If You Could Design a Tax System From Scratch.....

12% flat tax, on everyone, period. No deductions, no add ons.

We'd have more money than we'd ever have had before in tax revenue. But, a flat tax makes too much sense. It's too easy. It's been proven to work in other countries. So don't expect our fucking SHIT FOR BRAINS POLITICIANS to adopt it here.
 
I've waited for everyone to have their say before I give MY opinion on the matter. I have thought long and hard and came up with a simple idea that should determine what should be taxed and what should not be taxed. It is this: Every tax should be a "sin" tax. That is, you tax what you don't want to see people do, and don't tax what you want them to do.

I know that is a generalization, but it is a good starting point. If you don't want dog crap on your lawn, then tax it one way or another. If you want people to work hard and save then don't tax those things, and so on down the list.

Why on earth would you want punish anyone for doing what you want them to do more of, and why wouldn't you want to tax everything that you want people doing less of?

Now, it is easy to take this system to extremes to try to discredit the idea itself, but please restrain yourself, along with all your cute, (NOT) answers and just honestly deal with the issue as I present it.

Getting into listing what I, and YOU, think should be taxed and what I, and YOU, think should not be taxed could be a long evening, clearly, but this is a start.
What you are proposing is using taxes to influence human behavior. This is exactly what congress does now. The difference is that congress reduces the tax burden for people who do good things such as giving to charities, owning a home, having kids *boy they screwed up on that one), etc.... Under your plan, you just tax people for doing the bad stuff. I think that the purpose of taxes should be one thing. collect money.

But following your idea, how do we raise 3 or 4 trillion a year taxing smokers, drinkers, gamblers, and dogs who poop on the lawn.

Well, come on now, I didn't say anything about limiting taxes to those things you mentioned. I guess you are fishing for my LIST of things I would tax as sins. Shall I begin?

Divorce should be heavily taxed, for example. Criminals should be heavily taxed for the rest of their lives to pay back society for what they cost us. single moms should be taxed as being a single mom is not in societies best interest. Being unemployed, whether you are rich or poor should be taxed as something that is undesirable and that we want less of. Your house catching fire should be taxed to pay for any costs to society of your house burning, and so on, but I think you get the drift, and I haven't even gotten started.

But, on the other hand no tax on most incomes, but perhaps sales taxes to discourage consumption.
 
About 90,000 work for the IRS I saw an estimate that 180,000 work as tax lawyers, tax accounts, tax prepares, and other related jobs. That's over a quarter of million people owe their jobs to our tax system.
 
I've waited for everyone to have their say before I give MY opinion on the matter. I have thought long and hard and came up with a simple idea that should determine what should be taxed and what should not be taxed. It is this: Every tax should be a "sin" tax. That is, you tax what you don't want to see people do, and don't tax what you want them to do.

I know that is a generalization, but it is a good starting point. If you don't want dog crap on your lawn, then tax it one way or another. If you want people to work hard and save then don't tax those things, and so on down the list.

Why on earth would you want punish anyone for doing what you want them to do more of, and why wouldn't you want to tax everything that you want people doing less of?

Now, it is easy to take this system to extremes to try to discredit the idea itself, but please restrain yourself, along with all your cute, (NOT) answers and just honestly deal with the issue as I present it.

Getting into listing what I, and YOU, think should be taxed and what I, and YOU, think should not be taxed could be a long evening, clearly, but this is a start.
What you are proposing is using taxes to influence human behavior. This is exactly what congress does now. The difference is that congress reduces the tax burden for people who do good things such as giving to charities, owning a home, having kids *boy they screwed up on that one), etc.... Under your plan, you just tax people for doing the bad stuff. I think that the purpose of taxes should be one thing. collect money.

But following your idea, how do we raise 3 or 4 trillion a year taxing smokers, drinkers, gamblers, and dogs who poop on the lawn.

Well, come on now, I didn't say anything about limiting taxes to those things you mentioned. I guess you are fishing for my LIST of things I would tax as sins. Shall I begin?

Divorce should be heavily taxed, for example. Criminals should be heavily taxed for the rest of their lives to pay back society for what they cost us. single moms should be taxed as being a single mom is not in societies best interest. Being unemployed, whether you are rich or poor should be taxed as something that is undesirable and that we want less of. Your house catching fire should be taxed to pay for any costs to society of your house burning, and so on, but I think you get the drift, and I haven't even gotten started.

But, on the other hand no tax on most incomes, but perhaps sales taxes to discourage consumption.

This thread is "Design a Perfect Tax System" Founder, not "Design a Perfect World". But alas, I cannot resist......

Divorce is undesirable? Let me introduce you to my ex........

Criminals (I assume you meant prisoners) already do (mostly) unpaid labor while incarcerated. Like it or not, when they're released, they're free. I don't mind the notion of restitution to the state, but the Supreme Court might.....

Single moms? My goodness, let me try again. Founder, meet ex.......

House catching fire? Insurance just does not appeal to you, huh? Founder, meet Ben Franklin, father of the American insurance industry.....

There'll be more? I cannot wait.

 
What you are proposing is using taxes to influence human behavior. This is exactly what congress does now. The difference is that congress reduces the tax burden for people who do good things such as giving to charities, owning a home, having kids *boy they screwed up on that one), etc.... Under your plan, you just tax people for doing the bad stuff. I think that the purpose of taxes should be one thing. collect money.

But following your idea, how do we raise 3 or 4 trillion a year taxing smokers, drinkers, gamblers, and dogs who poop on the lawn.

Well, come on now, I didn't say anything about limiting taxes to those things you mentioned. I guess you are fishing for my LIST of things I would tax as sins. Shall I begin?

Divorce should be heavily taxed, for example. Criminals should be heavily taxed for the rest of their lives to pay back society for what they cost us. single moms should be taxed as being a single mom is not in societies best interest. Being unemployed, whether you are rich or poor should be taxed as something that is undesirable and that we want less of. Your house catching fire should be taxed to pay for any costs to society of your house burning, and so on, but I think you get the drift, and I haven't even gotten started.

But, on the other hand no tax on most incomes, but perhaps sales taxes to discourage consumption.

This thread is "Design a Perfect Tax System" Founder, not "Design a Perfect World". But alas, I cannot resist......

Divorce is undesirable? Let me introduce you to my ex........

Criminals (I assume you meant prisoners) already do (mostly) unpaid labor while incarcerated. Like it or not, when they're released, they're free. I don't mind the notion of restitution to the state, but the Supreme Court might.....

Single moms? My goodness, let me try again. Founder, meet ex.......

House catching fire? Insurance just does not appeal to you, huh? Founder, meet Ben Franklin, father of the American insurance industry.....

There'll be more? I cannot wait.


Just because you, or I, or everyone is divorced does not mean it is not socially disruptive and costly to society in general, and this cost should be borne by those insisting on practicing the divorce thing.

And I said NOTHING about, or against fire insurance, whatsoever. But when your house burns it costs society a lot, just for firetrucks and the careless homeowner should pay for this not ME, or YOU.

And single moms cost this society at least a hundred billion a year. They produce a disproportionate number of our criminals, and other crimes, and help spread disease and a lot of other costs. Surely it is undesirable and a sin for women to be ruining kids by raising them without any father, or other males being involved.

Point is do we want to encourage or discourage single mom-ness. Taxes could help us show our preference, AND raise money by discouraging conduct we don't want.

I find your points unconvincing, but thanks for responding.
 
Well, come on now, I didn't say anything about limiting taxes to those things you mentioned. I guess you are fishing for my LIST of things I would tax as sins. Shall I begin?

Divorce should be heavily taxed, for example. Criminals should be heavily taxed for the rest of their lives to pay back society for what they cost us. single moms should be taxed as being a single mom is not in societies best interest. Being unemployed, whether you are rich or poor should be taxed as something that is undesirable and that we want less of. Your house catching fire should be taxed to pay for any costs to society of your house burning, and so on, but I think you get the drift, and I haven't even gotten started.

But, on the other hand no tax on most incomes, but perhaps sales taxes to discourage consumption.

This thread is "Design a Perfect Tax System" Founder, not "Design a Perfect World". But alas, I cannot resist......

Divorce is undesirable? Let me introduce you to my ex........

Criminals (I assume you meant prisoners) already do (mostly) unpaid labor while incarcerated. Like it or not, when they're released, they're free. I don't mind the notion of restitution to the state, but the Supreme Court might.....

Single moms? My goodness, let me try again. Founder, meet ex.......

House catching fire? Insurance just does not appeal to you, huh? Founder, meet Ben Franklin, father of the American insurance industry.....

There'll be more? I cannot wait.


Just because you, or I, or everyone is divorced does not mean it is not socially disruptive and costly to society in general, and this cost should be borne by those insisting on practicing the divorce thing.

And I said NOTHING about, or against fire insurance, whatsoever. But when your house burns it costs society a lot, just for firetrucks and the careless homeowner should pay for this not ME, or YOU.

And single moms cost this society at least a hundred billion a year. They produce a disproportionate number of our criminals, and other crimes, and help spread disease and a lot of other costs. Surely it is undesirable and a sin for women to be ruining kids by raising them without any father, or other males being involved.

Point is do we want to encourage or discourage single mom-ness. Taxes could help us show our preference, AND raise money by discouraging conduct we don't want.

I find your points unconvincing, but thanks for responding.

I'll leave off responding to the types of behaviors you want to alter, and just deal with behavior modification through taxation.

Yes, of course you are right. Imposing a tax on a behavior alters its incidence and can (usually) be said to reduce it. Not enough to stamp it out entirely, but levels do drop especially when the tax is first imposed or has been significantly increased in amount.

So let's say there was a behavior all of us wished to curtail. Spitting on the sidewalk, maybe. Doesn't matter. Anything will do.

What happens when you tax it?

Wealthy spitters may bitch more but, as a rule, their behavior changes very little. Middle class and poor spitters also continue to spit...but poor spitters sacrifice another behavior to help fund this new cost. This shift will continue until the value of spitting to poor people and/or their ability to fund the tax is maxed out. You might not care, unless you value the behavior of the poor being sacrificed to fund spitting...or if you already tax it as a sin. Incidentially, the disproportionate changes in the behavior of people across income levels is exactly why sin taxes are regarded as regressive.

Dedicated spitters of all income brackets will try and evade the tax, so enforcement efforts will be needed. Some additional burden will be placed on collection mechanisms, but unless this tax is truely novel, not a great deal. If enforcement of the spitting tax is too lax, compliance with other taxing regimes will fall as well. Tax evasion and fraud are somewhat contagious.

If you find all this acceptable -- as obviously, many do -- then sin taxes are great. If, on the other hand, you fret too much about the lack of effect such taxes have on most taxpayers, or about what behavior poor taxpayers are sacrificing to fund the new sin tax, you may not. Generally, enforcement of sin taxes is not a huge problem so there's a low risk of spreading noncompliance to other revenues. But it's not zero risk, either. There will be some evasion and some criminality associated with it, along with some loss of compliance levels as to other taxes.

Here's the problem as I see it Founder: if your goal is to fund government operations, sin taxes are never going to be anything close to adequate. They represent less than 5% of all US federal revenues annually. Actually, detailed information about them is hard to find. They may represent less than one percent, for all I know.

On the other hand, if your goal is to modify behavior these taxes are still pretty ineffective compared to criminalizing the behavior, regulating it, zoning for it, etc. They just don't work very well.

Gambling is an exception because, before state lotteries and legal casinos, far fewer people gambled. Most sins are already "taken", so to speak, and plenty of people (like me) question the morality of introducing opportunities for new behaviors that harm the taxpayer, simply for the chance to tax them. Seems little better than theft.

 
Last edited:
This thread is "Design a Perfect Tax System" Founder, not "Design a Perfect World". But alas, I cannot resist......

Divorce is undesirable? Let me introduce you to my ex........

Criminals (I assume you meant prisoners) already do (mostly) unpaid labor while incarcerated. Like it or not, when they're released, they're free. I don't mind the notion of restitution to the state, but the Supreme Court might.....

Single moms? My goodness, let me try again. Founder, meet ex.......

House catching fire? Insurance just does not appeal to you, huh? Founder, meet Ben Franklin, father of the American insurance industry.....

