uh oh...we agree on something?

Well, sort of. I agree about legalization and then taxing them. But I don't agree totally with "its illegal or it isn't", at least wrt to penalties. That is why we have a justice system...because all crimes aren't created equal.

Good thread http://forums.pelicanparts.com/ultim...ons/icon14.gif
"Is a drug user committing the same criminal act as a drug pusher?"
No, hence the different penalties for the offenses. I think the major difference is that there is no physical addiction (IMO a valid reason) for the pusher to continually break the law.

IMO, the more interesting topic that has come out of this discussion is the picking and choosing of what addictive substances are legal or not. I'm sure the answer has to do with money one way or another.

Yeah, the legal and illegal black and white view of things is ridiculously simplistic. For instance, medical marijuana is legal in California, but illegal in (just a guess) Texas. So, from a fedreal viewpoint, is it legal or illegal? Laws evolve all the time. Also, illegal drugs such as morphine will be given to you if you are terminally ill.
The doctor may even terminate your life that way, if he judges this is the right thing to do. That is illegal, but is it better to let someone suffer with no hope of recovery? Life is not black and white with a law telling you clearly what is right or wrong all the time.

Aurel

If we punish drug offences equally, should we punish murder and manslaughter equally? Let the judge and jury of peers decide punishment.

I do believe the issue presented by OP has little to do with actually solving this supposed war on drugs.

The point is that neither is punished sufficiently to deter them one bit....much as illegal immigration. either outlaw it and have serious punishment or make it legal. Writing laws intended to be enforced only as a joke really undermines our legal system.

And costs us the taxpayers tons of money.

I have a solution. Change our tax system to a sales tax effectively taxing drug dealers and prostitututes and anyone else that works in the "cash" environment. When the tax is based on expenditure it doesn't matter where the money comes from. Individual tax cheating is eliminated. So is the IRS. Should be plenty of money floating aound with everyone paying their fair share.

How does one control the black market?

And how would you enforce the taxations of services sold by dealers and prostitutes? As long as they get paid in cash, I don`t see how it would be more difficult to cheat by not repaying this VAT to the feds. Enforcement costs tax money too...

Aurel

What do you mean by black market? IMO that all goes away as government gets its revenue by what everyone spends, not just those that honestly pay their taxes. No more tax shelters, all of that crap goes away.

You don't get it. They spend their money in the same places that we do. The sales tax collection system is already firmly in place, everwhere. Maybe the states should collect it and let Washington beg for it for a change.

But how do you collect this revenue? It only works when a legally registered business takes the tax from the customer and sends it back to the govt. Why would a drug dealer or a prostitute do that in the first place? It is a black market, because it is illegal. Why would they want to become legal? To pay taxes and make less money?

Aurel

He's talking about the tax on items everyone buys (gas, food, leisure, etc).

Okay I get it. You want to tax the money that the dealer spends, not what he makes. That sounds good, but to keep the revenue the same, be ready to pay 25-30% taxes on all goods. Also, considering that most of the taxes are paid by the richest on the basis of their income, not their spendings, this system may not generate enough revenue anyaway.

Aurel

Maybe I haven't explained myself real well. How much money is the IRS getting from drug dealers and prostitutes now? Nothing. If your tax system is based on a sales tax at say 20% for everybody then it wouldn't matter if they got their money from being a prostitute or a politician.

Remember, there is no Income Tax. You are only taxed on the purchase of legal goods and services from legitimate businesses. Put real money into enforcement and there will be plenty of money to go around. The IRS as we know it would go away. Let them be on the back of business and let us decide how much we want to pay in taxes based on what we chose to buy and when we chose to buy it. It would turn this nation back into savers instead of debtors.

Sorry, didn't mean to hit you over the head. Seems we posted at near the same time.

In practice, it would be possible to get some tax money from the black market by raising the VAT to say 20%, but it would not be possible to supress the income tax. Because whether you make $20k or $200k/year, you can be spending the same minimal amount of money. Hence, the revenue taken from the black market does not compensate the revenue lost by taxing the richest.
This system would also punish the poorest, because if you make $20k/yr and spend it all, you are taxed 20%. But if you make $200k/yr and spend $20k, your pay only 2% of your income in taxes!

Aurel

Your math is off. If you made $200K you would pay $40K if you spent it all.

If you made $20 and you spent it all you would have spent $4K. The rich guy still pays 10 times as much. What's the problem?

Edit: OK I understand your example now.

My point is that the richest guy does not have to spend all his money, while in present system, he has to pay taxes on all his income. So, the tax revenue with your proposed system would be lower and less predictible.

Aurel

Only flaw in your thinking is that no one making $200K a year would restrict their spending to $20K. Believe me, spending is addictive. The more you make the more you want to spend. With this type of taxation there might have to be adjustments in collection rates, but I have faith we'd figure it out.