Hello,
I would like to pose these questions to the community:
1. If you founded a new nation with whatever level of government you deem necessary, would you fund this government with income tax or outcome (i.e. sales) tax?
2. If you say sales tax, what would a successful implementation of this look like in the US? The biggest problem I see is those that are already FI are spending post-tax dollars on goods/services that are now enormously more expensive than they planned for. Could we solve this with an elongated transition? Refunding money into Roth IRA accounts?
Here's an older similar thread: viewtopic.php?t=1032
Cain's Fair Tax
I think these are one and the same question, as the biggest issue would still exist for both scenarios. The sales tax is a regressive tax. It would penalize the poor people, middle class and ERE'ers far more than higher income people.
In the end, I would use both. Though, I would simplify the income tax a lot and add a few other income streams to it, and put a small sales tax on everything with a large one on very specific items to change behaviors, such as gas (national security, economic and ecological issue = needs changed).
In the end, I would use both. Though, I would simplify the income tax a lot and add a few other income streams to it, and put a small sales tax on everything with a large one on very specific items to change behaviors, such as gas (national security, economic and ecological issue = needs changed).
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
One of the problems of government income is stability. Sales tax, income tax, use tax (e.g. toll bridge) are all variable, thus not stable. Property tax can be stable unless it's based on market value.
An "existence tax" gets around this, but you have to build in a tiered system, like the current income tax rates or else have lots of people who owe more tax than they have income.
An "existence tax" gets around this, but you have to build in a tiered system, like the current income tax rates or else have lots of people who owe more tax than they have income.
If I were queen (ha!) I would certainly implement a sales tax. And in order to care for the vulnerable, I would exempt a certain baseline level of vital expenses such as food, housing, utilities, clothing and transportation from this tax. Once you hit the annual ceiling on those items, you'd owe taxes on anything else you purchased. You'd also owe full taxes on anything non-exempt. I would not do anything involving refundable cash; you would get the tax break at the point of sale only. I would not look at income.
And businesses would be taxed at a different (lower) rate than consumers in order to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. Certain businesses deemed vital to national security (think food and water supply) would probably be tax free.
I would probably keep certain other taxes in place that do not deal with income, such as the estate tax. I might also tax debt, just to discourage it.
And businesses would be taxed at a different (lower) rate than consumers in order to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. Certain businesses deemed vital to national security (think food and water supply) would probably be tax free.
I would probably keep certain other taxes in place that do not deal with income, such as the estate tax. I might also tax debt, just to discourage it.
If you say sales tax, what would a successful implementation of this look like in the US?
It would probably look a lot like a state that has no income tax, but a sales tax. Like: Texas, Washington, Wyoming, South Dakota, Florida, Nevada, and Alaska.
Of course, I believe they all have property taxes too, but those are typically for the town and/or county.
It would probably look a lot like a state that has no income tax, but a sales tax. Like: Texas, Washington, Wyoming, South Dakota, Florida, Nevada, and Alaska.
Of course, I believe they all have property taxes too, but those are typically for the town and/or county.
Yes, and it would probably be actually easier to implement than the current income tax system. You could exempt certain things (like most states exempt food) as well to make it less regressive. You might have a system that looked like the income tax system in 1913 when only the top 1-2% of earners paid "income" tax.
I don't see (2) as a big issue, because you would not be paying any tax on future income from investments. All your investments would be like having a retirement account that you can always access without penalty at any age.
I don't see (2) as a big issue, because you would not be paying any tax on future income from investments. All your investments would be like having a retirement account that you can always access without penalty at any age.
I have no real plan as to how to fund the new nation and it's government, but I do have some ideas on what I would NOT have.
There would be no illegal income tax to fund a central bank that is in itself, illegal, and not part of the nation (Fed Reserve). There would be no mafia IRS to collect the illegal income tax to put in the illegal Fed Reserve. Of course, my new constitution (charter) would eliminate all this elite one world order robberies of the citizens. In other words, I would model the "ideals" of the new nation after the USA, but I would insure the crookedness that resulted does not follow.
