<p>BTW, mini, would you recommend that S get tailored shirts, suits in India? My feeling is that rather than take a currency exchange penalty that he should buy some threads there.</p>
<p>It’s so simple. Abolish all income tax. Place a federal sales tax on all consumer items instead. You will gain more money for the federal government then they have now. 3 major advantages.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Save a heck of a lot of money on overhead used to manage our tax system. There wouldn’t be any need for managing an expensive tax network. There won’t be any sheltering of money etc… People would KEEP their money in the USA. There’d be no need to put it in a bank in the Caymans or Andora or Switzerland. </p></li>
<li><p>Every person in the country spends money on consumables. The federal tax would generate income from not only the NORMAL taxpayer like today, but it would also be getting taxes from all the illegal money that changes hands today. There are no taxes paid on drug dealing, prostitution, illegal gambling, etc… Yet, all of these people buy food, cars, clothes, cable, internet, cigarettes, etc… You will get taxes from EVERYONE. Including illegal immigrants, tourists, etc…</p></li>
<li><p>The consumer controls what they want to buy. I.e. If the federal sales tax is 8%, then the consumer can decide if they want to spend the extra $1200 on a Ford Focus or the extra $3200 ON A $40,000 bmw. There can be certain consumerables that aren’t taxed such as food, college tuition, inheritance, etc… There’d be NO CAPITAL GAINS tax per se. Taxes would be rolled into a mortgage just like many other real estate fees. The buyer pays the tax on the house just like a car or pair of jeans. The seller doesn’t pay tax on his/her appreciation. This way the seller isn’t trying to shelter the money. They can spend it as they wish. No matter what they do with the money, sooner or later they will spend it. When you spend it, you will be paying a sales tax on whatever you buy.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>No paperwork. Not auditors. IRS can be reduced by about 80%. Only real tax issues will deal with import and export. Look; we do it already with gasoline. Just do it with everything. More money will stay in the country. More money will be spent. Consumers will have more say so with what to do with their money. Won’t be looking at a million ways to find a tax loop hole. Adults without kids won’t be penalized. Married couples and singles will be all treated the same.</p>
<p>The only reason this won’t come to pass is because the American People have forgotten WHO WORKS FOR WHOM. The politicians WORK FOR US!!! This could easily become the tax law if WE THE PEOPLE stood up and demanded it. But instead we will get 1001 reasons why it’s not a good idea. Instead of working out bugs, we will be told that it bad for poor people or some other crock. We will have a million drug store lawyers being paid by big business, special interests, and the government to convince you that this isn’t the right way. Look; I do real well for myself financially. Part of the reason is because I understand the tax laws and the system. But that is garbage. You shouldn’t have to know as much as I do about taxes to succeed financially. </p>
<p>Imagine the stress alone that you would never have knowing you never had to fill out another tax form again. The price you see is the price you get. I.e. assuming an 8% federal; 4% state; 1% county and 1% city sales tax: $2000 LCD TV. would be $2280 total. $160 federal; $80 state; $20 county and $20 for city. Of course, this is all broken down. In this scenario, all you would car about is that there is a 14% tax on the item you bought. Just like gasoline. But you’d never have to fill out a tax form again. Now, these are made up numbers. I used my state because our sales tax is 6%. I added an arbitrary 8% for federal. it could be less or more.</p>
<p>Social security would be the only thing that would be taken out of your pay. Your social security is based on how much you made and contributed throughout your life. But we don’t have to file for that so that’s no a problem. I would also change medicaid and medicare but those are for a different topic.</p>
<p>Oh, and for what it’s worth, NO PRESIDENT has ever CREATED JOBS. Obama couldn’t CREATE jobs no matter how much he wants to. It’s not possible. He can’t even create government jobs. Which isn’t a net gain anyway because it requires tax dollars to pay the employees. See; even if a company didn’t get a tax break for expansion and such, the earned profits would resort back to the stock holders. (Most companies of significance for this discussion are publicly traded). That money would be spent by the stockholders. Thus federal sales tax would be assessed. Even if they reinvested the money; e.g. bought more mutual funds or stocks; they would incur a sales tax. There’s be no tax on the gain (Similar to a ROTH IRA), just on the purchase. When you take the money out, you’re probably going to buy something with it anyway, so the government will get their taxes. It’s really not that difficult.</p>
<p>Christcorp, the numbers don’t add up. They don’t. 2 + 2 does not equal 5.</p>
<p>I endorse this plan:
