Which tax is the least bad?

[westkybitcoins]

Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.

[1714054464]

1714054464

[1714054464]

1714054464

[1714054464]

1714054464

[westkybitcoins]

That's like asking which kind of rape is the least bad.

Date rape?
Spousal rape?
Gang rape?
Prison rape?
Statutory rape?
War rape?

I'd prefer no rape.

Same goes for tax.

I suppose if there was something called "voluntary tax" and it was actually voluntary, that would be the least bad kind of tax. It would probably just be called a donation though.

Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for.

I personally agree with you.

However, the purpose of this thread is to focus on which is the least bad, as debated among those who resign themselves to accepting taxes (or who believe taxes are necessary.)

The "why do people think income tax is ok" thread prompted me to start this one.

[bridgesro]

Probably property taxes. They're not usually as expensive and they do go towards something more necessary than what income taxes go towards (namely roads).

[westkybitcoins]

Ok, I guess I'll play. I'll vote for sales tax because it's somewhat easy to opt out of (and I actually get to own property).

I tend to agree that it's one of the more tolerable ones. I'd probably go with corporate income tax, myself. After all, if corporations are going to exist, and get special government-sanctioned privileges, I have little problem with them paying for those privileges.

[westkybitcoins]

Probably property taxes. They're not usually as expensive and they do go towards something more necessary than what income taxes go towards (namely roads).

Understandable.

But what if you had to choose between property taxes or personal income taxes paying for everything? Would that change your mind any?

[odolvlobo]

My view:

Personal income tax - worse than sales tax or VAT
Corporate income tax - unnecessary, redundant
Property tax (land) - otherwise known as confiscation
Property tax (other assets) - otherwise known as confiscation
Sales tax - better than income tax
Estate/Death/Inheritance tax - unnecessary, redundant
Poll/Head tax - fairest of all, but probably not a practical idea
Import/Export tax (Tariffs) - discourages trade
Value-Added tax - better than income tax (same as sales tax)
Capital Gains tax - unnecessary, redundant
Excise tax (fuel, alcohol, etc.) - careful what you ask for
Wealth/Net-Worth tax - otherwise known as confiscation


Some things to note.

- Taxing income discourages production, while taxing spending (sales and VAT) encourages saving and investment.
- Ideally, each person should pay the same amount of tax regardless of income or wealth because the results of government spending should benefit each person equally.
- It is probably a good idea for wealthy people to pay more taxes than poor people because there is a huge social benefit.
- Excise taxes can mitigate externalities, but they frequently cause more problems than they solve.

[bridgesro]

Probably property taxes. They're not usually as expensive and they do go towards something more necessary than what income taxes go towards (namely roads).

Understandable.

But what if you had to choose between property taxes or personal income taxes paying for everything? Would that change your mind any?

Well, that would shoot the property tax up for sure. If they paid for everything income taxes do now? No, I probably wouldn't support them. If I have to pay taxes, I want them to pay only for necessary services.

You must be joking!

If you don't pay your property taxes, you will eventually lose your home / land. Basically, when there is a property tax, you are a renter, not an owner.

I didn't say they were great. The topic is to pick the least of the bad, not which of the bad is actually good. Given what property taxes usually pay for and the fact that they're not a huge burden on most people, I'd say they're not as bad as some of the other taxes.

[Khadaji]

There's only two taxes I'd be more than happy to endorse and pay.

A flat tax ... under 25%

And a sales tax, at a low rate... certainly no higher than 10%.

I consider these the least "bad" because they're perfectly fair.

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

[westkybitcoins]

There's only two taxes I'd be more than happy to endorse and pay.

A flat tax ... under 25%

And a sales tax, at a low rate... certainly no higher than 10%.

I consider these the least "bad" because they're perfectly fair.

By flat tax, you mean a flat personal income tax?

[tkbx]

That's like asking which kind of rape is the least bad.

Date rape?
Spousal rape?
Gang rape?
Prison rape?
Statutory rape?
War rape?

I'd prefer no rape.

Same goes for tax.

I suppose if there was something called "voluntary tax" and it was actually voluntary, that would be the least bad kind of tax. It would probably just be called a donation though.

Sorry if that wasn't the answer you were looking for.

Taxes are necessary. Some of them are unfair or pointless, but I certainly wouldn't compare various taxes to various forms of rape. Maybe a better analogy would be medical procedures - some are painful, some are overly expensive, but lots are necessary.

[westkybitcoins]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

[westkybitcoins]

Not a single vote for a death tax.

What if it wasn't redundant, if it was the only tax?

[Khadaji]

There's only two taxes I'd be more than happy to endorse and pay.

A flat tax ... under 25%

And a sales tax, at a low rate... certainly no higher than 10%.

I consider these the least "bad" because they're perfectly fair.

By flat tax, you mean a flat personal income tax?

Yes. A flat percentage of anything earned.

One of the best tax systems I've even seen is the Fair tax... you can read all about it at Fairtax.org

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

[bryant.coleman]

Tax on cigars is welcome. Because I don't smoke.

[westkybitcoins]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

[Khadaji]

Tax on cigars is welcome. Because I don't smoke.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

For the sake of simplicity, lets assume I can only choose one form of taxation.

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

Corporation tax is a form of indirect tax on consumers.  If there is no resource tax, it may be that the economy is under-performing due to idle assets.  Under these circumstances, taxing consumers, directly or indirectly, is going to make the problem worse.

[odolvlobo]

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

What about the land under your house?

[Khadaji]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

For the sake of simplicity, lets assume I can only choose one form of taxation.

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

Corporation tax is a form of indirect tax on consumers.  If there is no resource tax, it may be that the economy is under-performing due to idle assets.  Under these circumstances, taxing consumers, directly or indirectly, is going to make the problem worse.

Who's to say what "use" is?

Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated with the personal right to own things.

Where you cannot own things, or where the state can freely take away your property - you don't have prosperity.

[Hawker]

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

What about the land under your house?

Its a resource so pay tax on it. 

[Hawker]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

For the sake of simplicity, lets assume I can only choose one form of taxation.

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

Corporation tax is a form of indirect tax on consumers.  If there is no resource tax, it may be that the economy is under-performing due to idle assets.  Under these circumstances, taxing consumers, directly or indirectly, is going to make the problem worse.

Who's to say what "use" is?

Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated with the personal right to own things.

Where you cannot own things, or where the state can freely take away your property - you don't have prosperity.

A resource tax forces a "use" that generates income.  The resource owner is free to do what he wants and if he is rich enough to leave the resource idle, he can do that. 

[Khadaji]

Property taxes.  Property rights are created by the state and a resource tax forces people to make the underlying assets work.

I could almost agree that a property tax on land makes sense, considering government protection is supposed to extend across a domain, except that the usual penalty for not paying (the loss of your land) makes it unconscionable for me.

I disagree that the state creates property rights. The way you've worked that out, you're effectively saying only the state can really own anything, and people have no moral basis for disagreeing with any thing a state wants to do with it's property.

The fact that corporations are *literally* state-created entities is why I have little problem with them being taxed.

In the common law system, all land rights are derived from the state and in the event that the owner dies intestate, the state takes it back.  Things like a freehold ownership of a farm or a 999 year leasehold interest in a building or an easement over a riverway are literally state-created entities and we should have any problem with them being taxed.

Yet common law as it currently exists isn't some manifest destiny of societal arrangements.

As I see it, an objective look between taxing corporations as active, functional entities and taxing, well, the ownership of personal land makes for a clear choice as to which should be preferred.

*Why* would you opt to tax land over corporations? Do you feel corporations being taxed creates problems that taxing personal land doesn't? Or do you have issues with some people paying no direct taxes (or with some other philosophical/ideological aspect of it?)