If humanly possible, I would have a fair consumption tax to fund the government. If someone has paid for a piece of real estate, then it is paid for and no taxing of it as it belongs to the owner. I would not allow any taxing of something someone has worked hard to own. I might consider a nation wide tax where someone works up a simple financial statement, and includes net worth, and then tax the net worth at 5 to 8 percent in brackets. Any tax would be a graduated and totally fair taxing of net financial worth. Most likely, a persons primary home and possessions would be exempted. Any tax code would be dead simple to understand.
There would be no illegal income tax to fund a central bank that is in itself, illegal, and not part of the nation (Fed Reserve). There would be no mafia IRS to collect the illegal income tax to put in the illegal Fed Reserve. Of course, my new constitution (charter) would eliminate all this elite one world order robberies of the citizens. In other words, I would model the "ideals" of the new nation after the USA, but I would insure the crookedness that resulted does not follow.
If humanly possible, I would have a fair consumption tax to fund the government. If someone has paid for a piece of real estate, then it is paid for and no taxing of it as it belongs to the owner. I would not allow any taxing of something someone has worked hard to own. I might consider a nation wide tax where someone works up a simple financial statement, and includes net worth, and then tax the net worth at 5 to 8 percent in brackets. Any tax would be a graduated and totally fair taxing of net financial worth. Most likely, a persons primary home and possessions would be exempted. Any tax code would be dead simple to understand.
-
George the other one
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:55 pm
- Contact:
I like the progressive spending tax suggested in Luxury Fever. You take the income, you take the savings, you have both on your income statements and your savings accounts and pay progressively on the difference, that is, your spending level. That, and a Tobin tax. No other taxes, ideally. If I need more, I'd tax the shit out of the financial sector.
I'd also have a government-run central bank that would return its income from prime rate equally to all citizens. Either that or I'd forbid central banking and allow local currencies.
I'd also have a government-run central bank that would return its income from prime rate equally to all citizens. Either that or I'd forbid central banking and allow local currencies.
"Of course, my new constitution (charter) would eliminate all this elite one world order robberies of the citizens."
Any country that did this would end up more like North Korea than the U.S. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of corruption/inefficiencies in this area that needs to be taken care of, but isolationism would be detrimental.
You would still have to have the IRS, as your tax scheme isn't exactly simple.
Any country that did this would end up more like North Korea than the U.S. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of corruption/inefficiencies in this area that needs to be taken care of, but isolationism would be detrimental.
You would still have to have the IRS, as your tax scheme isn't exactly simple.
@Chad
I think you fully misunderstood my point owing to the quote you posted from me. Or, I fully blew it when I wrote that part. (More probable). However, let's try it another way.
Here is your question: You can play it like the TV quiz show.
He said: "Let me produce and control a country's money, and I care not who makes it's laws".
Your answer: Who is_____________________.
_____________________________.
I think you fully misunderstood my point owing to the quote you posted from me. Or, I fully blew it when I wrote that part. (More probable). However, let's try it another way.
Here is your question: You can play it like the TV quiz show.
He said: "Let me produce and control a country's money, and I care not who makes it's laws".
Your answer: Who is_____________________.
_____________________________.
@Chad,
I am inclined to go with @Spence on this one. He got it right the first time itself. It is one thing to have free enterprise, but it is an entirely another thing to prop up and promote Plutocracies around the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.
I know this is all conspiracy theory stuff to many and is best left unstirred, but IMHO, it is certainly something that the States needs to tackle firmly and fast.
I am inclined to go with @Spence on this one. He got it right the first time itself. It is one thing to have free enterprise, but it is an entirely another thing to prop up and promote Plutocracies around the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.
I know this is all conspiracy theory stuff to many and is best left unstirred, but IMHO, it is certainly something that the States needs to tackle firmly and fast.
