Taxation

I'll make a more in-depth response once I get home to my laptop. In short, I'd implement a very progressive tax policy.

 

I think we should tax inherited wealth a lot more and significantly increase duty on tobacco and alcohol. Significant polluters should pay through carbon taxation. As far as income tax is concerned, I do believe the richest should pay more, but not to the extent that we stifle innovation and entrepreneurship (economic growth) - there is a fine line.

 

It's easy. A flat tax on all income personal and corporate. About 10% should due.

 

All tax goes to me. Simple as that.

 

No

Income tax should definitely be progressive but at the top end of the scale set at a rate which brings in the most income, not something daft like 80% which ends up actually raising less tax

 

This is the best way to send a country down the drain.

I believe in a progressive income tax, but like LiquidSwords said, something reasonable. Even though part of me says "tax the shit out of every dollar above a million" (o one needs a fucking million) this is not the way to go.

 

All money is replaced with hugs. The rich will be hugged so much it will start to bother them, so they redistribute the wealth of their own volition. It's the perfect plan and everybody wins. Seriously though, I think that taxes should be incredibly high for those who make millions of dollars, but with a negative income tax for those far below the poverty line so that they can have a reasonable quality of life. Edit, to everyone who reads that and thinks I'm insane, it's not like we'd start doing it without checking the math and carefully figuring out who gets what.

 

So, like I said I would do yesterday, I made a more in-depth tax plan.

Income Taxes

If you make above $250,000 you'd pay around 40% on my plan. After you make $1,000,000, you'd begin to pay 45% on every dollar over $1,000,000. If you are so much under the poverty line, you'd pay as little as 5% to even no taxes, until you begin to make more money. Everything in-between would be proportioned appropriately.

Corporate Taxes

I'd definitely raise the top corporate tax rate from 38% to 50%, as many companies don't even pay 38% as it is. I'd also get rid of corporate welfare for any company that makes above a certain amount, and would end oil subsidies and start to redirect them to renewable energy sources or just keep the money for other things. I'd also have lower tax rates for smaller businesses and for businesses that choose on their own to pay their workers higher wages.

Sales Tax

I think a 8-10% sales tax is fine on most objects, but I'd increase the taxes on alcohol and tobacco up to around 25% or higher, and have these taxes go towards funding infrastructure.

Carbon Tax

I'd tax any company that refuses to cut carbon emissions or make products that are more eco-friendly. This tax could range from 2-10%, depending on how much the company is harming the environment.

Health Tax

I would tax/fine anybody who refuses to own some sort of health insurance, no matter how comprehensive or not.

Estate Tax

The Estate tax should become a progressive tax, and should depend on how much you inherit.

Inheritance Tax

It should be taxed like any money you would have earned.

Social Security

Make SS a progressive tax.

Capital Gains

Increase the top capital gains tax to 50%, as people who make all their money on CG do not pay income taxes regularly.

So yeah, that's about it.

 

I love how you call this 'very progressive'. So American :icon_wink

In the Netherlands, you pay 52% for every euro over € 56.000. And this is not even the highest in Europe, I believe.

 

I would like to see a little bit of higher taxation for the rich, possibly if you make over seven figures.

I like what they do in Norway for speeders. If you get caught speeding, the fine is 10% of your annual salary. Perhaps we can create something but in terms of taxes? *shrugs*

 

I think France has a 70% rate. In principle I agree with it, but in reality it kills enterprise and leads to stagnation. I think it's a bit of a stretch once you pass 50% on earned income.

 

Are you Margaret Thatcher?

---------- Post added 17th Dec 2014 at 12:17 PM ----------

The Socialists in France can hardly be called the most economically responsible party, for all their positives.

There is genuinely a problem with over-taxation. A country with a lot of international companies won't be so prosperous if they drive them away. It won't expel companies that really have no choice or are willing to stay in a country because the benefits outweigh the detriments of high tax, but it does help encourage tax-havens and other forms of illegitimate transfers of money if people are being taxed stupendous amounts. It's better to streamline taxation, remove tax benefits for companies and wealthy/high-income earning individuals and reduce taxes in the same amount as you've taken away from benefits. Countries like the US have an incomprehensible amount of red tape that benefits those with good accountants and a comfortable bank account and investments.