For the sake of simplicity, lets assume I can only choose one form of taxation.

I personally have an aversion to hoarders of land and resources.  A resource tax that forces people to either use an asset, say land in a city centre, or to sell it to someone who will use it, seems like a good thing to me.

Corporation tax is a form of indirect tax on consumers.  If there is no resource tax, it may be that the economy is under-performing due to idle assets.  Under these circumstances, taxing consumers, directly or indirectly, is going to make the problem worse.

Who's to say what "use" is?

Freedom and prosperity are directly correlated with the personal right to own things.

Where you cannot own things, or where the state can freely take away your property - you don't have prosperity.

A resource tax forces a "use" that generates income.  The resource owner is free to do what he wants and if he is rich enough to leave the resource idle, he can do that. 

So you'd be against Nature conservancy groups in principle?

[AnonyMint]

You forgot the choice for "no taxes". Sorry I can't vote.

Tax funds the government which enslaves us. Why would any one want to be a slave?

[countryfree]

I've chosen property tax, because it's quite normal if you own a land to pay a little for maintaining roads going to it, taking out the garbage, and that kind of stuff. I'm surprised so many chose corporation tax, because that couldn't work everywhere. Big corporations are plentiful in America or Europe, but there are plenty of poor countries with very few companies.

About income or asset-related taxes, I'm against all of them for the simple reason that I don't want anyone (besides family and friends) to know how much I'm making, nor what I own. I don't want to hide (I don't), but I want my privacy.

[Hawker]

...snip...

A resource tax forces a "use" that generates income.  The resource owner is free to do what he wants and if he is rich enough to leave the resource idle, he can do that. 

So you'd be against Nature conservancy groups in principle?

Its a poll about if there was only one way to raise tax what would it be.  Lets not pollute it by getting into a tax expenditures system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_expenditure

If it's important for you we can make a new thread.

[westkybitcoins]

Not a single vote for a death tax.

To the rescue!

Inheritance tax is a tax on unearned income that you get purely based on your relatedness to some-one who was wealthy. Inheritance fosters entrenched privilege and wealthy dynasties and should be taxed heavily.

Otherwise, I vote as a general rule for forms of tax where the wealthy pay more than the poor. I believe that people have the right to a basic standard of living which should be subsidised by those who are fortunate enough to have a standard of living far higher.

I would also favour wealth and property taxes over income taxes - hoarding should be penalised rather than working.

While I can see where you come from with favoring property taxes over income taxes, you'd rather penalize saving/hoarding rather than consumption? I'd take a sales tax or excise tax over property tax any day, even if you had to massage the specifics (don't tax food or basic needs, etc.) to make it less weighty on the poor.

[Bonam]

I don't like the idea of property tax. Once you've purchased property, you shouldn't have to be a renter on said property. I would support shifting revenue sources to other types of taxes if property tax could be done away with.

I find income/payroll taxes offensive, but they are the ones most visible to a large portion of the population, and so should likely stick around. If taxes were all hidden on corporate profits and such so that ordinary people didn't see them, the general population would be howling for even more government spending and entitlements. As it is now, at least there is a considerable part of the population that opposes greater taxation for the purpose of greater government spending. Taxes need to remain visible and painful, otherwise government will grow even more quickly.

[Twilight_Sparkle]

Voluntary(donation) tax is best, sales tax is the least bad, cause at least it promotes saving. Still theft though.

[odolvlobo]

I believe that people have the right to a basic standard of living which should be subsidised by those who are fortunate enough to have a standard of living far higher.

I am well-off by Western standards and I assure you that luck has nothing to do with it. My solidly middle class parents worked hard to give me a good education and I have worked hard and put that education to good use. I am certainly not "fortunate". I object to your trivialization of my effort and your desire to confiscate the results of it.

I also want to point out that people living in "poverty" in Western countries are considered wealthy by the rest of the world. Do you feel that they should also subsidize the rest of the world?

[westkybitcoins]

I also want to point out that people living in "poverty" in Western countries are considered wealthy by the rest of the world. Do you feel that they should also subsidize the rest of the world?

Well, that's one of the root problems with wealth redistribution; how far should the attempt to redistribute be extended? Within a neighborhood (where charity works best?) Within a region? A nation? Globally? Wouldn't anything less than global redistribution be arbitrary?

Apparently though, one's predisposition towards it seems to influence once's preference of certain taxes over others. In ways I hadn't expected, really.

[practicaldreamer]

I am well-off by Western standards and I assure you that luck has nothing to do with it.

Luck has had everything to do with it   

[Kiki112]

wealth tax, take the money from rich people and give it to poor people

Robin Hood style goverment

[jbrnt]

I think tax is fine if the rate is low. I would prefer a sales tax rather than an income tax. Poll/head tax is probably the fairest.

[westkybitcoins]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

[jbrnt]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

What do you believe is the primary purpose of taxation?
I am just thinking about paying for law enforcement, fireman, building roads and so forth.

[btcton]

I voted for import/export taxes. The way I see it, each country has to protect itself from other countries' production and exports, and import taxes are a good way to protect the economy against it. No protection would just devaluate the nation's currency even more due to other countries selling stuff for a cheaper price (#BitcoinMasterCoin). But then again, this goes against many capitalist principles. I would like to see someone's reply to this (though, take it easy on me).

[westkybitcoins]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose....

What do you believe is the primary purpose of taxation?
I am just thinking about paying for law enforcement, fireman, building roads and so forth.

Well, I don't believe taxes are an appropriate way of paying for societal needs, but I used to, and when I did the primary justification was (1) for centralized defensive expenditures that might be difficult to arrange privately (an army, police, etc.) and (2) for common-use goods/services that everyone needs yet would have questionable benefit from competition (primarily roads and courts.)

Of course, I would still rate those as the strongest arguments as far as what the purpose of taxes should be. Anything not for group-use (and this includes handing out charity) can be done by individual people and/or organizations, so why bother with bureaucratic centralization, expensive middlemen and politicizing the task? (The "free rider" problem can be addressed in a variety of ways beyond forcing everyone to pay for everything.)

[Elwar]

The gas tax to pay for roads is about the "least bad". It is as close to a pay per use as you can get.

[odolvlobo]

I voted for import/export taxes. The way I see it, each country has to protect itself from other countries' production and exports, and import taxes are a good way to protect the economy against it. No protection would just devaluate the nation's currency even more due to other countries selling stuff for a cheaper price (#BitcoinMasterCoin). But then again, this goes against many capitalist principles. I would like to see someone's reply to this (though, take it easy on me).

It goes against economic principles. Basically, trade benefits everyone. The benefit is maximized when each country produces what they are best at producing, even if another country is better than they are. Look up "comparative advantage". Duties, quotas, and subsidies introduce inefficiencies that reduce those benefits because it encourages production of things we aren't good at producing.

Anyway, the duties, quotas, and subsidies, especially on cotton, corn, rice, and sugar, help a small number of U.S. corporations and hurt U.S. consumers and everyone else. If we got rid of duties and subsidies, we could buy food more cheaply and the formerly subsidized corporations could grow something else. Everyone would benefit.

[Hawker]

I think tax is fine if the rate is low. I would prefer a sales tax rather than an income tax. Poll/head tax is probably the fairest.

Both are unfair as they penalise the poor and subsidise the rich.

Consider 2 women - one has inherited a factory and earns millions per week - the other sweeps the floor in the factory.  Taxes are used to provide a decent workforce and decent infrastructure.

If you levy a sales tax or poll tax, the poor woman pays a greater percentage of her income.  Not very fair.

