Novel Tax Solutions

[Jayjay]

Look at my suggestion--that's basically what I'm doing without being intrusive.

Why complicate flat sales/VAT tax with progressive scale? Why this need to make poor to pay no taxes? Why not pay them more instead in the first place?

Flat sales taxes harm the poor proportionally more, because they spend more of their income on food, shelter and other things lie that. "Paying them more" is a non-solution because whenever government tries to set the wages too heavily, it tends to lead to unemployment and other problems.

Besides, elimination of income taxes would mean they get paid more, so there is that.

 

[barbos]

Why complicate flat sales/VAT tax with progressive scale? Why this need to make poor to pay no taxes? Why not pay them more instead in the first place?

Flat sales taxes harm the poor proportionally more, because they spend more of their income on food, shelter and other things lie that. "Paying them more" is a non-solution because whenever government tries to set the wages too heavily, it tends to lead to unemployment and other problems.

Well, whenever government set smaller taxes on poor, employers take advantage of that by paying them less.
So this progressive tax thing is nothing but pointless complication.

 

[fromderinside]

By the way, I intended the thread for all alternatives, that is Novel Tax Solutions. I presented one. I think it could work. Can you do better?

OK.

So we know society has changed to the point where it makes no sense to punish those who don't work because we are capable of producing more than we need in some states. Its probably the main reason birth rates are down.In those states. We know the state has responsibilities for sustaining life in the state, providing opportunity for it's citizens and promoting more avenues for expression. These are things that keep a state relevant.

If we look at what it costs for each citizen, on average, to have access to health care, to security when aged or disabled, to support education, to provide roads and communication and other necessary infrastructure why not produce funds at birth to provide for each new citizen's share over her life. Then all we need account for is keeping avarice factors under control.

It is obvious that commerce and intercourse are the primary areas of excess which would provide impetus to tax those who are most likely to advantage themselves in the community.

I have no doubt that people will be as lazy as they can be in a competitive environment, yet I'm also confident there will be more than enough people to produce as long as society doesn't make make it almost impossible.

So taxation should be aimed at the seven deadly sins or something like them.

Novel enough for you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at my suggestion--that's basically what I'm doing without being intrusive.

Why complicate flat sales/VAT tax with progressive scale? Why this need to make poor to pay no taxes? Why not pay them more instead in the first place?

So you think the middle class should pay a much higher tax rate than the rich?

 

[barbos]

Why complicate flat sales/VAT tax with progressive scale? Why this need to make poor to pay no taxes? Why not pay them more instead in the first place?

So you think the middle class should pay a much higher tax rate than the rich?

No, everybody will pay the same tax, which would be on consumption.

 

[fromderinside]

Let's assume the primary reason the rich are so is because they are favored by society by birth. Further let's assume the primary reason for the middle class are those not so favored as to have levers to power, but, are favored to the extent they are very likely to provide themselves a satisfactory lifestyle. Finally let's assume primary reasons for the poor is they are those who are physically, culturally, and politically disadvantaged by the society.

A good society would be one which minimizes reasons for the poor, maintains reasons for the middle class and exploits those who are advantaged to those ends and one which provides infrastructure and support to enrich as many more than did the last generation as possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you think the middle class should pay a much higher tax rate than the rich?

No, everybody will pay the same tax, which would be on consumption.

The rich consume a lower portion of their income.

 

[barbos]

No, everybody will pay the same tax, which would be on consumption.

The rich consume a lower portion of their income.

so what?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's assume the primary reason the rich are so is because they are favored by society by birth. Further let's assume the primary reason for the middle class are those not so favored as to have levers to power, but, are favored to the extent they are very likely to provide themselves a satisfactory lifestyle. Finally let's assume primary reasons for the poor is they are those who are physically, culturally, and politically disadvantaged by the society.

A good society would be one which minimizes reasons for the poor, maintains reasons for the middle class and exploits those who are advantaged to those ends and one which provides infrastructure and support to enrich as many more than did the last generation as possible.

Lets assume there are 8 days in a week.

 

[skepticalbip]

Let's assume the primary reason the rich are so is because they are favored by society by birth. Further let's assume the primary reason for the middle class are those not so favored as to have levers to power, but, are favored to the extent they are very likely to provide themselves a satisfactory lifestyle. Finally let's assume primary reasons for the poor is they are those who are physically, culturally, and politically disadvantaged by the society.

A good society would be one which minimizes reasons for the poor, maintains reasons for the middle class and exploits those who are advantaged to those ends and one which provides infrastructure and support to enrich as many more than did the last generation as possible.

Lets assume there are 8 days in a week.

Well done. With all the assumptions counter to reality, I was thinking why couldn't we just assume that there are no poor, that everyone was wealthy.

 

[Jayjay]

The rich consume a lower portion of their income.

so what?

Because that means they would not be paying the same tax as the rich, they'd be paying more. Flat tax is not really flat, it's regressive.

 

[barbos]

so what?

Because that means they would not be paying the same tax as the rich, they'd be paying more. Flat tax is not really flat, it's regressive.

It's flat with respect to GDP/consumption.

 

[fromderinside]

With all the assumptions counter to reality, I was thinking why couldn't we just assume that there are no poor, that everyone was wealthy.

So your view of reality is .....

 

[Jayjay]

Because that means they would not be paying the same tax as the rich, they'd be paying more. Flat tax is not really flat, it's regressive.

It's flat with respect to GDP/consumption.

Not sure if you meant "GDP i.e. consumption" or "GDP divided by consumption". Both are incorrect, since consumption is only a part of GDP, which also includes both private and public investments, as well as exports.

 

[barbos]

It's flat with respect to GDP/consumption.

Not sure if you meant "GDP i.e. consumption" or "GDP divided by consumption". Both are incorrect, since consumption is only a part of GDP, which also includes both private and public investments, as well as exports.

Technically true, but irrelevant

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because that means they would not be paying the same tax as the rich, they'd be paying more. Flat tax is not really flat, it's regressive.

It's flat with respect to GDP/consumption.

But not with respect to income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With all the assumptions counter to reality, I was thinking why couldn't we just assume that there are no poor, that everyone was wealthy.

So your view of reality is .....

The point is you made a bunch of assumptions about how the world works that don't match up with reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

With all the assumptions counter to reality, I was thinking why couldn't we just assume that there are no poor, that everyone was wealthy.

So your view of reality is .....

... that the U.S. does not have the caste system of India in the 1700s that your assumptions described, that there is social and economic mobility, that there are those that are wealthy that came from middle class and poor backgrounds and there are those in the middle class and even poor that came from a wealthy background.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Tax total wealth at a graduated rate.

 

[barbos]

It's flat with respect to GDP/consumption.

But not with respect to income.

And it should not.