On the other end of the spectrum from France, Singapore is an example of why taxes are so desperately needed for social issues. With minimal welfare, only the very wealthy can really enjoy it with its high cost of living; poor Singaporeans aren't able to rely on tax-subsidised pensions in the same way as in countries like Britain. But if they were to ramp taxes up to levels like in Norway, they'd likely risk losing what attracts many business to them in part and the benefits wouldn't really appear anyway. Of course, politicians' and bureaucrats' pay-cheques in Singapore are enormous compared to every other country (millions of USD for the top earners), so clearly they could take a bit of stuffing from their nests and give it to those who can't afford to live in their old age.

It really depends on the country. The Anglosphere has long relied on low taxes to make companies confident and attracted to our countries to base themselves. Theoretically, that would help fund public projects by the simple fact that taxing a little to many more will make up for the smaller rate of taxation. Naturally, that's easily corrupted.

I'd prefer economists to make the decision of exactly how a country should be taxed. The minimum goal should be that everyone can have a roof over their head, food in their mouth and enough jobs and money to go around that people aren't desolate and disillusioned with their lot.

 

Over time, I've become slightly more moderate in the issue of taxation. Higher taxes (even for the rich) leaves them with less money to spend in order to stimulate the economy.

Also, tax money won't do a thing for a country if the government is irresponsible with it as well, just saying.

I know that there is also the debate between flat tax and progressive tax. I propose a compromise for both sides.

Income Tax: Expand the tax brackets while reducing the amount of them. For example in California, there are nine brackets. The people who pay 1% tax are those that make less than $7,749. Increase that to those who make less than $20,000 instead. That would be a great compromise. Also, make the progressive tax more steep, but the overall tax rate would be lower. Lower the taxes for those that make less than $150,000 by a lot. Those who make less than $50,000 should have their taxes dramatically reduced while the rest should get moderate decreases.

Sales Tax: Increase that to 8-9% to make up for the lower income tax (Washington state does this). This can work well since people from out of state and out of country can pay them as well.

Corporate Tax: Give small businesses tax breaks. Also, slightly lower the corporate tax to keep the companies here in the U.S where they belong. Yes, I want them to pay their taxes, but I want them here as well. End subsidies in general.

Property Tax: Depends on the cost of the house. Houses that cost more than $300,000 should have low property tax. This works well in California where the houses are expensive but property tax rates are around 0.74%, one of the lowest in the nation.

Inheritance tax: End that. It's an odd concept, paying taxes even after you're dead.

Estate tax: End that as well. You're dead, no need to pay taxes.

 

I realize I'm going to sound like Nozick here, but I'm not a Nozickean, and Nozick can fuck himself.

I will start with the following premises: 1) no state is justified, 2) humans have rights to be secure in their person and unconstrained from free action so long as they reciprocate these rights onto others.

Now, I will observe how economic transactions will work in a society organized on the basis of the premises mentioned above. We can imagine, first, that humans having rights will lead to logistical legwork on enforcing those rights. If states are not justified, then we suppose additionally that the likeliest mechanism for enforcement of human rights will be private security. Private security agencies will have a certain number of clients, and the operation of private security in a given geographical area will tend to discourage abridgement of rights within and surrounding the area. While "jurisdictional issues" can be resolved as a simple mater of "are you my client or not?" or "did you harm my client or not?" administration of private security agencies will be fraught within a rational human rights regime for at least two reasons:

1) The readily accepted modern means of proving responsibility for actual harm will require the PSA's extension of jurisdiction to non-clients. For one, criminal discovery won't be possible unless the PSAs have mutual discovery agreements. They may be substantially economically disincentivize to do so (I would pay for a PSA that didn't promise to search my home without my consent if another PSA simply called up and asked them.) Therefore, this regime would be practically unworkable.

2) If I make stronger assumptions about the ethical prowess of the PSAs or the PSA industry in general, then I will still run into the positive externality problem, which is this: if 95% of the community pays for the PSA, but I don't, sure, the PSA won't respond to me when I need them, granted. But I'm substantially less likely to need the PSA, since they protect the whole community anyway. This is a benefit that I get without paying for it, and since I don't pay, everyone else pays for me.