The rich woman has an indirect subsidy from having her workers educated by the state, her premises protected by the police and so on.  So the poor woman is paying a bigger percentage of her income and its being used to subsidise the rich woman.

That's a very unfair way to raise money.

[odolvlobo]

I think tax is fine if the rate is low. I would prefer a sales tax rather than an income tax. Poll/head tax is probably the fairest.

Consider 2 women - one has inherited a factory and earns millions per week - the other sweeps the floor in the factory.  Taxes are used to provide a decent workforce and decent infrastructure.

If you levy a sales tax or poll tax, the poor woman pays a greater percentage of her income.  Not very fair.

I think that there is a problem with using percentage of income as a measure of fairness. Also, the assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

[countryfree]

The assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more.

This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal.

[countryfree]

Maybe I should have started with just asking who believes the primary purpose of taxation is outright wealth redistribution. That's for another thread now, I suppose...

I don't think that needs another thread - that question is integral to which taxes people would prefer since some taxes are inherently redistributive.

Far from it. Taxes were invented to pay for armies, long before the idea of redistribution was invented, and today in many countries, most of the tax money is used to pay for the huge number of civil servants, with the jobs of collecting taxes, controlling and organizing the country, which means telling ordinary people how they should work, live and think. In Scandinavian countries, it's more than one person out of ten which works in some kind of administration. People have no freedom at all, and the only cool Scandinavian people I've ever met had left their country for good.

This leads us to the idea of administration, and besides tax, I'm very much against it in any form. I don't want anyone to know how much I'm making, nor even what I do for my living. I'm a free person, and I have nothing to declare to anyone. Nobody has. There shall be no NSA, and no Internal revenue Service. We are free people, aren't we?

That's why I'm only in favor of a modest property tax, because it just needs some bookkeepers to register land ownership.

[Hawker]

I think tax is fine if the rate is low. I would prefer a sales tax rather than an income tax. Poll/head tax is probably the fairest.

Consider 2 women - one has inherited a factory and earns millions per week - the other sweeps the floor in the factory.  Taxes are used to provide a decent workforce and decent infrastructure.

If you levy a sales tax or poll tax, the poor woman pays a greater percentage of her income.  Not very fair.

I think that there is a problem with using percentage of income as a measure of fairness. Also, the assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

I see where you are coming from but there is no problem with using percentage of income as a measure of fairness.  You may have another way of measuring fairness but percentage of income is a perfectly valid one.

Of course spending is of more benefit to the rich.  Our system creates a great environment for business by having a cheap educated workforce in a secure legal environment.  We are all benefiting from that system and its infinitely preferable to the kleptocracies you see in poor countries.  By definition, our market-based system has winners and losers and we don't  need the tax system to redistribute from the losers (the poor) to the winners (the rich).  

[Hawker]

The assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more.

This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal.

I take it this is how you want the world to work then? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France.

[jbrnt]

...Of course, I would still rate those as the strongest arguments as far as what the purpose of taxes should be. Anything not for group-use (and this includes handing out charity) can be done by individual people and/or organizations

Yeah, we are on the same page.

I believe these group-use services have to be paid by compulsory taxes, because these services cannot exclude any particular non-tax-paying person from consuming the service.

Wealth redistribution is a function of taxes in current societies, but not a primary purpose of taxes. Wealth redistribution is more of a moral obligation and/or political tool.

[Hawker]

...Of course, I would still rate those as the strongest arguments as far as what the purpose of taxes should be. Anything not for group-use (and this includes handing out charity) can be done by individual people and/or organizations

Yeah, we are on the same page.

I believe these group-use services have to be paid by compulsory taxes, because these services cannot exclude any particular non-tax-paying person from consuming the service.

Wealth redistribution is a function of taxes in current societies, but not a primary purpose of taxes. Wealth redistribution is more of a moral obligation and/or political tool.

For the last 40 years the trend in wealth redistribution has been to concentrate earning power in a small percentage of society.  Within the top 1%, incomes are as steeply varied as between the 99% and the 1%.

No-one voted for this.

Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies.  The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly.

[am]

Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies.  The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly.

That's a valid point and one folks often forget despite my own opinion that taxes should be as minimal as possible.

[westkybitcoins]

Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies.  The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly.

That's a valid point and one folks often forget despite my own opinion that taxes should be as minimal as possible.

It's because the rich are typically the ones in control of structuring the tax system, including any loopholes.

This is why the idea of using taxes as a means of wealth-redistribution is such an eye-roller. You're never going to get the top 1%--or heaven forbid, top 0.1%--to have their wealth drained and given to the poor and needy in some politically-oriented karmic reparation. Real-world weath redistribution always boils down to taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor various groups, effectively rendering the lower classes, as a whole, poorer than before (due to the inefficiencies, fraud, waste and middlemen that such programs inevitably encounter.)

Still, as far as this thread goes, being upfront about one's intentions regarding taxation does go quite a ways towards explaining the "whys" of one's choices.

[Hawker]

Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies.  The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly.

That's a valid point and one folks often forget despite my own opinion that taxes should be as minimal as possible.

It's because the rich are typically the ones in control of structuring the tax system, including any loopholes.

This is why the idea of using taxes as a means of wealth-redistribution is such an eye-roller. You're never going to get the top 1%--or heaven forbid, top 0.1%--to have their wealth drained and given to the poor and needy in some politically-oriented karmic reparation. Real-world weath redistribution always boils down to taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor various groups, effectively rendering the lower classes, as a whole, poorer than before (due to the inefficiencies, fraud, waste and middlemen that such programs inevitably encounter.)

Still, as far as this thread goes, being upfront about one's intentions regarding taxation does go quite a ways towards explaining the "whys" of one's choices.

I agree and would go a lot further.  If you look at tax policies over last 40 years in most of the West, there has been a massive redistribution towards the rich with policies like farm subsidies, mortgage subsidies and the like which redistribute cash from the poor to the rich.

[jbrnt]

I agree and would go a lot further.  If you look at tax policies over last 40 years in most of the West, there has been a massive redistribution towards the rich with policies like farm subsidies, mortgage subsidies and the like which redistribute cash from the poor to the rich.

Wealth concentration is partly the result of the ineffective of taxes in redistributing wealth. It does not make wealth distribution a primary purpose of taxes. The primary purpose of taxes is to pay for public services.

[westkybitcoins]

Without a doubt, your living is supported by a vast and complicated global economy. You don't get to opt out when it's time to give something back.

I believe these group-use services have to be paid by compulsory taxes, because these services cannot exclude any particular non-tax-paying person from consuming the service.

The problem at issue here is the "free rider" problem.

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

There are many, many ways the problem can be addressed other than by forcibly making everyone "give something back." The idea that the only possible solution in each case is that anyone who might possibly benefit (especially from something as indirect as benefiting from "a vast and complicated global economy") must have money stolen from them at pain of imprisonment is both archaic and unnecessary.

This is illustrated by the fact that there are forms of taxation that allow free riding, and yet its possible for any specific governmental entities--or even just program--to make due with only taxes that allow it. One example of this is using gas taxes to support roads construction and maintenance.

Free riding occurs in this situation in a number of ways, from people riding bikes on the road (or walking along it) to people hitchhiking, or even using an electric vehicle. To, instead of taxing fuel sales, go to the homes of everyone within 20 miles of the road, and forcibly and regularly extract a fee for the direct and indirect benefits of the road to them, would be a far inferior approach to funding the road even from a statist perspective.

