What tax system do you prefer?

Ignoramus · Aug 30, 2010

AK_ID said:
Okay, it's well before last call for we Depends folks, so I'll take a few minutes to address your points one by one, Ignoramus.

AK_ID said:
Would slavery and the expropriation of the lands of supposedly inferior peoples by killing them and/or removing them be part of that commonality of agreement?
No, I wouldn't agree that killing or removing supposedly inferior peoples is proper moral behavior. A number of recent ancestors in my family, and a vast number of my people dating back for several millennia, have been so treated. On the other hand, not all Native Americans were the peace-loving souls today's primary-school history texts make them out to be, and the people who were here upon contact had displaced others before them in many (or most) cases.

Manifest Destiny, lebensraum, or Zionism, there is always a rationale.

There is no practical way to right all wrongs of displacement, and even if we were able to do so, all it would mean is that the whole lot of us would be huddled in a starving mass in Africa.

Famine is largely a result of civilization. Uncivilized people such as the Hadza rarely experience it. Hunger, yes, famine no. Chayanov?s rule protects them. The 20th and 21st Century famines in Africa are largely the result of colonialism. Of course, Africa was civilized before Colonialism, however Colonialism destroyed the existing political structures and boundaries. Your anthropology needs updating. Man emigrated from Africa before the advent of civilization. After all, if there were no Humans in the new lands, why was it necessary to displace them?

Since voting for one label or another of the Democrat-Republican party seems to be an exercise in political impotence, taking away the right of the poor to participate in meaningless political activities should have no effect on our present political system.
Both parties have failed us in this by perpetuating poorness, and enabling people to live generation to generation without contributing shit to society. A poll tax, or perhaps the idea of no taxation, no representation that I mentioned earlier, would encourage a few folks to move on up. Do you have children, Ignoramus? If so, do you reward them for crappy grades in school, or pay them allowances for not doing their chores? That is exactly what the federal government does, but on a grand scale.

I have children. Our social order doesn?t allow parents to be parents. The function of the industrial plague is to destroy family and community, to reduce Humanity to units of production and units of consumption.

When the limits of tolerance have been exceeded, then perhaps the poor will find another way to express their will, one somewhat in accordance with the practices of our founding fathers. However, for that to happen, it will probably be necessary for the percentage of the impoverished to increase in number. That process seems to be well under way.
Our founding fathers were not beggars. Not all of them were wealthy, but most of them were landed men who had a stake in what they were fighting for. They had invested time, energy, sweat and years of work in many cases to earn what they owned, and by doing so they earned the right to protect what they owned.

Yes, and the right to protect what they had stolen. As for the sweat, that may have been somewhat true in the New England States. However, in the South, the slaves did most of the sweating.

There is no logical way to compare their efforts to those of people who live in subsidized housing; who eat food they neither grew nor paid for with earned wages; who ride public transportation they didn't pay for and are not willing to maintain; who receive medical care they will never pay for and which they consider a right; and who receive tax refunds (in the form of EIC and other credits) of monies they neither earned nor paid.

Yes, but we must take care of Paris Hilton. She is a national treasure.

An elitist attitude on my part? Maybe. But I can afford to be elitist because I'm not asking anything from anyone except the right to enjoy my life and the fruits of my labors without having to pay for those who neither labor nor produce anything. By extension, those who produce nothing and have worked for nothing should not have the right to, essentially, vote to tax those of us who do.

You would deprive the Waltons, the Gettys, the Rockefellers and the Duponts of the franchise? Somehow I doubt if that will go over.

You seem to be arguing that it's acceptable for beggars to complain about the quality of alms received, and that they should be allowed to elect more charitable almsgivers. That entire concept has been the major failing of this nation for decades.
Cheers --
AK

Really, is that what I seem to be arguing for? Sad, once they used to teach reading in the public schools.
Didn?t I mention that I?m an Anarchist? You might look up Anarchism. We are hardly the big government types.

AK_ID · Aug 30, 2010

My reading skills are just fine, sir, almost as good as they were in third grade. And while you're attempting to lecture me on the differences between anarchy and pro-big government schools of thought, perhaps you should determine which side of the fence you really stand on -- big government supporters tend to favor redistribution of wealth, you know.

obtuseobserver · Aug 30, 2010

Ignoramus said:
Manifest Destiny, lebensraum, or Zionism, there is always a rationale.

And you're always quick to condemn it without much in the way of thoughtful consideration.

The fact is that for the majority of human existence people struggled (and continue to do so in many ways) to defend what was theirs be it a family or resources of many kinds, wealth etc etc. The rationale is survival and expansion of the family - tribe - coalition of tribes etc. Which is to say; human nature.

Ignoramus said:
The 20th and 21st Century famines in Africa are largely the result of colonialism. Of course, Africa was civilized before Colonialism, however Colonialism destroyed the existing political structures and boundaries. Your anthropology needs updating. Man emigrated from Africa before the advent of civilization. After all, if there were no Humans in the new lands, why was it necessary to displace them?

