What should be taxed? Nothing.
They would never work as there are many things that individuals cannot pay for, and that companies would not want to invest in. Roads are a great example of this, most people would not be able to pay for interstates that they directly use only a few times per year. They would still use the interstates for things like commerce (when they buy things that were produced in another state for example). As a result part of what they pay in taxes would be used to fund the interstate system. 
Topic: What should be taxed? (Read 2282 times)
What should be taxed? Nothing.
They would never work as there are many things that individuals cannot pay for, and that companies would not want to invest in. Roads are a great example of this, most people would not be able to pay for interstates that they directly use only a few times per year. They would still use the interstates for things like commerce (when they buy things that were produced in another state for example). As a result part of what they pay in taxes would be used to fund the interstate system. Taxing anything further than consumption or the actual sale of goods is repeatedly taxing the same thing over and over again in my eyes.
And all politicians are well aware of that. They are simply taxing the population and using the money to buy vote for themselves.
Taxes should be organised such that the heaviest burden falls on the rich, with minimal burden on people who can least afford it.
I think they can gather more tax from middle class, then from the really rich, as the middle class a larger population. 
If you want a tax you must accept that you are willing to force someone to involuntarily give up their rightfully earned property. Otherwise known as theft.
Why do so many people accept forcing someone to do something against their will as the right thing to do?
Why do so many people accept forcing someone to do something against their will as the right thing to do?
... and inevitably, only the rich will enjoy these services, since they will leave any 'club' that gives them out for free to those who can't afford it. The poor will either rely on the protection of their masters, or fend for themselves in a world where any criminal knows there will be no repercussions for robbing or killing someone who can't afford protection.
Welcome to medieval Europe
Welcome to medieval Europe
So you are saying...the rich will eventually leave the 'clubs' that are giving away free stuff to those who can't afford it?
Like how people tend to emigrate from states with high taxes and move to low tax states?
Perhaps we should build walls to keep the rich in?
Welcome to Stalin's Russia.
The problem is that then you have to put into place a ton of checks to avoid free riders. Which I doubt is worth it as realistically people will have to join a "club." Without the "protection" of the police it's perfectly ok for anyone to randomly shoot you. Including the owner of any given "club." Which just puts you back in the "pay or we shoot you" situation anywat. Until there are open-source drones protecting everyone from violence unconditionally, the pay or we shoot you system will automatically survive.
Our modern, free, police system is a relatively new concept. Even in the old movies you see the private detectives. Before that it was usually just a constable or sheriff.
Btw...pay or we shoot you (kidnap you if you don't resist) is what we have now.
Taxing anything further than consumption or the actual sale of goods is repeatedly taxing the same thing over and over again in my eyes.
How can you enforce property rights if nothing is taxed. You need to tax something.
Obtain a gun and bullets I suppose, it cuts out the government middleman. Or hire guards? No, but property rights are basically enforced by threat of force anyone can create that. The cartels to
note don't have government to enforce property rights so they take it into their own hands. Tax isn't needed,
it's just tolerated. But tax is good at socializing the costs of certain things, although you can argue the morality of such.
Realistically, there needs to be a transition from what we have today to a totally voluntary society and a flat tax of somewhere in the mid-teens would be adequate. It has to be apportioned equally but there's 92 million people out of the work force and a large number of them are on some sort of govt entitlement program. Frankly, nothing is realistic right now until many millions more are employed in jobs that offer mobility to the middle class. The current addition of 200k new jobs per month being service sector, part time and seasonal positions doesn't bode well at all for any economic growth going forward. Employers of middles class jobs are sitting back and not hiring until regulations can be faded a bit and this Obamacare monstrosity can be curtailed. Also, the corporate repatriation tax needs to be severely cut so the money stashed overseas comes home and a portion can go to pay for infrastructure upkeep.
Where the flat-tax theory fails is that across any country,everyone's income level is not the same. There lies a massive difference in the type of lifestyle that people lead. A universal flat-tax is impossible to come to because it cannot be determined practically. Another thing is why there is opposition to social security legislation. Why must one be so selfish to care only for yourself and not for fellow-countryman? The reason that such ideas were adopted were to help marginalized people who do not have any money to take care of themselves. The health care costs in this country are already so abominable that without insurance,you're as good as dead if you have a major health problem. I agree completely with you about the repatriation tax. More permanent jobs of whatever type and income are needed at home now.
Why can't it be determined logically? You set a tax rate and collect it. People that make less pay less and people that make more pay more. The percentage is the same for everyone.
How in the work scan we take care of previous generations when we can barely take care of ourselves. Is it not more selfish to use your votes to force yet to be born people into debt? The idea of voting ourselves goodies and leaving our children and grandchildren to pay for it is repugnant.
The only fee should be payment for citizenship and all that comes with it.
It should be like paying for membership into a club. All benefits are outlined up front, you can join or not.
You want free education, police protection, fire department services, etc. You pay up front like a package deal.
Otherwise, you pay for those things separately.
Can't afford it? Don't join the citizen club.
Don't think the benefits of joining are worth the money? Don't join the citizen club.
Want all the free stuff that comes with being a citizen without paying anything? Go find a citizenship club that gives you all of that stuff for free without payment.
It should be like paying for membership into a club. All benefits are outlined up front, you can join or not.
You want free education, police protection, fire department services, etc. You pay up front like a package deal.
Otherwise, you pay for those things separately.
Can't afford it? Don't join the citizen club.
Don't think the benefits of joining are worth the money? Don't join the citizen club.
Want all the free stuff that comes with being a citizen without paying anything? Go find a citizenship club that gives you all of that stuff for free without payment.
The problem is that then you have to put into place a ton of checks to avoid free riders. Which I doubt is worth it as realistically people will have to join a "club." Without the "protection" of the police it's perfectly ok for anyone to randomly shoot you. Including the owner of any given "club." Which just puts you back in the "pay or we shoot you" situation anywat. Until there are open-source drones protecting everyone from violence unconditionally, the pay or we shoot you system will automatically survive.
The only fee should be payment for citizenship and all that comes with it.
It should be like paying for membership into a club. All benefits are outlined up front, you can join or not.
You want free education, police protection, fire department services, etc. You pay up front like a package deal.
Otherwise, you pay for those things separately.
Can't afford it? Don't join the citizen club.
Don't think the benefits of joining are worth the money? Don't join the citizen club.
Want all the free stuff that comes with being a citizen without paying anything? Go find a citizenship club that gives you all of that stuff for free without payment.
It should be like paying for membership into a club. All benefits are outlined up front, you can join or not.
You want free education, police protection, fire department services, etc. You pay up front like a package deal.
Otherwise, you pay for those things separately.
Can't afford it? Don't join the citizen club.
Don't think the benefits of joining are worth the money? Don't join the citizen club.
Want all the free stuff that comes with being a citizen without paying anything? Go find a citizenship club that gives you all of that stuff for free without payment.
Nothing, but on the grand list of things that shouldn't be taxed, income is the worst offender, next to assets, for the sole reason that they punish success; imagine if a parent punished their child every time they did something good, how productive will that child be in the future?
Consumption tax discourages spending which, while encouraging saving, is still a shady way to do so (a person should willingly want to save, otherwise it's a pointless practice as they'll inevitably blow it all somewhere.) And a public property tax is more socialist dogma that insists people are much too stupid to simply stop buying from offending companies, but a "benevolent and good-intentioned" government can resolve the issue because, paradoxically, the people are smart enough to not only refuse to participate in a corrupt government with rigged voting systems (a prerequisite to actually being able to vote for the right people), but can actually detect "good people" to put in office (the same people who believe rule by fear and authority is the only way the world can work; good luck with that.)
