Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[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".

 

[ginru]

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?

We're misunderstanding each other as the bold part is actually what I'm getting at... basically a voluntary, incentive-based approach rather than forcing the rich neighbor to give money to the poor neighbor. If the poor one manages to work his own investment first, then eventually the rich one will voluntarily pay for that service rather than outsource the job overseas.

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.

That's ok as it would be like owning a gun for protecting your house, which I'm not actually against. Raising large sums of money to fund an army to protect your house though is what I feel to be inefficient. This is why when asked how to fund a large military, I would prefer reducing the size of government while going with more cost-effective strategies to peace.

Now I don't expect the current generation in power to make real social progress since our perspectives are dominated by fear of the world. For us, having an army to guard the house and impose our will is considered essential, but eventually we'll get a future generation with a perspective more conducive to fundamental changes. My goal is to figure out how to inspire and empower such a generation, which would hopefully be adept at investing in progress rather than acting out in fear.

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.

I feel the bold part is the ideal rather than the reality. If someone's life amounts to being a wage slave that works hard but just barely stays above water and doesn't feel they have the time/energy to better themselves, then I don't see that as a liberating situation. That's why I'm calling for an alternative currency/economy that serves to innovate and evolve these standards. The conventional currency would continue to serve the Haves, and of course it should be allowed to do so. But the underclass needs an alternative system that better serves their interests, and ideally I see both systems as being able to work in tandem with each other for everyone's benefit.

And again, I'll repeat that the wealthy should NOT be forced to fund this system against their will. By the end of this year, I'm actually hoping to launch a project like this and I'm determined to avoid depending on donations or government funding.

 

[nismaratwork]

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

History would seem to indicate that "fair" is how much you can take before people fight back beyond the capacity of society's means to resist.

In short, there is no fair, but that also means there is no UNfair. So... "eat the rich"?

 

[nismaratwork]

We're misunderstanding each other as the bold part is actually what I'm getting at... basically a voluntary, incentive-based approach rather than forcing the rich neighbor to give money to the poor neighbor. If the poor one manages to work his own investment first, then eventually the rich one will voluntarily pay for that service rather than outsource the job overseas.

That's ok as it would be like owning a gun for protecting your house, which I'm not actually against. Raising large sums of money to fund an army to protect your house though is what I feel to be inefficient. This is why when asked how to fund a large military, I would prefer reducing the size of government while going with more cost-effective strategies to peace.

Now I don't expect the current generation in power to make real social progress since our perspectives are dominated by fear of the world. For us, having an army to guard the house and impose our will is considered essential, but eventually we'll get a future generation with a perspective more conducive to fundamental changes. My goal is to figure out how to inspire and empower such a generation, which would hopefully be adept at investing in progress rather than acting out in fear.



I feel the bold part is the ideal rather than the reality. If someone's life amounts to being a wage slave that works hard but just barely stays above water and doesn't feel they have the time/energy to better themselves, then I don't see that as a liberating situation. That's why I'm calling for an alternative currency/economy that serves to innovate and evolve these standards. The conventional currency would continue to serve the Haves, and of course it should be allowed to do so. But the underclass needs an alternative system that better serves their interests, and ideally I see both systems as being able to work in tandem with each other for everyone's benefit.

And again, I'll repeat that the wealthy should NOT be forced to fund this system against their will. By the end of this year, I'm actually hoping to launch a project like this and I'm determined to avoid depending on donations or government funding.

It sounds to me that you're on your way to either proving us wrong, or more likely discovering how difficult it is to translate a dream into reality. May your pain be brief, your recovery swift, and the trauma minimal.

 

[ginru]

It sounds to me that you're on your way to either proving us wrong, or more likely discovering how difficult it is to translate a dream into reality. May your pain be brief, your recovery swift, and the trauma minimal.

Hey, thanks After two previous failures, I'm hoping to channel what I've learned into this 3rd attempt. I'm keeping my plans simple, costs low, dependencies minimal, and approaching it as a life-long mission so I'm not relying on instant results. One of my biggest worries is actually what to do in the case of a sudden rush of applicants.