@Spence,
LOL!
More Rap than poetry if you ask me.
I am a Capitalist (*), but I am opposed to the structuring of the current monetary system. (I read that one somewhere and that is exactly my stand on it as well)
(*) a little less rational and more woolly than the bulk of you here but I don't let that bother me one bit!
LOL!
More Rap than poetry if you ask me.
I am a Capitalist (*), but I am opposed to the structuring of the current monetary system. (I read that one somewhere and that is exactly my stand on it as well)
(*) a little less rational and more woolly than the bulk of you here but I don't let that bother me one bit!
@Spencer
Rothschild
I don't disagree with that statement. I just don't see how a tax discussion leads to the Fed or that saying the Fed is bad without providing a viable alternative is much of an argument.
@Surio
You can probably classify me as one of those people who thinks this is more conspiracy/black helicopter than 100% true. I'm not sure how the Fed props up plutocracies by itself or even how it would be the main culprit. I'm not arguing that there aren't plutocracies and that the U.S. and every other country isn't helping them through laws and policies, but I don't see the direct connection to the Fed. I do see an indirect connection.
Rothschild
I don't disagree with that statement. I just don't see how a tax discussion leads to the Fed or that saying the Fed is bad without providing a viable alternative is much of an argument.
@Surio
You can probably classify me as one of those people who thinks this is more conspiracy/black helicopter than 100% true. I'm not sure how the Fed props up plutocracies by itself or even how it would be the main culprit. I'm not arguing that there aren't plutocracies and that the U.S. and every other country isn't helping them through laws and policies, but I don't see the direct connection to the Fed. I do see an indirect connection.
Hi @Chad,
> that saying the Fed is bad without providing a
> viable alternative is much of an argument.
As Spence conveyed it in his first point, you really do not need an 'alternative' to the Fed (nor the Fed itself), as the treasury can do the notes issuing itself. See my link given above. (The US treasury has done so during the civil war... (Lincoln was assassinated because of that act, is where we enter into conspiracy theory).
> one of those people who thinks this is more
> conspiracy/black helicopter than 100% true.
I know you are that kind of guy.
> I'm not sure how the Fed props up plutocracies
> by itself or even how it would be the main culprit.
Right upfront, I give credence to the conspiracy theory, but I am of the opinion there is no smoke without fire. Here's the latest on the Fed shenanigans:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-2 ... nding.html
From the article itself:
The Federal Reserve, chastised by Congress for lending money to foreign institutions including a Libyan-owned bank, is once again the lender of last resort for banks around the world it knows little about.
Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who wants to abolish the Fed, and Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, have criticized its loans to foreign institutions.
Euro-zone banks and other institutions were more than $350 billion in debt to the Fed’s emergency-lending facilities at one point during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, [...] The analysis was based on Fed documents released earlier this year [....] Fed lending to these entities totaled more than $100 billion on an average day.
“European governments have substantial dollar holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, so why not sell some of their dollar securities to support their own banks?”
Look, I don't know how much truth or black copter this is, but even Ron Paul has been quite vocal on this issue of the Fed.
http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legisla ... -459-s202/
Both of us must be born day before yesterday to believe that the Fed will actually leave a clear trail for a news story about who are all the plutarchs that it keeps propping up all the time.
One can only infer.
For example, the documentary, inside job shows how beautifully the "revolving doors" policy works in the Fed so that everyone goes scot-free into some lucrative job or the other. The latest demonstration of this is Christine Lagarde. She sang a different tune in that documentary... Now, she's taken to singing a different tune altogether. Of course, she is now the darling of the media :-O
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opini ... ssage.html
> that saying the Fed is bad without providing a
> viable alternative is much of an argument.
As Spence conveyed it in his first point, you really do not need an 'alternative' to the Fed (nor the Fed itself), as the treasury can do the notes issuing itself. See my link given above. (The US treasury has done so during the civil war... (Lincoln was assassinated because of that act, is where we enter into conspiracy theory).
