Tax reform (2 Viewers)

[Garygaz]

The way i see it, and from what i read, the income disparity between the people at the poverty threshhold and the 1% super rich keeps increasing.
Things like CEO salaries keep increasing way beyond what the other employees get. For example it use to Be that their salaries were 30 X greater then an average worker, now in places like the US you have salary packages that are like 300 times greater then the average worker gets.

Higher brackets with higher percentages of tax should mitigate that increasing disparity.

For being self motivated and extremely hard working, the Government decides that you are to take on more of the burden for looking after those who are too lazy/not motivated enough to get jobs or decided to be 'teh cool kid' in school and not study. Oh, and keeping their roads and pavements nice and safe too. This is why I hate progressive tax systems.

 

[withoutaface]

Imo the biggest issue with taxation at the moment is the imbalance between the states and the commonwealth, which forces the states to levy stupid shit like payroll taxes and huge stamp duties. The states should be given the ability to levy their own sales taxes, GST scrapped, payroll tax scrapped, stamp duties substantially reduced, etc.

 

[Freedom_]

Is this guy serious?

Only the government obtains its income by coercion and violence—i.e, by the direct threat of confiscation or imprisonment if payment is not forthcoming. This coerced levy is “taxation.”

The time to oppose government expenditures is when the budget is being considered or voted upon; the people should call for drastic slashes in expenditures as well. In short, government activity must be reduced whenever it can: any opposition to a particular cut in taxes or expenditures is impermissible, for it contradicts libertarian principles and the libertarian goal.

The one thing that we must not do is add to the support of a tax cut such unprincipled rhetoric as, “Well, of course, some taxation is essential…,” etc. Only harms the ultimate objective and contradicts and violates principle.

The reduction or, better, the abolition of a tax is always a noncontradictory reduction of State power and a significant step toward liberty.

 

[Garygaz]

Only the government obtains its income by coercion and violence—i.e, by the direct threat of confiscation or imprisonment if payment is not forthcoming. This coerced levy is “taxation.”

The time to oppose government expenditures is when the budget is being considered or voted upon; the people should call for drastic slashes in expenditures as well. In short, government activity must be reduced whenever it can: any opposition to a particular cut in taxes or expenditures is impermissible, for it contradicts libertarian principles and the libertarian goal.

The one thing that we must not do is add to the support of a tax cut such unprincipled rhetoric as, “Well, of course, some taxation is essential…,” etc. Only harms the ultimate objective and contradicts and violates principle.

The reduction or, better, the abolition of a tax is always a noncontradictory reduction of State power and a significant step toward liberty.

If liberty means fucked up health care and public infrastructure because there is no central authority to control fiscal policy, then fuck that.

 

[loquasagacious]

Imo the biggest issue with taxation at the moment is the imbalance between the states and the commonwealth, which forces the states to levy stupid shit like payroll taxes and huge stamp duties. The states should be given the ability to levy their own sales taxes, GST scrapped, payroll tax scrapped, stamp duties substantially reduced, etc.

I agree that the State v Commonwealth issue is a massive problem in our tax system (and more generally in our system of Government).

However letting states set their own sales taxes seems problematic for a couple of reasons; firstly I prefer taking repsonsiblity from the states rather than giving it to me, secondly (and more importantly) it would seem to create pricing irregularities between states and make it much harder for national/cross-border businesses to operate.

The other taxes mentioned are interesting:
- Payroll tax I think should be abolished
- Stamp duty is a good revenue source because it's inelastic... I'm tempted to keep it
- Similarly to stamp duty the various excises are inelastic and good revenue sources

 

[spartan31234]

. Let us assume that there is a small business (or individual) who earns $100,000 and a larger business (or individual) who earns $1,000,000. Let us call them A and B respectively. Under a flat tax they both pay 30%. I must emphasise percent.

A pays $30,000 in tax.
B pays $300,000 in tax

This certainly seems to pass your test of the richer businesses/individuals paying more tax.

------------------

true

tax is a percent and naturally the more wealthier company would pay more tax, but this is only a linear increase in cost

where the use of public infustructure and services could increase exponentially or by some polynomial,
but i can't prove this, it is only guess!

say the richer company distributes a 100 products to a wholesaler , which will take some infustructure, but the wholesaler would use infustructure and government services as well. The wholesaler then distributes your products it to local shops which sell the product to the public, the public use roads to get to the shop. Without government infrastructure you effective sales radius would (i think) reduces exponentially . Taking an extreme, you could be restricted to a small community and naturally products would be very easy to distribute.

I personally favour the user- pays systems, but it is difficult to implement everywhere.

 

[SashatheMan]

For being self motivated and extremely hard working, the Government decides that you are to take on more of the burden for looking after those who are too lazy/not motivated enough to get jobs or decided to be 'teh cool kid' in school and not study. Oh, and keeping their roads and pavements nice and safe too. This is why I hate progressive tax systems.

Effort/work does not necessarily translate into how much money the person makes.

It's hard to believe that the CEO who makes as much money in a day that a worker in his corporation would make in a year sweats it out that much more.

I would agree at some level the CEO probably has more education and more skills. But that shouldn't translate into 100-300 times the salary, which keeps rising year after year regardless of what is going around him in the economy. I still recall the controversy with those executives in the US rewarding themselves millions in 'bonuses' after the company was going into freefall. The greed is swallowing them up.

That's why i don't suggest tax increases for everyone in general, but higher taxes for really high brackets.

 

[Garygaz]

Effort/work does not necessarily translate into how much money the person makes.

It's hard to believe that the CEO who makes as much money in a day that a worker in his corporation would make in a year sweats it out that much more.

I would agree at some level the CEO probably has more education and more skills. But that shouldn't translate into 100-300 times the salary, which keeps rising year after year regardless of what is going around him in the economy. I still recall the controversy with those executives in the US rewarding themselves millions in 'bonuses' after the company was going into freefall. The greed is swallowing them up.

That's why i don't suggest tax increases for everyone in general, but higher taxes for really high brackets.

But without generalising to the top and bottom wages in an economy, your average worker earning 150k compared to one earning 40k has done a lot more to earn it. Sure some CEO's paypackets are out of proportion, but that's a minute percentage of the problem.