You would still need taxes for security if done that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Consumption tax discourages spending which, while encouraging saving, is still a shady way to do so (a person should willingly want to save, otherwise it's a pointless practice as they'll inevitably blow it all somewhere.) And a public property tax is more socialist dogma that insists people are much too stupid to simply stop buying from offending companies, but a "benevolent and good-intentioned" government can resolve the issue because, paradoxically, the people are smart enough to not only refuse to participate in a corrupt government with rigged voting systems (a prerequisite to actually being able to vote for the right people), but can actually detect "good people" to put in office (the same people who believe rule by fear and authority is the only way the world can work; good luck with that.)
What about the no tax option (except national defense and local law enforcement)?
You would still need taxes for security if done that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Security can be done via community organizing.
What should be taxed? Nothing.
How can you enforce property rights if nothing is taxed. You need to tax something.
Nothing, but on the grand list of things that shouldn't be taxed, income is the worst offender, next to assets, for the sole reason that they punish success; imagine if a parent punished their child every time they did something good, how productive will that child be in the future?
Consumption tax discourages spending which, while encouraging saving, is still a shady way to do so (a person should willingly want to save, otherwise it's a pointless practice as they'll inevitably blow it all somewhere.) And a public property tax is more socialist dogma that insists people are much too stupid to simply stop buying from offending companies, but a "benevolent and good-intentioned" government can resolve the issue because, paradoxically, the people are smart enough to not only refuse to participate in a corrupt government with rigged voting systems (a prerequisite to actually being able to vote for the right people), but can actually detect "good people" to put in office (the same people who believe rule by fear and authority is the only way the world can work; good luck with that.)
You would still need taxes for security if done that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Consumption tax discourages spending which, while encouraging saving, is still a shady way to do so (a person should willingly want to save, otherwise it's a pointless practice as they'll inevitably blow it all somewhere.) And a public property tax is more socialist dogma that insists people are much too stupid to simply stop buying from offending companies, but a "benevolent and good-intentioned" government can resolve the issue because, paradoxically, the people are smart enough to not only refuse to participate in a corrupt government with rigged voting systems (a prerequisite to actually being able to vote for the right people), but can actually detect "good people" to put in office (the same people who believe rule by fear and authority is the only way the world can work; good luck with that.)
What about the no tax option (except national defense and local law enforcement)?
You would still need taxes for security if done that way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
What about the no tax option (except national defense and local law enforcement)?
The wealthy will benefit a great deal from anonymous BTC transactions - a consumption tax would counteract this very effectively I believe.
Consumption should be tax...but wait we already have that and is called VAT....But a true consumption-tax system would entail something much different from simply layering a VAT on top of the current income tax. One way to think of a consumption-tax system is simply as an income tax that allows unlimited deductions for savings and that taxes all withdrawals from savings, much like independent retirement accounts.
Realistically, there needs to be a transition from what we have today to a totally voluntary society and a flat tax of somewhere in the mid-teens would be adequate. It has to be apportioned equally but there's 92 million people out of the work force and a large number of them are on some sort of govt entitlement program. Frankly, nothing is realistic right now until many millions more are employed in jobs that offer mobility to the middle class. The current addition of 200k new jobs per month being service sector, part time and seasonal positions doesn't bode well at all for any economic growth going forward. Employers of middles class jobs are sitting back and not hiring until regulations can be faded a bit and this Obamacare monstrosity can be curtailed. Also, the corporate repatriation tax needs to be severely cut so the money stashed overseas comes home and a portion can go to pay for infrastructure upkeep.
Where the flat-tax theory fails is that across any country,everyone's income level is not the same. There lies a massive difference in the type of lifestyle that people lead. A universal flat-tax is impossible to come to because it cannot be determined practically. Another thing is why there is opposition to social security legislation. Why must one be so selfish to care only for yourself and not for fellow-countryman? The reason that such ideas were adopted were to help marginalized people who do not have any money to take care of themselves. The health care costs in this country are already so abominable that without insurance,you're as good as dead if you have a major health problem. I agree completely with you about the repatriation tax. More permanent jobs of whatever type and income are needed at home now.
Jump to: