"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
Sam Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
this is an issue that is rightly given to the states (in the case of most taxes). I think it is to the people to decide what is taxed. Now, being left leaning i think that luxuries are what should be taxed (or at least should carry the largest burden of the taxes). Those who can afford such luxuries obviously have a larger disposable income as well as the luxury items are inessential. Taxing essential items puts a greater burden on the poor who have a smaller income but an equal need for the essential items.
To speak specifically to your suggestions: i am all for legalizing things (drugs, prostitution, guns) and then taxing the shit out of them. I'm less inclined to agree with goods since it would interfere with the success of business and so would adversely affect the economy. Then again, the same could be said about income but that one seems reasonable to me. maybe because it is progressive and so an undue burden is not placed on the poor. ok, i give up.
I see the idea of luxury tax, and that makes sense. The definition of a luxury should then be defined. For me, food, clothing, transportation, and shelter(property) should never be taxed. But do we tax certain foods, and certain clothing and transportation. i can buy a pair of jeans for 30 bucks or 150. the 150 ones are more of a luxury. I could buy bread or I could buy pop-tarts, should we tax the pop-tarts for they are a luxury. Or maybe we could have a luxury tax on anything above a certain price. Say, anything over 200 dollars is a luxury and shall be taxed. (there would then be a lot of things for sale for 199.99) Are TVs needed. Many poor people have tvs and computers and cell phones. Are these luxury goods?
For taxing I think there should be no sales tax, period. There should be no property tax, period. (It is rightfully yours, you own it therefore you shouldn't be taxed on it) now income, can be a bit different. I don't like the progressive tax. But I really don't like how the poor have to pay taxes. I propose this, that we should have a flat tax, but start the tax at 50,000 and up. So that way the poor down't have to pay a dime. Also only the income above 50,000 is taxed. So if you make 60,000 a year, you are only taxed on 10,000 of it. Then I would se the flat tax for 20%. So if you make 60,000, 10,000 of it is taxed so you would pay 2,000 in taxes. That way if you make 100,000 you pay 10,000-so it is somewhat progressive. (x-50,000).20=y is the equation. It makes it simple and everyone can firgure that out. So if you make 40,000 a year you never have to think about taxes. Then I would tax the shit out of you when you die. Make it law that you can only give X amount of money per a year per a person, so they can't just dump all their money to someone else. Then I would put a death tax somewhere around 75%-80% of their wealth. So when you die, most of your money goes to the government. This will keep rich families from just building their wealth generation after generation. So for those who make a lot of money all that money when they die goes to the government, they give their civic duty at the end. so if bill gates died tomorrow and he is worth lets say 20 billion, 16 billion would go to the government and 4 billion to his will. If I died tomorrow and I'm worth 40000 in debt, the government gets nothing and those that I owe don't get their money back.
sorry for the long wind post. I got excited creating my own tax plan.
taxes are a tough one because no one really likes them but we all know that the government can't function without them. The luxury tax idea i like but you're right, its hard to define a luxury. It is also extremely paternal. I say that with one of my roommates in mind. He buys pop tarts, brownie mix, sugar cereal and microwave dinners and he doesn't buy bread, veggies, (he does have a sack of potatoes that he hasn't touched in a month or two), REAL food. So if there were taxes on those "luxury items" like pop tarts i would hope he would buy less of them. In any case it seems over bearing to me.
For the real deal: 1) I will start with a question, isn't a flat tax unconstitutional? Correct me there. 2) i like the progressive tax. I had something completely different written after that until i did the math on your plan. Its not too bad. The 60,000 guy is paying 3% and it goes up from there (fairly steeply) but it seems to top out at around 20%. I guess the problem would be, how much money would we be bringing in? Would in drastically decrease the government's income?
I'm sure you would find a fight if you tried to implement the 80% death tax. i'm slightly torn on the idea. I don't really like the idea of inherited wealth but the people can just give the money away before they die and nothing will be left to give to the government. And good luck devising a plan to keep people from reasonably spending their money how they like while they are alive. I think i read that only something like 10% of the wealthiest people in america are second generation wealthy but don't quote me on that.
this is an issue that is rightly given to the states (in the case of most taxes). I think it is to the people to decide what is taxed. Now, being left leaning i think that luxuries are what should be taxed (or at least should carry the largest burden of the taxes). Those who can afford such luxuries obviously have a larger disposable income as well as the luxury items are inessential. Taxing essential items puts a greater burden on the poor who have a smaller income but an equal need for the essential items.