Colonialism cannot be treated so monolithically. The experience in the Congo was not the same as in South Africa was not the same as in Egypt.

As a general rule the colonial powers tended to end warfare that he been going on forever between rival groups. Markets like certainty and peace. The European powers were there for resources not to play war.

Famine is largely a political problem - post colonialism. Corrupt governments, warlords etc steal the foreign aid etc. You get guys like Mugabe who took Zimbabwe from being the breadbasket of Africa to a racist nightmare that cannot feed itself.

As to the last bit about displacement. Your comment presumes one continuous migration. It also preseumes that they didn't encounter Neanderthal etc. And we know they did. So, if we remove reality from your assertion it makes a lot of sense.

Ignoramus said:
I have children. Our social order doesn’t allow parents to be parents. The function of the industrial plague is to destroy family and community, to reduce Humanity to units of production and units of consumption.

lol

the Bildebergers running that?

You do know that they are actually vampires sent from another galaxy by a coalition of civilizations to prepare the way for them to come and hunt us for sport don't you?

Ignoramus said:
Really, is that what I seem to be arguing for? Sad, once they used to teach reading in the public schools.
Didn’t I mention that I’m an Anarchist? You might look up Anarchism. We are hardly the big government types.

lol - you're a peach.

Ignoramus · Aug 30, 2010

AK_ID said:
My reading skills are just fine, sir, almost as good as they were in third grade. And while you're attempting to lecture me on the differences between anarchy and pro-big government schools of thought, perhaps you should determine which side of the fence you really stand on -- big government supporters tend to favor redistribution of wealth, you know.

Actually I believe you are the one confused as to where I stand. I have a pretty good idea as to where I stand. If you had read carefully my initial post on this thread, it may have cleared up some of your confusion.
My system, the one that I favor, has zero taxes. Since Anarchism isn?t too popular, I?m merely offering a way to fund our absurd social order. I realize that something for nothing is the common economic theory at the moment, but I have a few doubts as to its sustainability.
As for the folks who favor the redistribution of wealth, I thought that was the goal of commerce. Both Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have redistributed a lot of wealth.
If you mean chaps like Ronald Reagan and "W", they certainly believed in the redistribution of wealth. A lot of wealth was redistributed during their administrations. Of course they were both big Government types.
If it helps to clear up your confusion, I am totally opposed to the present welfare system and if appointed dictator, I would eliminate it within five years. The main opponents that I would face would be the commercial oligarchy which wants the present system in place. Are you familiar with Milton Friedman?s negative income tax? No, I don?t support it. My system would be self sustaining after startup. The annual startup costs would be a fraction of our annual welfare budget. After five years, the system should be self sustaining.
Again, this is not my ideal system, merely a reworking of this absurd social order towards greater efficiency.

obtuseobserver · Aug 30, 2010

Ignoramus said:
As for the folks who favor the redistribution of wealth, I thought that was the goal of commerce. Both Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have redistributed a lot of wealth.

Neither of those involve the government taking (taxing) from Peter to pay Paul.

Earning money through commerce and charitable giving are not relevent to this discussion.

Stay on topic.

AK_ID · Aug 30, 2010

Ignoramus said:
Since I am an Anarchist, and if I could implement an Anarchism of my own design, no taxes would be necessary. However, the path to that social order is far too complex for a forum such as this, so I will give the tax structure that I would emplace on the US. I would use Jefferson?s favorite, tariffs, and then, in addition, I would use a net worth tax. The population?s net worth would be totaled and the total would be taxed to the degree necessary to pay the national budget less tariffs. I am not at all fond of credit, either personal or national. In addition, one percent of the taxes would go to fund a rainy day fund.
However, the state would not do the totaling, the taxpayer would do that. If the government detected a real bargain, they would buy the taxpayer out for the value that he assigned to his net worth. The penalty for hiding assets would be the forfeiture of all assets.
Tariffs would be based on the national interest, not income. The goal would be to maximize the total prosperity of the nation across all class lines.

Okay, Ignoramus, I read your post again, and I have a question or four. Under your system, who defines national interest? Who defines prosperity? Who defines (and how do you definitively define) net worth, when the value of belongings changes from day to day, or in some cases, minute to minute, depending on market forces? And would it not make more sense to force the central government to return to its originally intended limited function?

I do agree that obtaining credit can often be a bad idea, but not always. Sometimes it's wise business practice. For instance, if I borrow 20 grand at 10% and use that money to obtain an 80% return, I've done good. If government borrows money to pay for programs that will never return a dime, and sticks us with the interest and principal payments, it's a bad deal. It's all about common sense.

About those class lines? Folks who work hard and use their heads generally do okay. Folks who whine and look for handouts don't do so well. No new system of taxation will ever change that.

Ignoramus · Aug 31, 2010

AK_ID said:
Okay, Ignoramus, I read your post again, and I have a question or four. Under your system, who defines national interest?