[Rockwell’s</a> Thirty-Day Plan by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.](<a href=“S.F. jury awards Planned Parenthood $2.2M in damages - LewRockwell”>Rockwell's Thirty-Day Plan - LewRockwell)</p>
<p>Essentially, close down every single government agency, sell everything off to the highest bidder to pay off debts and promised entitlements, keep cutting stuff and cutting stuff until there is nothing attributable to what we call “the government”.</p>
<p>^and what would you suggest america do after that? congress? the military?</p>
<p>dstartk; what in the world are you talking about? I assume you are speaking metaphorically. I know you’re not questioning my examples; because the math is not important. The principle is. But if I didn’t do the math properly, I have no problem being corrected. But the last time I checked; 14% of $2000 would be $280.</p>
<p>afruff23: Yes, along with the gold standard, environmental policy directed by property rights and all that? The stupidest policies I’ve ever seen the classical liberal school espouse are given prominent places in that “plan”.</p>
<p>edit: Oh yeah, and “Credit risks – and drunks and dangerous drivers – aren’t allowed on the road.”… “Government welfare is wiped out. Bums work or starve. The deserving poor find a cornucopia of private services designed to make them independent.” fat chance.</p>
<p>There’s some good ideas in there… buried in a stupendous mountain of crap.</p>
<p>@enderkin</p>
<p>As I said, close down every government agency. That includes Congress, the Presidency, and the military.</p>
<p>@1of42</p>
<p>If there is no government agency, there is no gold standard since value will now be determined by the people who use the good, not the government. There is no set value for anything since value is subjective.</p>
<p>Environmental policy directed by property rights are stupid? Then tell me how our current policies are amazing. </p>
<p>Are they amazing when we amass a ton of waste since garbage disposal is socialized and plastic bags which do not deteriorate cost as much as paper bags to send to waste?</p>
<p>Are they amazing when trees get cut down in Canada and not replanted since the government gives time leases which does not place responsibility for the future maintenance of the land in the hands of the logger?</p>
<p>I could go on and on, but I’ll just give the ultimate argument: the problem of economic calculation. How can we know what is the best solution to something without attributing a cost to it? Any system which fails to place a cost on things will fail since people can never gather the vast knowledge of people regarding supplies in an easy system (e.g. prices). If the government were to choose one specific area to focus legislation on, how can it know that is the best way to use its limited resources? It cannot.</p>
<p>What’s so bad about not allowing credit risks and dangerous drivers on the road? It is ridiculous to what extents people are willing to go to ensure equality. When a guy has done reckless driving on the road before, would you consider it a good policy to ignore the risks? What about for people who have no insurance? Of course, you and your private road are free to take these risks, but most people interested in safety, profits, and other things would not want to take the risks.</p>
<p>As for welfare, a cornucopia of private services is charity. There are tons of charities and tons more will come (before welfare there was a lot more charity).</p>
<p>afruff, I’m not going to drag this whole thread into a long debate about libertarian values. yes, I know they make sense in a vacuum; any theory does. it’s when you hit reality that things start falling apart. but there are a couple of things I need to address:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re not amazing. We need a cap-and-trade system, for all pollutants, including warming gases. People would **** and moan about it, but that would be a viable, market-based system, preserving price incentives to become more environmentally friendly.</p>
<p>The reason the property rights idea is ridiculous is transaction costs. How, exactly do you propose the average joe who feels the factory next door is polluting too much get his payment? The only viable option would be the legal system. So joe’s 5 years down the line with thousands of billable hours being paid to lawyers on some big class action lawsuit… the costs are astronomical… and this is just one factory. How do you propose that to work for every abusive polluter (and believe me, there are lots of companies who would, given the economic opportunity - which this proposal amounts to)? Furthermore, how do you propose it work for those polluters with no clear property rights losers? You seriously think the legal system would ever provide a legitimate framework for resolving thousands, if not millions of these vague lawsuits based on aggregate particle levels, and stuff like that? Keep living in the fantasy world.</p>
<p>The fact is, the only way to administer a property-rights based environmental policy would be… a governmental department. Pure and simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I don’t consider it good policy to ignore the risks. But I have no interest in allowing a private enterprise whose only motive is profit (this is not a bad thing, just a statement of fact) to entirely manage semi-public goods (this is not a normative statement, it’s an economic definition) like roads. It’s bad policy: it’s an area just begging for rent seeking and subsequent monopoly; it begs for all kinds of corners to be cut in search of profit, it could cause major long-run issues as short-run profit is maximized, and all kinds of other problems. I’m not interested in seeing some massive road monopoly controlling every road in America, so that I can’t drive anywhere without paying some exorbitant fee, and my friend who lost her home because of a bad subprime loan can’t drive at all because she’s a “credit risk”. Too bad, so sad.</p>
<p>I’ll let you in on a little hint: I have very strong free market tendencies myself. But sometimes I think these idiots at the von Mises institute and all that other riff raff live on a different planet. Really - it’s a fundamental fact that governments are necessary for markets to function (at the very least, for contract enforcement and the like), and that in many cases (especially public goods like roads and the military - I’m not even going to bother opening the Pandora’s Box of stupidity that is this guys joke of an idea of how to deal with public goods) government can substantially improve upon free market outcomes - externalities and all that. </p>
<p>I don’t know where you stand on this, but I don’t support the free market because I worship its every part with glass-eyed zealotry or anything - I support it because it works. But there’s a limit - and this stuff is just beyond the pale.</p>
<p>By the way, telling me all the different instances in which our market system distorts incentives in ridiculous ways is not an argument. The solution to a system with major flaws is to fix the flaws, not scrap the system and institute a worse alternative.</p>
<p>First of all, I am not delusional about reality. I do not expect a completely fair world or an ideal society just because a free market exists. For that to happen, attitude changes need to happen at very fundamental levels (e.g. parenting). I don’t claim any system as perfect, just the best reality can provide. When you make criticisms of what I propose, it makes little sense for me to not point out the inconsistency in your proposition (e.g. government).</p>
<p>Cap-and-trade is not a market-based solution. For one thing, the costs associated with it are not directly related to what people value things. Selling off $100 worth of pollution rights is not going to solve environmental problems going on today to people who own affected property. The money is not spent on reimbursements to those with damages; they are spent on research and subsidies which we cannot possibly know if they are the best route. Again, this stems back to the economic calculation problem. </p>
<p>As for pollution and its transaction costs, this is not an argument against a free market. How can a free market specifically address this issue? Since there is an absence in forced government, people will naturally form many, many voluntary governments to provide the order they desire. As such, people’s desires for clean X can be expressed by buying a clean X policy. The voluntary government can then stop pollution in numerous ways. The easiest way is to deny the polluting voluntary government any interaction with the non-polluting government. Just like how cell phone companies are valued for their interoperability, voluntary governments are valued for their interoperability and the bad governments will not be favored. Another way to stop pollution is for the pollution insurance to buy off the land that was to be sold for polluting purposes. The insurance would rather pay one fee rather than all of its customers. Another method is to ostracize the polluter. The polluter will not be happy when the milk for its employees costs $30 at the local store or the road charges quadruple simply because they work for the polluter. More specifically, transaction costs can be mossed over since the threat of action will prevent all but a few instances of pollution from ever occurring.</p>
<p>The reasoning for a government which you imply is a complete non-sequitir: “there is a plethora of bad things. Therefore government must exist.” What makes the government better suited to changing human nature? If human nature is flawed, no society can change that fundamentally. How can governments know what is good and what is bad when they are made up of a few people?</p>