ReplyDeleteTo speak specifically to your suggestions: i am all for legalizing things (drugs, prostitution, guns) and then taxing the shit out of them. I'm less inclined to agree with goods since it would interfere with the success of business and so would adversely affect the economy. Then again, the same could be said about income but that one seems reasonable to me. maybe because it is progressive and so an undue burden is not placed on the poor. ok, i give up.
I see the idea of luxury tax, and that makes sense. The definition of a luxury should then be defined. For me, food, clothing, transportation, and shelter(property) should never be taxed. But do we tax certain foods, and certain clothing and transportation. i can buy a pair of jeans for 30 bucks or 150. the 150 ones are more of a luxury. I could buy bread or I could buy pop-tarts, should we tax the pop-tarts for they are a luxury. Or maybe we could have a luxury tax on anything above a certain price. Say, anything over 200 dollars is a luxury and shall be taxed. (there would then be a lot of things for sale for 199.99) Are TVs needed. Many poor people have tvs and computers and cell phones. Are these luxury goods?
ReplyDeleteFor taxing I think there should be no sales tax, period. There should be no property tax, period. (It is rightfully yours, you own it therefore you shouldn't be taxed on it)
now income, can be a bit different. I don't like the progressive tax. But I really don't like how the poor have to pay taxes. I propose this, that we should have a flat tax, but start the tax at 50,000 and up. So that way the poor down't have to pay a dime. Also only the income above 50,000 is taxed. So if you make 60,000 a year, you are only taxed on 10,000 of it. Then I would se the flat tax for 20%. So if you make 60,000, 10,000 of it is taxed so you would pay 2,000 in taxes. That way if you make 100,000 you pay 10,000-so it is somewhat progressive. (x-50,000).20=y is the equation. It makes it simple and everyone can firgure that out. So if you make 40,000 a year you never have to think about taxes.
Then I would tax the shit out of you when you die. Make it law that you can only give X amount of money per a year per a person, so they can't just dump all their money to someone else. Then I would put a death tax somewhere around 75%-80% of their wealth. So when you die, most of your money goes to the government. This will keep rich families from just building their wealth generation after generation. So for those who make a lot of money all that money when they die goes to the government, they give their civic duty at the end. so if bill gates died tomorrow and he is worth lets say 20 billion, 16 billion would go to the government and 4 billion to his will. If I died tomorrow and I'm worth 40000 in debt, the government gets nothing and those that I owe don't get their money back.
sorry for the long wind post. I got excited creating my own tax plan.
taxes are a tough one because no one really likes them but we all know that the government can't function without them. The luxury tax idea i like but you're right, its hard to define a luxury. It is also extremely paternal. I say that with one of my roommates in mind. He buys pop tarts, brownie mix, sugar cereal and microwave dinners and he doesn't buy bread, veggies, (he does have a sack of potatoes that he hasn't touched in a month or two), REAL food. So if there were taxes on those "luxury items" like pop tarts i would hope he would buy less of them. In any case it seems over bearing to me.
ReplyDeleteFor the real deal:
1) I will start with a question, isn't a flat tax unconstitutional? Correct me there.
2) i like the progressive tax. I had something completely different written after that until i did the math on your plan. Its not too bad. The 60,000 guy is paying 3% and it goes up from there (fairly steeply) but it seems to top out at around 20%. I guess the problem would be, how much money would we be bringing in? Would in drastically decrease the government's income?
I'm sure you would find a fight if you tried to implement the 80% death tax. i'm slightly torn on the idea. I don't really like the idea of inherited wealth but the people can just give the money away before they die and nothing will be left to give to the government. And good luck devising a plan to keep people from reasonably spending their money how they like while they are alive. I think i read that only something like 10% of the wealthiest people in america are second generation wealthy but don't quote me on that.