First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
back to the regressive tax (none / 0)
I was just mentioning the VAT.


 I guess you don't understand what a regressive tax is.  Taxes should be based on income, all income. And people earning more than 3 to 5 million a year should be taxed very heavily after that. If you want to simplify it by getting rid of deductions that's fine by me. 

I get how a consumption tax will hit small time crooks but it won't get the big timers.  You do know that there is a bible prophecy about having to be marked in order to purchase goods and services.

I use my credit card for everything for the rebates, but I would never want to live in a cash free world. That would be the ultimate big brother.

by sisco66 on 03/12/2010 04:53:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally (none / 0)
You arrived at the point where I have problems with my own proposal. I would indeed be very big brotherish. On the other hand the amount of data would be so immense that it would probably create anonymity by default. Still there should be certain restrictions to guarantee anonymity, you definitly don't want the government to know more about you than the friendly banker next door.
This could lead to a situation where mugging (and many other crimes) would become impossible, because it would be just too easy to find out, who forced you to transfer money on their account and arrest that person.
What would you do with all those empty prisons and the crooks who would generate wealth outside prisons, instead of wasting it inside? Would there be enough space for all the people who wouldn't be killed in robberies? What to do with all the money that would be saved?

The tax would not be regressive, it would be progressive. Everyone would have to pay the same percentage, but you get a certain "bonus" at the beginning. If the tax would be 25% and the unconditional basic income would be 15,000 you wouldn't pay taxes, unless you earn more than 60,000. That is the break even point where the amount of taxes you pay catches up with the unconditional basic income (which even Bill Gates would receive).

Another thing that bothers me: I was thinking that my ideas were rather creative and original, but when I did some research I came up with a name of someone I really didn't want in my camp: Milton Friedman for a Keynesian like me this is a guy you don't expect to be in your camp when you consider giving money to everybody. He did some research on the basic unconditional income, but called it negative income tax he even lobbied to Nixon to impement the NIT, but ended up fighting against it, when he found out that it would be an added tax and not a replacement for the current system.
He proposed a flat tax of 25%, which made me think about my numbers. He wanted to tax only income, not every exchange of money, he obviously didn't want to nationalize the banks or legalize prostitution, drugs and gambling, this and many other details considere I have to assume that a realistic number for my system would be a tax of about 15% (max.). This means everybody who is currently paying taxes would pay less and still the revenue would be higher. Nobody would pay more than 15% tax. In fact everybody would pay less, because they get the unconditional basic income(even though that would be a very small amount of money compared to what people like Bill Gates would have to pay).

All this means your critique basicly boild down to two points:

  1. Jealousy: You just want rich people to pay a higher percentage, based on principle, not economics

  2. Privacy: This would be worth discussing, because I totally see your point, on the other hand you already have to tell the government how much you make, it would only be much easier to control it.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/13/2010 06:11:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
getting somewhere (none / 0)
I am on board with what most of what you are suggesting, at least in theory. Other than the currency of course. So people making less than 60k would get a check at the end of the year for an approximate amount paid on consumption taxes?  That sounds ok, but I think you are going to find some difficulty with it being applied equitably. Are you going to tax mortgage payments and stock sales, as well as car purchases? What I am getting at is that the tax will greatly influence what people buy. 

In order to maximize income, people will buy as little and as small as possible, which in itself is regressive. It may turn out to be more complicated than the current form.

Apparently you don't understand how greed works or the part it played in the current economic meltdown. This is not about jealousy this about the facts on the ground and a long and well documented history of what happens when wealth and power accumulate to a small number of people.

The greed and corruption in this country exploded when Regan repealed the 72% tax bracket in the 1980’s. The 72% bracket was the modified version of FDR’s 90% bracket done under Kennedy/Johnson that removed loop hole while appearing to cut taxes. Once that protection was removed, the looting began. Pension plans were raided; companies were bought up and dismantled selling off the parts and destroying jobs. We have had 30 years of greed based polices. I think that’s enough.

FDR figured out that the only way to control the sort of greed and corruption that led to the first Republican Great Depression was to eliminate the ability for people to keep the money they stole. John Maynard Keynes understood that government plays an important part in shaping economy through monetary policy as well as incentive and disincentives.
 
An upper tax bracket that targets reckless speculation and looting of companies is a very important disincentive. Unfortunately, most people don’t understand what Keynes was advocating. He was not advocating for the government to continual pump money into the economy just to keep people working.  He advocated targeting growth industries that would provide long term return on investment, while in the meantime keeping people working. What the Chinese are now doing is closer to the Keynes than anything we have done since the space program started. I would count the internet but the capital gains tax cut under Clinton gave it a black eye.

By the way, we are pretty well off, so it’s clearly not jealousy. However, I am very pissed that my home has been devalued.


by sisco66 on 03/14/2010 10:21:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course it's all theory (none / 0)
Step one would be nationalizing the banks, then everybody would need to have a bank account. They would get 1250$ every month.
Then, when they pay something the tax gets deducted. For example if I buy a new jacket for 100$ the store owner would get only 75$ and his tax is already paid,
Mortgages would mean that the money is going to the banks/state, so it wouldn't matter if any tax gets paid. It would just be the state paying a tax to the state.

"In order to maximize income, people will buy as little and as small as possible,"

You're trying to tell me that this would be a change, to what is already happening? I for one, always try to spend as little money as possible.

The rich people couldn't get any money, without the tax being paid, because if money gets moved from one person's account to another person's account the tax gets deducted.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/14/2010 10:51:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Big Brother Indeed (none / 0)
Ya that's probably not going to fly.

As far as crime goes. What's to stop people from going back to the barter system and/or robbying people for jewelry. What about gold and silver or other fairly easy to value commodities?

I don't think it is going to have the results you want to stop crime. Criminals are very resourcefull. Just look at what goes on in the prison system.

by sisco66 on 03/14/2010 11:07:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If Big Brother would be controlled? (none / 0)
I admit that it would not have those extrem influences on crime that I would be hoping for. Well at least they would pay taxes.

However, when you want to ignore the crime fighting, all informations could be handled anonymously. If the banks would just have a finger print and an identification number, it would be even more anonymous than nowadays.
How the privacy issues are going to be handled can really be talked about. With some thinking we could get to a solution.

The main problem is that it would require a revolution, because the system would be so fair that the big cats wouldn't stand for it. No matter how much the people on this forum say, when nothing changes or things get worse, there's going to be a violent revolution, I don't believe the people in America, or Europe are still capable of revolution.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/15/2010 04:48:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sad but true (none / 0)
I don't believe the people in America, or Europe are still capable of revolution.

by sisco66 on 03/15/2010 06:30:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

First the Revolution | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)