[fastspawn]

What about a flat tax just based upon consumption? Like A goods and service tax.

However that would lead to less spending and lack of dynamism in markets wouldn't it? I don't really know, in SIngapore GST didn't affect consumer's much. (our's is 5%). Our income tax is ~20%, but 3/4 of our population don't pay income tax because their rebates exceed their income tax.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

35-55% progressive income tax, indexed to the median income, with no tax on the first $15000 or so.

Taxes should be the maximum possible such that there is still an incentive for people to keep working.

That just creates an incentive for people to put a lot of work into evading taxes. For instance, I spend at least four hours a week researching taxation structures, laws, penalties, and enforcement? Why? So I can better evade taxes. I currently pay no federal or state income taxes, and I'm trying to figure out how to get out of several other forms of taxation. If there was just, say, a flat ten percent tax and nothing else, I'd be willing to put up with it.

[Maxim Litvinov]

That's a rather poor argument, Dao.

After all, you could argue that with every cent extra onto the cost of goods at the supermarket that you are raising the prospect of them being shoplifted. And that is true. But do you imagine that Wal-Mart would accept an argument that said they should never increase prices, because it would just encourage illegal activities?

Of course I advocate a tax system which makes tax evasion difficult. I don't accept, btw, that this would be a consumption tax, simply because such taxes often increase cash-only services which effectively evade tax. But even if 10% of the increased taxes are 'evaded' in some way, you are still getting a lot more money through to the treasury so that vital public services are being properly funded, and so that opportunities can thus be increased for all.

I've got to say too, Dao, that most people I know aren't nearly so selfish as you when it comes to their tax returns. They actually don't take umbrage at paying for schools and hospitals.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

That's a rather poor argument, Dao.

After all, you could argue that with every cent extra onto the cost of goods at the supermarket that you are raising the prospect of them being shoplifted. And that is true. But do you imagine that Wal-Mart would accept an argument that said they should never increase prices, because it would just encourage illegal activities?

Wal-Mart cuts prices year after year, actually. Their reason? To keep people shopping there, instead of at the competition. The government has no competition, so it is in sense competing with crime.

With regard to taxation, there is a point beyond which revenues decline, for two reasons. One is that the impulse to evade taxation increases, the other is that a heavy burden of taxation increases the burden on the economy. While there is no concrete point which maximizes income tax revenue, it's generally thought to be around 30%.

Of course I advocate a tax system which makes tax evasion difficult. I don't accept, btw, that this would be a consumption tax, simply because such taxes often increase cash-only services which effectively evade tax.

Well, all taxation creates some sort of black market or tax evasion, which is why most countries have both direct and indirect taxes, to prevent too much tax evasion. Given a choice between direct and indirect taxation, I'd choose indirect, as income taxation posits that your earned income only exists at the caprice of the state, which makes me very uneasy. I, of course, am a radical libertarian, and I believe that taxation be abolished.

But even if 10% of the increased taxes are 'evaded' in some way, you are still getting a lot more money through to the treasury so that vital public services are being properly funded, and so that opportunities can thus be increased for all.

What "vital" public services? These can be provided from the market, and more efficiently. Or perhaps you're talking about war? Yeah, the invasion of Iraq is a truly vital public service. All taxation ultimately harms people and the economy. Ultimately, no one has his oppurtunities increased because the government takes his money and spends it on things that seem hunky-dory.

I've got to say too, Dao, that most people I know aren't nearly so selfish as you when it comes to their tax returns. They actually don't take umbrage at paying for schools and hospitals.

Yeah, it's so selfish to want to keep the money that I've worked hard for. Most people lack the courage I do to stand up to the government. I didn't register for the draft, and I do my best not to pay my taxes. I do take umbrage at squandering my money on terrible government run schools which teach our children nothing, on war, on income redistribution, and many, many other things. Let me tell you something, Maxim. The true definition of greed is wanting something that isn't yours. The government is greedy, not me.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I'd even go as far as to say goverment get 25% of all money earned through taxes if they stick thier nose out of consumer products and other capitalistic revenues.

Because alot of goverment funding for stupid causes and crap is done and I don't want my tax money going to it.

[Maxim Litvinov]

See, for me, Dao, your so called 'earned' money came in a significant part through your peculiar luck to be on the top of a extremely unequitable system. Therefore, from my POV you do have a moral obligation to pay taxes - because in truth you aren't deserving of all that money. Certainly not while many others work just as hard and aren't rewarded so handsomely.

* In regards to Wal-Mart, your response does nothing to address my point. Which is simply that just because raising taxes may increase the propensity to wish to evade taxes, this is a bad excuse not to raise taxes.
* As for your 30% figure, I think you should tell the Oz government (and many others) this. Obviously they are buffoons for thinking that they should have a top tax rate of 47%, when they would automatically get more revenue by charging everyone 30%. Perhaps while you're at it, you can actually provide evidence for this extraordinary claim.
* I agree that a mixed tax system will tend to lessen the ability of any individual to completely escape tax.
* As I have explained earlier, I believe the state's top priority is to function such that it provides (as immediately as possible) the greatest equality of opportunity. Therefore, vital public services are any whose funding is conducive to providing such equal opportunity. Which would include funding public hospitals such that even the poor can be treated well, and funding public schools such that even the poor can aspire to a good job after a good education. I'm not talking about war at all.

I'm sorry that you live in a twisted world where you would rather talk of your courage at hoarding your 'earnings', rather than your belief in your ability and duty to make the world a better place.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

See, for me, Dao, your so called 'earned' money came in a significant part through your peculiar luck to be on the top of a extremely unequitable system. Therefore, from my POV you do have a moral obligation to pay taxes - because in truth you aren't deserving of all that money. Certainly not while many others work just as hard and aren't rewarded so handsomely.

Maxim, I'm a high-school dropout. I work for $10 an hour, and I'm not able to evade payroll taxes, which consume about 13% of that (so down to $8.70). Furthermore, I have to pay unemployment "insurance", which is another 3% (down to $8.40) I work as much overtime as possible (I get time-and-a-half). I work about sixty hours a week, which under time-and-half counts as 70 hours, so I make about $700 a week, gross. However, that's immediately lopped down to circa $588. So, per month, I make about $2548 net. However, I need to pay rent on my crappy apartment/slum house, which is $320 a month. Down to $2230 (rounded for simplicity). Then there's my high-quality HMO health insurance (a standard created by the government, which needlessly inflates costs), which is $130 a month. Down to $2100 a month. Then there's gas and maintenence on my cars, which costs about $200 a month (granted, I could choose to get rid of some of them). So down to $1900. Then there's the fact that the government forces me to have auto insurance, another industry the government protects and inflates costs in. This costs be another $300 a month. Down to $1600. Then there's the city-mandated utility fees, which have to be paid even if you don't use them, $50 a month. Down to $1550. Naturally, I need to pay for food and utilities as well, which consumes about $200 a month if I live frugally. This gets me down to $1350 a month. So, basically, my disposable income for a year is $16,200, the purchasing power of which is always declining thanks to government-created inflation. Of course, the government doesn't want to tax that, it wants to tax my gross income, which is $36,400 (not insubstantial, but it's only because I work long hours. I have supplementary income through my web hosting and small engine repair gimmicks, but that doesn't amount to more than $2,000 a year. If you're wondering, I'm currently saving as much money as possible, with which I plan to attend college as soon as possible. Since I didn't register for the selective service (the draft), I'm not eligible for government aid. And since government accreditation and standards needlessly inflate the cost of education, I'm in a double-bind.

Many people, of course, do earn income unjustly through inequities in the system. This includes lawyers, anyone in the healthcare profession, anyone in government, anyone in finance and banking, and many, many others. I'm not part of that class of people.

* In regards to Wal-Mart, your response does nothing to address my point. Which is simply that just because raising taxes may increase the propensity to wish to evade taxes, this is a bad excuse not to raise taxes.

