Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

((Since no one likes paying taxes, the question is worded as to which would be most tolerable.))

Considering if you had the power to change the tax policy, which system would you instate?

Personally, I would like to see a Flat Income Tax, meaning that regardless of income, everyone pays the same percentage of their income taken directly off their paychecks. That way, it's instituted as an equal percentage of everyone, and prevents tax breaks for certain groups. On top of that, by taking the money directly off the paychecks, once the money gets to the individual, it's all theirs.

What say you?

[gavnook]

No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

You should have an option for a poll tax, excise taxes and tarrifs. And maybe a use tax option too.

[LostSoul3412]

gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

:?

I'm talking in terms of present day economics, not philosphical ideals. Taking taxes as a necessity to government operation, which would you find most tolerable?

gavnook wrote: You should have an option for a poll tax, excise taxes and tarrifs. And maybe a use tax option too.

Poll taxes are illegal, "use tax" is covered by the Sales Tax option, and excise taxes (exclusively) I suppose can be covered by the "other" option.

[bob.appleyard]

Flat income tax on unearned income. LVT as well, perhaps.

[Iriemon]

I chose progressive tax, tho' not intended to be an indorsement of the "current system" which is bastardized and complicated to give tax breaks that mainly benefit the wealthier.

A sales tax is regressive.

A flat tax disproportionatley taxes the non-disposable income (ie income needed to pay necessities) of the poorer.

A regressive tax disproportionatley taxes the non-disposable income of the poorer even worse.

A land value tax I don't think works as the primary tax system, but I would contemplate it as a supplemental tax system to a progress income tax (with correspondingly lower tax rates).

[Gatz Nieblas]

gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

You should have an option for a poll tax, excise taxes and tarrifs. And maybe a use tax option too.

The flat tax is the least complicated form of taxation. If the federal government were to resort to a 10% flat tax, the economy would surely boom since a tax cut would be given to everyone and we would see less corruption in government, a less-restricted economy, and more accountability with tax dollars. Gavnook, I fear that if the US just used tarrifs, excise taxes, and poll taxes as a means of generating revenue we would see a repeat of the late 19th century where tariffs were used by corrupt politicians to say that they were protecting the American worker by protecting American industry. What really happened, though, was that exessively high tariffs ruined the puchasing power of Americans and caused rampant inflation, which would be worse today since gold isnt the monetary system, therefore, the government would just continue to print fiat money to "save" us and further devalue our funny money currency.

[gavnook]

LostSoul3412 wrote: gavnook wrote: No tax.

The least bad tax is the one generates the lowest tax revenue.

:?

I'm talking in terms of present day economics, not philosphical ideals. Taking taxes as a necessity to government operation, which would you find most tolerable?

As I said, the one that generates the lowest revenue. It's rather hard to say that any particular form of taxation is worse than another, as a rule. They are all economically destructive in their own ways. I find relative "fairness" in an income tax because all taxes lower incomes, but an income tax does it directly and is honest about it. Assuming no deductions/credits/etc, 2 people with the same income would pay the same rate, which is not the case for other kinds of tax. Should rates be flat or progressive or what? I don't know. I see no way to quantify one being worse than the other. And income taxes historically generate lots of revenue, and they require the state to stick it's nose deep into one's private affairs.

gavnook wrote: You should have an option for a poll tax, excise taxes and tarrifs. And maybe a use tax option too.

Poll taxes are illegal, "use tax" is covered by the Sales Tax option, and excise taxes (exclusively) I suppose can be covered by the "other" option.[/quote]

I don't think you know what a poll tax is. It's simply a tax per person of a fixed amount. Now, the thought of a particular kind of tax being illegal is funny to me. It would be 'illegal' for government agents to start collecting any tax that hasn't been passed by the legislature. If a value-added tax could be made legal, then so could a poll tax.

The use tax idea is that people should pay directly for the government services they use. If you drive on a government road, you pay the toll, for instance. Excise taxes are those that tax goods like gasoline or cigarettes. It could be anything, but it differs from the sales tax in that it specifies what goods are taxed and usually the tax is a fixed amount per unit of goods rather than a percentage of cost.

There's also an important distinction between personal income and corporate income. All corporate income makes it's way into personal income, and some think corporations shouldn't be subject to income tax at all, while other think only corporations should.


I should tell you, I used to conteplate this question a lot - which tax is the least bad. I don't really worry about it anymore, although I will normally have an opinion on probable changes to tax law.

[LostSoul3412]

I was thinking "poll tax" as a past remnant of the infamous Jim Crow laws... learn something new everyday.

[gavnook]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I was thinking "poll tax" as a past remnant of the infamous Jim Crow laws... learn something new everyday.

Well, the term has a confused definition, especially since a tax to vote is basically a form of a poll tax.

[Varyag]

You missed an important one, negative income tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

[=CNP=]

LostSoul3412 wrote: ((Since no one likes paying taxes,

I like paying my taxes.

It feels good to know my money is paying for protection of my country, and provideing education, healthcare and needed social programs to my people.

When it comes to taxes, the more the better.

[gavnook]

=CNP= wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ((Since no one likes paying taxes,

I like paying my taxes.

It feels good to know my money is paying for protection of my country, and provideing education, healthcare and needed social programs to my people.

When it comes to taxes, the more the better.

Please stay in Canada.

[=CNP=]

gavnook wrote: =CNP= wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ((Since no one likes paying taxes,

I like paying my taxes.

It feels good to know my money is paying for protection of my country, and provideing education, healthcare and needed social programs to my people.

When it comes to taxes, the more the better.

Please stay in Canada.

As long as you stay out.

