Devising the best taxation

Well, the same thing could be said for a progressive tax structure. What makes our current tax code so complicated is all the deductions and exemptions that need to be figured out. Remove those, and a person's income tax could be figured out in 20 seconds with grade school math.I think I've said this before (probably the last time you or someone else brought this up), in no time at all a flat tax will end up just as complicated as our current system because all of the deductions are going to end up creeping back in. In fact, one reason I'm opposed to a flat tax is how it's being marketed as this "simple" solution.On the other hand, if combined with a negative income tax, a flat tax could simplify both income taxes and welfare payments in one fell blow. "Take your income and subtract $50,000. Multiply this by 30%. If the result is positive, this is what you owe. If it is negative, this is what you get."

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Speaking of personal income tax, I think you are very close when you suggest: I think there should be a base amount for each working member of a household which would be adjusted for inflation annually. Then there should be a secondary base amount for each dependent child, also adjusted annually to account for inflation.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Meanwhile, the fatcats feeding at the public trough in my county get fatter, government continues to expand and the workers here who don't leave continue to bear heavier burdens.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

You seem to be talking about corruption, not taxation.Fatcats - government or private - will always be a burden on the common man, but that has nothing to do with taxation levels. Once again: all that money gets recirculated in the economy. If you're concerned about "fairness", you should be thinking about redistribution of wealth.Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Section 8 of the Constitution entitled Powers Of Congress reads in part, "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 signed by President Woodrow Wilson relegated that power to privite bank entities. I would favor reinstating that power back to Congress. The following link explains:The Federal Reserve BunkI'll try to get on with more response soon.

Actually in my first post I made a nod toward progressive tax structures. I don't have anything against them ideologically, I just don't think they are necessary.Perhaps I could put a better finger on my issue. It seems to me that progressive taxes are a way to spread the debt downward, whereas I figure it doesn't need to be. Find a limit above which we should take revenue, because it does not effect the person being taken from in any practical sense (i.e. its pure profit), and then set a tax rate.So I won't fight a progressive tax structure, and I suppose there are some valid (i.e. appealing to me) arguments for at least a simple progressive tax structure. That is hit everything that is profit with a certain tax, and then extraordinary profit at another, and then obscene profits at yet another. The current progressive tax structure doesn't quite do that, instead trying to get as many as possible to pay, regardless of their profit margin.I agree that its the deductions and exemptions that are the main contribution to complexity. And if these are not strongly stamped out, and held back, a flat tax system will become as bad as the old system.All that said, I actually liked that negative tax scheme you proposed. There might need to be some work done to calculate the best amount, but it sort of makes sense.One possible criticism would be that a person working full time (and not making 50K) will end up receiving a boost to the same level as a person working part time or not at all. This could be a "disincentive" to work... unless paid 50K or more.Not saying that argument would do me in, just saying that is a possible angle for criticism.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

i'm generally very interested in the potential of a consumption tax, but i don't the the "fair tax" is the right way to go. my fiance was telling me about somewhere that has a sales tax only on items over $100 in value. that seems pretty nice. it seems to be inherently a luxury tax, at least to some extent. now, i'm no expert on taxation, and i don't know if an added bill to $100 qualifies or only individual items over $100. perhaps someone knows what i'm talking about.being a socialist, i believe one of the functions of government is to create a society in which no one goes without, even if it's not "equitable". there will probably always be people who have "more". but everyone should have "enough". i think the best way to do that is a loop-hole free luxury tax. this should apply to large or high-earning companies, and individuals.the problem is that instead of deciding what tax system we want, we debate whether the crappy ones our congressmen come up with are sufficient.

um, the money is definitely not printed by private banks. Technically yes, in reality, no. The US government effectively controls who is part of the Fed. There is a long history of banks printing money, going all the way back to the the creation of the constitution.Printing money in the hands of congress is not smart. They can change it's value solely for political gain, and really wreck our economy.

Yeah, I realized that when I was writing. I didn't want to clutter my post with things like, "I know you said this, and jar mentioned that, and the kook said the other thing, but I am going to say...."By the way, I wouldn't necessarily be against a flat tax. With a high enough exemption and a high enough tax rate, it would be marginally progressive anyway, especially if the money were used to fund services available to all and income adjustments for the poor.- I'm not necessarily advocating a negative income tax, either -- just throwing stuff out there.Anyway, it doesn't quite work out that way. The idea is that the marginal rate is always 30% (using the numbers I just made up). So for every dollar earned, 30 cents of benefits is lost (or 30 cents is paid as taxes), but 70 cents always goes into your pocket -- so you always have that incentive to make that next dollar.Using the numbers I made up randomly:Someone with no income at all would get 0.3*50000= $15000.
Someone earning $10000 would get 0.3*(50000-10000)= $12000 from the government, for a total income of $22000.
Someone earning $40000 would receive 0.3*(50000-40000)= $3000 for a total income of $43000.
Someone making exactly $50000 would have an income of exactly $50000.
Someone making 75000 would pay a tax of 0.3*(75000-50000)= $7500, for a net income of $67500.So the more you earn productively, the more you take home -- so there is always the incentive to increase one's income. And, so say the advocates, since there is no cut-off where benefits are suddenly lost, there is no incentive to work up to a sudden point and then stop.Anyway, I just mention it because a negative income tax seems to go naturally with a flat tax.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Well, banks do increase the money supply by loaning it out.If you borrow $100,000 from the bank to buy a house, you don't just get a briefcase full of cash which you take to the realtor. They cut you a check which you then sign over to the realtor. The realtor just deposits it in her account, against which she writes checks.So, by loaning that amount of money, the bank has effective added $100000 to the economy. Basically, all bank and credit card loans are like this -- banks are only required to have a certain percentage of their outstanding loans available as cash.I can't remember the exact figure, but I think I read that a huge majority of the money "in circulation" is basically this non-existent (in the sense that it's not represented as physical cash) money. Most of the money in circulation exists only as numbers on our bank statements, and has been created by the banks. (I'm guessing that is how those old "bank notes" got into circulation -- when people taking loans really did get a sack of "bank notes" from the bank -- to be redeemed by the bank later.)Of course, unless Buz would try to outlaw bank loans, his scheme isn't going to do much in this regard.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

How does: gel with ??Using your first formula, I get10,000-50,000 = -40,000.
-40,000 * .3 = -12000.Okay, so the result is the same. You are the math professor, but I get kind of confused when people change the formulas on me.Just wondering.

You're right in that most of the money in circulation isn't 'real'.Took Econ 101 last semester, will be taking it this semester , so you know, grain of salt.

Sorry. The second post was written to avoid negative numbers.Actually, I'm surprise that when I said that if the answer is negative this is what you get, no pedant pointed out that "getting" a negative amount would mean that you're actually paying!

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

I'm thinking that elimination of the Federal Reserve System would eliminate creating money via bank loans. The banks would be required to limit loans to existing $.One of my proposals forbids government debt and another requires Congress to coin money. A bank loan which adds $ to the $ supply would have the effect of government debt, would it not?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

I think we are in almost complete agreement on this topic.And thanks for spanking me on the math. If I hadn't been so lazy and actually tried using real numbers, instead of haphazardly running %'s through the creaky function machine in my head, I wouldn't have advanced the obviously incorrect criticism I did. Very dumb on my part.That system is really looking good to me. Indeed I'd love to see what others might think.Maybe someone should chuck it over to Obama or Kucinich and see if they'd run with it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard