Base taxes on net worth only.

If the only prerequisites for a free market system and a democracy are the protection of property and the rights to it's use and access, then the only basis for taxation is for services rendered. In other words, the only real basis for taxation is a tax on properties protected. No other taxes have a rational basis for their existence. Services by a nation, and it's citizenry that agrees to refrain from trespass and collaborates to finance the court, the enforcement, and the military infrastructure as well as any civic structures the people found necessary to a healthy nation. Also, any properties protected outside that country protected by that infrastructure or treaties made with other nations in which those assets were located. Protection of properties of all types would be measured in net worth established by the mean of sales from the previous quarter in local area with corresponding features. Taxes would be flat with no exemptions and no deductions unless those exemptions or deductions were placed before a public referendum for a two thirds super majority approval. Waste, hoarding and inflation would stop. Efficiency and innovation would boom. If minimum wage floated with cost of living, stability would abound making speculation an honest business. A flat rate tax of 4.25 percent would produce the same amount of funds the current tax code produces. The difference is equability. You would not be paying the tab of the super rich. Right now they are embezzling much more than you ever imagined. If you paid no sales tax, no school tax, no income tax and only property tax, could you afford to pay 4.25% in property tax per year. How much do you pay accountants to cope with the current tax code? How much paper work is required on your part. This flat tax would only require you to keep track of your net worth and pay 4.25%. Check it out for yourself.
Someone with a net worth of $1,000.00 will pay $42.50 per year and no other taxes.
Someone with a net worth of five million will pay $212,500.00 per year in total taxes. Someone with a net worth of $100,000.00 will pay $4,250.00 and someone with a net worth of $125,000.00 will pay $5,312.50. No other taxes. No sales tax, no income tax, no school tax. Make gaming the system very difficult from a tax perspective.

 

The primary purpose for the tax code is not to collect revenue for the government. The primary purpose for the tax code is to influence how what is not taxed gets spent.

Power, all power, electric power, political power, financial power, even emotional power is the same. Power is the ability to affect change.
The tax code is all about the exercise of power. It has little to nothing to do with its stated purpose, the collection of public revenue.

 

Dumb idea. The only fair tax is a flat tax on everyone. That includes taxing everyone from welfare sops to billionares!!! And yes I said tax welfare payments. Welfare sops need to be aware that there is no "free" money it does not come from the government, it COMES FROM THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

 

So you think somebody who earns $1,000,000 a year and spends it all on rent and high living should pay less taxes than the high school kid who has saved $10,000 for college?

 

This is a flat tax. It happens to be based on the only rational justification for having a tax in a free market system. Net worth. No net worth, no tax. The B.S.has been to saturated into the public thinking most people have trouble seeing the situation in a rational and logical context. A flat tax as low as 4.25% will produce the same revenue that is currently being taken in, if it is based on net worth only. No income tax, no school tax, no sales tax, etc.Someone with a net worth of $1,000.00 will pay $42.50 per year and no other taxes.
Someone with a net worth of five million will pay $212,500.00 per year in total taxes. Someone with a net worth of $100,000.00 will pay $4,250.00 and someone with a net worth of $125,000.00 will pay $5,312.50. No other taxes. No sales tax, no income tax, no school tax. No gaming the system. No deduction or exemptions.

 

Tax based in income punishes the productive citizens for being productive. Citizens with vast properties get the protections of those properties on the backs of the working class. The structure of the society protects that $10,000.00 from many threats. That person with the $1,000,000.00 had that net worth for some period of time and pays taxes on that net worth for that period.

 

It would also eliminate all low yield investment, as there would be no incentive to take risks that don't return more than 4.25%. Otherwise, one would be losing ground on net worth, year after. What you call "hoarding" is actually investing in low yield investments which could be high risk lending to poor people where there are a lot of defaults.

Also, outlawing jobs does not help employ more people. Consumption does not create production.

 

If they own property located in another country, then it isn't being protected by this government. I assume you would agree that there would be no justification for this government to tax it?

 

Net worth tax.....ridiculous.

<Off-topic>

 

And you think that a multi-billionaire who doesn't happen to have income for a year should pay less taxes then the kid working at McDonald's as he tries to save up $10,000 for college?

 

Eliminating the incentives for low yield investments would seem to ba a way to improve the efficiency of money. And a wealth tax as you correctly point out would necessitate investing in growth in order to at minimum preserve wealth. Our current system basically doesn't penalize money that just sits and does nothing other than the loss from inflation which is currently very low.

 

I would have to say that this is false. What is the better alternative to low yield investment? If that better alternative exists why are they not exploiting it now?

 

I would say this is true except in the case of intellectual property. If Apple Inc. wants to headquarter in another country but wants the U.S. government to protect Apple's intellectual property, then Apple should pay the property tax on the value of that privilege, else the intellectual property should not be enforced.