I will imagine, second, that it is possible some economic transactions will have the negative externality problem. Consider, as an example, someone opens up, let's say, a vermiculite mine in Libby, MT. Let's now suppose they mine vermiculite for a long time, and it just so happens that vermiculite in Montana contains asbestos. So, in a normal transaction, miners supply labor for money, and mining companies supply money for vermiculite, which they believe they can sell at a greater rate than that of labor and supplies. However, the mining of vermiculite releases asbestos into the air, which causes a shit load of people to get lung cancer, emphysema, and asbestosis, so that they can choke to death slowly and die.

Now, the transaction mentioned above includes health care costs (because we're killing people). The miners should have to pay for these costs (or, they should incur additional costs to as to prevent a degradation in public safety.)

As I demonstrated above, it's possible to have transactions where people either benefit without paying for it or people get hurt without getting compensated for it (or those involved in the transaction aren't being forced to prevent the harm in the first place). In order for an economic system to be just, a basic requirement is going to be that all externalities have to be internalized.

This process requires the externalities to be calculated and their costs paid for (with enforcement) by the interested and/or affected parties. Calculating these costs correctly will itself incur a cost (as this will require, say, economists, health professionals, geologists, and environmental quality experts).

Therefore, bureaucracy to me seems like it becomes a requirement, and therefore the setting up and maintaining of enforcement structures and taxation structures becomes a requirement.

Notice how this all flows, though: human rights will require enforcement, which will create externalities, which will then have to be internalized, and therefore everything will have to go into a structure that can both calculate those externalities and force internalization.

Now, I would also tend to argue that, unfortunately (because I love anarchists (*hug*) (*hug*)), anarchists have not paid a lot of attention to enforcement structures, especially alternatives to police. Anarchists, in my opinion, have to be willing to engage forcefully, and with mountains of relevant research to convince anyone about these alternatives.

 

Oh also, there are tariffs. I oppose high tariff and I want them to be kept low. 5-10% should suffice. I like the idea of free trade, but free trade agreements should only be made with wealthy countries like Japan and Canada. Free trade with poor countries can be bad for the latter (European trading empires....).

 

I support a higher tax on luxury items, such as jewelry, artwork, clothing and such over a certain amount:

Examples:

Jewelry over $10,000? 20% tax
Car over $50,000? 15% tax
Car over $100,000 20% tax
Artwork over $50,000? 10% tax
Artwork over $100,000 20% tax
Shoes over $500? 20% tax
A handbag that costs $25,000? 30% tax

and so on. I like the idea of a tax on the non-essential things rich folks buy.

 

That's actually rather minimal. The luxury car tax in Australia is 33%, starting with regular cars at AUD $61,884 and fuel efficient ones at AUD $75,375.

And of course, you need to look at luxury tax carefully; putting a particularly high tax on something that's not really that popular (accounting for the fact that luxury goods are almost always defined by their unavailability in order to be popular and are therefore already bought fairly rarely) could reduce the number of people buying it because its quality and/or status value don't really make up for the price, which isn't practical for the producer nor the consumer nor the government taxing it.

 

I think that instead of taxing luxury items we should tax in a way that internalizes side effects.

 

Just spitballing.

Maybe have a flat tax of 25% for personal income, whether earned or not (an example of the latter would be interest income, capital gains, etc.). No deductions allowed.

Then, at the beginning/end of the calendar year, the IRS mails out checks to all households equal to the tax an individual or family would pay equal to, say, equal 250% the poverty line. So, based on that data, a childless couple would (regardless of how rich or poor), on January 1st a check for $9,831.25 ($39,325.00*.25). Then, every dollar they make gets taxed at 25%. Should they make less than $39,325.00 (which is 250% the federal poverty line for a household of 2 people) , they essentially get a tax "refund"/"credit. Should they make more than that, they start paying into the state coffers.


Sure, some may say this disincentivizes people from working, but it actually doesn't provide enough money for people to live off of.

It also creates a marriage penalty, so the numbers would have to be revised to ensure "fairness."

A better way of distributing the "early tax credits" would need to be devised.

It's a weird idea that others have proposed, but it is still interesting.