<p>As for monopolies and roads, there are many remedies. As I mentioned before, there is social and economic ostracizing. Moreover, governments extort nowadays since they actually DO have a monopoly on transportation. They extort by way of paying for public works without as much regard to cost as a private firm would and without worrying about getting people to VOLUNTARILY use the road. In addition, people will adapt to the prices. If you charge me $5 to use your road, I can do several things. I can take an alternate route, I can take the bus, park farther away, complain to residences and business on the street and they will take action (e.g. ostracizing), or I can keep using the road. After a certain point (say $20 a use), enough demand can gather for a permanent solution (e.g. another road). So the market will select for the best solution for those involved, even in places of so-called “natural monopolies”. Expensive water bill? Buy bottled water or a rainwater collection system. Expensive electricity bill? Get solar panels. You get the point. The only place where a true monopoly exists is government. Don’t like your government and its policies? Too bad, you get imprisoned and shot if you try to escape from your sentence for making your own government with different laws.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you bring up subprime loans. This sort of a thing is really the pinnacle of the problem of economic calculation. Governments create cheap credit during the boom cycle and forecasters all assume the trend will rise resulting in massive numbers of mistakes (e.g. the credit crunch, bust, etc.).</p>
<p>If you would prefer to live outside of abstractions, call contract enforcement “gun-wielding” please. Contracts can be enforced with voluntary governments. Forced governments enforce things based on whims, not contracts.</p>
<p>As for public goods, I addressed roads above and the military (e.g. a massive standing army) is not necessary when you are not bound to a centralized nation with a tax hierarchy that is desirable to take over. As I mentioned before, governments cannot improve upon free market outcomes for the very fundamental reason of the problem of economic calculation.</p>
<p>I used to support a free market because it works. At that point I was still blinded by the irrationalities of emotional arguments (what about monopolies? what about bad people, don’t we need to force innocent people to stop force?).</p>
<p>Really, a utilitarian approach can still come to support a complete free market (I have seen it before). However, the problem I have with utilitarianism is that its adherents suggest actions based on outcomes even when they are not familiar with the situation itself. A utilitarian in a socialist society would advocate for the abolition of capitalism, while a utilitarian in a capitalist society would advocate for the abolition of socialism. This shows how the principles of utilitarianism are not derived from logically sound premises.</p>
<p>But as I said before, being utilitarian does not preclude one from advocating for a free market. The utilitarian proposal will always vary with the amount of expertise a person has and their backgrounds. If utilitarianism gets you off, then I suggest loading up on tons of economics and politics before advocating for anything. Otherwise, try a different position on ethics and make arguments without contradictions (e.g. deontological).</p>
<p>“It’s already monetized. How much would it cost if you had to pay? How much do you pay? Tax the difference.”</p>
<p>It’s still not an monetized asset. You can’t sell it. </p>
<p>Who should pay the three trillion, and how, is the big question, and Obama’s plan doesn’t get close.</p>
<p>re: Credibility</p>
<p>[The</a> New Media Journal | A President Must Have Credibility by Don Bendell](<a href=“http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/d_bendell/2008/03292008.htm]The”>http://www.newmediajournal.us/guest/d_bendell/2008/03292008.htm)</p>
<p>Just one man’s opinion. Not sure if it fits in w/ all the heavy taxation discussion (thank you to everyone for your posts - very enlightening!), but I thought it was a good read. Cheers everyone.</p>
<p>“We would still have corporate taxes. Sorry.”</p>
<p>So, I could simply zero out my corp taxes (as many do) and claim no income and be fine… no harm no foul…
</p>
<p>even simple will be hard with the right set up.</p>
<p>Barney, those problems exist now. There are always going to be tax dodgers.</p>
<p>MIni, we can find a way to tax scholarships if you would like.</p>
<p>We already tax many assets.</p>
<p>To pay for the Iraq War, just add a tax surcharge to everybody. 2 to 3% of income and capital gains should be able to pay for the war.</p>
<p>Most economists have found the $3 Trillion as accurate as all the other alleged facts you seem to love to repeat, repeat, repeat. We’'l absorb it as we have WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and keep on living and growing.</p>
<p>afruff: If you truly, honestly believe that an anarcho-capitalist system will work and solve today’s problems, I really can’t argue with you. The position is logically consistent with itself, but so incompatible with reality that there’s really nothing I can say.</p>
<p>Wait, a democrat wants to raise your taxes? Astonishing news!</p>
<p>"MIni, we can find a way to tax scholarships if you would like.</p>
<p>We already tax many assets."</p>
<p>First of all, my d’s fellowship IS taxable now, and I have no problem with that. In principle, I have no problem with taxing any assets that are monetized and marketable. If you’ve got a way to do so with intellectual capital, I have no principled objection.</p>
<p>But you still have to fund the three trillion, which the Nobel Prize-winning economist thinks is an underestimate. But then, it is true, Rumsfeld said $50 billion would about do it.</p>