be discourage, for example those attorneys who delay legal processes by artificially objecting things they know they are right. - Some mini-jobs could also be discouraged for any possible reason. So, in general, these taxes have no support to exist, but in particular cases, they could. The same applies to the use of highways. They can be seen as using a state investment (and we do not want an investment to rotten unused) or as a way to tax private transportation over public railways. It depends. My proposal is not "left-wing" or "right-wing", it does not decide which "song wins". It is a motor for the society. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you are going to not change the total amount paid by individuals, you will jack up the rates on the negatives. Wrong. You are assuming that no new taxes appear, see? Why do you assume this? Do you understand that this sentence of yours is only valid as long as no new taxes appear due to my criteria? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri if someone quits smoking and drinking, that revenue stream is gone Besides supposing that the taxes there rise dramatically (which does not have to be true if other taxes appear), this logic, which you use in other examples too, has two other errors: - The first is, that many people won't do this. They will just reduce the consumption. - The second is, that you do not suppose that we can then, in that moment, create new taxes. Consider the infinite amount of possible behaviours of a human being. Infinite, and increasing with the technology every day. Classify them in a line between "most derisable" and "less desirable". Take the ones in one extrem and tax them. They are reduced. Maybe they disappear. Ok, then take the next group and tax them. And so on, indefinitely. Which is the result? The progress of the human race. And a brutal progress it is!! The whole society motivated to abandon bad behaviorus and embracing good behaviours. Technology, economy and consume oriented to improve our sustainability, equality of opportunities, and any other value we consider positive. Don't you realise what this means also in terms of economical growth!? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Since you mentioned there are different forms of damaging the environment that come under taxation, increasing those rates will likely reduce the amount of damage being done. All these things combined don't really look like they are going to add up to more revenue. They could... if we create more taxes in a higher ratio as the old get obsolete. Or could not, if we do the opposite. Anyway, it is not the target - the target is not to increase the revenue. But I think that I have proved you that there is no reason to assure that it would shrink either. Later you repeat a previous errors (IMO, of course)... "On to "property" taxes. You mentioned they are "little." They would have to become big to make up for the loss of revenue from the VAT or income taxes." - this repeats the error mentioned above, that you suppose no new taxes. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Business will get more money and government will get less. Even if you were right on the rest, you would not be right here, for the reasons I explained up to exhaustion already. You can see the post #113 for the last repetition. Permanent perfectly inelastic monopolies do not exist (fortunately) and if you have something similar in the US nuke it ASAP [:D] . Best regards. And, here is where we part ways. Now, you are dictating what can and can't be done by the individual. Yeah, they could still choose to do it, but by taxing those things you don't want them to do, that isn't liberty and freedom. A prison guard allowing an inmate to choose between ratting out the cellmate vs. being killed isn't really free choice, now is it? And, since what is and what isn't desirable can, and will, change, as the winds of change so often do, you will have a reduced ability to plan for the tax code. If it works in Germany, I feel bad for the Germans. That won't work in America, regardless of all the partisan sniping you might hear in response to this post. I'll read your response to this post, and that will be the it for me here. I still appreciate your discussion style, spanishmatmaster. I certainly do not agree with your politics, though.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625