Tax Code Reform

[CamB]

Haha - I'm reading this in shorts and cycling shoes. I'll be dressing for the job tomorrow though.

I just want a simple tax system - I don't want excess admin costs for individuals, small businesses, or for the tax dept in respect of those classes of taxpayer.

It is obviously easier for us to try this stuff with only 4 million people and no federal vs state tax distinction.

[Hugh R]

The problem is that the poor don't pay their "fair" share. If you start with the assumption that the goods and services that you get from the government should be proportionate to the taxes that you pay, then consider a simple example of a family with two kids in public school. In California, the state, on average, pays $7,000/year/kid. So with two kids your fair share of taxes, just to educate your own kids is $14,000, let alone, police, fire, public services, roads, etc. To pay $14,000 income, sales, and property taxes, you need to be earning in the $80,000 range. The average family income in California is, believe it or not, in the $40,000 range. So most people arn't paying anywhere close to their fair share. As previous commenters had indicated, the "rich" are picking up the slack. That's why when liberals say "No tax cuts for the rich" I wonder if they've given any thought to who actually pays most of the taxes.

[CamB]

If you start with the assumption that the goods and services that you get from the government should be proportionate to the taxes that you pay

Why on earth would you start with that assumption? The assumption should be "you get the goods and services from the government in proportion to your need".

[campbellcj]

I have no problem with the concept of subsidizing those needier than I (although that is hard to swallow at the end of the tougher months ). I do however have a problem sponsoring entitlements to a large number of people whom in my view, should not be "entitled" to government handouts, and also seeing $billions go down the tubes on porkbarrel spending and bureaucratic waste on the part of our beloved government.

We need to stick to the basics: education, financial security, and national defense. Roads and public facilities should be funded via use taxes: you use, you pay. You don't pay, you don't use. Period.

Basically, I feel like I am being robbed every payday, and I'm not complaining about my gross salary...

[island911]

Originally posted by CamB
If you start with the assumption that the goods and services that you get from the government should be proportionate to the taxes that you pay

Why on earth would you start with that assumption? The assumption should be "you get the goods and services from the government in proportion to your need".

Yes, though the reality, here is; "you get the goods and services, from the government, as a small percentage of what's left over, after the fat bureaucrats have had their fill"

[fintstone]

Why on earth would you start with that assumption? The assumption should be "you get the goods and services from the government in proportion to your need

That was straight out of the Communist Manifesto. They don't even say that in Lenin Square anymore.

[Superman]

Hey, rather than make assertions here and get challenged for proof, I'll just ask a question about which I am curious. This has come up recently in some of my personal conversations. Here is the question: Of the largest American corporations (let's say the 100 largest corporations using gross business volume as the measure since profits can so easily be manipulated), how much tax did they pay last year? Anybody know where to get this information easily?

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by CamB
If you start with the assumption that the goods and services that you get from the government should be proportionate to the taxes that you pay

Why on earth would you start with that assumption? The assumption should be "you get the goods and services from the government in proportion to your need".

Your joking I hope... Is New Zealand a big socialist country or is it just you?? If I put myself through undergraduate, and graduate school, started my own business and work 60-70 hours per week, why should I be subsidizing people who make bad choices in their life (and believe me, I've made a few bad choices in my own life, and I had to pay for them). There's people who get rent subsidies here in Los Angeles to the tune of $1,800 (US)/month. This artifically raises the market clearing price of housing. BTW, to be able to pay $1,800/month without subsidies, you need to earn about 2.5 to 3 times that monthly, thats equivalent to earning $55,000 to about $65,000/year. Los Angeles is an expensive place to live, and if you don't have the skills and/or education to live here, you should move to somewhere else (New Zealand comes to mind), and not expect me to subsidize your existance.

[fintstone]

Here is the question: Of the largest American corporations (let's say the 100 largest corporations using gross business volume as the measure since profits can so easily be manipulated), how much tax did they pay last year?

Why would that matter? Corporations don't really pay taxes per se, They just pass the cost on by raising the price of whatever they produce and the buyer actually pays or in rare circumstances, decrease the dividend so the shareholders don't get as much. That is why all this silliness about increasing taxes on corporations is just that....silliness. The only time those rates mean anything is when thay drive the price of doing so high that a company can't compete and calls it quits or moves overseas.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Hugh R
Your joking I hope... Is New Zealand a big socialist country or is it just you??

Not joking, New Zealand is approximately the same as the US (maybe a touch to the left in respect of welfare and labour rules etc, but a significantly freer economy - no tariffs, minimal govt intervention etc).

And, despite the fact that I appear to be a Communist (what's the full phrase - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs), I don't even remotely believe that.

You're confusing the application of the welfare and tax system with the principle underlying it. The principle is to redistribute some wealth in a fair manner - usually to maintain some sort of minimum standard. The outcome is often overly beneficial to some people, but equally some people avoid tax too.

Basically, you object to being taxed on good luck, good choices and hard work, resulting in wealth. I don't know that I can put this in any way that is palatable to you, but put simply, I believe you (and I) have an obligation to those who make poorer choices, have bad luck and don't work as hard. HOWEVER, in respect of poor choices I want a welfare and education system which encourages better choices, and in respect of hard work I don't want to see people slacking off being rewarded.

But I stand by my original comment - the tax dollars should be directed to those who need it. We could embark on a huge debate about what "need" means, but I'd be surprised if we actually disagree.

Alternatively, you really do believe that the more tax you pay, the more you should get from the government, and that you want to have a massive class division and a society predicated on haves and have nots.

[304065]

Let's not let this degenerate into the whole socialism cross subsidy discussion. Cross subsidy exists, it always will, until you can attach some kind of a meter to people to determine their exact contribution to GDP and consumption of public services and size the tax bill accordingly.

Having said that, what Super failed to mention when he started this discussion with that acrimonious piece about the virtuous middle class was that the current progressive tax code is founded on the principle of "fairness." "Fairness," put another way, means, "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities: which, you guessed it, came from Ol' Karl Marx, who was NOT, contrary to what they taught you in school, one of the Marx brothers. Marx ripped it off from Saint-Simon who ripped it off from The Bible but there you go.

Where was I? Oh yes, the fundamental principle of the tax code is to conscript wealth from high-income people (let's not call them "rich" just yet) at a higher rate than lower income people because they "can afford it." Leave aside for now the two significant questions of 1) WHAT tax revenues are being spent on and; 2) the relative efficiency of government bureaucracies in putting those dollars to work.

Let's just consider what is in the mind of somebody who believes you can afford it. Here's what I think the underlying assumptions are:

1) Income generation exists only to support individual consumption, or consumption within one's immediate family, for basic human requirements like shelter, energy, transport and food.

2) Any income above the subsistence level should be redistributed until everyone is at the subsistence level.

Do you see what's missing from those assumptions? Saying that somebody with income above a particular level "can afford" progressively higher payments FOR THE SAME PACKAGE OF ENTITLEMENTS presumes they don't have anything better to spend their money on.

This is a misguided assumption. Ask yourself, "Self, what is the process of capital formation in the United States as opposed to Europe and Japan?"

Give yourself time to answer. My answer was, that we have a tradition going back a couple hundred years of direct equity investment in business ventures. High income people typically reinvest surplus cash in a greedy attempt to earn even more money! This results in all manner of nasty things, like the capitalization of new business ventures, entrepreneurship, "angel funding," people starting small businesses on their own, with the surplus that they have after the children are fed and the firewood is stacked by the back door!

In many of the socialist countries, nobody has any idea that they are supposed to form new businesses, and even if they did, their tax rates are so prohibitively high in a misguided attempt to equalize conditions that there is no money left over to invest in ANYTHING! If you are an entrepreneur in Germany, do you have a number of venture capital firms? NO, you have a German commercial bank as your principal backer, furnishing you with DEBT CAPITAL that is SECURED by whatever personal assets you've been able to squirrel away over the years, and they put three people on your board of directors to oversee their investment! The essence of new business growth is the ability to raise equity capital and put it AT RISK in the hope that the venture will be succesful. 98% of the time it's not, you lose your money! And that 2% of the businesses that are successful are the drivers of the greatest economy in the history of humankind, that of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Simply put, the fundamental principle of tax fairness assumes that if you have higher income, you will just spend it on candy or cheap foreign-made consumer electronics purchased at your local big-box superstore. It is utterly ignorant of the fact that wealth creation is largely the product of individual Americans putting their surplus capital at risk in an attempt to better themselves.

What about the concept of universal suffrage for men and women (post 1920, Amdt XIX), you only get ONE vote, but depending on your income level you may pay several times the taxes of someone who receives the same package of entitlement as you do. Do you consume, as a high-income taxpayer, so much more civic resources? Do the fire trucks come to your house but not stop in the poor neighborhood? Do the police protect only your property rights but ignore those of the middle class? Do you avail yourself of more air traffic control services because you fly around in a Gulfstream V, or do you beat the roads up more with your Porsche 911 than a low-income person in a beat-up Chevy Nova?

I would argue that you don't consume any more services of government, and in fact you consume less. But what really bakes my noodle is whether your higher tax burden is a reflection of the fact that all of our system of private property rights, law enforcment, civic services, national defense, etc., is intended to protect your LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY. If you are a high-income person, you have more of one. But of the others?

[CamB]

Yeah, but John, the tax system still leaves plenty of private capital for direct investment in business. Income isn't being leveled like in communism, and rightly so.

Besides, if an enormous amount of private capital became available to be invested in private enterprise (as you suggest), I suspect it would end up being invested inefficiently (ie in unproductive assets/ideas). Ultimately there has to be some sort of equilibrium (I haven't thought about it too hard, but I suspect it relates to the level of natural resources - one of the many reasons the US is as wealthy as it is today), and if significant wealth is to be created in the circumstances you suggest, I suspect it is at the expense of "poorer" people - both in the US and in other countries.

[Hugh R]

"Alternatively, you really do believe that the more tax you pay, the more you should get from the government, and that you want to have a massive class division and a society predicated on haves and have nots."

Actually, I don't believe that since I pay more taxes, that I should get more from the Government. In looking at social programs, I think its important to recognize that a lot of these programs provide people with disincentives to improve their lot in life. Many people stay on unemployment until they run out of benefits, welfare tends to take away the incentive to look for a job. Take the example of the American Indians on reservations. Until they started allowing casinos (and afterwards) the alcoholism and unemployment rates were incredibly high, Why? because they got enough government money to get by... granted not in great luxury, but enough that they didn't have to go find a job for fear of losing their house for not paying the mortgage.

There was a story in the Los Angeles times recently about three illegals from Mexico, their three wives and their 33 children who lived in one Los Angeles house. The house burned down and they got to the top of the waiting list for subsidized housing, three houses at $1,800 per house subsidy/month. They lived in those houses for 20 years and put all 33 kids through the L.A. schools. At $7,000/kid for school times 12 years of school per kid times 33 kids, you get $2.77 million, add in $1,800 x 3 houses times 20 years and throw in another $1.08 million they got in "redistributed wealth". The three fathers worked at car washes and didn't make enough to pay taxes. So three illegal families sucked almost $4 million out of the system without paying any taxes. How many "Rich" taxpayers does it take to support them? BTW, the story in the Times wasn't putting a tax slant on the family, it was that after living here for twenty years they moved to another state because California was too expensive.

I think we need to look at these "Entitlement" programs with a jaundice eye before the people, and the legislatures, start voting on more of them.

[fintstone]

The principle is to redistribute some wealth in a fair manner

Boy is that ever an oxymoron. Taking someone's hard earned money and giving it to another who has not labored a bit for it can hardly be called fair. Theft is more appropriate.

[CamB]

In looking at social programs, I think its important to recognize that a lot of these programs provide people with disincentives to improve their lot in life.

So you have a problem with the welfare system, but attack the taxes which pay for it as being unfair.

The $2.8 million on schooling isn't relevant either - those 33 children are 33 potential future taxpayers.

Boy is that ever an oxymoron. Taking someone's hard earned money and giving it to another who has not labored a bit for it can hardly be called fair. Theft is more appropriate.

You're equating income with hard work - they don't necessarily follow. I earn 3-4 times what a friend of mine who is a social worker earns. He works much harder than I do and it is in a pretty much thankless job. He probably pays 1/6 the tax I do. The inadequate salary he does get comes from my tax, and I am very happy with that.

