2800 Monthly Income for All Adults

[scyther]

why should the tax rate be higher for someone who has "more" in regards to land, no matter whether they inherited it, or by years of their own hard labor, through tough times, bought and increased the size of their acreage ?

It shouldn't be higher, as long as the land is worked. If it's simply hoarded, it decreases productive capacity which drives inflation through unnecessary shortages.

That makes sense, but I wonder what would qualify as "working" the land. And how would this be applied to something like a forest? Making it need to be worked might encourage people to cut it down instead of leaving it as is. (not saying your idea is bad, just a thought)

[scyther]

To be clear: I'm not arguing for higher property taxes for houses or any property that most people would own. I think those should be lower, actually. But if someone has a large amount of land set aside for their own personal use, it seems like they should pay something for the privilege... seems like a better way collect revenue than taxing people's labor.

[Engineer]

why should the tax rate be higher for someone who has "more" in regards to land, no matter whether they inherited it, or by years of their own hard labor, through tough times, bought and increased the size of their acreage ?

It shouldn't be higher, as long as the land is worked. If it's simply hoarded, it decreases productive capacity which drives inflation through unnecessary shortages.

That makes sense, but I wonder what would qualify as "working" the land. And how would this be applied to something like a forest? Making it need to be worked might encourage people to cut it down instead of leaving it as is. (not saying your idea is bad, just a thought)

There's other ways to use forests besides cutting them down. Using them for grazing actually helps the forest, clearing out the deadwood is good, and there's also sustainable harvest techniques. Opening it up to hunting is another good use. There are other uses, but already we see ranching jobs, people cutting firewood, mills making finished lumber, and all the jobs which come from hunters chasing bambi through the woods. Those are all good things.

Letting the land sit completely idle so the undergrowth gets out of control (where another yellowstone-type inferno can get started) is a bad thing.

[Engineer]

If taxes need to come from somewhere, doesn't it make sense to have the people who can most afford them pay them, rather than those who are just scraping by?

That line of thinking got us to the welfare state we're in today.

The US got by for quite a while on customs duties, and the income tax started off with the promise that it would only be the rich who paid. Eventually the rich turned it around to the point where they pay a much lower rate than the serfs.

"If" we need to tax (I'm still convinced that inflating fiat is better), taxing everyone equally is the only real solution. Anything else leads to special interest lobbying and power grabs by politicians.

[scyther]

If taxes need to come from somewhere, doesn't it make sense to have the people who can most afford them pay them, rather than those who are just scraping by?

That line of thinking got us to the welfare state we're in today.

The US got by for quite a while on customs duties, and the income tax started off with the promise that it would only be the rich who paid. Eventually the rich turned it around to the point where they pay a much lower rate than the serfs.

"If" we need to tax (I'm still convinced that inflating fiat is better), taxing everyone equally is the only real solution. Anything else leads to special interest lobbying and power grabs by politicians.

That line of thinking may have contributed to welfare state, but there's a big difference- I'm not talking about giving anything to the poor, I just the government should stop taking from them first, since taxes hurt them more. A complicated tax code would (and has) lead to what you say, but a simple progressive tax, rather than a flat tax, shouldn't lead to too much lobbying. Just have the rich pay what they do now, the middle class less than now, and the poor nothing. Liberals always talk about helping the poor, but they never seem to think of simply not taxing income under, say, $30,000. A lot of people wouldn't even need to file under that system, which would reduce the money and time needed to collect taxes.

[Engineer]

That line of thinking may have contributed to welfare state, but there's a big difference- I'm not talking about giving anything to the poor, I just the government should stop taking from them first, since taxes hurt them more. A complicated tax code would (and has) lead to what you say, but a simple progressive tax, rather than a flat tax, shouldn't lead to too much lobbying. Just have the rich pay what they do now, the middle class less than now, and the poor nothing. Liberals always talk about helping the poor, but they never seem to think of simply not taxing income under, say, $30,000. A lot of people wouldn't even need to file under that system, which would reduce the money and time needed to collect taxes.

I've been poor, and still think a straight tax is the way to go (if you insist on taxing income). Another option which would fit into your idea of progressive taxation would be a wealth tax offset by hours of work created with that wealth.

If you or I have a $200K home, we know that it creates jobs. There's maintenance, street repairs, labor for sewer, water, gas, and electric service, etc. For the sake of argument let's say it creates 20 hours of work per month. Compare that to a millionaire with all his money in a savings account who isn't creating any jobs. Would it be out of line to tax him if he doesn't create 100 hours of work per month?

This form of taxation would still allow the rich to avoid taxes like they do today, but only if they invested in companies (etc.) which produced American jobs. The fur coats and Picassos locked up in their basements would become liabilities rather than stores of wealth.

[johnbrickner]

The newer, simpler, 1040:

Line 1 How much money did you earn? $30,000.00

Line 2 Move the decimal point over one place. $3,000.00

Line 3 This is how much you owe.