Focusing on making every single person who does or who might consume or benefit from a service (particularly services where consumption can hardly be avoided) pay a mandatory fee for the service is likewise an archaic way to look at such issues, and "solutions" resulting from that mindset can often lead to worse results than more voluntary, less intrusive ones... sometimes including just ignoring the free riders.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Focusing on making every single person who does or who might consume or benefit from a service (particularly services where consumption can hardly be avoided) pay a mandatory fee for the service is likewise an archaic way to look at such issues, and "solutions" resulting from that mindset can often lead to worse results than more voluntary, less intrusive ones... sometimes including just ignoring the free riders.

If you want to ignore the problem, then you really need to get people to vote for ignoring free riders.  We already do this - for example we allow charities to raise income tax free so they are free riders. 

If you can't get people to vote to allow the group of free riders you want let off because you are opposed to compulsory taxation, then the idea just won't fly.

[dotcom]

Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.

Forced taxes are a bad idea overall IMO, but if I had to choose one it'd be sales tax.

- very small amount
- doesn't apply to necessities
- doesn't infringe on personal property
- only applies when somebody is making a purchase in an active economy

[Hawker]

Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.

Forced taxes are a bad idea overall IMO, but if I had to choose one it'd be sales tax.

- very small amount
- doesn't apply to necessities
- doesn't infringe on personal property
- only applies when somebody is making a purchase in an active economy

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

[dotcom]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

Well all taxes are a form of redistribution. Given the ultimatum to choose a tax, I would prefer sales tax b/c (atleast on the consumer side) it is easily avoided.

[crocko]

I don't understand: If I pay taxes when I receive my salary why I must pay additional taxes like: VAT, import-export, inheritance etc ?
I like to pay only 10% like in the Bible  
If I am jobless I will pay 0

[odolvlobo]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

[Hawker]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

I'm not sure that you have thought that through.  Consider a working stiff on $100k per year and an executive on $50 million.

The worker will spend more of his income consumer goods than the executive because spending $1 million per week on consumer goods is difficult.  The rich gain more from public services than the working people in the form of an educated workforce and good commercial infrastructure.  Therefore a sales tax works as a form of redistribution from the working stiff on his $100k to the executive on his $50 million.  

The question is whether we need the tax system to help the guy on $50 million?

[Khadaji]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

I'm not sure that you have thought that through.  Consider a working stiff on $100k per year and an executive on $50 million.

The worker will spend more of his income consumer goods than the executive because spending $1 million per week on consumer goods is difficult.  The rich gain more from public services than the working people in the form of an educated workforce and good commercial infrastructure.  Therefore a sales tax works as a form of redistribution from the working stiff on his $100k to the executive on his $50 million.  

The question is whether we need the tax system to help the guy on $50 million?

How does it 'help' the rich to have a perfectly fair percentage of income paid in taxes?

I'm guessing that you believe taxing those who make more money a higher percentage of their income is 'fair'.

It clearly is not. Nor does it 'hurt' someone who's barely scraping by to pay the SAME percentage. It's perfectly fair by any reasonable standards.

A sales tax truly *IS* fair. You get taxed for your own voluntary purchases. And yes, those who are wealthier will end up paying more money.

[Hawker]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

I'm not sure that you have thought that through.  Consider a working stiff on $100k per year and an executive on $50 million.

The worker will spend more of his income consumer goods than the executive because spending $1 million per week on consumer goods is difficult.  The rich gain more from public services than the working people in the form of an educated workforce and good commercial infrastructure.  Therefore a sales tax works as a form of redistribution from the working stiff on his $100k to the executive on his $50 million.  

The question is whether we need the tax system to help the guy on $50 million?

How does it 'help' the rich to have a perfectly fair percentage of income paid in taxes?

I'm guessing that you believe taxing those who make more money a higher percentage of their income is 'fair'.

It clearly is not. Nor does it 'hurt' someone who's barely scraping by to pay the SAME percentage. It's perfectly fair by any reasonable standards.

A sales tax truly *IS* fair. You get taxed for your own voluntary purchases. And yes, those who are wealthier will end up paying more money.

You seem confused.  A sales tax is a tax on money spent - its not a tax of a percentage of income.  

My objection is to stealth redistribution. If its the only tax system, which is the premise of the poll, then a sales tax is a method that redistributes to the wealthy.  

[odolvlobo]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

I'm not sure that you have thought that through.  Consider a working stiff on $100k per year and an executive on $50 million.

The worker will spend more of his income consumer goods than the executive because spending $1 million per week on consumer goods is difficult.  The rich gain more from public services than the working people in the form of an educated workforce and good commercial infrastructure.  Therefore a sales tax works as a form of redistribution from the working stiff on his $100k to the executive on his $50 million.  
The question is whether we need the tax system to help the guy on $50 million?

Both are going to spend all of their money eventually whether it is on consumer goods or whatever. The tax itself is fair, though public spending may not be.

[Hawker]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

I'm not sure that you have thought that through.  Consider a working stiff on $100k per year and an executive on $50 million.

The worker will spend more of his income consumer goods than the executive because spending $1 million per week on consumer goods is difficult.  The rich gain more from public services than the working people in the form of an educated workforce and good commercial infrastructure.  Therefore a sales tax works as a form of redistribution from the working stiff on his $100k to the executive on his $50 million.  
The question is whether we need the tax system to help the guy on $50 million?

Both are going to spend all of their money eventually whether it is on consumer goods or whatever. The tax itself is fair, though public spending may not be.

You are agreeing that the purpose of the tax is to finance public spending and you are agreeing that the rich benefit more than the middle class from public spending.  So a sales tax is a form of redistribution from the working stiffs to the wealthy.  

If its what you want, OK, but its important to be clear that what you are doing is advocating redistribution.  My personal view is that the tax should be just to finance public spending and that adding redistribution to the system needs to be justified.

[odolvlobo]

Both are going to spend all of their money eventually whether it is on consumer goods or whatever. The tax itself is fair, though public spending may not be.

You are agreeing that the purpose of the tax is to finance public spending and you are agreeing that the rich benefit more than the middle class from public spending.  So a sales tax is a form of redistribution from the working stiffs to the wealthy.  
I'm fine with that if its what you want.  But its important to be clear that what you are doing is advocating redistribution.

Taxing and spending are completely different. Having a sales tax doesn't prevent the government from spending all the money on poor people, for example.

[Hawker]

Both are going to spend all of their money eventually whether it is on consumer goods or whatever. The tax itself is fair, though public spending may not be.

You are agreeing that the purpose of the tax is to finance public spending and you are agreeing that the rich benefit more than the middle class from public spending.  So a sales tax is a form of redistribution from the working stiffs to the wealthy.  
I'm fine with that if its what you want.  But its important to be clear that what you are doing is advocating redistribution.

Taxing and spending are completely different. Having a sales tax doesn't prevent the government from spending all the money on poor people, for example.

True but such a system would not survive long. In a viable society, tax will support the overall economy, which has winners and losers, and of course that means a sales tax redistributes towards the rich.

People seem to be hung up on the "fairness" thing.  Fairness is not the only criterion for a tax - I believe the economic effects of the tax should be the first consideration.

The advantage of a property/resource tax is that it encourages economic development of assets and thus regardless of whether or not its "fair" it does create wealth for the whole society.  The disadvantage of a sales tax is that it discourages declared spending and as such makes economic development slower.  

[odolvlobo]

The advantage of a property/resource tax is that it encourages economic development of assets and thus regardless of whether or not its "fair" it does create wealth for the whole society.  The disadvantage of a sales tax is that it discourages declared spending and as such makes economic development slower.  

Sales tax encourages savings, which directly encourages production and therefore economic growth. Increased spending only indirectly contributes to economic growth.

[Hawker]

The advantage of a property/resource tax is that it encourages economic development of assets and thus regardless of whether or not its "fair" it does create wealth for the whole society.  The disadvantage of a sales tax is that it discourages declared spending and as such makes economic development slower.  