There'll be more? I cannot wait.


Just because you, or I, or everyone is divorced does not mean it is not socially disruptive and costly to society in general, and this cost should be borne by those insisting on practicing the divorce thing.

And I said NOTHING about, or against fire insurance, whatsoever. But when your house burns it costs society a lot, just for firetrucks and the careless homeowner should pay for this not ME, or YOU.

And single moms cost this society at least a hundred billion a year. They produce a disproportionate number of our criminals, and other crimes, and help spread disease and a lot of other costs. Surely it is undesirable and a sin for women to be ruining kids by raising them without any father, or other males being involved.

Point is do we want to encourage or discourage single mom-ness. Taxes could help us show our preference, AND raise money by discouraging conduct we don't want.

I find your points unconvincing, but thanks for responding.

I'll leave off responding to the types of behaviors you want to alter, and just deal with behavior modification through taxation.

Yes, of course you are right. Imposing a tax on a behavior alters its incidence and can (usually) be said to reduce it. Not enough to stamp it out entirely, but levels do drop especially when the tax is first imposed or has been significantly increased in amount.

So let's say there was a behavior all of us wished to curtail. Spitting on the sidewalk, maybe. Doesn't matter. Anything will do.

What happens when you tax it?

Wealthy spitters may bitch more but, as a rule, their behavior changes very little. Middle class and poor spitters also continue to spit...but poor spitters sacrifice another behavior to help fund this new cost. This shift will continue until the value of spitting to poor people and/or their ability to fund the tax is maxed out. You might not care, unless you value the behavior of the poor being sacrificed to fund spitting...or if you already tax it as a sin. Incidentially, the disproportionate changes in the behavior of people across income levels is exactly why sin taxes are regarded as regressive.

Dedicated spitters of all income brackets will try and evade the tax, so enforcement efforts will be needed. Some additional burden will be placed on collection mechanisms, but unless this tax is truely novel, not a great deal. If enforcement of the spitting tax is too lax, compliance with other taxing regimes will fall as well. Tax evasion and fraud are somewhat contagious.

If you find all this acceptable -- as obviously, many do -- then sin taxes are great. If, on the other hand, you fret too much about the lack of effect such taxes have on most taxpayers, or about what behavior poor taxpayers are sacrificing to fund the new sin tax, you may not. Generally, enforcement of sin taxes is not a huge problem so there's a low risk of spreading noncompliance to other revenues. But it's not zero risk, either. There will be some evasion and some criminality associated with it, along with some loss of compliance levels as to other taxes.

Here's the problem as I see it Founder: if your goal is to fund government operations, sin taxes are never going to be anything close to adequate. They represent less than 5% of all US federal revenues annually. Actually, detailed information about them is hard to find. They may represent less than one percent, for all I know.

On the other hand, if your goal is to modify behavior these taxes are still pretty ineffective compared to criminalizing the behavior, regulating it, zoning for it, etc. They just don't work very well.

Gambling is an exception because, before state lotteries and legal casinos, far fewer people gambled. Most sins are already "taken", so to speak, and plenty of people (like me) question the morality of introducing opportunities for new behaviors that harm the taxpayer, simply for the chance to tax them. Seems little better than theft.


Again, I have to disagree with your assumptions.

1. I don't believe it to be true at all that middle and upper incomers are not deterred by taxes and fines. We fine speeders, and on average it is a far more effective deterrent to the behavior of the rich than it is to the lower classes. Your premise is faulty in that regard. If anything, the fine on poor people for sin should be even greater than the rich for it is proven they need an even more powerful deterrent, plus they need to be fined extra just for being poor to deter them from being poor to start with.

2. Your point that sin taxes could never raise adequate revenue is also wrong, because the list of sins in endless. If you just consider making criminals pay the rest of their lives for their crimes you would bring in large continuous revenues.

Turning all roads into toll roads would raise enormous amounts of money, and more than pay for the roads to be built, plus reduce unnecessary driving which would help society in other ways. Bicycles would be heavily subsidized to encourage their use, (a from of reverse tax) and would bring health benefits as well. If roads are thereby self-financing it reduces the government need for money. Same with law enforcement. If the criminals have to pay the entire cost of it, that is another burden taken off the government, and so on. With NO pensions for any government employees cost of government would fall drastically.

