News Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[ginru]

I'm just throwing this idea out here but what about simply having a time-based, community service tax system and currency.

The regular tax would be used by the government only on property and luxury purchases while the alternative currency tax (let's call it the social dollar) would apply to every able-bodied person. As a time-based currency (1 hour = 1 social $) then each person's age and ability to work would determine how much of this tax they'd owe the government (pre-school, handicapped, and elderly would be exempt).

It could be designed to replace many volunteer-typical activities with an employment system for serving the community. So people would earn social $ by doing jobs like tutoring, cleaning up the park, daycare, teaching, etc., or if they're rich then they can simply hire someone to work their tax hours for real money. If they're poor they can use their surplus social $ income towards buying basic necessities from the nonprofit sector (namely food, shelter, clothing, preventative health care, and public education). I'd imagine nonprofit businesses could really blossom in this type of social $ sub-economy.

The targeted benefits could be in having a fairer and clearer tax system that reduces bureaucracy while generating revenue/labor force to actively support the government's services. The drawback is that may generate far less real revenue for the government as it replaces income tax with a time-work tax that requires human resources to be managed effectively enough to make up for the loss.

 

[Al68]

I do pay child support, which isn't court ordered in my case.

Years ago, I paid both alimony and child support (more than legally required) voluntarily until my former wife decided to consult a lawyer. The result was that she filed an affidavit with the court claiming essentially that she needed less money than the amount I was giving her, and obtained a court order requiring me to give her less than I was giving her voluntarily.

Now that's a lawyer for you. I never asked her what the lawyer charged her for that brilliant plan.

 

[Aknazer]

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate specifically?

The flaw outlined by several posts above and the difficult in talking with socialists comes from the insistence of separating the idea from the implementations. You get into this:

Person A: Socialism doesn't work.
Person B: How would we know? It's never been tried.
Person A: Sure it has - here's 3 examples.
Person B: They don't exactly match Marx's vision.
Person A: It came as close as is possible/they tried.
Person B: But it still wasn't.
Person A: Ok, so does that mean Marx's vision can't work?
Person B: No, it could work.
Person A: How? Where?
Person B: Um...I don't know, but I'm sure it can.

In the real world, if an idea can't actually be implemented, then it doesn't have a lot of value.

My original point was that socialism=/=stealing. Also you could potentially implement something like socialism, communism, etc in the real world. I've talked with several military members who view the military as the only truly working communistic state in the world. If you go to one of the various cult communes you could find a "working" version of socialism because they are all doing it voluntarily.

So again, while you could argue that the idea of socialism doesn't have a lot of value, that doesn't mean that socialism is stealing.

Also there are plenty of scientific theories that can't be 100% proven in the real world. That's why they're still labelled a "theory" and not a law, even though we base plenty of research and other things off of the theory. Socialism is simply a "political theory" and if the entire public were to be onboard with it it could work (which is why it can work in places like cult communes).

This is not worded well enough to respond to directly. However, I think you mean would I call these programs theft. Welfare yes of course. What else can you call it? The fact that it encourages poverty is just an added extra. Social security no, as long as the promise to pay me is as well protected as the promise to take from me. It's more like insurance than theft, but it is coerced. Education scholarships yes of course. What else can you call it? And I suspect it is the cause of higher costs for eduction. In the long run it may keep more people out of school than it allows in.

Yes I meant would you call them theft/stealing. I agree with you on most of the points. The programs mean well but are generally set up poorly and should be run by donations and non-profit organizations. Not the government. The main one I disagree with you on is social security. I view this as a ponzi scheme by the government. It uses the money that peter is paying now to pay for paul. And any profits that are made are then taken away to pay for other programs.

You are wrong when you say that what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society. In their own words what they want is equality. They call for fairness, not goodness, surely not happiness. No matter the cost to society. Why don't they break the fingers of pianists to level the playing field? Is it because they know they can't really achieve equality, and the cost to society is the only hope that remains in their hearts? The worse things are the better they are?

I'll concede the first bit. The last bit just seems rhetorical, and even if everyone "could" be awesome at everything you would still need people to pick up trash and clean toilets. Also by looking at the definition of "socialism" one could say that socialists who want 100% equality aren't fully following socialism as there's no way scrubbing toilets would ever be "equal" to being a singer or something like that. But rather socialism is more about the society and doing things to directly meet the needs of the society. Thus many "socialists" really only take from certain parts of the socialism political theory and don't follow it fully (as is the way with pretty much any political theory).