The point is that beyond a certain tax level, the evasion of taxes causes revenues to actually decline.

* As for your 30% figure, I think you should tell the Oz government (and many others) this. Obviously they are buffoons for thinking that they should have a top tax rate of 47%, when they would automatically get more revenue by charging everyone 30%. Perhaps while you're at it, you can actually provide evidence for this extraordinary claim.

Maxim, I should've clarified. It's a 30% flat rate, not as a top marginal rate. In a marginal system, the rate can certainly be higher.

* As I have explained earlier, I believe the state's top priority is to function such that it provides (as immediately as possible) the greatest equality of opportunity. Therefore, vital public services are any whose funding is conducive to providing such equal opportunity. Which would include funding public hospitals such that even the poor can be treated well, and funding public schools such that even the poor can aspire to a good job after a good education. I'm not talking about war at all.

I see such government schemes as destructive, but this isn't the place for that debate. In your capacity as debate judge, you have ample oppurtunity to witness my views.

I'm sorry that you live in a twisted world where you would rather talk of your courage at hoarding your 'earnings', rather than your belief in your ability and duty to make the world a better place.

I do believe I can make the world a better place. I strive to attain wealth via serving the community, rather than exploiting it or stealing from it. I give what little I can to charity, and plan to give more. However, the state, as far as I see it, is evil, and funding it is evil. I'm not an absolutist on this per se--I don't see people who pay their taxes as evil or cowards, but my personal moral choice is that the state is a despotic entity which must not be given into.

[Tex]

Therefore, from my POV you do have a moral obligation to pay taxes - because in truth you aren't deserving of all that money. Certainly not while many others work just as hard and aren't rewarded so handsomely...

...I'm sorry that you live in a twisted world where you would rather talk of your courage at hoarding your 'earnings', rather than your belief in your ability and duty to make the world a better place.

Max,

Statements such as these epitomize the liberal elitism that has always rubbed working people the wrong way, at least in the US. It assumes that the poor are intentionally singled out for punishment by some unspoken alliance among the more productive members of society, and that by keeping some people "down," the members of this secret society of "the rich" is able to stay "on top."

Nobody denies that there is a small percentage of people in every society that are incapable of properly caring for themselves, and most will even agree that a moral government should attempt to create enough surplus to, at the very least, help them to survive, and if economically possible, maybe even be happy. But make no mistake about it, this is charity, plain and simple. It is admirable for any human entity to participate in charitable acts, but there are pitfalls when charity is administered by the state, because every state is corrupt, in that it consists of human beings who will always be driven by varying degrees of ambition...whether for power over other human beings or simply a desire to achieve greater personal prosperity. Any time a human being is empowered to administer charity, there is a temptation to "cook the books," by tinkering with the threshold for who is allowed to receive charitable benefits. This is to be expected, and those empowered to allocate a percentage of the economic "surplus," to the administrators of charitable donations, nearly always rationalize that it is better to overlook such "tinkering," because otherwise many truly needy people might suffer.

In the US, where there have been vast surpluses for decades, the corruption in administering charity has multiplied out of all proportion to the original intent...feeding the poor. Generations of politicians have made entire careers out of bloating the numbers of needy people, creating gigantic monolithic bureaucracies, administered by hand-picked political functionaries who march in lockstep to the tune of their political patrons. The truly needy are still needy, and their numbers have multiplied, because that other portion of society that always exists...the truly lazy, have been lured away from the menial, but honorable and necessary work they previously engaged in by the promise of an equal level of prosperity, without the physical labor. The system of "charity for the poor" has evolved into a sort of "anti-labor" union, in which each member has the "right" to demand more money and greater benefits, and has affluent lobbyists in the Halls of Congress that make lucrative careers of promoting class hatred against those who would attempt to regain control of the system.

The situation has become so ridiculous through the generations that those who now champion the cause of the poor are mostly people who have never done an ounce of physical labor in their entire lives...Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, to name but a few...who have absolutely no understanding of what it is to need help. They shame large portions of the public into believing that their hard-earned wages are ill-gotten and that only left-wing politicians are compassionate enough to decide what portion of the "state's money" the wage-earner should be allowed to keep. These are people who have turned to government service out of boredom, who seek power over others because they already have everything money can buy...they have wanted for nothing for their entire lives, and now "toy" with politics out of an arrogant need to dominate "lesser" individuals, and bend them to their will.

Americans annually give hundreds of millions to charity, even though the various government entities on the federal, state, and local levels now confiscate approximately half of all they earn, to be doled out as rewards to those who will vote to perpetuate the corrupt system...

...because the government still fails to solve the problems of the truly needy.

[fastspawn]

The situation has become so ridiculous through the generations that those who now champion the cause of the poor are mostly people who have never done an ounce of physical labor in their entire lives...Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, to name but a few...who have absolutely no understanding of what it is to need help. They shame large portions of the public into believing that their hard-earned wages are ill-gotten and that only left-wing politicians are compassionate enough to decide what portion of the "state's money" the wage-earner should be allowed to keep. These are people who have turned to government service out of boredom, who seek power over others because they already have everything money can buy...they have wanted for nothing for their entire lives, and now "toy" with politics out of an arrogant need to dominate "lesser" individuals, and bend them to their will.

Americans annually give hundreds of millions to charity, even though the various government entities on the federal, state, and local levels now confiscate approximately half of all they earn, to be doled out as rewards to those who will vote to perpetuate the corrupt system...

...because the government still fails to solve the problems of the truly needy.

It is a real problem when only the rich take on the burden of serving and advocating the freedom of allowing the less priviledged to grow.

But that is the situation of the world today, the poor cannot fight for their own rights without it resolving in violence, as they would not have the ability to 1. Have capital to own their means of production.
2. The Education to pursue careers which offer these means.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, e.g. The current running mate of Kerry, Edwards. (Not to say he was under-priviledge though, more or less he was middle of the road). So until society changes such that the people in power are born of a wide strata of society and belong to various classes, i do not see the problem of a rich man fighting a poor man's war. Especially when there are certain elites who cling on to power at the expense of others.

Anyway, the government does not confisicate your money like the king and lords did in feudal and archaic times, the money that you pay in taxes comes right back to you in many different ways.

[Tim]

OK, i am a rich man who pays 10 times as much tax as the poor. Therefore, i demand 10 police cars come to my house if i call for them, i demand the water comes out of my taps 10 times as cleaner, i demand that i get ALL services 10 times more, better and faster than the poor, who pay a tenth of what i pay, under progressive taxation.

How's that for justcie?

[fastspawn]

OK, i am a rich man who pays 10 times as much tax as the poor. Therefore, i demand 10 police cars come to my house if i call for them, i demand the water comes out of my taps 10 times as cleaner, i demand that i get ALL services 10 times more, better and faster than the poor, who pay a tenth of what i pay, under progressive taxation.

How's that for justcie?

It's precisely this types of atitudes that we have to fight against. Under a society which does not protect the weak and shelter the poor, we will have a condition akin to slavery, where the rich are allowed to use the power they wield to trample over the ability of the poor to grow.

Anyway, this is where the difference between a private and public service differs. In a public service, everything is as equal as possible to level the playing field. In a private practise you would get your 10 police cars, you would get ur desalinated x10 water , but that would mean the poor would not be able to 1.have acess to proper police protection. 2. have acess to clean water.

[Tim]

OK, i am a rich man who pays 10 times as much tax as the poor. Therefore, i demand 10 police cars come to my house if i call for them, i demand the water comes out of my taps 10 times as cleaner, i demand that i get ALL services 10 times more, better and faster than the poor, who pay a tenth of what i pay, under progressive taxation.

How's that for justcie?

It's precisely this types of atitudes that we have to fight against. Under a society which does not protect the weak and shelter the poor, we will have a condition akin to slavery, where the rich are allowed to use the power they wield to trample over the ability of the poor to grow.

Anyway, this is where the difference between a private and public service differs. In a public service, everything is as equal as possible to level the playing field. In a private practise you would get your 10 police cars, you would get ur desalinated x10 water , but that would mean the poor would not be able to 1.have acess to proper police protection. 2. have acess to clean water.

A flat tax would not create slavery!

God, this is the type of hysterical, socialist nonsense we have to fight against.

Morally, how can anyone be expected to pay a different share? 20% of my wage is 20% of your wage. They are not the same monetary amounts, but are equal in their share's and the affect it has on the individual.

Plus, in the event of a flat tax, you'll probably find more people willing to pay taxes, donate to charities - because the state isn't as intrusive as one that uses 'progressive' taxation.

If you earn x legitmately, it is yours. You have mixed your labour with it, and the society within which you live has legitimately valued it in the market with their individually voluntary actions to purchase it or not. The extent to which a state violates this inalienable right, is the extent to which the state itself is not legitimate.

If one feels that they need to contribute more, voluntarily, then they are free to do so, because the state takes only what it needs to secure the society within which they live i.e. the maintenance of the minimal state.

The state that taxes beyond belief, all in the aim of redistribution, has clearly failed - except in its cause to make everyone as dirt poor as each other. Equal, but poor nonetheless.

[fastspawn]

A flat tax would not create slavery!

God, this is the type of hysterical, socialist nonsense we have to fight against.

Morally, how can anyone be expected to pay a different share? 20% of my wage is 20% of your wage. They are not the same monetary amounts, but are equal in their share's and the affect it has on the individual.

Plus, in the event of a flat tax, you'll probably find more people willing to pay taxes, donate to charities - because the state isn't as intrusive as one that uses 'progressive' taxation.

If you earn x legitmately, it is yours. You have mixed your labour with it, and the society within which you live has legitimately valued it in the market with their individually voluntary actions to purchase it or not. The extent to which a state violates this inalienable right, is the extent to which the state itself is not legitimate.

If one feels that they need to contribute more, voluntarily, then they are free to do so, because the state takes only what it needs to secure the society within which they live i.e. the maintenance of the minimal state.

The state that taxes beyond belief, all in the aim of redistribution, has clearly failed - except in its cause to make everyone as dirt poor as each other. Equal, but poor nonetheless.

I never did say a flat tax would create slavery, i was saying that the attitude you took of "demanding" your right because you paid more in taxes, is akin to what would happen if the government does not protect the poor.

If there was no protection given to the poor, and no way of letting them on the playing field, how can we correct this? Or do you think we should leave the poor to be victims of the attitudes you have so portrayed in the post before?

[Tim]

The poor are poor for a reason.

[fastspawn]

The poor are poor for a reason.

Yes i agree, some poor are poor because they choose not to make the most of their life. But consider children born in poor families.

Some of them make good, but a lot of them, have to sholder heavy burdens at a young age, and do not have access to the same priviledges as a well-to-do kid.

Thus if two kids are born inherently equal (e.g. in abilities, and qualities) and put in equal hard work, the poor kid is not going to overtake the rich one. He has to put in much harder work in order to achieve the same results

[Tim]

The poor are poor for a reason.

Yes i agree, some poor are poor because they choose not to make the most of their life. But consider children born in poor families.

Some of them make good, but a lot of them, have to sholder heavy burdens at a young age, and do not have access to the same priviledges as a well-to-do kid.

Thus if two kids are born inherently equal (e.g. in abilities, and qualities) and put in equal hard work, the poor kid is not going to overtake the rich one. He has to put in much harder work in order to achieve the same results

However, if they put enough hard work in, their rewards will be relative to those who do similar hard work, but may have more talents.

[Ulysses]

10,000 dollars annualy, you would have to pay only 1,000 dollars in taxes.

And if you only made $5,000?

Then you'd pay 500 dollars.

[Nicky Scarfo]

What do all of you think about having a flat taxe of 10% for everyone? I myself agree with after reading "A new birth of freedom" by Steve Forbes. I think that it's good because every citizen would be paying an equal percent of the taxes but not the same amount. Like say for example you made 10,000 dollars annualy, you would have to pay only 1,000 dollars in taxes.

Well, as a member of the working class, I would have to say I'm against getting fucked. The rich should pay more. Myself and millions of others line their pockets with their labor, if I can't live in a scoiety where the economy is democratic, I at least expect to get some of that wealth back through the State (though ideally I would just like to be paid the value of my labor).

By the way-- National Syndicalist huh? Seems like fascists in leftist clothing are popping up everywhere now-- National Bolsheviks, National Anarchists-- and now (this is a new one to me) National Syndicalists. I guess third positionism is the new black of radical politics.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Maxim, I'm a high-school dropout. I work for $10 an hour, and I'm not able to evade payroll taxes, which consume about 13% of that (so down to $8.70). Furthermore, I have to pay unemployment "insurance", which is another 3% (down to $8.40) I work as much overtime as possible (I get time-and-a-half). I work about sixty hours a week, which under time-and-half counts as 70 hours, so I make about $700 a week, gross. However, that's immediately lopped down to circa $588. So, per month, I make about $2548 net. However, I need to pay rent on my crappy apartment/slum house, which is $320 a month. Down to $2230 (rounded for simplicity). Then there's my high-quality HMO health insurance (a standard created by the government, which needlessly inflates costs), which is $130 a month. Down to $2100 a month. Then there's gas and maintenence on my cars, which costs about $200 a month (granted, I could choose to get rid of some of them). So down to $1900. Then there's the fact that the government forces me to have auto insurance, another industry the government protects and inflates costs in. This costs be another $300 a month. Down to $1600. Then there's the city-mandated utility fees, which have to be paid even if you don't use them, $50 a month. Down to $1550. Naturally, I need to pay for food and utilities as well, which consumes about $200 a month if I live frugally. This gets me down to $1350 a month. So, basically, my disposable income for a year is $16,200, the purchasing power of which is always declining thanks to government-created inflation. Of course, the government doesn't want to tax that, it wants to tax my gross income, which is $36,400 (not insubstantial, but it's only because I work long hours. I have supplementary income through my web hosting and small engine repair gimmicks, but that doesn't amount to more than $2,000 a year. If you're wondering, I'm currently saving as much money as possible, with which I plan to attend college as soon as possible. Since I didn't register for the selective service (the draft), I'm not eligible for government aid. And since government accreditation and standards needlessly inflate the cost of education, I'm in a double-bind.

Many people, of course, do earn income unjustly through inequities in the system. This includes lawyers, anyone in the healthcare profession, anyone in government, anyone in finance and banking, and many, many others. I'm not part of that class of people.

Sounds like you're putting the blame in the wrong place. Maybe you should be paid more (don't you think your employer could afford it?). And you're right-- you shouldn't be paying that much in taxes (I get fucked too-- the city I live in has a 5% payroll tax on top of federal and state taxes, plus rent is a HELL OF A LOT MORE than where you live), but instead of eliminating taxes or implementing a flat tax-- how about raising taxes on those who can afford to pay it?

Whoa-- what a crazy idea. Crazy because the right wing has the working class in the ether and convinced that if the rich people have to pay people more or pay more in taxes that there will be no more jobs or we will live in some sort of communist distopia or some other such nonsense. Bullshit corporate media propaganda and a very impressive organizing effort by the right wing over the last 30 years are responsible for this nonsense ideology amongst the working class.

Yeah, yeah-- I know I'm a lazy, smelly, pinko hippy and it goes against human nature and blah, blah, blah. Bottom line-- pay me what I'm worth, give me freedom on the job and stop letting the rich get away with murder. Flat tax? Flat wrong.[/code]

[Nicky Scarfo]

The poor are poor for a reason.

Yeah, yeah. More Social Darwinist crap. The strong survive, yadda yadda yadda. It's the poor's fault they're poor. This wouldn't be so dangerous a philosophy if you right wingers hadn't gotten so many of the poor and working-class to believe it for themselves.

Congratualtions on an effective organizing and propagandizing effort-- but our time will come.