To answer your previous question though about what to do with people that don't wish to contribute. If they put nothing in then they'd simply get nothing out. They're free to invest in whatever they feel brings the best return, so if living in a hermit shack on the outskirts of society is what they prefer then that's their choice (as long as they don't trespass onto others' investments).

 

[nismaratwork]

Hey, thanks After two previous failures, I'm hoping to channel what I've learned into this 3rd attempt. I'm keeping my plans simple, costs low, dependencies minimal, and approaching it as a life-long mission so I'm not relying on instant results. One of my biggest worries is actually what to do in the case of a sudden rush of applicants.

To answer your previous question though about what to do with people that don't wish to contribute. If they put nothing in then they'd simply get nothing out. They're free to invest in whatever they feel brings the best return, so if living in a hermit shack on the outskirts of society is what they prefer then that's their choice (as long as they don't trespass onto others' investments).

...And what of social predators, secret cartels, sociopaths and just-plain narcissists? It is human to seek advantage within a system, and some percentage will do so through intimidation, violence, graft, blackmail, etc. M.I.C.E. never goes out of fashion.

 

[ginru]

...And what of social predators, secret cartels, sociopaths and just-plain narcissists? It is human to seek advantage within a system, and some percentage will do so through intimidation, violence, graft, blackmail, etc. M.I.C.E. never goes out of fashion.

Ah, the plagues of humanity. In the game I'm developing to complement this system, that's exactly what the members are challenged to overcome. It's in their hands to creatively figure out solutions to resolve conflicts and evolve their thinking to handle constant obstacles. My role is to simply provide a developmental arena (a Sandbox) that they can experiment in and test out their ideas/investments. But the real key is in them having the courage and innovation to face these challenges, rather than allow fear to cripple their progress. If they fail, then the time-based currency system encourages a flexible rebuilding of efforts to start over again with a redesigned plan.

 

[nismaratwork]

Ah, the plagues of humanity. In the game I'm developing to complement this system, that's exactly what the members are challenged to overcome. It's in their hands to creatively figure out solutions to resolve conflicts and evolve their thinking to handle constant obstacles. My role is to simply provide a developmental arena (a Sandbox) that they can experiment in and test out their ideas/investments. But the real key is in them having the courage and innovation to face these challenges, rather than allow fear to cripple their progress. If they fail, then the time-based currency system encourages a flexible rebuilding of efforts to start over again with a redesigned plan.

You want to overcome a persistent series of pathologies which have evolved to thwart literally all attempts to remove them from EVERY society in recorded history? Truly, you are embarking on a Herculean task, because courage, ideas, and good-will mean absolutely nothing in the face of rapid predatory social evolution.

 

[ginru]

You want to overcome a persistent series of pathologies which have evolved to thwart literally all attempts to remove them from EVERY society in recorded history? Truly, you are embarking on a Herculean task, because courage, ideas, and good-will mean absolutely nothing in the face of rapid predatory social evolution.

The bold part ties into what I said earlier about how we easily make huge leaps in technological progress yet for some reason we can only measure social progress by generations. It's as if we must wait for the old generation to fade out along with their rigid ideas before a younger one can achieve its potential. Society is crippled by concern over what Ma & Pa Kettle think of homosexuals or mosques down the street, meanwhile criminals are actively recruiting the youth from every ghetto in the city.

Also, we wait until someone has graduated school and found a paying job before we treat them as making a meaningful contribution to the economy, but the criminals will gladly recruit anyone who can pull a trigger to join their cause. A lethargic and fearful approach to progress is what provides ample opportunity for subversive elements to take effect. Yet it's the youth that would be the most adept at keeping up with the rapid nature of social plagues in much the same way they grasp the technology of the web and smart phones faster than their elders. If they can destabilize oppressive regimes by using free social networks then imagine what they could do with a dynamic economic system as part of their arsenal.

 

[nismaratwork]

The bold part ties into what I said earlier about how we easily make huge leaps in technological progress yet for some reason we can only measure social progress by generations. It's as if we must wait for the old generation to fade out along with their rigid ideas before a younger one can achieve its potential. Society is crippled by concern over what Ma & Pa Kettle think of homosexuals or mosques down the street, meanwhile criminals are actively recruiting the youth from every ghetto in the city.