[Nathyn]

LostSoul3412 wrote: ((Since no one likes paying taxes, the question is worded as to which would be most tolerable.))

Considering if you had the power to change the tax policy, which system would you instate?

Personally, I would like to see a Flat Income Tax, meaning that regardless of income, everyone pays the same percentage of their income taken directly off their paychecks. That way, it's instituted as an equal percentage of everyone, and prevents tax breaks for certain groups. On top of that, by taking the money directly off the paychecks, once the money gets to the individual, it's all theirs.

What say you?
A lot of people misunderstand what it means for taxation to be "equal." For obvious reasons, flat sums aren't equal. $10,000 for one person isn't of the same value as $10,000 for another person. However, percentages aren't the same, either. 10% of a poor person's income is worth far more than 10% of a wealthy person's income, to each of those individuals, respectively. So, the true measure of the tax burden is the impact it has on consumption. Investment and savings are obviously necessary for economic growth, however, a reduction in a person's investment options is not a loss in quality-of-life. What we experience day-to-day, what makes our lives enjoyable is our consumption and taxes are burdensome, not because they don't allow us to save, but because they don't allow us to consume. Saving is only important because it ensures our future consumption.

And so, the relative burden of taxation is best measured by "opportunity cost." By that, I mean taxation should be progressive according to expected differences in consumption. Granted, this isn't a perfect evaluation of the tax burden. The ideal evaluation of the tax burden would require us to travel to the future one year, determine what every person's actual consumption would be, and then create a tax bracket for every individual being taxed. Because of the lack of time travel and because it's unrealistic to create a tax bracket for every individual, despite opportunity cost being a flawed measure of the tax burden, it is nevertheless more accurate than either flat sums or flat percentages.

In addition to supporting taxation being progressive according to differences in consumption, I support a "net-worth" tax. The reason is because net-worth taxes discourage collection of capital and, instead, encourage the creation of it. For instance, it's recognized, even by many Libertarians, that property taxes (particularly land-value taxes) are useful because they foster the development of property. If a person doesn't use property, in the absence of a property tax, they would simply squat. However, real estate is simply one aspect of production. In the same manner that a person may "squat on land," a person may also hoard capital without putting it towards any use. So, say that a person is a billionaire. Every year, they may simply live off of their assets without putting forth either any labor or investment.

On the other hand, with a net-worth tax, this is not the case. Every year, they must either labor or engage in profitable investments or lose their assets. So, simply put, net-worth taxes encourage meritocracy. Certainly, if the wealthy are, in fact, virtuous people who gained their wealth through their own hard work and ingenuity, then a tax upon their assets is agreeable. Taxes on net-worth are only unacceptable from the standpoint of a person who has great wealth and yet does nothing productive with it.

And finally, I support negative taxation, but in terms of the tax proposal described above.

So, to summarize, my tax proposal would involve taxing people's net-worth progressively, according to their expected differences in consumption, and giving each individual a rebate equal to the poverty level. The basis behind it is that it accomplishes everyone's goals:
1) It eliminates poverty and creates a "living wage," without the welfare trap or the problems associated with minimum wages.

2) It is equal taxation.

3) By necessitating meritocracy, it encourages stronger economic growth.

[LostSoul3412]

=CNP= wrote: I like paying my taxes.

It feels good to know my money is paying for protection of my country, and provideing education, healthcare and needed social programs to my people.

When it comes to taxes, the more the better.

I'm imposing a "Nationalism Tax" on you of 95% effective immediately.

I promise I'll put it to good use for your country/people.

[=CNP=]

LostSoul3412 wrote: =CNP= wrote: I like paying my taxes.

It feels good to know my money is paying for protection of my country, and provideing education, healthcare and needed social programs to my people.

When it comes to taxes, the more the better.

I'm imposing a "Nationalism Tax" on you of 95% effective immediately.

I promise I'll put it to good use for your country/people.

95% is alot.

But if that money was used to counteract my lack of person income, I woulnt mind. Such as free housing based on my work lacation, free health care, free post secondary education, free foood and utilities, free transportation, ect.

The services you get from the government are directly proportional to the ammount of taxes you pay. I know you Americans are afraid of taxes, becasue your government is currupt and gives out money to corporations and the rich, but that's a your problem and you guys need to fix it. The last time somebody did that crap in Canada, they lost their job and were put on trial and it cost the party a great number of votes, enough that another party is in power..

[LostSoul3412]

=CNP= wrote: 95% is alot.

I thought you said "the more the better"?

=CNP= wrote: But if that money was used to counteract my lack of person income, I woulnt mind. Such as free housing based on my work lacation, free health care, free post secondary education, free foood and utilities, free transportation, ect.

Sure thing... I promise that it'll all go to good use.

=CNP= wrote: The services you get from the government are directly proportional to the ammount of taxes you pay. I know you Americans are afraid of taxes, becasue your government is currupt and gives out money to corporations and the rich, but that's a your problem and you guys need to fix it. The last time somebody did that crap in Canada, they lost their job and were put on trial and it cost the party a great number of votes, enough that another party is in power..

Agreed, which is why I'd only put [all of] your money to "good" use...

[gavnook]

=CNP= wrote: The services you get from the government are directly proportional to the ammount of taxes you pay.

Where do you get this idea?

[LetsGetReal]

A tax on income is unconstitutional...

VAT tax is the only way to go...Cato has an excellent right up on it...

[Free Thinkr]

Not even close: the LVT is the only tax that distinguishes between real property and the very earth which all humans must share, and taxes the use of the latter, leaving individuals to control the former for themselves. Tax really is theft; except for the LVT.

ETA: to be perfectly clear, the LVT is not merely the best tax, it is the only just tax.