Politics'n Taxation (please dont kill me)

[Anonymous No.3105216]

Hey /sci/, Ive had an idea on how to fix the American tax code for some time now. On a whim, I tried talking about it for the first time on /b/, but got no real response. So now, I bring it before you, the smartest and classiest pseudopod of this internet hate machine, for review, lambasting, yelling, and asshole-ripping.Im going to copypasta what I posted originally, please forgive my spelling mistakes, and the lack of meat surrounding this idea, it just so happens to be a work in progress.

Im white, Im Liberal, Im fairly well off, I wouldnt mind paying more taxes than I do, because I know I can take it.Our economy is stimulated by buying reasonable, American made, appropriate quality goods and services. I can only spend so much, within reason, so I wouldnt mind the government taking a few thousand dollars more so someone who CANT help make the system work can spend some damn money, get the shit moving, and get our country back on track.
Anyone who claims that progressive taxation "punishes achievers" can go suck it. The way the tax system works, you only really start taking it up the ass once your start making more money than God. Hell, I seriously believe that there should be a greater gradient of high-end tax brackets to keep CEO's in check.

[Anonymous No.3105219]

I honestly think that along with a progressive tax code, we should have what I call competitive taxation.
Raise everyone's taxes a bit, and then offer tax refunds for fulfilling some basic standards that all Americans should aspire to (just like we do now), but instead of simply making it a flat requirement, make the refund requirements be percentile based. For example, wana improve health in America? offer a small tax refund for those who have a body-mass index below, say, the 40th percentile, even more so for if you can get your whole family to make that standard. Lets say you can prove (though good record keeping) that your family (or just you personally) buy more American made products (per dollar spent) than the average American (50th percentile), well then you get a small tax break.Basically what this does is allow ANYONE, simply through self improvement to lower the taxes they pay. By increasing the current tax rate, you basically force people to improve themselves, and those who are too rich to give a fuck dont have too. Its classic American philosophy. Your reward is not based on your raw achievement, but on your performance relative to your fellow man. And the best part is that even if we dont get as much tax revenue as a result, that will just be proof positive that we are demonstrably improving the quality of the citizens of America.

pic related, my face right the fuck now

[Anonymous No.3105236]

hopefulforresponsebump

[Anonymous No.3105237]

I'm all for raising taxes, but many of the things you propose don't make too much sense. First off, poor people are fatter, and poor people don't pay taxes anyway. Rich people that can afford to eat healthy DO eat healthy and the extra tax wouldn't affect them anyway. Secondly, people should spend their dollars in the most efficient manner, and sometimes buying American goods just isn't as efficient as buying foreign goods.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3105239]

>>3105216
>>3105219

Sounds terrible.

[Anonymous No.3105253]

>>3105237
Poor people could make an effort thought. The point is that you could provide tax breaks based on sheer effort. You could eat more veggies, run a little, you know, be healthy.

As for the "american products" problem, I get that its not totally efficient, but it DOES stimulate the economy. Thats the point, you're adding incentives to two things. 1) Self improvement/maintainability, and 2) support of the economy/america/society as a whole

also, I know my examples are for shit, but do you think the overarching concept is sound?

[Anonymous No.3105256]

>>3105219
>>3105216
I support this

i dont know what else to say

[Anonymous No.3105258]

>>3105239
>trolls trolling trolls

[Anonymous No.3105259]

>>3105237

Poor people are fatter? WTF? Are you fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.3105252]

To OP: to update you, there are two sides to this argument.

For Higher taxes: What you basically explained.
For Lower taxes: Why should I, who worked my ass off, help those who won't do shit for the country?

[Anonymous No.3105263]

>>3105239
please be more constructive, try picking what about my idea you think is terrible, then tearing it down brick by brick.

I dont mind criticism, but I cant use what you're giving me.

[Anonymous No.3105264]

>how to fix the American tax code

already done, bro

[Anonymous No.3105276]

>>3105263
>trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls

[Anonymous No.3105274]

>>3105258
Im not a troll, this is an idea I had, and I wanted to share/explore its potential as well as its problems with the only board on 4chan where there are few complete idiots(or at least fewer than other boards).

[Anonymous No.3105278]

>>3105253

The concept is wonderful. Now try getting a good idea across to corrupt high wigs who have enough money to line their assholes with gold in order to take it easier. You think you're the first to come up with an idea that would help this country? This kind of shit happens all the time. The reason why everything is going down the shitter is because there are PEOPLE who are stopping this from happening. All they care about is how fat their pocket is.

[Anonymous No.3105286]

>>3105276
fuck you too, just because your parents never paid attention to you doesnt mean the burden falls on the rest of humanity.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3105298]

> cut spending
> invest all actual profit after th debt is gone
> loan backed currency out at good interest rates
> first to americans then to other countries
> the world flourishes
> socialism dies

[Anonymous No.3105304]

so far Im seeing 2 "yes" votes, 3 trolls, and one person who disagrees with me who Im waiting to hear more from. Anyone else feel like weighing in? Come on trolls! Even you must have a coherent opinion! I believe in you!

[Anonymous No.3105312]

>>3105298
though I cant say I disagree with this, are you trying to say that it is mutually exclusive to the idea of competitive taxation?

basically, whats your point?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3105322]

>>3105312

There is a point where more taxation lowers tax revenues. Find equilibrium, cut spending, profit greatly.

[Anonymous No.3105327]

>>3105286
You must be new here. You'll figure it out the hard way I guess.

[Anonymous No.3105332]

>>3105322
Im well aware of that, its kind of the basics of taxation, as well as a twisted sort of supply/demand (more like burden/avoidance in this case), but what do you think of competitive taxation and how the concept could fit into the american tax code. Thats what Im trying to discuss, I already know that you COULD always just find a happy middle ground in taxation, invest in the people/economy/companies/infrastructure/loans etc and fix everything, but Im trying to propose something lateral to that goal.

[Anonymous No.3105334]

>>3105322
>wave wand
>$$$

[Anonymous No.3105337]

>>3105327
not new, just not in the mood to be trolled (which now that I've said it, will more than likely bring trolls to this thread like sharks to a dieing whale).

[Anonymous No.3105346]

How about Tennessee has a tax break for residents who buy the most goods made in Tennessee?
How about Nashville has a tax break for residents who buy the most goods made in Nashville?

Can we get beyond caveman instincts that self-sufficiency is good?

Also, you don't understand how taxation works. We have a lot of taxes. Income, sales, dividend, interest, capital gains, etc. There's not just one progressive tax.

[Anonymous No.3105372]

>>3105346
Im speaking generally, this is less a discussion of what DOES exist and more a propositon of what COULD exist. What Im saying is that you fit this incentive-based framework over what we already have. Dont worry, I do understand that we dont just have one "big'ol pile'o money" tax. Also, whats your beef with self-sufficiency?

I know that my examples are for shit, but what do you think of the general concept of a tax break system that is based off of percentile placement rather than a flat requirement?

I guess I forgot to mention that each population considered for your relative percentile would be limited to an individual's tax bracket. That way the poor compete with the poor, and the rich with the rich.

[Anonymous No.3105389]

Iwasreallyhopingforsomemoreinputbump

[Anonymous No.3105412]

>say you can prove (though good record keeping) that your family (or just you personally) buy more American made products (per dollar spent) than the average American

You're aware of how large a bureaucracy this would require, right libfag?

[Anonymous No.3105428]

>>3105412
Hooooooow many tiiiiiimes will I have to tell you aaaaaaaaaallll?

My examples are hypothetical and what Im discussing is the general concept. I know my examples are not realistic, but what they are is demonstrative.

[Anonymous No.3105444]

tax only increases the proportion of gdp controlled by the state, I'll leave you to decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing

[Anonymous No.3105463]

>>3105444
but would you rather have tax refunds which used competitive incentives or the current system?

[Anonymous No.3105476]

How to fix the tax code:

1. Eliminate the corporate income tax.
2. Increase taxes on dividends and capital gains.


This will never happen because:
1. The public won't like it, because OMG TEH CORPORATIONZ, and will ignore the fact that the taxation is just being moved.

2. There is a huge industry built on the corporate income tax that would fight this tooth and nail.

3. The current system favors wall-street speculators over the actual corporation that presumably does things. Wall-street would fight it tooth and nail as well.

[Anonymous No.3105487]

1) Computerize everything.
2) Progressive tax, progressive tax everywhere.
3) Tax all income. Income being any profit during the year. No matter where it came from. Real Estate, Capital gain, Interest, etc Cut all the special rules and exceptions.
4) Complete and utter transparency. Make a website that has all the budget info. So every man, woman and child with computer access to can see how much is being collected and where it's going. Oh what's that? You need $50,000,000,000 for a secret DoD project? Sorry, that needs the approval of the public. No approval? Fuck off. All approved funding must be transparent.

[Mises No.3105489]

>>3105216

>Our economy is stimulated by buying reasonable, American made, appropriate quality goods and services.

Stopped reading

[Anonymous No.3105496]

>>3105476
hey-hey-hey, it looks like we have another person posting their opinion, ignoring the fact that it isnt mutually exclusive to what I proposed, and adds nothing to this discussion!

[Anonymous No.3105504]

>>3105489
and why is that?

[Mises No.3105511]

>>3105504

>Our economy is stimulated by buying reasonable, American made, appropriate quality goods and services.
>Our economy is stimulated by buying
>buying

Implies economic growth comes through consumption which is patently false.

[Anonymous No.3105512]

>>3105496

>I WANT TO DISCUSS MY IDEA IT'S MINE MINE MINE MINE MY IDEA NOT YOURS

[Anonymous No.3105514]

>>3105259
Poor people don't have the time or money to prepare healthy foods. It's cheaper and faster to go to some place like McDonald's and get a burger and fries 32 ounces of sugary soda. In many poor areas, there actually is no supermarket to go to buy foods if you did want to prepare them. All you have are convenience stores and fast food joints, which aren't known to carry healthy foods. This video might help explain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11nsZ3lEWD0

[Anonymous No.3105518]

>>3105496
That's because your idea is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.3105526]

>>3105428

Demonstrative of a lack intelligence, maybe.

How about this. Give all of your money to charity if it makes you happy, you earned it. I earned mine too so I'd like to do with it what I want. The less a completely uncontrollable entity, seemingly hell-bent on wasting as much as possible, forces me under pain of incarceration to give them money the better.

Governments are simply corrupt on all levels to the maximum possible depth. Take the IMF, for example. It's funded by the governments who use its services. DSK, when he was allegedly raping that immigrant maid, was staying in a 3000 dollar per night hotel suite. Your tax dollars at work.

If you're truly altruistic, which I'm sure you are, then I trust you to put your money where it ultimately belongs. Mine on the other hand? Don't fucking touch it.

[Anonymous No.3105527]

>>3105463
The current system simply because you're adding more bureaucracy to an already unfathomable bloated clusterfuck.

[Anonymous No.3105535]

>>3105511

Except that 70% of your economy is consumption, which you'd know if you weren't a tripfagging ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.3105540]

>>3105527
>>3105514
>>3105526

and I beheld coherent critisism

thx, good points all around, Ill ruminate some more, consider what has been said, and see if I cant refine the idea, or failing that, just forget about it.

[Mises No.3105554]

>>3105535

>Implying consumption causes economic growth

Just because personal consumption accounts for 70% of the U.S Economy does not mean that consumption causes economic growth.

[Anonymous No.3105565]

>>3105526

I'm not OP. But do you feel you have no social responsibility whatsoever? Or hell, if you want to fuck everyone else, at least an economical responsibility? You couldn't make the money without the proper environment. That environment was built by generations before you and sustained by your contemporaries. Society taught you, they made your clothes, your food, disposed of your garbage, provided medical care, built your home, ran the power plant that heated your house. Yeah, there were many exchanges of currency for it. But to me, having access to technology and the benefits of living in a society seems like a luxury. So I don't mind contributing some of "my" money to the pot.

[Anonymous No.3105568]

>>3105554

>drives the economy
>can't grow it

lolwut

[Anon No.3105574]

>>3105216

complicated tax codes pose an interesting problem. We could obviously do something like everyone pays 12%, no credits, no deductions, no reductions.

But a whole area of accounting would dissolve. There is no need for any tax related anything anymore. No more IRS jobs, no more tax preparation jobs, no need for companies to keep tax books.

The more interesting outcome is to consider what would happen to every other industry. Accounting is a field that people pick because it has a good income- no one thinks of it as a calling in life. Where would all of these relatively intelligent people decide to spend their labor? How would this decision affect the economy in general?

Seems like it would depress the wage rate for skilled labor, and especially skilled labor in financial type services.

But, even more interesting than lowering wages is the psychological affect of knowing exactly how much money taxes are going to cost you. It would be interesting to see how the business environment reacted to having 100% foresight of tax burden. Would they decide to leave USA to preserve the lower tax burden (imagine GE who was able to pay no taxes), or would they enjoy having a well quantified, unchanging percentage.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3105575]

Current task breaks, current grants, and your proposed system do not differ fundamentally.

The idea of a "simpler" tax code is to make sensible all of this goddamn stuff, not to change one word for another.

Also, your way seems way too open ended. Who decides what benefits American society? The legislature? Well, then what you have is functionally equivalent to the current system.

[Anonymous No.3105588]

>>3105527
good point, fair criticism, but what if such a system had no more or less red tape than the current system? Im just trying to gauge the appeal of a competitive incentive system.
>>3105526
I ultimately respect your position, whats yours is yours, and whats mine is mine. But, given a choice between what we have now, and a system with a competitive incentive system, which would you chose? I do agree that you can only promote so much altruism, but what Im talking about is shifting the weight off of useless, arbitrary statistical frameworks and onto slightly more beneficial, arbitrary statistical frameworks (at least in terms of incentive based tax refunding).
>>3105514
I understand that, but even at that, you should still be able to eat less. The point of this idea is to do what governments should do, and what they are created to do, which in this case is make all people who make themselves part of its social contract answer for their values, or in this case opinions or ideals. Everyone agrees that it is possible to be healthier, but without a reason, nobody will ever try. What Im trying to do is create a system which can empower people to improve their lives, in ways which are unassailably beneficial.

[Anon No.3105597]

>>3105216
also, using tax incentives for social engineering purposes is already widely done. It's why married couples get to consider their income jointly (a benefit in most cases). It's why there's deductions for dependents. It's why there was a homebuyer's credit and a million others.

I don't think the relatively small monetary benefit of a tax reduction (especially among the poor that pay very little tax) would provide incentive to any particular action.

[Mises No.3105600]

>>3105568

Correct. Economic growth comes through savings and investment. If personal consumption truly caused economic growth than personal consumption of 100% would be desirable. However, this would imply no investment and that we'd consume literally everything. That is, we have a giant binge party today, consume everything, and than leave nothing to consume tomorrow.

The reverse is true. We could consume 0% today and save everything today and then have a huge consumption binge tomorrow.

Both are two extremes and there's a consumption-savings trade off. We consume a certain amount (for the U.S about 70%) and save/invest the rest (for the U.S about 30%). Savings by definition means that we get more in the future than we do today. That is, for every unit we save today we get in return a unit and interest later.

This is economic growth: the ability to increase per capita consumption through time, but this only happens through investment and savings.

[Anonymous No.3105604]

>>3105476
>>3105476
Stopped reading here. Thread over, good post.

[Anonymous No.3105616]

>>3105575
It may be ideologically equivalent, but the difference is in the competitive element which ensures continued progress, or failing that, continued increase in tax revenue. The current system rewards "everyone who will meet condition X", my proposition is for a system which rewards people for basically putting forth effort to improve themselves.

As for deciding what is "good", there are issues everyone can agree on, those are the ones I picked as examples. Improving health (along several axes), supporting local and domestic industry, and other self-improving habbits.

[Anonymous No.3105618]

>>3105565

I don't mind contributing money I just think that the government's role should be as limited as possible.

I have a sense of social responsibility and would be more than happy to give some of my own money to improve the lives of fellow global citizens, hell I plan on joining the military and risking my own fucking life for them. I simply don't trust government. If you can draw upon a long history to show how the environment was built then at least allow me to draw upon a long history of abuse to show how every government in the world takes more from its citizens than it should because it holds a monopoly on the use of force.

Perhaps I've been jaded by my own environment, as you call it. In Quebec, we have 1/10th the population of Australia and 10 times as many civil servants. Provincial prosecutors make 80k per year and work 60 hours a week while the guys who check train tickets make 70k plus a full pension and work 40 hours. It's fucking out of control. This is the socialist end game.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3105620]

>>3105616
Then I think your system is not implementable.

[Anon No.3105627]

>>3105600
>>3105600
Interesting conclusion. This is also the basic conclusion of endogenous growth models.

The idea is that what you save is eventually transferred to businesses in the form of capital. Businesses use capital to expand production- thereby creating growth


The only issue I take with this conclusion is that it assumes that capital cannot flow from other sources (China, in USA's case). Because the US economy isn't closed, the American's don't have to do all the saving as long as someone else is.

It does seem to imply that the Chinese will eventually own everything here, but what do I care as long as I get to live in my giant house, giant car, consume like a good American.

[Anonymous No.3105631]

>>3105597
Im proposing raising taxes universally and introducing a competitive refund program, thats the difference. Instead of just giving a tax break for being married, maybe you could give a tax break for being in a high percentile zone for, say, really bad example, how long you have been married? Instead of using a basic condition as the refund kicker, create a system which forces people to compete and continuously improve.

[Anonymous No.3105639]

I think the better idea would be to stop sticking your noses in the rest of the worlds business and mind your own. Also, unite the Americas.

[Anon No.3105647]

>>3105631
So you plan on fixing it by making it much more complicated? Also, I still don't think the poor/ lowe middle are going to care- they don't pay enough taxes to care about tax reduction.

I think most people agree that one of the main problems with the current US tax code is that it is too complicated. Adding a ton of extra layers would exacerbate this problem.

[Anonymous No.3105649]

>>3105627
the problem is that a good amount of luxury spending (on the part of those we are currently fighting to lower taxation of) is usually in the form of foreign products. Foreign cars, foreign vacations, foreign foods, foreign property, etc. But you cant expect people to buy all American goods, which is why with a PERCENTILE based system, you dont have to buy a shiton of american goods, you just have to buy more than the average person. Thats the central point of my idea: that you can promote an overall shift in certain statistics by applying pressure in the form of either penalties, or in this case, intensives.

[Anonymous No.3105654]

>>3105639

Agreed. Enough of this you should pay this or that business.

[Mises No.3105666]

>>3105627

It is the conclusion of endogenous growth theories. Probably did a terrible job at explaining it though.

>Implies savings doesn't have to come from those consuming

I mean, you're right to an extent. The Chinese can save their money in Chinese banks which then loan money to Chinese companies who than expand into the U.S Market (Ex: Acer Computers, or Leveno being a Chinese company now). Technically, everyone's per capita consumption should increased.

But I don't really take issue to it. American companies own a shit load of stuff in other countries, but if China wants to own American companies, it's somehow bad; that logic doesn't make sense to me.

[Anonymous No.3105673]

>>3105647
I know the idea is imperfect, see: >>3105588 specifically the first part.

I have no specifics as to the exact nature of the individual incentives, but you could easily apply this system to the intensives that already exist, as it only takes like 10 min of work to compile a distribution and consider an individual's eligibility.

In other words, it doesnt HAVE to be that complicated, my examples are just a bit ham-handed.

[Anon No.3105676]

>>3105649
This problem is only tangentially related to taxation.

Yes, you can use the tax code to create an incentive/disincentive for people to behave in a certain way. That isn't really fixing the tax code in any way thought. Also, there are much better tools that the government wields if it were to want people to buy domestic (tariffs, quotas, other barriers).

[Anon No.3105691]

>>3105666
Why can't the Chinese banks make loans to American companies? Or, in other words, there is no barrier to Chinese saving by investing in American companies. There's no need to force their savings to their companies.

[Mises No.3105701]

>>3105691

Correct

[Anon No.3105736]

>>3105701
Everybody's consumption wouldn't actually increase- that's an assumption of the endogenous growth literature.

As far as ownership, I don't care either. However, I think governments should care. Ruining your own long term economic power over current consumption seems ridiculous. But I'm not part of the power structure, so I'll just keep using my MSI computer on the computer tray made in Thailand wearing clothes made in Mexico.

[Mises No.3105772]

>>3105736

The conclusion of endogenous growth theories with labor augmenting technical change is that per capita consumption can increase at a constant rate through time given certain assumptions on the production function and given either the behavioral assumption that people save a constant fraction of their income or by making the savings-consumption decision endogenous.

That's probably the most precise definition of what the current literature says and which I currently agree with.

[Anonymous No.3105781]

>>3105574
It does cost companies money to get out of taxes; they have to higher lawyers and hide their finances through outsourcing and other means.
As it stands, only relatively large corporations find themselves saving money to get out of paying taxes, and this mostly because the U.S. has the largest corporate tax in the world. Most small companies and other institutions just bite the taxes.
So, if there was just a flat tax on all income, both corporate and business profits, along with a flat income tax at the same rate, I'd imagine outsourcing would just completely stop.
12% is waaaaaaay below the corporate taxes; it would cost them more to evade it than to just pay that. Also most U.S.-based companies want to keep their jobs in the U.S.; it looks better on them to the American public, which is their largest consumer base, and because most American companies are run by Americans, who generally want their country to prosper.

[Anonymous No.3105785]

>>3105781
hire*, fuck I'm tired.

[Anonymous No.3105791]

>>3105691
Chinese companies can't do that because capital controls. Companies in China receiving USD above a certain level are obligated to turn them in to the central bank in exchange for yuan. Except for certain privileged (state-controlled) interests who have freedom to invest overseas.

[Anon No.3105799]

>>3105772
Yes, I was simply saying that more growth doesn't answer any distribution questions. The outcome of the 'golden-rule' level of savings implies that it is generationally fair (if i may call the continued growth that), but doesn't answer anything abot distribution. It was assumed that the best way to give everyone more was to increase the size of the economic pie. This is true as long as the changes in the economy do not change the distribution of that pie in favor of the rich.

Distribution may not be important to the growth literature, but it's certainly important to people.

[Anonymous No.3105808]

>>3105799
I think this is one of the reasons the growth literature is dead. I mean, Aghion/Howitt in Econometrica is what, 1992? Instead we've seen the development of the new dynamic public finance and optimal taxation literatures, most of which assume some productivity trend from an unmodelled technological process and then work from there on life-cycle/distributional impacts with heterogeneous agents.

[Mises No.3105836]

>>3105799

This: >>3105808

You're completely right in that growth theory doesn't explain distributional issues, but it's not suppose to. There's really not a whole lot left in actual growth theory; it's been researched to death, and that more interesting question is distributional issues which is Public Economics, not Growth.

Ex: My current research is looking at whether college education increases income inequality. Education can be used for a proxy of technical growth, but if education has distributional biases than growth can be distributional in nature.