 

[Perspicacity]

Years ago, I paid both alimony and child support (more than legally required) voluntarily until my former wife decided to consult a lawyer. The result was that she filed an affidavit with the court claiming essentially that she needed less money than the amount I was giving her, and obtained a court order requiring me to give her less than I was giving her voluntarily.

Now that's a lawyer for you. I never asked her what the lawyer charged her for that brilliant plan.

Perhaps she was applying for some sort of government assistance that would require her to first seek court-ordered support from you? My daughter's mother was considering such a possibility at one time, but fortunately she was able to find work before it became necessary.

 

[Physics-Learner]

the first and foremost step to take is to eliminate most of govt, which i will refer to as GOVT EXCESS.

once this is done, there will be much less need to tax people.

and then most services should be paid by those that use them, when at all possible. i realize that sometimes the cost of administering this could outweigh its advantages. for example, it hardly makes sense to try and tax each person who goes to the beach - LOL.

 

[mugaliens]

Wasn't this question answered in the Constutution?

 

[IMP]

People should not be forced (with the threat of prison) to give up their labor. Taxation should be voluntary only.

 

[nismaratwork]

Years ago, I paid both alimony and child support (more than legally required) voluntarily until my former wife decided to consult a lawyer. The result was that she filed an affidavit with the court claiming essentially that she needed less money than the amount I was giving her, and obtained a court order requiring me to give her less than I was giving her voluntarily.

Now that's a lawyer for you. I never asked her what the lawyer charged her for that brilliant plan.

That is one of the most bizarre actions I've heard of (her's and the lawyer's, not yours) and I have to wonder what the hell was the thought process.

@Perspicacity: Fair enough, and I need some time to consider the second portion of your post. I'm not sure if you're angered in principle by what you perceive as group theft, or if it's a more thoughtful analysis. My gut reaction is that you dislike another's control, but when it comes to spontaneous action you're clearly not greedy or selfish. So much for pathological... ah well, that would have been fun.

One question left: what is it about alimony that you would have avoided given the chance, whereas child support is clearly not an issue for you? Would you say it's something that if asked for, you'd have given freely? Would you say that it's something you object to for other reasons?

 

[nismaratwork]

People should not be forced (with the threat of prison) to give up their labor. Taxation should be voluntary only.

That's funny, I feel the same way about adherence to laws regarding murder, but I think we're all better off with the status quo.

 

[Aknazer]

the first and foremost step to take is to eliminate most of govt, which i will refer to as GOVT EXCESS.

once this is done, there will be much less need to tax people.

and then most services should be paid by those that use them, when at all possible. i realize that sometimes the cost of administering this could outweigh its advantages. for example, it hardly makes sense to try and tax each person who goes to the beach - LOL.

Except what happens when someone doesn't use a service and so doesn't pay taxes for it, then decides they want to use it, followed by "not wanting to use it" until the next time? People could potentially abuse this type of system unless the taxes are directly tied to it (like how the taxes on gas are supposed to be used for road maitenence/repair).

Wasn't this question answered in the Constutution?

This is supposed to be a discussion on what the people of the forum think is the best way to generate revenue for a government and why. The Constitution doesn't answer that question.

People should not be forced (with the threat of prison) to give up their labor. Taxation should be voluntary only.

And when you choose to not pay your taxes then you can't use ANYTHING that has been paid for with government funds. So when you're being robbed the police can't come help you, when you're house is burning down the fire dept won't stop it (though they would stop it from spreading; and this has actually happened to a family that didn't pay the fire fighter fee in their area), you can't drive on public roads, etc.

Voluntary taxation would be a collosal failure. You wouldn't be able to enforce people not using government funded items, the government would get next to no income, and ultimately the country would collapse in on itself and revert to a third world nation.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe IMP meant that only the threat of death or loss of a limb should be used?

I'm kidding... truly I am.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Except what happens when someone doesn't use a service and so doesn't pay taxes for it, then decides they want to use it, followed by "not wanting to use it" until the next time? People could potentially abuse this type of system unless the taxes are directly tied to it (like how the taxes on gas are supposed to be used for road maitenence/repair).

the ideal system is to have, as you say, an easy way to charge for something "when used".

