A new way to tax

Well, you can't squeeze water from a rock. If the middle and lower middle classes don't have any money, what do we do? If the jobs they can get don't pay enough they're stuck in an endless loop.

There are only so many high paying positions out there, and someone's going to have to clean bathrooms.

Trickle down economics don't work, period. Just being a rich person doesn't make you a job creator. You need a product that is in demand.

Demand for a product or service creates the need for more employees and jobs. A healthy middle classes that has disposable income creates a demand for products, and in turn jobs.

If the 1% keep siphoning off all the wealth, they're going to run out of customers and their businesses will fail. It probably won't matter to them, because they'll just retire to their private fortress-pleasure domes. (think Dubai)

a reply to: ketsuko

So in the end you didn't answer my question. Oh well. I doubt you'll care about the numbers. Sister, brother in law, you, your husband, your mom, your dad. That's 6 people. Lets say the land is worth 2 million. That's $33,333 per person. If those are your parents only assets that would place them in the 38% percentile which would put them at a tax burden of $1074.57 at the most recent budget. You mention a low income so that's what... $10,000 per person ($20,000 as a couple), so a tax rate of 10.75%, considerably lower than even the lowest marginal rate right now. Such a system would benefit your parents.

Why should you continue to pay for something? That's simple... because it's not yours and there is a cost to getting the benefits from national infrastructure. You can argue for or against the merits of such a system but the land you own ultimately belongs to the country, it is not a sovereign entity and the government is free to charge rent if they choose.

Why shouldn't a person shelter money? Simple, sheltering money is stealing from others. It is reducing your tax burden by making everyone else pay more. That is not a fair system, there should not be tax shelters, and especially not tax shelters that only the wealthy can take advantage of. Why is their money more privileged than the money of the person who can't afford to use a tax shelter? At the risk of side tracking myself I can't resist bringing this up. Even the Bible tells people to not just pay their taxes but to not skimp on them. I would think the idea of a tax shelter should be abhorrent to you.

As far as tax rates go, tax rates have no bearing on quality of life. Look at Norway, their poorest people are well above even the median wage in the US yet their tax rates are through the roof. If anything, higher taxes lead to a higher quality of life. Yet, not only are tax rates in the US currently quite low, but this system provided wealth distribution remains the same, would actually lower taxes for about 95% of the country.

To address your last point, this isn't about punishing the rich at all. I challenge you to find a single part in my proposal where I determined anything based on an amount of money that is classified as rich or poor. It is far less arbitrary than our current system which excludes a certain amount of money and creates marginal rates based on what the government feels you can pay. There is no minimum rate, and there is no maximum rate to make the rich pay more. It is even less arbitrary than a flat tax which decides on an amount to exclude, and flat taxes are even a huge tax increase to the middle class. This is not.

There is not even a getting back at the man here. If anything the system creates boom times where tax rates on the most capable individuals decrease and provide them with an opportunity to amass great wealth. Of course if they want to keep it they need to maintain that exceptional ability rather than striking it rich once.

If anything I suppose it would be more of a meritocracy where those who are wealthy are those who are most capable of sustained levels of high performance.

Oh, as to the house issue... I'll probably never have to answer that question. My generation was sold out, between the wars, the bailouts, the cc debt bubble, the educational debt bubble, and the impending social security collapse (each of which will lead to more bailouts) we had that were financed on the backs of future earnings from the millennials compounded with the end of a need for skilled labor and the vast majority of us (which statistically includes me) will never be able to afford a home.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, you can't squeeze water from a rock. If the middle and lower middle classes don't have any money, what do we do? If the jobs they can get don't pay enough they're stuck in an endless loop.

There are only so many high paying positions out there, and someone's going to have to clean bathrooms.

Trickle down economics don't work, period. Just being a rich person doesn't make you a job creator. You need a product that is in demand.

Demand for a product or service creates the need for more employees and jobs. A healthy middle classes that has disposable income creates a demand for products, and in turn jobs.

If the 1% keep siphoning off all the wealth, they're going to run out of customers and their businesses will fail. It probably won't matter to them, because they'll just retire to their private fortress-pleasure domes. (think Dubai)

It only seems fair to me that if 1% own 99% of the wealth, that they pay 99% of the taxes. Their share of the wealth then decreases while the other 99% use the effective tax holiday to build their own wealth. This evens things out to an extent and suddenly the middle class has money again. Whenever things get out of balance this system auto corrects itself.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why should you continue to pay for something? That's simple... because it's not yours

So thats why if you dont pay your land taxes the land you paid for "is not yours" and can be taken by the Government.(sacrcasm)

I see where you get your thinking from. I mean go all the way and tax every toilet roll I have in the house...or how about some new annual taxes on the vehicle you own outright. Even go further and abolish ownership altogether. Just rent everything from your government. But then the illusion of ownership would be unmasked.

Well, it means something because that percentage is the percentage of the federal budget that person needs to pay

Yet you havent stated why the budget (more like deficit) needs to be so big. I know that at every election campaign all sides make unrealistic promises to get the vote but you make no qualitative comment as the why there should even be a deficit.

You also neglect that deficit budgets would balance if your country stop invading other countries and not support the MIC.
You also conveniently overlook that most countries are used to deficit spending thanks to the fiat money creation allowed to the Rothschilds. Do you seriously think they will ever allow any country out of their claws. Start being a realist.

To begin let me lay out what the problems in our current tax system are:

You could also be polite to the rest of the world and say "the problems in our current US tax system." Most of the world has seen American Exceptionalism for what it is.

Yet you havent stated why the budget (more like deficit) needs to be so big. I know that at every election campaign all sides make unrealistic promises to get the vote but you make no qualitative comment as the why there should even be a deficit.

You also neglect that deficit budgets would balance if your country stop invading other countries and not support the MIC.
You also conveniently overlook that most countries are used to deficit spending thanks to the fiat money creation allowed to the Rothschilds. Do you seriously think they will ever allow any country out of their claws. Start being a realist.

Because there is a lot of things for the government to do. Every area of spending ceded from the government is given to a corporation. At the end of the day I would prefer being able to vote people into government to manage something than rely on a corporate monopoly to look after my interests. As far as defense goes, the US covers most of the western worlds military needs, we also take on the cost of doing so. In a more perfect world these costs would be spread among other nations but that's not how things are. All in all however, defense is just part of our costs there are many others too such as NASA, education, roads, utilities, health care, and more which require federal funds. Currently almost every single one of these segments is under funded.

You could also be polite to the rest of the world and say "the problems in our current US tax system." Most of the world has seen American Exceptionalism for what it is.

If you couldn't figure out that I was referring to the US through context then that's your problem. This same issue applies to other countries too, but other countries don't seem to have the vehement opposition to paying taxes that people in the US do.

a reply to: Aazadan

So you want to go from taxing what we make in a year to taxing property.

It's abhorrent and it shows a lack of respect for the idea of private property rights.

How about a flat tax on what someone makes? Or how about scrap that tax what is consumed? No one consumes more than the wealthy or big businesses. They would pay their fair share with a consumption tax.

a reply to: Aazadan

And will the government have to pay tax on all the land they own?

23% National Sales Tax. People below a certain income get a refund check every month. All with holding goes away, all Social Security, FICA and everything else goes away. This will tap into the underground market and get those who work under the table.

Here's another reason why a wealth tax is wrong. It's unconstitutional. You have the unalienable right to your property. Taxing the same property year after year introduces the idea that the government really owns it all, not you. Government already has the idea that all income is theirs now. It is sometimes referred to as "untaxed revenue" which implies it's what they generously allow us peons to keep.

You allow them to take the same route with wealth, and they will take the same attitude with your personal property. They already do. What happens when you can't pay your property taxes, even if you own the property free and clear? They seize it from you. This will just make it worse. In the land of the free, you are just making the government our landlords from whom we can only ever rent the land, even more than we already do.

Do you know why so many countries have problems with their economies? Because the people are not secure in their persons and property. This just chips away at what security in those rights we would have left.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

So you want to go from taxing what we make in a year to taxing property.

It's abhorrent and it shows a lack of respect for the idea of private property rights.

How about a flat tax on what someone makes? Or how about scrap that tax what is consumed? No one consumes more than the wealthy or big businesses. They would pay their fair share with a consumption tax.

Because flat taxes and consumption taxes are both extremely regressive. How is it right for those who profit the most off of society to be paying the lowest percentages?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

And will the government have to pay tax on all the land they own?

Why would they? Unlike you, they actually own it. The government is a sovereign entity and has jurisdiction over everything within it's borders. You are not a sovereign entity.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Here's another reason why a wealth tax is wrong. It's unconstitutional. You have the unalienable right to your property. Taxing the same property year after year introduces the idea that the government really owns it all, not you. Government already has the idea that all income is theirs now. It is sometimes referred to as "untaxed revenue" which implies it's what they generously allow us peons to keep.

No, you do not have the unalienable right to your property. That is why eminent domain is not only constitutional but was practiced by the very people who wrote the constitution. The word property only shows up once in the constitution, in Article 4 Section 3
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

What you are thinking of is the Declaration of Independence which is not a legally binding document for the US government, in which it is written people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some have equated happiness with owning property but that is not what is written.

You could also be thinking of the Fifth Amendment which says a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law, which is another way of saying that provided the government follows established legal guidelines it can deprive you of property. Essentially, you have no right of ownership if the government has determined it should instead get it.

Do you know why so many countries have problems with their economies? Because the people are not secure in their persons and property. This just chips away at what security in those rights we would have left.

That's all well and good, but you have yet to provide an alternative metric. You've shot down net worth, financial worth, and income and have suggested only a flat or consumption tax, which again result in nothing but purely arbitrary percentages. If you could provide examples of an optimal Laffer curve percentage I'm all ears and can actually base it on some meaningful data, for the US but I doubt you will because the best economists in the world have been struggling with that exact problem for 50 years now and have yet to come up with anything better than a complete guess. Which has instead resulted in nothing more than partisan bickering over what the percentage should be.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
23% National Sales Tax. People below a certain income get a refund check every month. All with holding goes away, all Social Security, FICA and everything else goes away. This will tap into the underground market and get those who work under the table.

That certain income threshold is 100% arbitrary. How is that fair?

a reply to: Aazadan

Why should you continue to pay for something? That's simple... because it's not yours and there is a cost to getting the benefits from national infrastructure

Ok so we know that ultimately its not ours and know how Eminent Domain works. At least call it a "Rent from your Govt" at the next Land or Land/house sale you attend. Be honest.

And by the way I want the purchase price of my House paid back by you to me as after all its not mine or yours it it, its part of the "someones out there" but the goal posts keep moving according to your whims.

Ayn Rand had a special word for you - Moocher

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

As to the infrastructure ie roads; that was paid for by the developer and passed on to us in the price of the land.

a reply to: Aazadan

Oh, as to the house issue... I'll probably never have to answer that question. My generation was sold out, between the wars, the bailouts, the cc debt bubble, the educational debt bubble, and the impending social security collapse (each of which will lead to more bailouts) we had that were financed on the backs of future earnings from the millennials compounded with the end of a need for skilled labor and the vast majority of us (which statistically includes me) will never be able to afford a home.

So now I think I see where you're coming from. I lost a house in the 80s thanks to the "recession" we had to have according to or Treasurer (later Prime Minister) at the time. Then they talked about J curves and "trickle down" economics saving the middle class. It didnt happen. The concentration in wealth kept moving to the same players, they were always ahead of the curve as they had their politicians and still do writing the laws. Any new tax system that doesnt go enough in say ripping off the 1%ers of a few trillion dollars aint gonna bring in any sort of parity or a cheap house for you.

But then you will always aim for Ketsukos house in the form of estate taxes, to help you buy yours. She cant afford fancy tax shelters or lawyers to fight your kind. Why you dont consider this theft from the "poor to the poorer" is beyond me.

a reply to: Aazadan

Why would they? Unlike you, they actually own it. The government is a sovereign entity and has jurisdiction over everything within it's borders. You are not a sovereign entity.

STOP, stop right there. You are being illogical. For the purpose of proper accountability and equity the Govt should pay taxes to itself on assets held otherwise you would get meaningless statistics and nominal asset values in order to predict and set future tax rates and expenditure, inflation and money supply creation.

Your ignorance is staring to show.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
So now I think I see where you're coming from. I lost a house in the 80s thanks to the "recession" we had to have according to or Treauer (later Prime Minister) at the time. Then they talked about J curves and "trickle down" economics saving the middle class. It didnt happen. The concentration in wealth kept moving to the same players, they were always ahead of the curve as they had their politicians and still do writing the laws. Any new tax system that doesnt go enough in say ripping off the 1%ers of a few trillion dollars aint gonna bring in any sort of parity or a cheap house for you.

But then you will always aim for Ketsukos house in the form of estate taxes, to help you buy yours. She cant afford fancy tax shelters or lawyers to fight your kind. Why you dont consider this theft from the "poor to the poorer" is beyond me.

If you think I care about taking from the rich and giving to me, you don't see where I'm coming from. I really don't care if I ever own a house, I'm just pointing out that for people in my generation it is extremely unlikely. There are no jobs for us, and there is a whole lot that needs to be paid for. It's not about ripping people off either, if the government spends less then people are taxed less, if it spends more then people (all people) are taxed more. If income inequality shrinks then those on the top are taxed less while those on the bottom are taxed more... isn't it interesting how that works? Additionally, this plan would completely eliminate estate taxes. You could pass as much on to your children as you wanted, without worrying that the government is going to take a 1 time 50% fee.

Edit: As far as what Ayn Rand would call me, who cares? Care to attack the idea rather than the messenger? Better yet, if you think the idea is so flawed then employ some critical thinking and propose something better, give me a competing semi original idea that eliminates partisan bickering, funds the government at any level of spending, eliminates deficits, and doesn't tax some groups more than others based on arbitrary distinctions. This accomplishes all of that.

Edit again: Arguing over the ownership of government is a completely meaningless sidetrack. Wages paid to you aren't government owned and they are still taxed. Regardless of who owns it, the government has the power to tax it. That's the price you pay for living in this country. So rather than worry about who owns the title and what that means, why not argue over things that matter like what an equitable distribution of the tax burden is.