[scyther]

That line of thinking may have contributed to welfare state, but there's a big difference- I'm not talking about giving anything to the poor, I just the government should stop taking from them first, since taxes hurt them more. A complicated tax code would (and has) lead to what you say, but a simple progressive tax, rather than a flat tax, shouldn't lead to too much lobbying. Just have the rich pay what they do now, the middle class less than now, and the poor nothing. Liberals always talk about helping the poor, but they never seem to think of simply not taxing income under, say, $30,000. A lot of people wouldn't even need to file under that system, which would reduce the money and time needed to collect taxes.

I've been poor, and still think a straight tax is the way to go (if you insist on taxing income). Another option which would fit into your idea of progressive taxation would be a wealth tax offset by hours of work created with that wealth.

If you or I have a $200K home, we know that it creates jobs. There's maintenance, street repairs, labor for sewer, water, gas, and electric service, etc. For the sake of argument let's say it creates 20 hours of work per month. Compare that to a millionaire with all his money in a savings account who isn't creating any jobs. Would it be out of line to tax him if he doesn't create 100 hours of work per month?

This form of taxation would still allow the rich to avoid taxes like they do today, but only if they invested in companies (etc.) which produced American jobs. The fur coats and Picassos locked up in their basements would become liabilities rather than stores of wealth.

A wealth tax sounds like a good idea to me from an economic standpoint (again, I don't know that much about economics, so make of that what you will) since it would encourage economic activity rather than just hoarding. But it would give the government an excuse to demand to know everything you have. The fur coats and Picassos (and precious metals and numismatics, of course) that could be in your basement are a great reason for the government to demand to look in your basement. Of course the income tax already creates massive privacy violations, but I think a wealth tax would be significantly worse.

[barrytrot]

That line of thinking may have contributed to welfare state, but there's a big difference- I'm not talking about giving anything to the poor, I just the government should stop taking from them first, since taxes hurt them more. A complicated tax code would (and has) lead to what you say, but a simple progressive tax, rather than a flat tax, shouldn't lead to too much lobbying. Just have the rich pay what they do now, the middle class less than now, and the poor nothing. Liberals always talk about helping the poor, but they never seem to think of simply not taxing income under, say, $30,000. A lot of people wouldn't even need to file under that system, which would reduce the money and time needed to collect taxes.

I've been poor, and still think a straight tax is the way to go (if you insist on taxing income). Another option which would fit into your idea of progressive taxation would be a wealth tax offset by hours of work created with that wealth.

If you or I have a $200K home, we know that it creates jobs. There's maintenance, street repairs, labor for sewer, water, gas, and electric service, etc. For the sake of argument let's say it creates 20 hours of work per month. Compare that to a millionaire with all his money in a savings account who isn't creating any jobs. Would it be out of line to tax him if he doesn't create 100 hours of work per month?

This form of taxation would still allow the rich to avoid taxes like they do today, but only if they invested in companies (etc.) which produced American jobs. The fur coats and Picassos locked up in their basements would become liabilities rather than stores of wealth.

You do realize that holding any metal would then be wealth-taxable also right as it just sits there without creating jobs?

[IdahoCopper]

The best idea for taxes is the Dead Flat Tax.

Income is taxed at XX% for everyone, no deductions, no complicated tax codes or rules. If any member of Congress proposes any change to that law, or proposes any new tax, the Sergeant-at-Arms frog-marches the miscreant to the top of the Capitol steps and shoots him through the head. His family is billed for the bullet. Taxes can only be changed if 60% of Congress commits suicide in this exact manner, in any one month period of time.

That is a Dead Flat Tax with stability, that everyone can plan for decades in advance.

[knibloe]

The newer, simpler, 1040:

Line 1 How much money did you earn? $30,000.00

Line 2 Move the decimal point over one place. $3,000.00

Line 3 This is how much you owe.

Works for God. Should work for us as well.

[theo]

The best idea for taxes is the Dead Flat Tax.

Income is taxed at XX% for everyone, no deductions, no complicated tax codes or rules. If any member of Congress proposes any change to that law, or proposes any new tax, the Sergeant-at-Arms frog-marches the miscreant to the top of the Capitol steps and shoots him through the head. His family is billed for the bullet. Taxes can only be changed if 60% of Congress commits suicide in this exact manner, in any one month period of time.

That is a Dead Flat Tax with stability, that everyone can plan for decades in advance.

True. A flat tax would be the most equitable system. It would create a level playing field and raise more revenue. Unfortunately, it will never happen. First, the complexity creates a baked-in advantage for very wealthy individuals and large corporations. Remember when GE didn't pay any Federal taxes a couple years ago? It also allows government to pick winners and loses through tax policy (think IRS/TEA Party scandal). Finally it has created an entire make-work industry for tax accountants and lobbyists.

As to the second part of your statement; shooting people for political speech might cause some minor 1st Amendment issues.

[IdahoCopper]

As to the second part of your statement; shooting people for political speech might cause some minor 1st Amendment issues.

No, no, no, you didn't get the full meaning. A Congresscritter can go up to the podium and speak all he wants about changing the Dead Flat Tax. His 1st Amend. rights are intact. He can filibuster for days, trying to convince Congress that an increase for spending, or whatever, is needed so much that 60% of Congress should follow him to the top of the steps.