 

[IMP]

Maybe IMP meant that only the threat of death or loss of a limb should be used?

I'm kidding... truly I am.

Okay, maybe I worded that awkwardly.
I just don't feel like you should be able to take someone's labor from them directly, by force. Maybe an income tax on businesses/companys/corporations, which would tax us indirectly.

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, maybe I worded that awkwardly.
I just don't feel like you should be able to take someone's labor from them directly, by force. Maybe an income tax on businesses/companys/corporations, which would tax us indirectly.

Oh IMP, I was kidding around, I got your point! Sorry, this internet really needs fonts for joking...

 

[Perspicacity]

@Perspicacity: Fair enough, and I need some time to consider the second portion of your post. I'm not sure if you're angered in principle by what you perceive as group theft, or if it's a more thoughtful analysis. My gut reaction is that you dislike another's control, but when it comes to spontaneous action you're clearly not greedy or selfish. So much for pathological... ah well, that would have been fun.

One question left: what is it about alimony that you would have avoided given the chance, whereas child support is clearly not an issue for you? Would you say it's something that if asked for, you'd have given freely? Would you say that it's something you object to for other reasons?

The very thought that the government would presume to order me to financially support another adult human being directly comes very close to sending me into a rage. As I am also completely opposed to marriage I've never been placed in the position, but I think I would actually destroy everything I own and go to prison before I paid so much as a penny in alimony.

I will also not interact socially with another person who receives court-ordered alimony—I consider him or her to be the most repugnant form of thief imaginable.

Also, if I were to find myself member of a jury in a case where a man or woman took drastic violent action to avoid alimony—well, let's just say jury nullification.

 

[nismaratwork]

The very thought that the government would presume to order me to financially support another adult human being directly comes very close to sending me into a rage. As I am also completely opposed to marriage I've never been placed in the position, but I think I would actually destroy everything I own and go to prison before I paid so much as a penny in alimony.

I will also not interact socially with another person who receives court-ordered alimony—I consider him or her to be the most repugnant form of thief imaginable.

Also, if I were to find myself member of a jury in a case where a man or woman took drastic violent action to avoid alimony—well, let's just say jury nullification.

Well, I applaud your honesty, but I can't claim to agree with you. Still, thanks for answering my questions.

To answer yours, no, I'm not posturing, but rather I'm glolating. I was not exactly shocked by the injunction (as a reading of this thread should indicate), and while Walker certainly may evade recall, he's destroyed his political capital for nothing.

Am I amused? Oh hell yes, but am I posturing? No. I have no stake in this beyond pure dislike of the tactics used, and illegal passage of legislation.

 

[Perspicacity]

Well, I applaud your honesty, but I can't claim to agree with you. Still, thanks for answering my questions.

To answer yours, no, I'm not posturing, but rather I'm glolating. I was not exactly shocked by the injunction (as a reading of this thread should indicate), and while Walker certainly may evade recall, he's destroyed his political capital for nothing.

Am I amused? Oh hell yes, but am I posturing? No. I have no stake in this beyond pure dislike of the tactics used, and illegal passage of legislation.

Don't you think it may be possible that you're gloating prematurely? The bill may survive its court challenges, and if it does, and the economy improves at all in Wisconsin, it is likely that Gov. Walker will get the majority of the credit—whether it is deserved or not. I'll admit he made a very large gamble, but the dice haven't stopped rolling yet and you're acting like he's already lost the game.

 

[nismaratwork]

Don't you think it may be possible that you're gloating prematurely? The bill may survive its court challenges, and if it does, and the economy improves at all in Wisconsin, it is likely that Gov. Walker will get the majority of the credit—whether it is deserved or not. I'll admit he made a very large gamble, but the dice haven't stopped rolling yet and you're acting like he's already lost the game.

It's possible that I am, but I'm willing to take it in the chops if I'm wrong.

 

[Al68]

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate specifically?

Yes, to a degree.

Basically Marx was a revolutionary socialist. He advocated the outright theft of the means of production, to be owned by government, and a permanent ban on private ownership of any means of production. A permanent ban on private employment and commerce. Government was to use force to maintain a complete monopoly of every industry.