It's easy to change our environment, it's much harder to change ourselves. This isn't an issue of youth-potential either, it's just a matter of mental illness and brain dysfunction... you're not going to avoid that.

Also, we wait until someone has graduated school and found a paying job before we treat them as making a meaningful contribution to the economy, but the criminals will gladly recruit anyone who can pull a trigger to join their cause. A lethargic and fearful approach to progress is what provides ample opportunity for subversive elements to take effect. Yet it's the youth that would be the most adept at keeping up with the rapid nature of social plagues in much the same way they grasp the technology of the web and smart phones faster than their elders. If they can destabilize oppressive regimes by using free social networks then imagine what they could do with a dynamic economic system as part of their arsenal.

By that standard, you'll exclude plenty of decent people would could flourish in your utopia, and include a higher percentage of "sharks".

 

[Aknazer]

The bold part ties into what I said earlier about how we easily make huge leaps in technological progress yet for some reason we can only measure social progress by generations. It's as if we must wait for the old generation to fade out along with their rigid ideas before a younger one can achieve its potential. Society is crippled by concern over what Ma & Pa Kettle think of homosexuals or mosques down the street, meanwhile criminals are actively recruiting the youth from every ghetto in the city.

Also, we wait until someone has graduated school and found a paying job before we treat them as making a meaningful contribution to the economy, but the criminals will gladly recruit anyone who can pull a trigger to join their cause. A lethargic and fearful approach to progress is what provides ample opportunity for subversive elements to take effect. Yet it's the youth that would be the most adept at keeping up with the rapid nature of social plagues in much the same way they grasp the technology of the web and smart phones faster than their elders. If they can destabilize oppressive regimes by using free social networks then imagine what they could do with a dynamic economic system as part of their arsenal.

But with the kids it's a double edged sword. Kids are also the most open to being influenced. Which means that all it would take is one "shark" influencing them in such a way that they believe the current system of government is wrong/bad and they could topple YOUR government.

As for the comments about our military being too large, I don't think that's the issue. Our military is actually smaller now than it was during the Cold War (the Air Force alone has cut it's forces somewhere in the 40-60% range compared to back then). But both the American people and the world basically view us as the "world police" and most people in the world think that America should fix the problems (well until the "problem" is with how they are doing business). You can see this in how much we pay into the U.N., in how much foreign aid the military gives during disasters compared to other countries, and even how other countries cry for us to help when things go wrong (a recent example being Arab nations wanting us to do the Libya no-fly zone, or if the documents from wikileaks are to be believed then some Arab nations thought it would be best for us to hit Iranian nuclear facilities). Instead the world as a whole needs to change it's view on what the U.S. "should" do and the U.S. needs to quit playing "world police" and go back to more of a defensive posture. Oh and we need to learn how to go in and get out, rather than these longer campaigns.

 

[ginru]

It's easy to change our environment, it's much harder to change ourselves. This isn't an issue of youth-potential either, it's just a matter of mental illness and brain dysfunction... you're not going to avoid that.



By that standard, you'll exclude plenty of decent people would could flourish in your utopia, and include a higher percentage of "sharks".

It comes down to perspective. We have the ability to reason and then use that tool for constructive or destructive purposes. The same clean-cut person that invites us to their church may also be the one too close-minded to accept a gay couple next door. The same investment mentality that goes into business talent recruitment could also be used by a criminal to exploit youth in his gang. We already know that one man's villain could be another man's hero, so rather than fear or avoid them, I feel the key is to engage the issues and harness untapped potential. Anyone that limits themselves by close-mindedness would naturally have limited success in this system (much like a business that fails to adapt to technology). Again, the end goal is to pave a way to a more perfect society by enabling a social evolution that keeps pace with our technological advancements.

Also, in a naturally competitive world, the sharks will proactively challenge themselves to stay competitive and evolve tactics while the decent people are often complacent, reactionary or wasteful in their non-profit programs. How else do you suggest we balance the situation?