 

A tax on net worth is better then an income tax. However, a land value tax is better still, because the land value tax has no dead-weight losses.

 

I agree with you on nothing else, but I do on this. Personally, I think the intellectual property should not be protected at all by the government.

 

Did it in the eighties, and 90's see election Dole ran in while Milner ran for governor of Georgia, from election information in the Atlanta Constitution. Still have the 10gb hard-drive from the 8086 I was using back then, just no way to plug it in. I was paying 4.75% of my net worth in taxes and Guy Milner was paying .75%. Bob Dole had a higher net worth than Johnny Isakson but far lower than Milner's $250,000,000, and both were paying more than Milner but less than me.

That is why even talking about it in response to a flat tax gives them the heebeegeebees.

You could lower it down to around 1.75% (don't have the exact numbers in front of me) and Bob Dole's taxes would have remained the same. I think your percentage is too high. First have an IRS form to fill out for every taxpayer then the next year calculate the tax percentage rate for revenue neutral, and study it. It's all academic, the heebeegeebees are too strong.

 

I know you don't think you like the idea of a land value tax. I wonder how much land you actually own? I own at least twice as much land by value as the average landowner (way more by land area). But I wonder … if land value tax were not a revenue tax but rather just a mechanism to restore equal rights to land, would you support it then? Land value tax could be used to provide every U.S. citizen with about 7 acres of average quality land; A married couple would get about 14 acres; a family of four about 28 acres. Just because a land value tax administered in this way would give every citizen a right to this amount of land doesn't mean they would have to take physical possession, they could just choose to receive the rent. A land value tax administered in this way would replace most social safety net programs. Would you support a land value tax if administered in this way? Could you be happy on 7 acres (14 acres if you are married) of average quality land that you would have a right to so long as you live?

 

Everybody has an idea on how to change the tax code, and it usually benefits them in some way or another. The truth is the main reason a flat tax of any kind hasn't been honestly considered by the corporate sock puppets, who go by the misnomer of the people's representatives, is because the rich/elites who make such decisions, would not benefit as well as they do now. Think about it for minute. We have "on paper" the highest corporate taxes yet the richest corporations, those that rake in billions of dollars annually in profits, pay little to NO taxes on those profits. In fact most of the ones who pay no taxes, actually get millions of dollars from the government to battle their competition.

You want to save this country, break up the plutocracy, eliminate the crony capitalism that rules the economy, and stop electing corporate sock puppets (AKA democrats and republicans).

 

Who doesn't invest in growth? If there's interest, there's growth. My point was that you are picking winners and losers, and in this case, the losers are the people who are already struggling. Not that it's much different with inflation eating up returns on investment. Low interest loans come at a loss for the lender, yet those low interest loans are the sort that are often used to increase productivity and generate innovation.

Money never just "sits."

- - - Updated - - -

That depends on tolerance for risk and one's investing goals. If one doesn't want to continually lose net worth to a wealth tax, one would have to seek higher yields, or move wealth out of the country.

 

Very far-fetched scenario. Mine wasn't--happens with entertainers all the time.

 

Is it also wrong if the government owns vast properties that are maintained on the backs of the working class?

 

When the investment is liquidated in order to consume the government tax, that investment is lost, companies lose their capital and people lose their jobs. The kid working at McDonald's isn't paying much, if any, in the way of income tax. He is paying a hefty payroll tax to fund the current batch of Social Security and Medicare recipients. He's also paying an unemployment tax, and probably some local income taxes.

 

Not all of us want the tax code manipulated to help ourselves. I'd prefer the Fair tax to the current system, and I believe that based on my circumstances, it would cost me more, if not absolutely, then at least relative to everyone else. I just think the Fair tax would encourage domestic production and exports, discourage imports, and just overall be more fair. I would rather tax consumers than savers.

 

But it isn't fair. Those who live paycheck to paycheck, would be punished and those who could save up would be rewarded, and those who can hide their money, or deal under the table would benefit the most. I've read the Fair Tax Plan and it is anything but fair.

I think all income/earnings should be taxed at a rate of 16%. 6% going to the feds and 10% going to the state of residency, and all other taxes eliminated. Anyone who invests only pays taxes on any additional money they draw out of an investment. If you invest $100 on money you already paid taxes on, you would pay nothing on the loss obviously or the first $100.00 taken out of the investment account. Estate taxes would be the same, parents leave you more than $100,000.00 you pay a flat 16%, property in a family run business, should already be incorporated for the protections they provide, if not 16%, which could be set up on a reasonable payment plan.

What is wrong with my plan?

 

I directly own about 7 acres, subject to mortgages, and indirectly own about 120 acres depending on the accuracy of an ancient plat, but that has nothing to do with why I oppose land value taxes. I already pay taxes based on land values. LVT is a scheme to return us to a feudal system. I will never support it. Ever.