|
knumb
skull



Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 601
Loc: top, bottom, strange, cha...
|
taxes
#6249088 - 11/05/06 02:07 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
what do you think is a reasonable tax for a government to impose on people? should it be a flat percentage of income or should rich people pay a higher percent? why should rich people have to pay more (even at a flat percent) for the same services? what about a flat fee?
would you be willing to pay higher taxes for more services? what if you could opt out of services (mail delivery for example) for lower taxes?
state and federal and property and income. buisnesses and churches and lotteries and welfare.
or is all tax just extortion creating kings and serfs?
is it ok to cheat on your taxes? is imprisonment a reasonable punnishment?
personally i believe that some tax is ok. i want my trash picked up and i want somebody to show up if i call 911. i dont mind contributing to public schools and some form of social welfare.
i think about 8% would be a reasonable amount, assuming full time employment at a livable minimum wage (say $10/hour=$20800/year=$1664 taxes) but a livable minimum wage is a different post.
i pay about $5000/year in property taxes alone.
what do you think? what is reasonable?
k
-------------------- ---------------------------------------- we hope that you choke
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: taxes [Re: knumb]
#6249518 - 11/05/06 08:28 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think the real issue is not how much they tax, but what they tax. I personally follow the theories of Henry George. He believed that rather than broad-based taxation like we have today, there should be only one tax, and it should be on land values. Essentially, it would be a modified property tax, but the improvements on the land(such as the house) would go untaxed, and the land itself would be the only thing taxed.
There are several reasons for this. First of all, while most taxes raise the price of the good that they're taxing, this does not, because land is in fixed supply. It would essentially just transfer the profit from land(known as "rent" in economics) from private hands to the public coffers. It would also create a perfect system of public finance, because any beneficial public expenditures tend to raise land values. So rather than having to raise taxes every time they want to finance something new, the government could finance its projects with the community revenue they generate. Of course, this only works for expenditures that have a beneficial effect, so it would discourage pork barrel spending and promote good government.
Henry George also showed how private rent collection drives down wages, creates unemployment, and destabilizes the economy, but to explain this, I'd have to go into a lot of complex economic theory, which I'd rather not do. But the implication of this is that under a system of full land value taxation(with all other taxes abolished), wages would rise, unemployment would end, and the "business cycle" that causes booms and busts in the economy would stabilize. Essentially, it could end poverty as we know it.
This tax would also be good for the environment, as it would encourage good land use, thus preventing urban sprawl. The philosophy of taxing what we take from nature can also be applied to things other than what we traditionally call land(though in economics, "land" refers to far more than just the ground). It could be applied to resource extraction such as coal mining, oil drilling or logging. This would encourage the use of recycled materials, and promote renewable energy.
Essentially, switching to a single tax on land value would fix the achilles heel of capitalism.
--------------------
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!

Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
|
SS,
That sounds entirely too pat. I mean, in theory it does sound great.. but so does communism. I think it tends to forget the human animal factor. I'd like to prevent urban sprawl too.. but I can't tell people to stop breeding, nor can I tell them where they're allowed to live. As for responsible land usage.. since when are 100% of the people responsible and reasonable, even where money/profit is concerned?
I'm just a bit wary of comments like "Essentially, it could end poverty as we know it".
I'm not trying to argue the merits of this particular system in theory.. just that in application it would be a whole lot messier.
-------------------- Happiness is a warm gun...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
It's not telling people to do the right thing. It's providing incentives to do the right thing, as well as removing perverse incentives. The fact is that economically speaking, people do respond to incentives and disincentives. You don't need 100% of the people to be completely rational in order for it to work. To dismiss it on those grounds is completely ludicrous. While this theory hasn't been tested out completely, the extent to which it has been tested has shown promising results.
--------------------
|
SilentG
Stranger thanfiction

Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 420
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: taxes [Re: knumb]
#6249758 - 11/05/06 11:12 AM (17 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
We should go back to Articles of Confederation taxation where each state is urged to donate whatever it will to the national treasury.
J/K.
I'm in theory in favor of a very progressive income tax. Obviously the current progressive income tax actually favors the rich through various investment incentives (which are normally good) which don't really encourage beneficial investments. A ranch in Montana that will never turn a profit is a lousy investment for the nation, but great for eating up unwanted profits by tax time.
I've always figured that a truly progressive income tax would tax the lower class nothing, middle class virtually nothing until upper-middle, and put all the burden on the wealthy. Since the wealthy almost always are born into privilege which entitles them to great advantages over everyone else, I feel they should share a much larger burden for the public goods and nation which so entitles them. The wealthy also are in control of national spending much moreso than any other class, so I don't feel bad about making them pony up upwards of 75% of the nation's gross revenues.
Not like any of this would happen - part of the advantage of being wealthy is being able to prevent most social leveling measures, even ones which wouldn't really change things much.
I'm also against sales taxes on anything but "vice" items. I'd include junk food, tobacco, alcohol, lottery and other gambling, porno, non-commercial gasoline, and other such things on that list.
-------------------- Yes, I could go drive somewhere everytime the urge to defecate hits, but...where's the fun in that. -Moth
|
unbeliever
Yo Daddy!

Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: It's not telling people to do the right thing. It's providing incentives to do the right thing, as well as removing perverse incentives. The fact is that economically speaking, people do respond to incentives and disincentives. You don't need 100% of the people to be completely rational in order for it to work. To dismiss it on those grounds is completely ludicrous. While this theory hasn't been tested out completely, the extent to which it has been tested has shown promising results.
On a smaller and more socially and economically homogenous scale (ie, not the US) this particular theory would likely flourish in the ways you noted. I'm not trying to say otherwise. However I really don't see it succeeding to the same extent when applied to the giant stumbling ogre that is the US. Mainly because it should be painfully obvious that people frequently and with great gusto behave in a manner directly counter to their interests. Financially speaking and otherwise. And from what you've presented so far, most of the miraculous benefits from the theory are based on people being responsible and sensible.
I do not believe that we live in such a world.
-------------------- Happiness is a warm gun...
|
Banez
Stranger


Registered: 09/23/05
Posts: 15,181
|
|
wow this thread is complex.. i was just going to say.. i love tax time.. i always get like 1,500 back because im poor and live in poverty
however... i think it should be a flat percent.. if you make a shit load of money.. then yes.. you should lose a little more than someone who doesnt make shit... if everyone was taxed the same either a)more people would live in poverty or b) the countries deficit would increase dramatically.
property tax is the biggest problem i see here.. you have a bunch of families that have lived here 100+ years and have farms.. but with property values increasing, they are forced to pay much more than they can afford and it has lead to many people selling their farms to housing developers.
they need to privatize social security too.. our whole country is pretty fucking flawed.
|
|