Basically the same thing as if Walmart were to use force to put every other business in the country out of business, overthrow government, use force to maintain a complete monopoly over all industry and commerce, and use force to assert lawmaking power over every person in the country.

For their own good, of course.

 

[Al68]

And when you choose to not pay your taxes then you can't use ANYTHING that has been paid for with government funds. So when you're being robbed the police can't come help you, when you're house is burning down the fire dept won't stop it (though they would stop it from spreading; and this has actually happened to a family that didn't pay the fire fighter fee in their area), you can't drive on public roads, etc.

Those things are not generally paid for by the income tax historically in the U.S., cost a very tiny fraction of current tax revenues, and basically have nothing to do with why we have an income tax.

Local property taxes and state sales taxes are more than adequate to pay for fire and police plus many other things, and the fuel tax (and tolls) covers the cost of roads.

Of course, you're right that those taxes are not voluntary, but their collection can at least be justified on the basis that the money is owed for services rendered. And yes, police and fire protection are services rendered to a person whether or not his house catches fire.

And for those that don't know, the fuel tax is not required for fuel not used on public roads, and if you do pay the tax for fuel not used on public roads, you can even get a refund. You can't get any more "tax only for services rendered" than that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Those things are not generally paid for by the income tax historically in the U.S., cost a very tiny fraction of current tax revenues, and basically have nothing to do with why we have an income tax.

Local property taxes and state sales taxes are more than adequate to pay for fire and police plus many other things, and the fuel tax (and tolls) covers the cost of roads.

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

 

[Al68]

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

Sure, but then my response would have been quite different, if I even posted one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sure, but then my response would have been quite different...

Please don't let the slightly different looking letters in my username stop you from sharing your thoughts!

Seriously, it's questions like this - what I consider the slightly harder ones - that I was hoping to hear responses to when I made this thread. For supporters of taxation systems that rely on payment linked to usage - and you could count me among that number - the hard question is not how governments ought to seek funding for building roads, or running fire and police departments, or maybe even paying for public education. It is the funding of duties that are not easily associated with individual use, like providing for a national defense or responding to a large-scale infectious outbreak, that make the basis for a valuable discussion, in my opinion.

 

[Aknazer]

All of this is true (I think), but Aknazer could just as easily have added "when Saddam Hussein fires his nuclear tipped ICBMs at your suburban neighborhood in Topeka, Kansas, the US Military can't save you by retroactively starting a preventive war to spread democracy in the Middle East".

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you come across to me as so. I do think that the military should protect us from those that would directly threaten us, but going into "spread democracy" is a craptastic reason to go to war. Hell we're not even a "democracy" but rather a democratic republic. So if Hussein were to threaten the U.S. with ICBMs I would have no qualms with the military launching a preemptive attack to prevent them from being able to carry out the threat.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but you come across to me as so.

Yes, I was, though that wasn't the primary purpose. What can I say? I couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot!

I do think that the military should protect us from those that would directly threaten us, but going into "spread democracy" is a craptastic reason to go to war. Hell we're not even a "democracy" but rather a democratic republic. So if Hussein were to threaten the U.S. with ICBMs I would have no qualms with the military launching a preemptive attack to prevent them from being able to carry out the threat.

Agreed. And I'm solely at fault for inviting this discussion, but I'd like to request that people not respond to the obvious insinuation in my post, lest the thread veer off into a discussion about the Iraq War. As punishment, I shall accept one post each, filled with slings and arrows of outrageous rebuke, from whosoever shall choose to hurl them.

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously, it's questions like this - what I consider the slightly harder ones - that I was hoping to hear responses to when I made this thread. For supporters of taxation systems that rely on payment linked to usage - and you could count me among that number - the hard question is not how governments ought to seek funding for building roads, or running fire and police departments, or maybe even paying for public education. It is the funding of duties that are not easily associated with individual use, like providing for a national defense or responding to a large-scale infectious outbreak, that make the basis for a valuable discussion, in my opinion.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters except for people on the far ends of the spectrum. Most proposals I've seen for flat taxes and national sales taxes include provisions for exempting low-income people or many of the items low-income people spend much of their money on (such as food). Ultimately, people have an idea of what they think people should pay in taxes and will adjust any tax system to make that profile happen.