> one of those people who thinks this is more
> conspiracy/black helicopter than 100% true.
I know you are that kind of guy.
> I'm not sure how the Fed props up plutocracies
> by itself or even how it would be the main culprit.
Right upfront, I give credence to the conspiracy theory, but I am of the opinion there is no smoke without fire. Here's the latest on the Fed shenanigans:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-2 ... nding.html
From the article itself:
The Federal Reserve, chastised by Congress for lending money to foreign institutions including a Libyan-owned bank, is once again the lender of last resort for banks around the world it knows little about.
Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who wants to abolish the Fed, and Senator Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent, have criticized its loans to foreign institutions.
Euro-zone banks and other institutions were more than $350 billion in debt to the Fed’s emergency-lending facilities at one point during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, [...] The analysis was based on Fed documents released earlier this year [....] Fed lending to these entities totaled more than $100 billion on an average day.
“European governments have substantial dollar holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, so why not sell some of their dollar securities to support their own banks?”
Look, I don't know how much truth or black copter this is, but even Ron Paul has been quite vocal on this issue of the Fed.
http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legisla ... -459-s202/
Both of us must be born day before yesterday to believe that the Fed will actually leave a clear trail for a news story about who are all the plutarchs that it keeps propping up all the time.
One can only infer.For example, the documentary, inside job shows how beautifully the "revolving doors" policy works in the Fed so that everyone goes scot-free into some lucrative job or the other. The latest demonstration of this is Christine Lagarde
. She sang a different tune in that documentary... Now, she's taken to singing a different tune altogether. Of course, she is now the darling of the media :-Ohttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opini ... ssage.html
I self-edited my last post above, as I was veering off course with the OP. I also noticed on another thread that someone else did the same, or so it appeared, and I was impressed by that action.
Actually, I had no intention of bringing up any conspiracy topics, and while I am quite read up on that material, I have given it up along with smoking and wearing lime green leisure suits. Being in the military, I have seen thousands of various helicopters, but I have never seen a black, unmarked one in service. And I always thought "tinfoil" was something my wife wrapped the leftovers in.
Suiro said: "I know this is all conspiracy theory stuff to many and is best left unstirred", and I tend to agree with him. However, it is seemingly getting harder and harder to discuss most any thing political without some "CT" rearing it's ugly head. I think for those based in Revisionism and Pseudoscience as a direction of their views, the effects of manipulation by "unseen hands" is just distasteful for them. So 'nuff said.
Surio brings his clear thinking to almost any situation, and I do appreciate his support and references. In closing I would say you can have a real nice life by never looking into the "shadows", but at some point you may have to, or want to, see things as they are. Not that you can do anything about it. Collectively, maybe.
@Jacob
I would say tax all music with the following exemptions:
Bee Gees
Abba
The Moody Blues
Celene Dion
Whitney Houston
Actually, I had no intention of bringing up any conspiracy topics, and while I am quite read up on that material, I have given it up along with smoking and wearing lime green leisure suits. Being in the military, I have seen thousands of various helicopters, but I have never seen a black, unmarked one in service. And I always thought "tinfoil" was something my wife wrapped the leftovers in.
Suiro said: "I know this is all conspiracy theory stuff to many and is best left unstirred", and I tend to agree with him. However, it is seemingly getting harder and harder to discuss most any thing political without some "CT" rearing it's ugly head. I think for those based in Revisionism and Pseudoscience as a direction of their views, the effects of manipulation by "unseen hands" is just distasteful for them. So 'nuff said.
Surio brings his clear thinking to almost any situation, and I do appreciate his support and references. In closing I would say you can have a real nice life by never looking into the "shadows", but at some point you may have to, or want to, see things as they are. Not that you can do anything about it. Collectively, maybe.
@Jacob
I would say tax all music with the following exemptions:
Bee Gees
Abba
The Moody Blues
Celene Dion
Whitney Houston