[fintstone]

You're equating income with hard work - they don't necessarily follow. I earn 3-4 times what a friend of mine who is a social worker earns. He works much harder than I do and it is in a pretty much thankless job. He probably pays 1/6 the tax I do. The inadequate salary he does get comes from my tax, and I am very happy with that.

No I am not, I am making the assumption that one who earns a salary, by definition, must work harder for that money he earns than someone who did not work for it at all.
What you are talking about is the relative value of work, not wealth redistribution. It is certainly no secret that some professions pay less than others...one must choose accordingly or be disappointed.

[CamB]

You make it sounds like paradise here! To be fair, there is probably not a materially different level of crime here overall (except shootings, which we don't really have) but the US has "hot spots".

I think death taxes are stupid too.

Capital gains tax - I'm neutral on that, as long as there is a commensurate deduction for any borrowing against it, and as long as capital tax losses are deductable and accruable. I also think it is far to hard (expensive) for a tax dept to administer for personal tax payers, soI guess I am actually against it.

Fint - I don't like paying for people who aren't working any more than you do, I just prefer it to seeing anyone hungry or begging.

[CamB]

As far as I am aware, there is no death or estate tax, full stop.

I've gone and got a huge warm and fuzzy feeling after you described NZ like that. I guess I am "used to it" which I better get back overseas for a while to get unused to it so I can appreciate it more .

and had the locals refuse to let me pay for a single Speight or Steiney.

I'm guessing they paid for your Steinlager then bought you Speights to stop you drinking any more Steinlager

[304065]

The objection to the welfare system, or to national defense, or to national parks, for that matter, is peripheral to the discussion of tax fairness. A lot of people oppose ANY form of taxation when the proceeds are used for entitlement programs. A lot of other people oppose spending on national defense, but in my experience they rarely object to "taxing the rich."

Cam, the fact that we still have money left over after taxes to engage in equity investment doesn't address my point, which is that in a society founded upon the principle of POLITICAL equality under the law, it is fundamentally inconsistent to impose differing tax burdens based on income. If we get drafted to fight in Iraq, the USA doesn't expect me to serve twice as long. I don't get two votes when someone with lower income gets one. The fact that our government CAN impose a higher tax burden doesn't necessarily mean that it SHOULD, I guess.

I don't completely follow your point about inefficiency of private investment if dollars were shifted from taxes to other forms of spending. In fact, with our lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends, the system is encouraging investment in equities. I'm not sure if your point is that retail investors lack the sophistication to differentiate between a good investment and a bad one, or that our consumption of scarce resources is an equilibrium between the availability of capital for investment and taxes.

Hey, taxation can be thought of as a form of consumption spending that's not strictly market driven-- a "command" part of the economy vs. a "demand" part of the economy like the private sector. The decision to spend tax dollars on missile parts or cheese isn't driven by market forces, it's driven by career bureaucrats doing their best to assess forward demand for those things, which by its nature will result in spending on the wrong stuff, allocation of resources where they don't belong, waste and a whole lot of noise. The difference with respect to the private sector is that the decision to TERMINATE an unprofitable activity comes a hell of a lot quicker, e.g., a pharmaceutical company, attempting to develop a blockbuster drug, will terminate their clinical trial and stop wasting money as soon as they fail the primary endpoint. Contrast that with the willingness of government to carry on even when it appears futile. . .

You guys that despise welfare, do you despise progressive taxation because of the disincentive it represents, or would you oppose a flat tax if the proceeds went to welfare, too?

[CamB]

If there was flat tax, I think that there would need to be excessive rebates back to the bottom 75% (or whatever) - this could, IMO, replicate a progressive structure. I totally see your point, and I totally agree about the "career bureaucrats" comment too- the wastage in the system is self-fueling...

What I mean about investment is that I believe there are a finite number of good ideas/investments, and if there is more capital available then either:

(a) expected returns go down (ie you pay more to invest in the same ideas/investments), or:
(b) more crap investments get invested in (with crap returns).

Given that ideas etc can be in primary, secondary or service industry (I think that's how it works!), I just can't see how the service industry can be unbounded (in size and scope) - it has to be related to primary and secondary industry, which are related to raw resources.

Hence, I guess I am hypothesizing that there is only so much capital that the world actually needs.

Did I make more sense that time?