I support the current type of system only because it is possible to implement it in a simple way, whereas it is not possible to simply implement a usage-based system in a way that makes it progressive. Regardless, the reality is that our tax system is ridiculously overcomplicated, so my vision is only that: a vision.

 

[Al68]

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

I don't know of any kind of plan to fund the military that resembles the "pay for services" model like the road tax. Of course there are many other alternatives to an income tax to fund the military, such as a sales tax, VAT tax, excise taxes, tariffs, etc.

 

[Al68]

Ultimately, people have an idea of what they think people should pay in taxes and will adjust any tax system to make that profile happen.

That's true for any tax system except an income tax. It can and is made so complex that people are misled about what different people actually pay. That enables politicians to enact tax policies that most people oppose.

As a single, but IMO very representative example, I heard Rev Sharpton on talk radio say that the income tax should be changed so that the top 5% pay about 15% of all income taxes. He had no idea that such a change would greatly reduce the taxes paid by the rich, and even advocated the opposite in the same interview.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's true for any tax system except an income tax. It can and is made so complex that people are misled about what different people actually pay.

As a single, but IMO very representative example, I heard Rev Sharpton on talk radio say that the income tax should be changed so that the top 5% pay about 15% of income taxes. He had no idea that such a change would greatly reduce the taxes paid by the rich, and even advocated the opposite in the same interview.

Of course, this is just for taxable income. My tax bracket is much higher, but in the end I normally pay about 15% of my real income in Federal taxes. I do opt to pay Self-Employment tax for the sake of SS but could easily avoid most of it.

 

[Aknazer]

Yes, I was, though that wasn't the primary purpose. What can I say? I couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot!

Agreed. And I'm solely at fault for inviting this discussion, but I'd like to request that people not respond to the obvious insinuation in my post, lest the thread veer off into a discussion about the Iraq War. As punishment, I shall accept one post each, filled with slings and arrows of outrageous rebuke, from whosoever shall choose to hurl them.

The primary purpose of that post was to ask how governments should fund the military. Clearly, this can not be achieved in as easily a targeted manner as the building of roads and bridges. What solution do pay-as-you-go proponents suggest?

Ahh. Well I wasn't really directing it at that particular war, but in general I believe in preemptive attack. And to add to the discussion, I would say the military would need to be properly funded to be able perform such preemptive attacks. A "military" such as Japan's that is only able to "defend" itself will not be able to properly defend the country against anyone truly intent on attacking the country. A country that is too weak to properly attack is too weak to properly defend.

 

[ginru]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

 

[nismaratwork]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

Uh huh... and when people like Perspacitity show up, what then?

Sorry ginru, that pipe dream has been tried, and AFAIK it leads to predators ruling the roost.

 

[Aknazer]

Since the involuntary taking of one's wealth leads to discord and rebellion, I'd rather see a system emerge that opts for social investment for services and focuses on incentive-based solutions among all its members. I'd prefer this Pay-into-Progress approach instead of the income tax or even the pay-as-you-go option that has been mentioned.

But how would it work? It might just be me, but I honestly don't understand how something like this would actually fund a government. What exactly do you mean by "Pay-into-Progress" as to me that simply sounds like having companies charge more for the goods so that they can then re-invest that added cost into more research, which then makes me wonder how one would pay into roads, the military, firefighting, and various other government functions. Also with your talk of "social investment for services" and "incentive-based solutions among all its members" it sounds a lot like the socialism ideal to me.

In addition, it generally takes far more than the "involuntary taking of one's wealth" for a government to collapse because it is that taking of the money that pays for what the government does, but it's things like oppresion, tyranny, incompetence, etc that cause rebellion. Even the American Revolution wasn't directly caused by the taking of the money (the taxes) even though they played a part, but rather the fact that the colonies didn't have a voice when it came to being taxed (ie they were oppressed) while all areas inside of Britain had a voice in the matter. Now I'm not saying there's never been any revolts because of the taking of money (over-taxation can easily lead to it), but that there is generally other reasons for the revolt outside of simply the taking of one's money.

 

[nismaratwork]

But how would it work? It might just be me, but I honestly don't understand how something like this would actually fund a government. What exactly do you mean by "Pay-into-Progress" as to me that simply sounds like having companies charge more for the goods so that they can then re-invest that added cost into more research, which then makes me wonder how one would pay into roads, the military, firefighting, and various other government functions. Also with your talk of "social investment for services" and "incentive-based solutions among all its members" it sounds a lot like the socialism ideal to me.

In addition, it generally takes far more than the "involuntary taking of one's wealth" for a government to collapse because it is that taking of the money that pays for what the government does, but it's things like oppresion, tyranny, incompetence, etc that cause rebellion. Even the American Revolution wasn't directly caused by the taking of the money (the taxes) even though they played a part, but rather the fact that the colonies didn't have a voice when it came to being taxed (ie they were oppressed) while all areas inside of Britain had a voice in the matter. Now I'm not saying there's never been any revolts because of the taking of money (over-taxation can easily lead to it), but that there is generally other reasons for the revolt outside of simply the taking of one's money.

I took away: "crystal-gripping hippie colony", and not in the good way from his post.

 

[Astronuc]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

Nothing in life is fair, but death is a great equalizer, so I guess that's fair. Beyond that, I agree with you.

 

[Gokul43201]

I can't find an option I like.

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

There has to be some taxation.

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

Which do you like?

 

[Gokul43201]

I put my vote in as soon as I started the thread. The poll is public - votes can be seen by clicking on one of the histogram tallies.

 

[nismaratwork]

I put my vote in as soon as I started the thread. The poll is public - votes can be seen by clicking on one of the histogram tallies.

Ahhhh, "I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation"

Thanks, I didn't know the vote-breakdown system.

 

[Perspicacity]

Uh huh... and when people like Perspacitity show up, what then?

Sorry ginru, that pipe dream has been tried, and AFAIK it leads to predators ruling the roost.

Lol! I had almost the exact same thought. It seemed to me that he thinks that the government will just politely explain to me how subsidizing my neighbors mortgage or health-care is the right thing to do and that I would gladly contribute.

Everyone does understand that I (and other people like me) really just don't feel like carrying water for others, right? I don't mind contributing for things like roads or national defense—but it already pisses me off enough to know that people who've never paid a dime in taxes get to walk on the roads that I helped pay for. To add insult to injury, much of those people think that I should pay for their education, health-care, retirement, artwork, etc...

 

[nismaratwork]

Lol! I had almost the exact same thought. It seemed to me that he thinks that the government will just politely explain to me how subsidizing my neighbors mortgage or health-care is the right thing to do and that I would gladly contribute.

Everyone does understand that I (and other people like me) really just don't feel like carrying water for others, right? I don't mind contributing for things like roads or national defense—but it already pisses me off enough to know that people who've never paid a dime in taxes get to walk on the roads that I helped pay for. To add insult to injury, much of those people think that I should pay for their education, health-care, retirement, artwork, etc...

I thought you might, I mean, you represent a valid and real portion of the population; it would be plain stupid to ignore that. You're obviously part of a range of multiple views on how money should be moved (or not), and for all that we disagree in areas... voluntary community love is not my style either.

 

[Proton Soup]

I can't find an option I like.

There has to be some taxation.

The tax system should be more fair. But then what is considered fair?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html

maybe the government could start a for-profit corporation whose revenues are used to fund government services.

 

[ginru]

Lol! I had almost the exact same thought. It seemed to me that he thinks that the government will just politely explain to me how subsidizing my neighbors mortgage or health-care is the right thing to do and that I would gladly contribute.

Everyone does understand that I (and other people like me) really just don't feel like carrying water for others, right? I don't mind contributing for things like roads or national defense—but it already pisses me off enough to know that people who've never paid a dime in taxes get to walk on the roads that I helped pay for. To add insult to injury, much of those people think that I should pay for their education, health-care, retirement, artwork, etc...

This anger at the thought of someone forcing you to carry water for others is part of what I was getting at. When you're the one with the apple taken from you, it creates a resentment and a natural resistance to such action. When you're the one who feels it unfair that the neighbor has been systematically favored with having nice apples while you're born in a cycle of poverty, then there's resentment in the other direction too. Conflict in the form of either violence or simply stagnant political partisanship may result between those who feel that forcefully taking the apples is necessary for the collective good and those who want to keep all their apples to themselves.

This is why that socialist with the noble dream (but flawed methods) should instead focus on an alternative yet non-polarizing method of empowerment for the guy with no apples. Creatively innovate and teach the poorer neighbor to value something that is under-appreciated yet plentiful... perhaps the seed (Time-based currency). Teach him to plant that and invest in his own orchard, thus turning the poor man's backyard into a laboratory for innovation and experimentation of ways to create the best gardening methods. In other words, create Social Progress through Non-Profit industries that thrive on an alternative currency and thus effectively lessen the cost of or take over many government functions. Soon the rich neighbor will be knocking on his door to invest in those ideas as that's more economical than buying his apples from overseas. That's how I define Progress and how we should be paying into it through cooperation, investment and experimentation.

Now on the topic of how to fund a military, I feel this to be an inefficient approach to peace. It's like a community where everyone feels they need to have their own guards to protect their house, thus costing everyone more in the long run. The progressive solution would be to establish a police force and for the community to invest towards that system of order. Instead of pushing for this progress, we prefer to live/act in fear of terrorists, rogue nations, etc. coming to kill us, but then that fear leads to violent actions that in turn give inspiration to criminals and terrorists to recruit against us. Hence, why I prefer a tactic of starving them of recruits by investing in socially progressive solutions to end poverty, unemployment and extremism. Turn the Time and Human Potential of the underclass into valued resources.

So yes, I'm a dreamer and a crazy one at that, but I feel Utopian goals are what the world should be actively moving towards through investment, incentive and creative innovation. Money is an artificial creation, but the innovation of its usage seems to mainly favor the Haves and of course then the burden of payment falls on them (which they don't like). The Have-Nots in turn get left behind and exploited through destructive extremism and cycles of poverty (which they don't like). Most of us wish there was a better system but how do we as a civilization get to that better system unless we lose our fear of experimentation?

 

[ginru]

This time-currency system mentioned here is what I'm getting at, though I'd like to see it evolved even more to create innovative new industries and economies that perhaps could replace welfare entirely along with some other government services:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec10/maine_11-17.html

I hope that we could empower the younger generation with this kind of thinking by using it in the education system. Perhaps as an incentive for students to support their school by getting paid time credits to tutor and TA classes, thereby lessening the need to hire more teachers (thus saving real money).

Shift low-income neighborhoods and slums towards a campus living system where people can learn, live, teach, work and share resources locally within this alternate economy. And this would be a dream come true for businesses looking to recruit a low-cost, innovative and motivated work force.

Getting back to my original point though, I feel that instead of fighting over the apple and how to cut it up, we should focus more on the seeds and thus avoid having leftovers attract elements that undermine both houses. I envision the ideal system as a balancing act between dual economies, with the alternative one mentioned above filling a sort of passive, maternal role (Non-Profit sector) that works in tandem with the traditional, aggressive role of the competitive economy (Profit sector). Right now it seems we excel at things like technology and business innovation which thrive on the latter but we struggle at community values and social progress which depend on the former. If we find the right balance then perhaps we'll finally be evolving beyond the wastefulness or even the need for conventional governments.

 

[Jasongreat]

ginru;3210399]This anger at the thought of someone forcing you to carry water for others is part of what I was getting at. When you're the one with the apple taken from you, it creates a resentment and a natural resistance to such action. When you're the one who feels it unfair that the neighbor has been systematically favored with having nice apples while you're born in a cycle of poverty, then there's resentment in the other direction too. Conflict in the form of either violence or simply stagnant political partisanship may result between those who feel that forcefully taking the apples is necessary for the collective good and those who want to keep all their apples to themselves.

IMO, the neighbor might of also started with no apples, but he/she went out got a job or invented their own, worked hard, saved money by sacrificing and not buying everything they wanted, and eventually went out and bought the house with a good apple tree. The idea that some need others to provide is ridiculous. Atleast in the US, anyone can get rich, as well as everyone being able to go broke, it is getting extremely more difficult to do either.

This is why that socialist with the noble dream (but flawed methods) should instead focus on an alternative yet non-polarizing method of empowerment for the guy with no apples. Creatively innovate and teach the poorer neighbor to value something that is under-appreciated yet plentiful... perhaps the seed (Time-based currency). Teach him to plant that and invest in his own orchard, thus turning the poor man's backyard into a laboratory for innovation and experimentation of ways to create the best gardening methods. In other words, create Social Progress through Non-Profit industries that thrive on an alternative currency and thus effectively lessen the cost of or take over many government functions. Soon the rich neighbor will be knocking on his door to invest in those ideas as that's more economical than buying his apples from overseas. That's how I define Progress and how we should be paying into it through cooperation, investment and experimentation.