 

[nismaratwork]

It comes down to perspective. We have the ability to reason and then use that tool for constructive or destructive purposes. The same clean-cut person that invites us to their church may also be the one too close-minded to accept a gay couple next door. The same investment mentality that goes into business talent recruitment could also be used by a criminal to exploit youth in his gang. We already know that one man's villain could be another man's hero, so rather than fear or avoid them, I feel the key is to engage the issues and harness untapped potential. Anyone that limits themselves by close-mindedness would naturally have limited success in this system (much like a business that fails to adapt to technology). Again, the end goal is to pave a way to a more perfect society by enabling a social evolution that keeps pace with our technological advancements.

Also, in a naturally competitive world, the sharks will proactively challenge themselves to stay competitive and evolve tactics while the decent people are often complacent, reactionary or wasteful in their non-profit programs. How else do you suggest we balance the situation?

I don't know, but then I'm not the one trying to create a utopia on the goodwill of my fellow human, including predators of varying degrees, and the nature of group behaviour. Peolple have plenty of good in them, but they have plenty of other bits too... mixed bags and utopias tend to be a poor fit. Again, I admire your idealism, as I don't think I've ever been that optimistic. If you're right, I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

 

[ginru]

But with the kids it's a double edged sword. Kids are also the most open to being influenced. Which means that all it would take is one "shark" influencing them in such a way that they believe the current system of government is wrong/bad and they could topple YOUR government.

What I say here will be controversial but I feel that this vulnerability comes from their forced dependency. But then of course we force their dependence on family because we see youth as too vulnerable to stand on their own. Either way, they don't have much power in the conventional system for fear of the dangers that you mentioned. But the sharks will still exploit anyone as long as they're old enough to pull a trigger so you have to combat that resourcefulness effectively through a more dynamic system. If a child is old enough to teach then they're old enough to influence the world around them. Yet oppressive measures to protect them will impair their ability to manage problems in the real world, thus enabling the sharks anyway.

The introduction of the Internet has given a clear edge to the youth over the repressive generational system. We're now seeing the political ramifications of them using it in the Middle East to circumvent state-run media for communications. But what happens when they realize they can use it to circumvent the traditional education, employment and banking systems to achieve power through their own simplified currency system? Granted I'm a little scared of the possibilities too, but I don't feel we should let that fear stand in the way of freedom and the potential it has to shape a new world.

As for toppling my system, I'm fine with that too actually. I'm hoping for it to be flexible enough but if someone comes up with a better idea that surpasses my vision and I'm not able to compete with that then I deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. In order to keep pace with technology, the system should be open to constant challenging for the sake of progress.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

I was being sloppy. The figure I posted before was for total revenues: federal + states. The correct federal pie chart is below (same site, different tab):

 

[Dale]

Yes, that looks more like what I expected.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, that looks more like what I expected.

In terms of the income tax portion, how much can you jack that up before you start to see diminising returns for a variety of reasons?

Is 53% near the max that we can reasonably have and enforce, or is it just the status quo?

 

[Dale]

Well, 53% is not the income tax rate, it is the proportion of the Federal revenue that comes from income tax. So it is not really something that can be "jacked up" one way or the other. E.g. if you simply abolished Social Security taxes then that 53% would jump up to about 80% without increasing the amount of income tax at all.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, 53% is not the income tax rate, it is the proportion of the Federal revenue that comes from income tax. So it is not really something that can be "jacked up" one way or the other. E.g. if you simply abolished Social Security taxes then that 53% would jump up to about 80% without increasing the amount of income tax at all.

Right, I expressed myself poorly. What I mean is to ask about the feasability of relying on more or less than the current percentage of income gleaned from that particular brand of taxation. I shouldn't have referenced the 53%, but in general I just wonder if there is an "optimal" income tax to yield maximum returns without driving people and business away. Is that where we are, and if so, when the graph is made, should it look like 53%, or should it be a lesser or greater portion of taxation?

 

[Dale]

I liked this article:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/
particularly the graph from the Wall Street Journal which showed that revenue is about 20% of GDP regardless of the top marginal tax rate over the past 60 years. So to maximize revenue you would need to set a tax policy which maximizes GDP.

 

[nismaratwork]

I liked this article:
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/
particularly the graph from the Wall Street Journal which showed that revenue is about 20% of GDP regardless of the top marginal tax rate over the past 60 years. So to maximize revenue you would need to set a tax policy which maximizes GDP.

That's what I'm looking for! Thanks DaleSpam, you always come through.