Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
- From: Lysander <lysander@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:39:05 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 27, 1:42 am, "J.H.Boersema" <jo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the things that really bugs people is the fact that we can't
work for one another for money without having to report it. The
whole economy which would otherwise have a casual / trivial human
to human trade component ("I give you 5 bucks if you fix my bike,
I give you 25 every day if you clean my home" which is now called
black work) is pulled into a tiresome system of bureaucracy that
chokes the small scale economy. It seems income should not be taxed.
Taxing income pulls the unfulfilled demand from crushed trivial
trade toward larger companies that can bother with the bureaucratic
overhead. Thus the demand comes in the scope of the for-profit banks,
who suck out capital from companies where they invest in and place
their people abusers as bosses (which it is most profitable). Income
tax seems designed to cause profits for investors and banks
(parasites). Do the banks write our tax code now ?
Simpler & better: tax every person a given amount (head tax).
Given standard assumptions about utility a head tax is efficient. I
doubt you will find anyone who will argue it is fair.
Ownership (property tax) can be taxed, as that wouldn't impede
trade.
It can impede trade in land markets, however the impediment is less
than other markets given the tax burden is relieved by selling. You
need very restrictive assumptions that are unlikely to hold to get an
efficient land tax. The data on elasticity of labor supply seems to
indicate payroll are as likely to be as close to efficient as land
taxes. Labor supply is very inelastic like land supply is. Fairness is
a completely different argument. The Georgist can not get over the
fairness argument and continually argue the same misunderstanding
about supply and a religious belief that the restrictive parameters
hold. Do not let them fool you. To them it is all about which tax is
the most fair. Few of them actually understand efficiency or what
supply means.
In a more equally set up economy the need for progressive
taxation diminishes,
Is there ever a need for progressive taxes? Those who argue there is a
need speak for the idea that equal outcomes in labor markets is the
goal rather equal opportunity. These people only want to see no one
else making more than they do. They see making the rich poor and not
helping the poor as desirable. This is the Perron logic that we will
make every one equal even if that means everyone is equally poor and
equally living in squalor.
That being said I support the ability to pay principles. Those with
the highest ability to pay should pay the most. This does not mean tax
rates have to be progressive. A flat tax still means those with higher
incomes pay more taxes just that everyone pays the same percentage.
20% of 200,000 is still much more in taxes than 20% of 100.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
- From: J.H.Boersema
- better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
- Prev by Date: Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
- Next by Date: Ricardo's Law Video: The Great Tax Clawback Scam
- Previous by thread: Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
- Next by thread: Re: better tax code: no income tax, head tax (&| ppty t)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