Sales tax encourages savings, which directly encourages production and therefore economic growth. Increased spending only indirectly contributes to economic growth.

Thats an interesting theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

What you are talking about with savings is debt funded investment.  That's a good thing but a sales tax would make it less likely because it reduces sales.  A resource tax on the other hand encourages investment in assets and if there is no sales tax holding back the consumer, its a better way to grow your economy.

[Khadaji]

A sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich and the benefits of the public spending go to the rich more than the poor.  As such, a sales tax is just another form of redistribution.

I don't believe that sales tax hits the poor harder than the rich. The standard argument is that poor people must spend more of their income (percentage-wise) than rich people. While this might be true for people who can't earn enough to support themselves, it is not true for anyone else.

I'm not sure that you have thought that through.  Consider a working stiff on $100k per year and an executive on $50 million.

The worker will spend more of his income consumer goods than the executive because spending $1 million per week on consumer goods is difficult.  The rich gain more from public services than the working people in the form of an educated workforce and good commercial infrastructure.  Therefore a sales tax works as a form of redistribution from the working stiff on his $100k to the executive on his $50 million.  

The question is whether we need the tax system to help the guy on $50 million?

How does it 'help' the rich to have a perfectly fair percentage of income paid in taxes?

I'm guessing that you believe taxing those who make more money a higher percentage of their income is 'fair'.

It clearly is not. Nor does it 'hurt' someone who's barely scraping by to pay the SAME percentage. It's perfectly fair by any reasonable standards.

A sales tax truly *IS* fair. You get taxed for your own voluntary purchases. And yes, those who are wealthier will end up paying more money.

You seem confused.  A sales tax is a tax on money spent - its not a tax of a percentage of income.

I'm truly amused when people don't read what they respond to. I made precisely two points... the first was on the inherent unfairness of a progressive tax structure, the second point was the completely fair nature of a sales tax.

How you managed to conflate those two points tells me that you've not had your morning coffee before responding... 

My objection is to stealth redistribution. If its the only tax system, which is the premise of the poll, then a sales tax is a method that redistributes to the wealthy.  

I find that nonsensical, but I'm sure you'll be happy to explain.

But perhaps a definition of the word "fair" is in order first.

You apparently aren't using it in the dictionary meaning of the term.

[Hawker]

...snip...

My objection is to stealth redistribution. If its the only tax system, which is the premise of the poll, then a sales tax is a method that redistributes to the wealthy.  

I find that nonsensical, but I'm sure you'll be happy to explain.

But perhaps a definition of the word "fair" is in order first.

You apparently aren't using it in the dictionary meaning of the term.

Consider 2 women - one has inherited a factory and earns millions per week - the other sweeps the floor in the factory.  Taxes are used to provide a decent workforce and decent infrastructure.

If you levy a sales tax or poll tax, the poor woman pays a greater percentage of her income.

The rich woman has an indirect subsidy from having her workers educated by the state, her premises protected by the police and so on.  So the poor woman is paying a bigger percentage of her income and its being used to subsidise the rich woman.

That's redistribution.  If one person is getting a better return on her tax dollars than the other, the system is moving wealth from the other to her.  If what you want is redistribution that's fine.  But its important to be explicit and say so even if you think that its the fair way to do things.

The big question here is why is fairness the only criterion you are interested in?  If there is to be only one tax, it should be one that ensures the system works at its best potential.  A resource tax does just that - it encourages people to employ their assets.  

[Khadaji]

...snip...
[/quot]

I can well understand why you wanted to snip that. It's embarrassing to be caught trying to make an argument based on a flawed reading of what someone actually said.

My objection is to stealth redistribution. If its the only tax system, which is the premise of the poll, then a sales tax is a method that redistributes to the wealthy.  

I find that nonsensical, but I'm sure you'll be happy to explain.

But perhaps a definition of the word "fair" is in order first.

You apparently aren't using it in the dictionary meaning of the term.

Consider 2 women - one has inherited a factory and earns millions per week - the other sweeps the floor in the factory.  Taxes are used to provide a decent workforce and decent infrastructure.

If you levy a sales tax or poll tax, the poor woman pays a greater percentage of her income.

And the millionaire pays more TOTAL taxes... so what?

I note for the record that you seem unwilling to provide a definition of "fair". I suspect that you know that progressive taxation is NOT fair under any ordinary definition of the word.

The rich woman has an indirect subsidy from having her workers educated by the state,

Not the function of the state. Indeed, for thousands of years, government had no stake in public education.

her premises protected by the police and so on.

The police also protect the poor woman.

  So the poor woman is paying a bigger percentage of her income and its being used to subsidise the rich woman.

Nonsense. The millionaire is paying in TOTAL taxes far more than the worker ever will.

That's redistribution.

Yep... it is... you just have the wrong direction.

If one person is getting a better return on her tax dollars than the other, the system is moving wealth from the other to her.

Nope... there's no "return" on her tax dollars. The tax dollars had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the creation of that wealth. You simply wish to punish the rich for their exceptional ability to help more people.

If what you want is redistribution that's fine.  But its important to be explicit and say so even if you think that its the fair way to do things.

I'm amused that you think I'm in favor of tax redistribution when I'm arguing for the ONLY system that does not do this.

The big question here is why is fairness the only criterion you are interested in?

It's perhaps just as important to note that you are not interested in a fair system.

If there is to be only one tax, it should be one that ensures the system works at its best potential.  A resource tax does just that - it encourages people to employ their assets.

No, your proposal punishes people for employing their assets. You wish to take a greater percentage of income away from those who have proven their ability to help more people. That's punishment.

Here in the U.S., close to half of the people pay no federal taxes at all.

If 'fair' isn't the criteria you want to use... why not name it?

[Hawker]

Khadaji - in the real world, the state does provide an educated workforce and commercial infrastructure that will give the wealthy woman a better return on her taxes if the only way of raising tax is a sales tax.  To argue for a tax system on the basis that you don't think the state should provide education is to ask us enter a parallel universe.  

You asked what I think a fair system would be?  In a democracy, I think a system that is has no impact on the spread of wealth and power in society is fair.  It doesn't matter if people make huge amounts of money or inherit it.  It stinks if the tax system gives it to them just because they were born in the right place.  That is my objection to ideas like flat taxes and sales taxes - they give a much bigger return on tax paid to those who need an educated workforce and a well run economy.

[Khadaji]

Khadaji - in the real world, the state does provide an educated workforce and commercial infrastructure that will give the wealthy woman a better return on her taxes if the only way of raising tax is a sales tax.  To argue for a tax system on the basis that you don't think the state should provide education is to ask us enter a parallel universe.

And yet, people became wealthy thousands of years ago, with no public education system whatsoever.

You asked what I think a fair system would be?

Until you define the term "fair" - we won't be speaking of the same topic.

In a democracy, I think a system that is has no impact on the spread of wealth and power in society is fair.

Then you aren't in favor of progressive tax systems... good to see you agree with me.

It doesn't matter if people make huge amounts of money or inherit it.  It stinks if the tax system gives it to them just because they were born in the right place.  That is my objection to ideas like flat taxes and sales taxes - they give a much bigger return on tax paid to those who need an educated workforce and a well run economy.

Oops... I guess you really didn't mean what you said. You ARE in favor of a taxing system that inhibits the free growth of wealth & power.

[Hawker]

Khadaji - in the real world, the state does provide an educated workforce and commercial infrastructure that will give the wealthy woman a better return on her taxes if the only way of raising tax is a sales tax.  To argue for a tax system on the basis that you don't think the state should provide education is to ask us enter a parallel universe.

