Topic: Which tax is the least bad? (Read 5285 times)

How have you been arguing with me for this long and not realised that I support several socialist policies? . And people decide their own moral responsibilities. Thankfully, their legal responsibilities are decided by the state.

Will post full reply later.

Of course in reality, the super-rich pay a hefty percentage to lawyers and accountants to help them avoid such taxes. The libertarian solution? "Well, stop taxing them then".

Yes, but I would argue that since the renters usually bear at least some of the cost of a property tax, the tax will affect their behaviour as well as the one being directly taxed. It certainly doesn't provide an incentive to rent rather than own, since you will still be paying the tax (or most of it), and you will be pissing money away on rent.


Less "investment in housing" does not imply more people choosing to become renters, it implies less people choosing to become landlords. A property tax would have to be close to 100% of the cost of rent before it started to disincentivise owning your own home - the people discouraged from investing are those who are buying to let.


Yes, I think we've been over this ground. For me, the notion of fairness must be related to the amount that you're able to pay. If you earn $20k, and pay an income tax of (e.g.) 25%, that $5k can be the difference between eating and going hungry, or between paying rent and being homeless. If you earn $200k, who gives a fuck about $50k? You have $150k left, and since it doesn't cost a rich person any more to survive than a poor person, most of it is spending money.


I understand how wealth is created, and I don't want to prohibit people from getting rich by creating it. However, there is an optimal region (for all taxes) where the redistributive benefit outweighs the wealth lost by the % who were disincentivised to create.

If you have a skill worth $20m per year, you will still be fabulously wealthy if you pay a tax rate of 50%, 60% even. Are you going to avoid using that skill to make yourself $10m per year, just to stick it to the government?

Those points are very true, this is why I'm against all income and sales tax. They require an army of agents to check reports and organize collection.

You only talk of automotive fuels. How about extending it to all energies, up to coal and nuclear? Better think global!

I rather doubt if you'll be able to cite for the idea that behavior is affected by taxes not paid by an individual.


Less "investment in housing" is ownership. Higher taxes will affect the numbers of people who decide to own their own property, you cannot cite any economic study that would show otherwise.

It's merely common sense as well... when the cost of something goes up, you have less people able or interested in purchasing it.


You aren't speaking of 'fairness'. Find another word.

You are PUNISHING people who are successful, that's no-one's definition of "fair".



This is the basis of socialism, not capitalism. It's not the fault or responsibility of successful people to 'save' the less fortunate.


I understand how wealth is created, and I don't want to prohibit people from getting rich by creating it. However, there is an optimal region (for all taxes) where the redistributive benefit outweighs the wealth lost by the % who were disincentivised to create.[/quote]

"redistributive benefit" - socialism.

I'm interested in discussing the best forms of taxes to collect... not interested in socialism... which I reject as a failed experiment.


What gives you the right to take my money only because I'm more successful than others at creating wealth?

You take the capital away from the very people who've proven that they know what to do with it, and give it to government, which has never shown any particular ability to handle money well.

The 'war on poverty' will never be won by giving the poor more money.

Land tax is the lesser of all evils where I live. The main reason is that the county explains and breaks down why the tax rate is what it is, and how the tax is distributed to various agencies county wide. The school district gets the lions share of it.

Of course, when you tax energy, you're in essence punishing those who are trying to make an easier life for everyone.

Certainly a good 'tree-hugger' idea, but not a well-thought out tax, in my opinion.

There's always going to be an 'underground' movement, you'll never collect taxes perfectly. But it's just silly to assert that you need a police state to utilize a sales tax.

I saw one country that has a 50% sales tax... ouch!


I don't consider this a problem. I'm in favor of fair taxation. I think that everyone should pay an equal percentage of taxes. Doing anything other than this is not fair, and indeed, is simply an attempt to punish people for wealth creation.

It's a false notion that if you are wealthy, that I must have less.


Taxes always affects the behavior of those who are taxed, regardless of their ability to pay. I reject your implied argument otherwise. This has been studied by economists: "It is show that the property tax has a strong effect on the decision to invest in housing; an increase of one percentage point in the full-value tax rate will lower applications for investment by 90 milliion dollars" - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/143107?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103772294207



An idea based on a false understanding of the pie. That is, what you think wealth is... a pie. And when one person has a big chunk of that pie, you think that you have less of a chunk.

Wealth doesn't work that way.

If I take a plot of land, some building materials, and the labor costs to build a house, the resulting house is worth more than all my preceding costs. I've created wealth.

The least bad option is a comprehensive carbon tax that applies to all hydrocarbon fuels, from gasoline to propane. It gives each consumer the freedom to determine the energy use that best suits his or her budget. But is it fair? Only if it is revenue neutral, that is, if the extra tax income is offset with lower taxes elsewhere.

Sales tax can be avoided... you simply don't buy something.

The idea that all taxes are bad, and that we need to be able to avoid all taxes is hardly worth debating.

Of COURSE the renter pays more to cover all costs. It's hardly 'pendantic,' it's merely the truth. Why would you argue with the facts?

You think it's 'trolling' to merely be precise about the facts?


Sound's suspiciously like you wish to discourage wealth.

I'm merely pointing out facts.

A renter does not pay the property owner's tax. Quite clearly, an owner has to take taxes into account, as well as property maintenance & upkeep, but it's silly to state that the *RENTER* is responsible for these costs.


This was already dealt with. Most countries have sales tax. The bureaucracy needed for property tax wouldn't be dramatically different from that needed for sales tax.

And, as sales tax is more equally divided between people, it would present less of a burden.


Facts would be nice. A better argument would certainly help. I'm not tied to this opinion.


Methinks that you overstate the importance of 12 people. That is, after all - the number of votes currently existing for a property tax. And were you to quiz those 12 people, chances are good that at least some of them voted for more than just the property tax.


Still beating that strawman, eh?

I think Sales tax or direct taxes are so bad because we can not avoid them.

You are being childish.  A sales tax is paid by the seller but the costs are born by the buyer.  A resource tax is paid by the owner but the costs are born by the consumer.  

I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread.  You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions.  You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage.  The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office.   

Good luck with persuading people in this forum to join your ideal of increasing government size and adding to policing the public.

Time for me to say "Peace - out."

This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.

If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread.  You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions.  You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage.  The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office.   

Time for me to say "Peace - out."

If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?

A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents. 

What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.