[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('diemos', '
')The real question is not how much taxes we should be paying, it's what is the proper job of government. Once you decide what the proper job of government is then you can see how much it's going to cost to do it.

I've always liked this book's view of what government is supposed to do.

http://www.amazon.com/Systems-Survival- ... 359&sr=1-6

[Quinny]

Identifying the role of Government is obviously important, but is often used as an argument to simply minimise government by those arguing for minimal public spending. The argument is often made that Government spending is bad whilst Economic growth in the private sector is good.

The classic example is the comparison between the US delivery of healthcare and the UK National Health System. I'm not putting the NHS forward as a paragon of virtue and I know there are always efficiency savings to be made, but overall the UK get much better value for money than you do in the US. Not only do we have universal healthcare, but cost per capita is much less.

There are some things that are delivered better by Government and some that are better provided by private sector, but in the middle there is a huge swathe of goods and services that can be delivered by either depending to a certain extent on the economic situation and also on the politics of the Government involved.

Nationalisation of industries is often at the request of the industries themselves and Governments of all persuasions make decisions to do so based on strategic importance of industries and its economic impact on employment and balance of trade etc.

The Government bad and inefficient v the Private sector good and efficient is fallacious and IMHO an argument put forward to strengthen the case for the transfer of industries back into the private sector (usually at a knock down price).

I've made the point before, but when working in the US for a short time (but still paying UK tax), I got into the debate with colleagues from all around the globe about tax levels paid. Although the Scandinavians paid more than me and the Americans paid less, when things like healthcare and childcare were taken into account, we were all paying a similar amount (about 50% of our salaries) to cover what is generally considered essential services.

I believe that Peak Oil means that more services will need to be provided by Government as mass unemployment and economic contraction mean that people without jobs will have to be fed in some way and this is actually borne out by the food stamp stats coming from the US.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I suspect that tax rates will grow up but ability to collect anything will crumble down until system involving big government and nanny state falls of the cliff.
And the more efficient tax man is the lower *lien* will exist to be collected due to a natural wealth destruction process operating under such circumstances.
At this point there won't be a need to worry how high taxes are as hardly anyone will pay them and if so, only to Mafia and their protection rackets.
Tax man will lose ability to support existence of his employer, eg cancerous government, either due to his own inefficiency/corruption or due to a problem related to vanishing collectable lien.


Welcome into postprogressive chaos where economy is ruined so much that it is no longer possible to ruin it further.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') suspect that tax rates will grow up but ability to collect anything will crumble down until system involving big government and nanny state falls of the cliff.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') suspect that tax rates will grow up but ability to collect anything will crumble down until system involving big government and nanny state falls of the cliff.

[vision-master]

Yeah, forget the corporate nanny state - lol

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '
')As a Libertarian, I just sit back and have a good laugh while I watch city after city declare bankruptcy since the underlying assumptions of cradle-to-grave socialism would never work mathematically.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')But it is also true that the nature of capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth by the few. This is detrimental to capitalism's own long term interests.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'H')ow is it detrimental? Those few will die eventually. The wealth will be squandered by their relatives and apprehended by their partners, competitors, and, of course, the government. How many 1 billion + fortunes are out there that lasted longer than 100 or 150 years? 5,6?

[kublikhan]

I also believe massive wealth inequality is detrimental from a social point of view:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he reality that power and wealth create more power and wealth may be to blame, also. This theory is called “The Axioms of Power”. The first is: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This was quoted first by, Lord Acton in Britain, who saw that when people have absolute power, they become absolutely corrupt. People and organization try to hold on to power at all costs. Once a power structure takes hold, it is very hard to change it or remove it. The second basic axiom of power is that the powerful always try to create an outside enemy, so that the people have to have a savior, so they look to the powerful. The third basic axiom is “divide and conquer.” If the followers can be turned against each other, they loose focus on who is actually in power. If the masses are arguing with each other, they won’t be able to bond together and change the power structure. This is generally done through propaganda and rhetoric not based in facts or truth. The fact that 20% of America’s citizens own 93% of her financial wealth equals a high amount of power for those citizens to keep and grow their portion, while causing the lower classes to survive on less resources.

Studies do show that societies with a high level of inequity perform poorly in basic social issues. The overall health of the population and life expectancy is lower in countries where inequity is high. Lower paid workers suffer more chronic stress, heart disease, ulcers, type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and premature aging. mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are substantially worse in more unequal countries. In fact, America ranks among the worst of all developed countries in these areas, which, I think, would surprise many people. In all of these important areas of social concern, having a very high level of inequity between the classes, resulted in the US having the worst wealth distribution and the worst overall performance. This makes a vicious circle, as the poor do not do well in school, then they and up in prison, they have poor health, they become a burden on the rich.

As an American, I feel these facts are very disturbing. If the trickle up of the wealth of the middle classes continues at the same pace that it has for the past 80 years, by 2050 that top 20% will own 97% of the total wealth of this country. The bottom 80% will then have to share just 3%. That would mean 8 million more of us living under the poverty line. The effect of such a loss of wealth is something I don’t believe any of us can imagine today. I hope we never have to.

[The_Toecutter]

I am against taxing the labor of individual people precisely because it amounts to involuntary servitude. You should be able to keep the fruits of your own labor without men with guns being used to demand a cut of your work.

That being said, given that corporations are clearly not people(that supreme court ruling, among many others, calls into question the validity of Marbury v Madison), I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing them. They are a collective, chartered by the very government that they have later purchased. Under my proposed system, if business owners don't want to pay taxes on their profit, then they don't have to incorporate, don't have to meet most regulations, and can waive the privilege of limited liability with it and be held accountable for their actions as an owner. This would be a wonderful thing for small business owners who have started and run their own enterprise as they could keep what they truly earn. They will have every incentive not to be negligent. That being said, reform in our legal system *is* needed given all of the frivolous cases present.

There is also nothing wrong with taxing things like lottery winnings, winnings from casinos, or capital gains from the stock market. This money isn't truly earned by one's work. It's earned by chance. Want to gamble and not pay taxes on your winnings? Then do it in your basement with a group of friends. You're not entitled to a profit margin just because you own stock.

The budget could potentially be balanced by nullifying the national debt interest that Americans are liable to pay to the Federal Reserve and banks(and abolishing the central banking monstrosity altogether), cutting defense spending to 10% of current levels, getting rid of the NSA/DEA/FBI/CIA/HSA/FEMA/TSA/ect, ending the war on drugs, ending the war on terror, getting rid of the bankrupt social security ponzi scheme, ending all subsidies(especially corporate subsidies and indirect subsidies such as the military spending that keeps oil prices artificially low), gutting the profit margins delivered to big pharma and big insurance through medicare/medicaid, ect. Obviously, while social spending is not desirable, it should be the last thing on the chopping block due to the existence of people who have no ability to support themselves through no fault of their own. The best investment that a society can make is in things it actually needs to function in a healthy manner that allows people to thrive; this investment still needs to be minimized, but should perhaps be the only investment made.

I will make a more in-depth post later. I envision a United States with a total budget of under $1.5 trillion, a revenue about the same, no no income tax on wages or unincorporated small businesses whatsoever, a corporate income tax for the transnational corporations of no less than 40% with no loopholes, bare minimal social services(assistance for those who are unable to work so they aren't dying in the streets, but no social security), and a government that exists to protect freedom instead of erode it(a government should protect the right of workers to unionize, protect against unwarranted surveillance by private corporations, protect communities from being poisoned by others, ect).

Left vs Right is a false paradigm in the U.S. The real dichotomy is between libertarianism and totalitarianism, and the private sector can be every bit as tyrannical as an out of control government. Your most basic property right is the right to ownership of your own body, and oddly, most nations who emphasize what they call "economic freedom" have completely and utterly destroyed that right every bit as much as, if not more than, certain left wing dictatorships have.

[careinke]

Toecutter,

Nice post and some good points to think about. I have to disagree with taxing corporations. All that would do, is accelerate companies leaving the country.

I believe a consumption tax, with a prebate to offset the tax up to the poverty level, (Thereby completely untaxing the poor), would work better. A good start would be the "Fair Tax" (HR-25).

One of the reasons I like it, is it encourages companies to stay in the US. The company has a zero tax rate, pays no SS tax, and their product is taxed at the same rate as products coming from overseas. The overseas company, on the other hand, has to pay the taxes from the country he is based in, plus his product is further taxed at the point of sale in the US.

In addition, all the money corporations keep overseas, (to avoid paying US taxes), would be repatriated back to the US.

Finally, a US consumption tax would help counter the current globalization we have going on now.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

[dinopello]

I'm for the individual. One individual. One individual who owns everything. Now, lets discuss how tax policy should work. It's not that far fetched as that is how it was and it seems we are heading back in that direction.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I') am against taxing the labor of individual people precisely because it amounts to involuntary servitude. You should be able to keep the fruits of your own labor without men with guns being used to demand a cut of your work.

[Pops]

A flat tax with a rebate and all the loops plugged sounds about like my idea.

But I disagree we should subsidize corporation profits, many localities have given away the store to lure business to town and have been left holding the bag. We can't compete with the third world on labor costs, giving away our infrastructure, education, judicial systems and all the rest is foolish. We need to come up with a better way to compete than just cheap.

Here's whats going on right now.
Walmart hires people part time minimum wage and keeps them there in order to not pay benefits. They hand out applications for food stamps and medicaid along with their employee badges all the while they lobby against raising the minimum wage.

Meanwhile the taxpayer coughs up Refundable Earned Income Credits, food stamps, medicaid and I don't know what else, directly subsidizing walmarts right to pay a wage that can't support a worker!

In addition to subsidizing their labor costs we should subsidize their infrastructure costs as well?

[dinopello]

If everyone in the country was equal in wealth, the economy at that instant in time would be a network of mostly balanced transactions. Over time, some would be more successful at accumulating wealth by various mechanisms (thrift, industriousness, theft, etc)

In our current situation, with the 1% owning the majority of the wealth, the economy mostly (i.e. the exchanges of stuff) depends on the wealthy pushing their wealth downward by some mechanism.

Currently that is not happening

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 2012 Survey of Affluence and Wealth in America, from American Express Publishing and Harrison Group, finds that One Percenters are hoarding three times as much cash as they were two years ago. Their savings rate soared to 34 percent in the second quarter of 2012, up from 12 percent in 2007.

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'T')oecutter,

Nice post and some good points to think about. I have to disagree with taxing corporations. All that would do, is accelerate companies leaving the country.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I') am against taxing the labor of individual people precisely because it amounts to involuntary servitude. You should be able to keep the fruits of your own labor without men with guns being used to demand a cut of your work.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I') am against taxing the labor of individual people precisely because it amounts to involuntary servitude. You should be able to keep the fruits of your own labor without men with guns being used to demand a cut of your work.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'I') am against taxing the labor of individual people precisely because it amounts to involuntary servitude. You should be able to keep the fruits of your own labor without men with guns being used to demand a cut of your work.