It depends on how you look at it. Is NAFTA a good thing many think it is wrong yet we still have it. Globalization many think it is not the way to go yet we head that way. Nothing is set in stone. I can be sure on one thing everything will fail. Why? Because people just do that. Why civilization rise and fall and it will happen again and again. People don't know how to properly make things work or I should say work in peace with another.
NAFTA is not synonymous with free trade. As for everything failing- on a long enough timescale, wouldn't you statistically expect it?
But just because everything might come to an end, does not mean we can't use what we know to better outcomes. Trade liberalization has done wonders for people in the countries involved in those changes and trade restrictions has historically held back a lot of other countries (see India, China prior to the early 90s). But it isn't just historical correlation. Given competitive advantage and the number of studies and data related to that, it is quite obvious that trade can be a very, very good thing.
Besides, what are the flags and national borders anyway? They don't really mean anything- they are pretty much random. If a policy helps people in country A and country B, then I'll take it if the only trade-off is both countries lose the right to say "product X or Y is 100% made in country A or B".
I feel income is the only equal way to do it.
Low income and high income both need to purchase the basic goods of life, so both would be taxed the same amount, but without consideration for how much that takes of their income.
By a flat percentage on income, it does take that into consideration. It's still the same percentage (for equality), but of different amounts.
While equal is a subjective term here, why is income the only way you think you can do it? Also, someone making millions of dollars per year might possibly have 0 income- that is one of many reasons why I don't think income is the best thing to tax.
I guess, but still why income? I think we can all agree income is a good thing in the long run- you want to incentivize people to earn income. Actually it is just because of the incentives reason that not all money made is income.
I personally see part of the problem being the current filing a return system our taxes now have. I think it kind of defeats the purpose of being taxed if you get a portion of what you are taxed back. I think in reality you should not get anything you are taxed back. Nor should we have to file taxes at the endo of the year.
It has a lot to do with incentives. But everything not falling under income is not necessarily due to people hiding it, but us wanting to incentivize different actions differently.
I agree not everything falls under income. Should we have the ability to get a portion of our taxes back at the end of the year?
For me if you pay taxes any taxes you should not have the ability to get even a percentage of those taxes back it defeats the purpose of having a tax. You tax people only to make their percentage given in smaller when filing.
To me that is backwards and is part of the cause in why we the government runs a deficit. I know it is not the whole cause or even maybe not a big part of the cause. Though I see it as a cause.
If you stop that and do away with it the money never leaves the governments pocket so it makes it hard earned in a sense (meaning it is always their never leaves). Will it solve our governments spending habits I doubt it thats another subject of its own.
I think the thing with returns is that logistically that is what works. For example, if you want to incentivize charitable giving or other activities, this is one way to do it. I guess another is to impose a negative tax at the transaction (like a negative sales tax on such spending), but that'd probably be messy and hard to regulate too.
If you give to Charity you should give without expecting a return back from the government. The Whole point in giving is because you want to give not get back. To me I never understood that and found it kind of stupid. I still see the current system of returning taxes as really defeating the purpose of collecting taxes to begin with. Though that is me.
Assuming that charity is a good thing for society (something that does not necessarily always hold true, but that is a side issue), if the extra good from charity for providing tax deductions outweighs the cost of said deductions then it is good policy, no? But charity was just an example. Take business expenses instead. Same idea there.
Ok now I give to charity often. Both my wives were diabetic. One is deceased the other had a transplant so is now diabetic free for the time being. I donate to that charity. I donate to breast cancer charities because my first wife died of breast cancer. I donate to food charities and never have claimed the deduction on my taxes. I find it silly to get back what you have given because you wanted to give it. Why allow deductions on something someone wants to give from their heart it defeats the purpose of Charitable donations. To give not to receive back.
I understand your argument, but again my question is if it costs society less to incentivize donating than other options, then shouldn't we do it if such charity is in fact beneficial? Hypothetical situation:
Assumption: donating to charity A is optimal to other outcomes.
Situation 1: With no deductions we get $1000 in donations, thereby saving the government $1000 in welfare costs (100% of the donations).
Situation 2: There is a deductions system and because of it we get $3000 in donations. The deductions cost $300 to bottom line tax revenue. The cost savings to the government is still 100% of the donations- so $3000. $3000- $300 lost in tax revenue= $2700 net savings for the government.
$2700 savings beats $1000. Hypothetical situation, but shows why deducations might in fact be a good thing (moral questionability aside). In the end if more unfortunate people are being helped in an optimal way, then isn't it a good thing?
Should Charitable giving truly need an incentive. I really don't think it should. Either a person give or they don't it is up to them.
I sort of understand you situations to be honest. Though maybe I am not 100% sure. If by not allowing a person to deduct the charitable giving how would it hurt the government. Does not the government make the rules on taxes to begin with? So would it not be prudent to take it away and change it so it is most beneficial to them?
Similar threads