3. Now you overlook another great source of revenue to society by my sin tax plan. By sins being driven substantially downward, it would stimulate the prosperity and quality of life of the society as a whole, such that it would be a positive economic prosperity engine. With less crime business costs are reduced and prices can be lowered.

4. As part of my plan all prisons would be closed. Criminals would be divided into two groups, those who cannot be released under any circumstances because of public safety and those who could be released under certain conditions. Murderers for example.

For those who can't be trusted on the streets, (10%) we would have either confinement for life at hard labor producing valuable products, or simply putting them down. Either way there would be no cost of incarceration at all, and even a profit could be made. While 90% could be released to work and pay back the costs they caused and such, and contribute to society in other ways.

5. Other related reforms would be the elimination of all pensions for anyone. People would be expected to work till they die at some reasonable work that we would see was available to them. Thus all pension plans would be heavily taxed instead as now given tax breaks. Pay for play sports would be heavily taxed, as would all entertainment, and entertainers would pay extra taxes for their lack of production that was useful to society. Salaries for all high prestige government positions would be eliminated. No pay for President or Congress. Volunteers would be easily recruited to perform these tasks for the honor of it.

In fact idleness itself would be taxed. If the rich wanted to be idle and live off their money it would cost them substantial in taxes to do so. So you see the possibilities of my plan are almost endless to raise money to finance government through "sin" taxing.

Even the military in peace time would be put to work doing productive work to pay their own costs, and everyone else would be in the Reserves, because to not serve in the reserves would also be taxed, and the reserves themselves would be self-supporting due to the work they would do.

Finally, before you say such and such is not the case, you need to think my plan through and not just prejudge it, and conclude it is full of holes.
 
Last edited:
What ridiculous garbage.

The poor are not poor by choice, at least not most of them. Most fires have nothing to do with people being careless. Everyone of your supposed sins are in fact not sins at all. You are just a jerk that thinks you can punish people cause you don't like something.

By the way? We already pay taxes for Fire support. And those areas with Voluntary Fire Departments pay with donations. Same with Police and Emergency crews. Ambulance crews get paid also. You get a bill for the transport.
 
In my view, a tax system should have as many of the following qualities as possible:

1. Enforcability. Fraud and avoidance should be as difficult as possible; everyone who owes should pay.

2. Simplicity. Complications are bad.

3. Progressivity. People with less income should pay (proportionately) less. People with more income should pay (proportionately) more. Of course, there is a range. Too much or too little progressivity are both bad.

4. Social concerns should not be advanced through tax laws unless no other means of addressing them is available. That means no "endorsement of marriage", no "definition of family", no charitable contribution deductions, etc. None of this UNLESS the goal is beyond reach through any non-tax measure.

5. Universality. Every individual, family unit and legal entity that can be taxed should be taxed. Exceptions for minors, but not for corporations clustered together as conglomerates, etc.

To develop the needed $20 Trillion in needed tax revenue, I would tax all income (note: that's quite a bit more than is taxed now) at a 14% rate AND I would tax any gift or inheritance by any person OR entity if the amount of the gift or bequest (adding together all such gifts or bequests to the same recipient) exceeded $100,00.

The gift/death tax is the only social concern (avoiding/preventing undue concentrations of wealth) I feel can ONLY be addressed through a tax law.

The 14% would be waived for any person (human being) whose income falls below the federal poverty line. For persons with incomes above it but below $25,000 I would tax at a rate of 7% to 14%. The rest of us would pay 14% on all income from dollar one. (The existence of more than one tax bracket makes this a progressive tax, though not by much.)

Entities would pay 14% on all income from dollar one.

Tax returns would be the size of postcards.

What say you?

Your wishes will come true in the near future.
A cashless society is coming. You WILL pay, no exceptions, but to "enforce" that, and maintain perpetual war/Empire, figure on being taxed at 50% or more.
 
Just because you, or I, or everyone is divorced does not mean it is not socially disruptive and costly to society in general, and this cost should be borne by those insisting on practicing the divorce thing.

And I said NOTHING about, or against fire insurance, whatsoever. But when your house burns it costs society a lot, just for firetrucks and the careless homeowner should pay for this not ME, or YOU.

And single moms cost this society at least a hundred billion a year. They produce a disproportionate number of our criminals, and other crimes, and help spread disease and a lot of other costs. Surely it is undesirable and a sin for women to be ruining kids by raising them without any father, or other males being involved.

Point is do we want to encourage or discourage single mom-ness. Taxes could help us show our preference, AND raise money by discouraging conduct we don't want.

I find your points unconvincing, but thanks for responding.

I'll leave off responding to the types of behaviors you want to alter, and just deal with behavior modification through taxation.

Yes, of course you are right. Imposing a tax on a behavior alters its incidence and can (usually) be said to reduce it. Not enough to stamp it out entirely, but levels do drop especially when the tax is first imposed or has been significantly increased in amount.

So let's say there was a behavior all of us wished to curtail. Spitting on the sidewalk, maybe. Doesn't matter. Anything will do.

What happens when you tax it?

Wealthy spitters may bitch more but, as a rule, their behavior changes very little. Middle class and poor spitters also continue to spit...but poor spitters sacrifice another behavior to help fund this new cost. This shift will continue until the value of spitting to poor people and/or their ability to fund the tax is maxed out. You might not care, unless you value the behavior of the poor being sacrificed to fund spitting...or if you already tax it as a sin. Incidentially, the disproportionate changes in the behavior of people across income levels is exactly why sin taxes are regarded as regressive.

Dedicated spitters of all income brackets will try and evade the tax, so enforcement efforts will be needed. Some additional burden will be placed on collection mechanisms, but unless this tax is truely novel, not a great deal. If enforcement of the spitting tax is too lax, compliance with other taxing regimes will fall as well. Tax evasion and fraud are somewhat contagious.

If you find all this acceptable -- as obviously, many do -- then sin taxes are great. If, on the other hand, you fret too much about the lack of effect such taxes have on most taxpayers, or about what behavior poor taxpayers are sacrificing to fund the new sin tax, you may not. Generally, enforcement of sin taxes is not a huge problem so there's a low risk of spreading noncompliance to other revenues. But it's not zero risk, either. There will be some evasion and some criminality associated with it, along with some loss of compliance levels as to other taxes.

Here's the problem as I see it Founder: if your goal is to fund government operations, sin taxes are never going to be anything close to adequate. They represent less than 5% of all US federal revenues annually. Actually, detailed information about them is hard to find. They may represent less than one percent, for all I know.

On the other hand, if your goal is to modify behavior these taxes are still pretty ineffective compared to criminalizing the behavior, regulating it, zoning for it, etc. They just don't work very well.

Gambling is an exception because, before state lotteries and legal casinos, far fewer people gambled. Most sins are already "taken", so to speak, and plenty of people (like me) question the morality of introducing opportunities for new behaviors that harm the taxpayer, simply for the chance to tax them. Seems little better than theft.


Again, I have to disagree with your assumptions.

1. I don't believe it to be true at all that middle and upper incomers are not deterred by taxes and fines. We fine speeders, and on average it is a far more effective deterrent to the behavior of the rich than it is to the lower classes. Your premise is faulty in that regard. If anything, the fine on poor people for sin should be even greater than the rich for it is proven they need an even more powerful deterrent, plus they need to be fined extra just for being poor to deter them from being poor to start with.

2. Your point that sin taxes could never raise adequate revenue is also wrong, because the list of sins in endless. If you just consider making criminals pay the rest of their lives for their crimes you would bring in large continuous revenues.

Turning all roads into toll roads would raise enormous amounts of money, and more than pay for the roads to be built, plus reduce unnecessary driving which would help society in other ways. Bicycles would be heavily subsidized to encourage their use, bring health benefits as well. If roads are thereby self-financing it reduces the government need for money. Same with law enforcement. If the criminals have to pay the entire cost of it, that is another burden taken off the government, and so on.

3. Now you overlook another great source of revenue to society by my sin tax plan. By sins being driven substantially downward, it would stimulate the prosperity and quality of life of the society as a whole, such that it would be a positive economic prosperity engine. With less crime business costs are reduced and prices can be lowered, for example.

4. As part of my plan all prisons would be closed. Criminals would be divided into two groups, those who cannot be released under any circumstances because of public safety and those who could be released under certain conditions.

For those who can't be trusted on the streets, (10%) we would have either confinement for life at hard labor producing valuable products, or simply putting them down. Either way there would be no cost of incarceration at all, and even a profit could be made. While 90% could be released to work and pay back the costs they caused and such, and contribute to society.

5. Other related reforms would be the elimination of all pensions for anyone. People would be expected to work till they die at some reasonable work that we would see was available to them.

In fact idleness itself would be taxed. If the rich wanted to be idle and live off their money it would cost them substantial in taxes to do so. So you see the possibilities of my plan are almost endless to raise money to finance government through sin taxing.

Even the military in peace time would be put to work doing productive work to pay their own costs, and everyone else would be in the Reserves, because to not serve in the reserves would also be taxed, and the reserves themselves would be self-supporting due to the work they would do.

Finally, before you say such and such is not the case, you need to think my plan through and not just prejudge it, and conclude it is full of holes.

You're one hell of a deep thinker, Founder, I'll grant you that.

I'll concede that all government operations could, in theory, be fully funded by any tax provided that the taxpayers had the revenues to turn over. Income, sales, production, consumption, behavior, assets, debt loads, right handedness, and anything else.

I question your assumption that speeding fines deter wealthy speeders more than they do middle class or poor speeders. I just can't imagine where either one of us is going to find any data to support our positions, so we'll call that one a draw. For now.

The poor need to be taxed at higher rates than others as a deterrent to being poor? I hesitate to just label this zany and move on...can you expand a bit more on this thought?

"Criminals" are not an identifiable taxpayer group. You could tax prisoners and former prisoners, or everyone who has ever been convicted of anything....eventually you'd run afoul of the constitution, but that is not a condemnation of the entire notion. But if those with a felony criminal record comprise about (more or less) 6.6% of all residents, you'd be redistributing a fairly small portion of the federal tax burden onto these folks. While I can see myriad problems with doing this, theoretically, it is possible I suppose.

Estimates of percent of US residents with criminal convictions and/or arrests:

Google Answers: What percentage of Americans are arrested in their lifetime?

Breakdown of US government spending by catagory:

Federal Spending, State and Local Public Spending 1792-2015 - Charts

Note: we're talking here only of the federal budget and I am excluding Defense costs from this class of redistributed expenses. At the state and local level, law enforcement and corrections usually represent an enormous percent share of the total budget, so it makes a big difference what level of government we're discussing.

You wrote:

By sins being driven substantially downward, it would stimulate the prosperity and quality of life of the society as a whole, such that it would be a positive economic prosperity engine. With less crime business costs are reduced and prices can be lowered, for example.

We don't have a consensus on what a sin is, and sins are certainly not always crimes. Crimes are not even always sins. The two nouns are not synonyms. We probably don't even share a view on exactly what a crime is, Founder. It is impossible for me to agree that all the behaviors you seek to alter would, in fact, change in the ways you desire....or that if such changes occurred, the economy would expand, prices would drop, etc. If you can expand on this maybe I can track your thinking -- but for now, it sounds more like a wish than a reasonable prognosis.

I don't have an objection to your plan to divide prisoners into two groups, one tax paying and the other reducing government expense through labor. However, even prisoners who are at labor for the government have to eat, Founder. They need food, shelter, medical attention, etc. and all those costs are huge -- far more than any savings to government from their labor. It's also unrealistic to think that a "confinement' would not entail a "prison" or that such persons could be made to pay for their own upkeep during their confinement/imprisonment/while awaiting execution. Penal reformers have been dreaming of this for centuries and it has not happened yet. But your idea of using convicts to reduce government labor expenses has merit, I'll grant that.

No retirement for anyone? A tax on idleness? My goodness...you are a radical. I see problems with this (not the least of which is the right to self-determination, liberty, privacy, etc.) but I'd be interested in reading an expanded view of this notion. Meanwhile I'm not sure. Without any hope of retirement, many/most people will not save as they now do. Most tax pundits see influencing taxpayers to save less as terribly damaging to the economy. How on earth you'd ever measure "idleness" escapes me. GPS chip everyone and track activity levels?

How could everyone be in the Reserves? Who would be left to serve in the Military? Who would be working in the private sector? I wouldn't be opposed to a mandatory draft of all 18 to 20 year olds, but there are huge problems even with this....and I'm not sure it gets you anywhere tax-wise. Most Military and Reserve forces cost the government money, Founder. Substantial sums of money. It's a bit difficult to see them instead as profit centers. A draft of all young adults would have huge social implications for the US....but tax-wise, I think it would merely start the red ink flowing like never before.

I hope you reply. You have wild ideas, but this had had me scratching my head for a long time here, and I like that. I don't happen to talk with many tax radicals in any one week....or lifetime!
 
Last edited:
...as one wag puts it, 'if these republicrats knew how 'a dollar' originates they might conclude that 'government' itself could issue/create all the money they 'need' out of thin air!..they could create the money they need just like the fucking corporate banksters they have chartered, and from whom they 'borrow,' do it.. ('taxing' us all indirectly instead of the current stinking 'direct' methods of taxation...whereby we a coerced, among other things, into providing economic diaries for minions of government bean-counters, etc. fucks galore..)

...remember republicrats, before you get to working your cheeseburger holes too much about 'economic issues' maybe you ought to know what a fucking 'dollar' is..how 'dollars' originate, etc..is that too much to ask?

...the rest of you, have a good day!..
 
Douger wrote:

Your wishes will come true in the near future.
A cashless society is coming. You WILL pay, no exceptions, but to "enforce" that, and maintain perpetual war/Empire, figure on being taxed at 50% or more.

Douger, no government could possibly confiscate 50% of its GDP and survive. Not to mention, the government expels revenues by spending, repayment of debt, etc. No way could 50% of all GDP become "trapped" in government coffers.

A maximum rate on income of 50% is NOT the same as an effective rate. When the US had maximum rates of 95%, the highest effective rate on any taxpayer was (estimated to be) no higher than around 40%.

Here's an example:

tax rates:

0% on income below $25,000
45% on income between $25,001 and $100,000
95% on income above $100,001

(I'm making these up...there has never been such a rate schedule.)

Taxpayer A makes $25,001 and owes 45% of $1.00, or 45 cents. His effective rate is 0.0000179.
Taxpayer B makes $100,001 and owes 45% of $75,000 plus 95% of $1.00, or $33,750.95. His effective rate is 0.3375061.
Taxpayer C makes $1,000,000 and owes 45% of $75,000 plus 95% of $900,000, or $888,750.00. His effective rate is 0.88875.

So, if actual effective rates never rose above an estimated 40%, the bracket for a 95% marginal rate cannot have begun at a level even approaching $100,001.
 
What would it look like?

Let's assume for discussion sake the following:

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is $200 Trillion.

Government needs $20 Trillion annually, and will have no non-tax revenues.

Excise and other taxes can be changed by Congress and do not affect foreign trade, etc.

Any form of taxation is legal.

I'd fund the FEDERAL government entirely though tariffs.

Pretty much the same way we funded the Federal goverment for the first four score and seven years of its existence.

There'd be NO FEDERAL income taxes on individuals making their incomes from wages.

NONE!

I might be convinced to create a VAT tax to fund national projects but food shelter and clothing would not be taxed.


I might also be convinced that corporations which trade overseas might have to pay some taxes to support the military which makes it safe for them to trade with other nations.

But those taxes would be levied according to the need to keep them safe from molestation when outside the US borders and ONLY corporations which trade overseas would be subject to that tax and that rate of taxation would be inversely proportional to the number of Americans they put to work creating those good sold off shore.

Basically I'd be structuring the system of taxation to encourage industry here, and discourage imports.
 
O, he he he. Complete economic isolationism? Would that mean the call center for my telephone company would return to the US? Maybe we'd even power up a steel mill or two?

This has legs!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top