It is the instant when the Congresscritter submits any bill proposing a change to the Dead Flat Tax, that the Sergeant-at-Arms acts to extinguish that Congresscritter. If we are lucky, his eloquent speech to change the tax will inspire 60% of the Members to follow him to the top of the steps, to get their bullet to the head.

[aloneibreak]

To be clear: I'm not arguing for higher property taxes for houses or any property that most people would own. I think those should be lower, actually. But if someone has a large amount of land set aside for their own personal use, it seems like they should pay something for the privilege... seems like a better way collect revenue than taxing people's labor.

privilege ??

what makes you think it wasnt their LABOR that got them that land ?

it seems to me you think the large land owners just "lucked out " or something

maybe im reading you wrong

[aloneibreak]

If taxes need to come from somewhere, doesn't it make sense to have the people who can most afford them pay them, rather than those who are just scraping by?

That line of thinking got us to the welfare state we're in today.

The US got by for quite a while on customs duties, and the income tax started off with the promise that it would only be the rich who paid. Eventually the rich turned it around to the point where they pay a much lower rate than the serfs.

"If" we need to tax (I'm still convinced that inflating fiat is better), taxing everyone equally is the only real solution. Anything else leads to special interest lobbying and power grabs by politicians.

That line of thinking may have contributed to welfare state, but there's a big difference- I'm not talking about giving anything to the poor, I just the government should stop taking from them first, since taxes hurt them more. A complicated tax code would (and has) lead to what you say, but a simple progressive tax, rather than a flat tax, shouldn't lead to too much lobbying. Just have the rich pay what they do now, the middle class less than now, and the poor nothing. Liberals always talk about helping the poor, but they never seem to think of simply not taxing income under, say, $30,000. A lot of people wouldn't even need to file under that system, which would reduce the money and time needed to collect taxes.

so whats the reason to TRY in life ?

why should the reward for your hard work and success be paying more in taxes per dollar you earned ?

combined with the fact that you can make more by living off the gubment (read ME) than by working a job to make a living - its no wonder the leeches are multiplying uncontrollably

[Engineer]

Another option which would fit into your idea of progressive taxation would be a wealth tax offset by hours of work created with that wealth.

If you or I have a $200K home, we know that it creates jobs. There's maintenance, street repairs, labor for sewer, water, gas, and electric service, etc. For the sake of argument let's say it creates 20 hours of work per month. Compare that to a millionaire with all his money in a savings account who isn't creating any jobs. Would it be out of line to tax him if he doesn't create 100 hours of work per month?

This form of taxation would still allow the rich to avoid taxes like they do today, but only if they invested in companies (etc.) which produced American jobs. The fur coats and Picassos locked up in their basements would become liabilities rather than stores of wealth.

You do realize that holding any metal would then be wealth-taxable also right as it just sits there without creating jobs?

I didn't say it would be popular among stackers.

Another way to do it would be to only tax stuff with titles, or create a threshold dollar amount. Limiting it to titled property would be much less intrusive. Exempting gold/silver would be a way for people to cheat the tax, and would actually benefit stackers as money poured into PMs. Exempting PMs, though, would keep them volatile as people used them for market hedges. Depending on your point of view, that could be good or bad.

[scyther]

so whats the reason to TRY in life ?

why should the reward for your hard work and success be paying more in taxes per dollar you earned ?

combined with the fact that you can make more by living off the gubment (read ME) than by working a job to make a living - its no wonder the leeches are multiplying uncontrollably

You realize I didn't say taxes on the rich and middle class should be higher, right? Is reducing taxes on the poor going to make them less likely to work? Is there no reason to try in life now because you'll have to pay more per dollar the more you earn?

[scyther]

To be clear: I'm not arguing for higher property taxes for houses or any property that most people would own. I think those should be lower, actually. But if someone has a large amount of land set aside for their own personal use, it seems like they should pay something for the privilege... seems like a better way collect revenue than taxing people's labor.

privilege ??

what makes you think it wasnt their LABOR that got them that land ?

it seems to me you think the large land owners just "lucked out " or something

maybe im reading you wrong

I'm not saying their property was just handed to them, that they didn't work for it, or that they shouldn't have it- but in my view, as I explained before, land isn't the same as other property in that it already existed before humans even existed, and was not created by anyone, so it can't really be treated as absolute property. If that's the case, the right to exclusive use of the land could be called a "privilege". I didn't mean it to be pejorative, if that's how it sounded.

[Mossy]

Of late I am putting in 20 hour days to keep up with business demands. (Notice the time stamp on this comment.)

I started to join the debate, but WTF, it would be pointless. If you don't have the desire to risk it all on running your own company.... you just would not understand.

Sounds like you founded the company. Once the founder steps out of the way, the managers start running things to suit themselves, and it's a whole nuther ball game.

Do you recall the "fast track MBA" fad from the 80's? First action was to destroy all the files possible. Run up the short term profits, get a good reference, and be gone to a new job in 6 months. Being there a year later meant failure (as all the chickens came home to roost). Oh, but it was popular with the BOD.