Not only do you want to force one neighbor to support his neighbor, you also want the recipient to be forced into agricultural experiments? Wouldn't it be an easier and less expensive solution to just have everyone take take care of themselves and if they want apples to go about learning how to do it, or just go to his neighbor and offer to buy one? As far as the taxes go, not only does the victim have his give his neighbor money, he also has to fund the bureaucracy needed to transfer his/her wealth.

Now on the topic of how to fund a military, I feel this to be an inefficient approach to peace. It's like a community where everyone feels they need to have their own guards to protect their house, thus costing everyone more in the long run. The progressive solution would be to establish a police force and for the community to invest towards that system of order. Instead of pushing for this progress, we prefer to live/act in fear of terrorists, rogue nations, etc. coming to kill us, but then that fear leads to violent actions that in turn give inspiration to criminals and terrorists to recruit against us. Hence, why I prefer a tactic of starving them of recruits by investing in socially progressive solutions to end poverty, unemployment and extremism. Turn the Time and Human Potential of the underclass into valued resources.

You'll get no argument from me on the size and scope of the US military. I am not as niave to think we don't need any military, on the otherhand I think having one of ours' stature only makes it easier to stick our nose where it doesn't belong, costing lives and billions in wealthe. Having a country full of able bodied men who owned any weapon they could design build or think of and describe to another to build would, imo, make any other imperialistic government think twice about invasion.

So yes, I'm a dreamer and a crazy one at that, but I feel Utopian goals are what the world should be actively moving towards through investment, incentive and creative innovation. Money is an artificial creation, but the innovation of its usage seems to mainly favor the Haves and of course then the burden of payment falls on them (which they don't like). The Have-Nots in turn get left behind and exploited through destructive extremism and cycles of poverty (which they don't like). Most of us wish there was a better system but how do we as a civilization get to that better system unless we lose our fear of experimentation?

Nothing wrong with being a dreamer, i am one myself, but being a dreamer that needs others to supply their dreams is a dissapointment waiting to happen. Money is only a tool making it simpler to trade ones labor/product to another for their labor/product. Money is a liberating invention, not a oppressive one. The only ones who get left behind are those who choose to. You could say they don't know how, or what needs to be done, but if they spent as much time reading, watching, thinking and learning about how to improve themselves or situation, as they do reading, thinking and learning about how society,government owe them, their 'luck' would improve. Reminds me of a quote from Thomas Jefferson that goes something like, I am a firm believer in luck and I find that the harder I work, the luckier I get.

Its not the '"haves" fault that others "have-not", but it is the the "have-nots" who suffer most from the current income tax, as well as most other proposals. Most of the rich sell their labor/products to the not as rich, so if we raise the tax on the rich, we raise the tax on the poor. Even if the percentages and amounts are miniscule the not as rich still have to devote more of their labor/product to live, whereas the rich have already made enough off of their labor/product that they can sit back and withdraw from the economy.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought the list was exhaustive - maybe I'm missing something. Could you explain how it isn't?

None of the options demand the complete absence of taxation, and the first three demand the existence of some taxation.

Somewhere between:
I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation
I prefer a system with a somewhat larger role for income based taxation

What about the same role for income taxed based taxation?

Or none of the above.

I would prefer that everyone pays a fair share. Then again, I think the federal government should be more conservative with respect to expenditures.

 

[russ_watters]

I would prefer that everyone pays a fair share.

Opinions on what a "fair share" is vary pretty widely...

 

[Gokul43201]

Somewhere between:
I prefer a system with a somewhat smaller role for income based taxation
I prefer a system with a somewhat larger role for income based taxation

What about the same role for income taxed based taxation?

Perhaps it wasn't worded very well, but the first option is expected to cover that. In the US, about 33% of total Federal revenue comes from income taxes, and I think it makes up nearly 50% in Australia. I imagine there may be some European countries where it is a little higher still.

[PLAIN]http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgs_chart_pie1.png

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/index.php

 

[Dale]

That is for the state governments I believe. The federal government has a much higher fraction from income tax and has almost no income from fees I believe.

My preference is for the "fair tax".