And yet, people became wealthy thousands of years ago, with no public education system whatsoever.

You asked what I think a fair system would be?

Until you define the term "fair" - we won't be speaking of the same topic.

In a democracy, I think a system that is has no impact on the spread of wealth and power in society is fair.

Then you aren't in favor of progressive tax systems... good to see you agree with me.

It doesn't matter if people make huge amounts of money or inherit it.  It stinks if the tax system gives it to them just because they were born in the right place.  That is my objection to ideas like flat taxes and sales taxes - they give a much bigger return on tax paid to those who need an educated workforce and a well run economy.

Oops... I guess you really didn't mean what you said. You ARE in favor of a taxing system that inhibits the free growth of wealth & power.

If that growth in wealth is achieved by redistribution through the tax system, there has to be a very good reason for it.  I don't see that there is a good reason to redistribute towards the wealthy so naturally I oppose any tax system that does just that.

In any case, a sales tax does not encourage the use of assets.  A resource tax does.  On that basis alone, its a no brainer as to which is the better tax.

[Khadaji]

Khadaji - in the real world, the state does provide an educated workforce and commercial infrastructure that will give the wealthy woman a better return on her taxes if the only way of raising tax is a sales tax.  To argue for a tax system on the basis that you don't think the state should provide education is to ask us enter a parallel universe.

And yet, people became wealthy thousands of years ago, with no public education system whatsoever.

You asked what I think a fair system would be?

Until you define the term "fair" - we won't be speaking of the same topic.

In a democracy, I think a system that is has no impact on the spread of wealth and power in society is fair.

Then you aren't in favor of progressive tax systems... good to see you agree with me.

It doesn't matter if people make huge amounts of money or inherit it.  It stinks if the tax system gives it to them just because they were born in the right place.  That is my objection to ideas like flat taxes and sales taxes - they give a much bigger return on tax paid to those who need an educated workforce and a well run economy.

Oops... I guess you really didn't mean what you said. You ARE in favor of a taxing system that inhibits the free growth of wealth & power.

If that growth in wealth is achieved by redistribution through the tax system, there has to be a very good reason for it.

You make a false statement without any citation or support, then conclude that your opinions on taxation are correct based on that false statement.

Progressive taxation takes away the very capital needed by those who are best posed to create real wealth. You undoubtedly believe that the government can more effectively spend that capitol than the people who EARNED it.

I don't see that there is a good reason to redistribute towards the wealthy so naturally I oppose any tax system that does just that.

The wealthy do not benefit from progressive taxation, nor would their wealth be created hypothetically with a flat tax.

In any case, a sales tax does not encourage the use of assets.

Neither does a progressive tax. You wish to punish the very people who've DEMONSTRATED by their very wealth that they can use their assets most effectively.

A resource tax does.

No, it merely drains capitol from the very people who've proven that they can make the most effective use of it.

On that basis alone, its a no brainer as to which is the better tax.

A conclusion based on faulty data will rarely be accurate.

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

[odolvlobo]

Hawker,

You seem incapable of distinguishing between taxation and spending. The collection of taxes is independent of the distribution of benefits. As I already pointed out, whatever you consider as equitable is possible with a sales tax.

I think it makes more sense to consider the economic ratifications of the tax system, and the social aspects of the spending.

[Khadaji]

Hawker,

You seem incapable of distinguishing between taxation and spending. The collection of taxes is independent of the distribution of benefits. As I already pointed out, whatever you consider as equitable is possible with a sales tax.

I think it makes more sense to consider the economic ratifications of the tax system, and the social aspects of the spending.

A good point... collection is totally and completely separate from spending.

And you are certainly correct that a sales tax is by far the fairest tax there can be. It's almost COMPLETELY voluntary. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy anything.

And millionaires certainly spend more on 'things' than a janitor does.

[countryfree]

The assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more.

This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal.

I take it this is how you want the world to work then? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France.

Yes, that's the way it works. Don't we represent justice with a blind woman?

[countryfree]

Based on these facts, I would say that wealth redistribution is an accidental side effect of tax policy in current societies.  The main main function of tax is to raise money to keep the market system running smoothly.

That's a valid point and one folks often forget despite my own opinion that taxes should be as minimal as possible.

It's because the rich are typically the ones in control of structuring the tax system, including any loopholes.

This is why the idea of using taxes as a means of wealth-redistribution is such an eye-roller. You're never going to get the top 1%--or heaven forbid, top 0.1%--to have their wealth drained and given to the poor and needy in some politically-oriented karmic reparation. Real-world weath redistribution always boils down to taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor various groups, effectively rendering the lower classes, as a whole, poorer than before (due to the inefficiencies, fraud, waste and middlemen that such programs inevitably encounter.)

Still, as far as this thread goes, being upfront about one's intentions regarding taxation does go quite a ways towards explaining the "whys" of one's choices.

I agree and would go a lot further.  If you look at tax policies over last 40 years in most of the West, there has been a massive redistribution towards the rich with policies like farm subsidies, mortgage subsidies and the like which redistribute cash from the poor to the rich.

Another excellent argument against taxation. The redistribution idea may be nice on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world.

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

[Hawker]

Hawker,

You seem incapable of distinguishing between taxation and spending. The collection of taxes is independent of the distribution of benefits. As I already pointed out, whatever you consider as equitable is possible with a sales tax.

I think it makes more sense to consider the economic ratifications of the tax system, and the social aspects of the spending.

And I answered.  A sales tax reduces economic activity by encouraging the paradox of thrift.  A resource tax encourages development of the resources being taxed.  Moreover a sales tax is easily avoided so it creates a massive bureaucracy. A resource/property tax is cheap to collect as everyone knows where a factory or farm is.

[Hawker]

The assumption is that people with high incomes receive more benefits from government spending, and I think that is the real problem if it is true. If everyone benefits equally from government spending, then it is only fair if everyone pays the same amount for those benefits.

People shouldn't benefit equally from state benefits, people in greater need should benefit more.

This is why I'm against all state benefits, so that everybody's equal.

I take it this is how you want the world to work then? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France.

Yes, that's the way it works. Don't we represent justice with a blind woman?

An economic system is not a justice system.  There probably is no such thing as a fair tax but there are tax systems that are good for the economy and ones that are not.  If you have to choose a tax system, then the one to go for is the one that maximises economic development.

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.

[Spendulus]

Presuming a society has taxes (safe bet there,) some taxes could be considered more intrusive, less efficient, or generally worse than other taxes.

Which taxes do you feel are the least bad?

Bonus points for explaining why; double points for also pointing out the especially egregious taxes, and explaining why.

You missed the tax which is the least bad.

It is of course the tax that you levy on others and pay yourself with.  In fact you don't even see such a tax, because you pay your fair share of tax with other peoples' taxes.

From this perspective, all taxes are good, as they all provide you with tax free money in large amounts, and who would not like some of the good stuff?

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.

Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent.  If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.

I see no reason for the state to own 28% of the land.  If the government needs money, it can sell its land.  To my mind this is a major benefit of a property/resource tax - thanks for bringing it up.

Since tax is raised to meet a budget, no matter what tax you choose, the same amount of money gets raised.  Sales tax is more expensive to administer than a resource/property tax and it requires a ton of regulation and bureaucrats.  You can see why the property/resource tax option is most popular here :-)

[ShireSilver]

IMHO one of the most important criteria is what sort of collection system will be used.

With a land tax (and to some extent a more general property tax) the things being taxed are very public and well defined. The taxing authority has a database of the property being taxed and knows who the owners are. It needs these in order to defend the ownership rights in the first place. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, they can be allowed to stay on the property (if it is their domicile) until they die, with a lien being placed on the property.

On the other hand, most other forms of taxation are significantly easier to avoid. This is a bad thing because their ease of evasion leads directly to more invasive enforcement techniques. A sales tax, for example, ends up requiring a virtual police state where business owners become tax collection agents. A business owner who finds out a competitor is not collecting/paying all their taxes can report them, harming their competitors. Tax agents need to be granted the ability to look into everyone's business to ensure no one is avoiding their "fair share". Income taxes are one of the worst in this regard, requiring everyone to open their personal books up to tax collectors.

If your tax system requires a police state, that is pretty bad indeed.

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.

Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent.  If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.

Nope. Untrue.

You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.

I see no reason for the state to own 28% of the land.  If the government needs money, it can sell its land.  To my mind this is a major benefit of a property/resource tax - thanks for bringing it up.

 

Since tax is raised to meet a budget, no matter what tax you choose, the same amount of money gets raised.  Sales tax is more expensive to administer than a resource/property tax

Only because it would affect far less people.

and it requires a ton of regulation and bureaucrats.  You can see why the property/resource tax option is most popular here :-)

People are always in favor of someone else paying taxes.

But if you want a truly fair system, and one that takes the lowest amount of money from any person, it has to be a tax on EVERYONE.

The same argument was made not long ago by President Obama with regards to universal health insurance... EVERYONE has to be on it for it to make sense.

[Khadaji]

IMHO one of the most important criteria is what sort of collection system will be used.

With a land tax (and to some extent a more general property tax) the things being taxed are very public and well defined. The taxing authority has a database of the property being taxed and knows who the owners are. It needs these in order to defend the ownership rights in the first place. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, they can be allowed to stay on the property (if it is their domicile) until they die, with a lien being placed on the property.

On the other hand, most other forms of taxation are significantly easier to avoid. This is a bad thing because their ease of evasion leads directly to more invasive enforcement techniques. A sales tax, for example, ends up requiring a virtual police state where business owners become tax collection agents. A business owner who finds out a competitor is not collecting/paying all their taxes can report them, harming their competitors. Tax agents need to be granted the ability to look into everyone's business to ensure no one is avoiding their "fair share". Income taxes are one of the worst in this regard, requiring everyone to open their personal books up to tax collectors.

If your tax system requires a police state, that is pretty bad indeed.

That's strange... I pay sales tax virtually every day and I don't live in a police state...

In fact, based on your argument, most of the world is living in a police state:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/sales-tax-rate

[ShireSilver]

That's strange... I pay sales tax virtually every day and I don't live in a police state...

Just because you are comfortable with your chains doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also, you might think that 'police state' only means an obvious and overwhelming show of force by police, constantly brutalizing the citizens openly; but you'd be wrong. One way you can tell you're in a police state is if a business can compete by ratting out a competitor to the government.

[Bitcoin Betting Guide]

By fare the worst tax is payroll tax. A tax on giving people jobs. Genieus. 

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.

Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent.  If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.

Nope. Untrue.

You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.

...snip...

Um.  

That's exactly how property tax is paid.  The landlord factors in the tax when setting rent.

You surely don't imagine that landlords operate as kindly souls and pay the property tax out of the goodness of our hearts?

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.

Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent.  If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.

Nope. Untrue.

You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.

...snip...

Um.  

That's exactly how property tax is paid.  The landlord factors in the tax when setting rent.

You surely don't imagine that landlords operate as kindly souls and pay the property tax out of the goodness of our hearts?

Who goes to jail if the property tax isn't paid?

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.

Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent.  If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.

Nope. Untrue.

You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.

...snip...

Um.  

That's exactly how property tax is paid.  The landlord factors in the tax when setting rent.

You surely don't imagine that landlords operate as kindly souls and pay the property tax out of the goodness of our hearts?

Who goes to jail if the property tax isn't paid?

Who goes to jail is a sales tax is not paid?

[Balthazar]

Which kind of rape is the least bad?

 

[countryfree]

This leads us to the idea of administration, and besides tax, I'm very much against it in any form. I don't want anyone to know how much I'm making, nor even what I do for my living. I'm a free person, and I have nothing to declare to anyone.

Without a doubt, your living is supported by a vast and complicated global economy. You don't get to opt out when it's time to give something back.

Yes, I take advantage of a vast and complicated global economy, but it's precisely tax and regulations that make it complicated. It's tax and regulations that block business and free trade, it's not me nor the people I'm working with. I've seen business owners who have closed their businesses because they couldn't pay their taxes. Tax isn't helping the global economy in any way, quite the contrary, tax and bureaucracy are killing it.

Giving something back? I'm not even entitled to healthcare in the country I'm living in. I always paid far more than what I've ever received, and I'm actually paying for others, people I don't know, and that I don't want to know. So, I'm opting out. It's a lengthy process, but I hope to have it complete by the next quarter.

[countryfree]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents. 

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents. 

If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.  

If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread.  You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions.  You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage.  The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office.   

Time for me to say "Peace - out."

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents. 

If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

The person who owes the tax.  So what? If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.

[Hawker]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.  

If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

The person who owes the tax.  So what? If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.

You are being childish.  A sales tax is paid by the seller but the costs are born by the buyer.  A resource tax is paid by the owner but the costs are born by the consumer.  

I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread.  You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions.  You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage.  The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office.   

Good luck with persuading people in this forum to join your ideal of increasing government size and adding to policing the public.

Time for me to say "Peace - out."

[Satterfield]

I think Sales tax or direct taxes are so bad because we can not avoid them.

[Khadaji]

Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.

If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.

I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income.  The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor.  Call it trickle down taxation.

The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.

If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.

Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.  

If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

The person who owes the tax.  So what? If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.

You are being childish.  A sales tax is paid by the seller but the costs are born by the buyer.  A resource tax is paid by the owner but the costs are born by the consumer.

I'm merely pointing out facts.

A renter does not pay the property owner's tax. Quite clearly, an owner has to take taxes into account, as well as property maintenance & upkeep, but it's silly to state that the *RENTER* is responsible for these costs.

I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread.  You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions.

This was already dealt with. Most countries have sales tax. The bureaucracy needed for property tax wouldn't be dramatically different from that needed for sales tax.

And, as sales tax is more equally divided between people, it would present less of a burden.

You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage.

Facts would be nice. A better argument would certainly help. I'm not tied to this opinion.

 The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office."

Methinks that you overstate the importance of 12 people. That is, after all - the number of votes currently existing for a property tax. And were you to quiz those 12 people, chances are good that at least some of them voted for more than just the property tax.

Good luck with persuading people in this forum to join your ideal of increasing government size and adding to policing the public.

Still beating that strawman, eh?

[Khadaji]

This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.

Yes, but the tax affects the renter even if they don't pay it - the landlord charges a little bit extra in rent to make up for having to pay the tax. I'm sure you understand this and are just trolling / being pedantic. Renters de facto pay a portion of any costs that a landlord incurs.

Of COURSE the renter pays more to cover all costs. It's hardly 'pendantic,' it's merely the truth. Why would you argue with the facts?

You think it's 'trolling' to merely be precise about the facts?

In addition, I would say that you should discourage people from owning lots of property. Exempt people from paying tax on the first (e.g.) $500k worth of property, and you discourage renting (the landlord will charge you extra for the tax), encourage working to buy your house (no rent or tax to pay), and discourage buying up huge amounts of property as an investment (either pay tax or raise rents, making you less competitive).

Sound's suspiciously like you wish to discourage wealth.

[Khadaji]

I think Sales tax or direct taxes are so bad because we can not avoid them.

Sales tax can be avoided... you simply don't buy something.

The idea that all taxes are bad, and that we need to be able to avoid all taxes is hardly worth debating.

[zolace]

The least bad option is a comprehensive carbon tax that applies to all hydrocarbon fuels, from gasoline to propane. It gives each consumer the freedom to determine the energy use that best suits his or her budget. But is it fair? Only if it is revenue neutral, that is, if the extra tax income is offset with lower taxes elsewhere.

[Khadaji]

This was already dealt with. Most countries have sales tax. The bureaucracy needed for property tax wouldn't be dramatically different from that needed for sales tax.

This is true. While sales taxes are inherently unenforceable at a very low level (think farmers' markets, cash-in-hand food stalls etc.) they don't require a huge amount of bureaucracy to implement in most cases, and a major benefit of a sales tax is that larger companies find it almost impossible (and not worth it) to avoid.

There's always going to be an 'underground' movement, you'll never collect taxes perfectly. But it's just silly to assert that you need a police state to utilize a sales tax.

I saw one country that has a 50% sales tax... ouch!

And, as sales tax is more equally divided between people, it would present less of a burden.

This is a false inference. Equal liability =/= equal burden. A drawback of a sales tax is that the poor pay the same proportion as the rich, unless you exempt basics like cheap food and clothing.

I don't consider this a problem. I'm in favor of fair taxation. I think that everyone should pay an equal percentage of taxes. Doing anything other than this is not fair, and indeed, is simply an attempt to punish people for wealth creation.

It's a false notion that if you are wealthy, that I must have less.

Nope. Untrue. You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.

Of COURSE the renter pays more to cover all costs. It's hardly 'pendantic,' it's merely the truth. Why would you argue with the facts?

Because your argument was that a property tax pushes people into renting which it clearly doesn't. It doesn't matter who is 'taxed' if the renter ends up paying the landlord extra for the tax that the landlord owes.

Taxes always affects the behavior of those who are taxed, regardless of their ability to pay. I reject your implied argument otherwise. This has been studied by economists: "It is show that the property tax has a strong effect on the decision to invest in housing; an increase of one percentage point in the full-value tax rate will lower applications for investment by 90 milliion dollars" - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/143107?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103772294207

Sound's suspiciously like you wish to discourage wealth.

Not really. I want the human race to acquire as much wealth as it possibly can. Wealth improves people's lives. If you mean that I want to discourage individuals from having a disproportionate share of humanity's wealth, then yeah, pretty much.

An idea based on a false understanding of the pie. That is, what you think wealth is... a pie. And when one person has a big chunk of that pie, you think that you have less of a chunk.

Wealth doesn't work that way.

If I take a plot of land, some building materials, and the labor costs to build a house, the resulting house is worth more than all my preceding costs. I've created wealth.

[Khadaji]

The least bad option is a comprehensive carbon tax that applies to all hydrocarbon fuels, from gasoline to propane. It gives each consumer the freedom to determine the energy use that best suits his or her budget. But is it fair? Only if it is revenue neutral, that is, if the extra tax income is offset with lower taxes elsewhere.

Of course, when you tax energy, you're in essence punishing those who are trying to make an easier life for everyone.

Certainly a good 'tree-hugger' idea, but not a well-thought out tax, in my opinion.

[jetspot]

Land tax is the lesser of all evils where I live. The main reason is that the county explains and breaks down why the tax rate is what it is, and how the tax is distributed to various agencies county wide. The school district gets the lions share of it.

[Khadaji]

Taxes always affect the behavior of those who are taxed, regardless of their ability to pay. I reject your implied argument otherwise.

Yes, but I would argue that since the renters usually bear at least some of the cost of a property tax, the tax will affect their behaviour as well as the one being directly taxed. It certainly doesn't provide an incentive to rent rather than own, since you will still be paying the tax (or most of it), and you will be pissing money away on rent.

I rather doubt if you'll be able to cite for the idea that behavior is affected by taxes not paid by an individual.

"It is show that the property tax has a strong effect on the decision to invest in housing; an increase of one percentage point in the full-value tax rate will lower applications for investment by 90 million dollars"

Less "investment in housing" does not imply more people choosing to become renters, it implies less people choosing to become landlords. A property tax would have to be close to 100% of the cost of rent before it started to disincentivise owning your own home - the people discouraged from investing are those who are buying to let.

Less "investment in housing" is ownership. Higher taxes will affect the numbers of people who decide to own their own property, you cannot cite any economic study that would show otherwise.

It's merely common sense as well... when the cost of something goes up, you have less people able or interested in purchasing it.

I think that everyone should pay an equal percentage of taxes. Doing anything other than this is not fair, and indeed, is simply an attempt to punish people for wealth creation.

Yes, I think we've been over this ground. For me, the notion of fairness must be related to the amount that you're able to pay.

You aren't speaking of 'fairness'. Find another word.

You are PUNISHING people who are successful, that's no-one's definition of "fair".

If you earn $20k, and pay an income tax of (e.g.) 25%, that $5k can be the difference between eating and going hungry, or between paying rent and being homeless. If you earn $200k, who gives a fuck about $50k? You have $150k left, and since it doesn't cost a rich person any more to survive than a poor person, most of it is spending money.

This is the basis of socialism, not capitalism. It's not the fault or responsibility of successful people to 'save' the less fortunate.

An idea based on a false understanding of the pie. That is, what you think wealth is... a pie. And when one person has a big chunk of that pie, you think that you have less of a chunk.

Wealth doesn't work that way.

I understand how wealth is created, and I don't want to prohibit people from getting rich by creating it. However, there is an optimal region (for all taxes) where the redistributive benefit outweighs the wealth lost by the % who were disincentivised to create.[/quote]

"redistributive benefit" - socialism.

I'm interested in discussing the best forms of taxes to collect... not interested in socialism... which I reject as a failed experiment.

If you have a skill worth $20m per year, you will still be fabulously wealthy if you pay a tax rate of 50%, 60% even. Are you going to avoid using that skill to make yourself $10m per year, just to stick it to the government?

What gives you the right to take my money only because I'm more successful than others at creating wealth?

You take the capital away from the very people who've proven that they know what to do with it, and give it to government, which has never shown any particular ability to handle money well.

The 'war on poverty' will never be won by giving the poor more money.

[countryfree]

The least bad option is a comprehensive carbon tax that applies to all hydrocarbon fuels, from gasoline to propane. It gives each consumer the freedom to determine the energy use that best suits his or her budget. But is it fair? Only if it is revenue neutral, that is, if the extra tax income is offset with lower taxes elsewhere.

You only talk of automotive fuels. How about extending it to all energies, up to coal and nuclear? Better think global!

[countryfree]

IMHO one of the most important criteria is what sort of collection system will be used.

With a land tax (and to some extent a more general property tax) the things being taxed are very public and well defined. The taxing authority has a database of the property being taxed and knows who the owners are. It needs these in order to defend the ownership rights in the first place. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, they can be allowed to stay on the property (if it is their domicile) until they die, with a lien being placed on the property.

On the other hand, most other forms of taxation are significantly easier to avoid. This is a bad thing because their ease of evasion leads directly to more invasive enforcement techniques. A sales tax, for example, ends up requiring a virtual police state where business owners become tax collection agents. A business owner who finds out a competitor is not collecting/paying all their taxes can report them, harming their competitors. Tax agents need to be granted the ability to look into everyone's business to ensure no one is avoiding their "fair share". Income taxes are one of the worst in this regard, requiring everyone to open their personal books up to tax collectors.

If your tax system requires a police state, that is pretty bad indeed.

Those points are very true, this is why I'm against all income and sales tax. They require an army of agents to check reports and organize collection.