You have to read the original post for the thread which sets the parameters. I have quoted it below. Since I am setting up the tax system, I define it. If you let the whores we have now do it, the national interest would be the interest of the Johns who buy the whores. That?s what we have now. If you want a political system which will define the national interest in terms of the real interest of the nation, I can give you that, but first, you have to make me dictator. No, I?ll step down as soon as the system is in place and running. You don?t have to take my word for it, my age and physical condition guarantee it.

Who defines prosperity?

It?s not really all that hard when you get the whoring media and the politicians out of the picture. Folks usually know when we are well off, that?s why they are pissed right now. However, again, I?m setting up the system, I define it. Again, if you want a political system that can do it, see above.

Who defines (and how do you definitively define) net worth, when the value of belongings changes from day to day, or in some cases, minute to minute, depending on market forces? And would it not make more sense to force the central government to return to its originally intended limited function?

Go back and read my post again. The taxpayer states his net worth. If it looks like a real good buy, the government buys him out for his value, and takes the assets.
How much simpler can you get?

I do agree that obtaining credit can often be a bad idea, but not always. Sometimes it's wise business practice. For instance, if I borrow 20 grand at 10% and use that money to obtain an 80% return, I've done good. If government borrows money to pay for programs that will never return a dime, and sticks us with the interest and principal payments, it's a bad deal. It's all about common sense.

Sure credit is a great tool for well disciplined and intelligent folks, now what about the 90 % that?s left? However, when governments are involved, you need a competent government. Seen one of those in the United States recently? Actually, they seem kind of rare anywhere. It?s too easy to borrow to slop the hogs and then let the runts pick up the tab.

About those class lines? Folks who work hard and use their heads generally do okay. Folks who whine and look for handouts don't do so well. No new system of taxation will ever change that.

[/quote]
Sorry, that runs counter to my life?s experience. My father was a lumberjack. I doubt if you could have kept up with him for one day. He died in poverty. Two weeks before he died of stomach cancer, he was doing back breaking labor in the woods. He was sixty eight years old. Somehow they managed to cheat him out of his Social Security. I have never noticed a correlation between hard work and wealth. If you pick one of the superrich, chances are, he was born to wealth. As for using your head, yeah, if you are born smart, it helps to get an education. That?s easier for kids who pick the right parents. Parents kind of determine the born smart bit too. If there is something fair about this, please explain it to me?
This is the game in play for the thread.

myp said:
If you were to somehow be able to change the tax system of a country on your own, what system would you want and why? I recently saw this question posed on Reddit (a social bookmarking site for those not familiar with it) and was wondering how everyone here would respond.

AK_ID · Aug 31, 2010

Sorry to hear about your dad. Sixty eight is a decent age, though I doubt Social Security had anything to do with his demise.

Born smart? Maybe that's true. I was fortunate to have been born into a relatively wealthy family (major west coast corporations and state senators and such), but have never asked for or accepted a family dime, and never will.

And no, life isn't fair. No amount of social engineering will make it so. When my kids were little, I used to try to explain to them that they wouldn't always get the same number of raisins or chocolate chips in their cookies as the other kid did. They figured it out.

Ignoramus · Aug 31, 2010

AK_ID said:
Sorry to hear about your dad. Sixty eight is a decent age, though I doubt Social Security had anything to do with his demise.

AK_ID said:
Born smart? Maybe that's true. I was fortunate to have been born into a relatively wealthy family (major west coast corporations and state senators and such), but have never asked for or accepted a family dime, and never will.
And no, life isn't fair. No amount of social engineering will make it so. When my kids were little, I used to try to explain to them that they wouldn't always get the same number of raisins or chocolate chips in their cookies as the other kid did. They figured it out.

Social Security wouldn?t have made Dad live any longer, but it would have made the last two years of his life a damn sight easier. It would have made a couple of years of my life a little less Hellish as well. I finally got out by joining the Army during the Korean War two weeks after my seventeenth birthday.
No, maybe you didn?t accept a family dime, but I doubt if your childhood was much like mine.
Life isn?t fair? This sounds like the old all degrees of imperfection are equal argument. I?m not trying to make life fair. That?s impossible. I?m trying to make it fairer. That?s easy.
Your argument seems to be that I?m not creating a perfect system. Not trying to do that. I?m offering what I think is a better system. The first thing going for it over the existing system is simplicity. The second thing is that I?m not penalizing productivity which the present system does. Third, it?s fairer, because I?m taking it from those who have benefited from the system. Forth, it keeps capital moving, if you sit on it, you lose it. Fifth, it eliminates the trade deficit. Sixth, it eliminates the budget deficits.
Now, show me why that?s not true, not that it's not perfect, just that it?s not better than what we have now.
This is not social engineering for equality, it?s social engineering for efficiency and prosperity for the nation as a whole.
No more huge trade deficits which benefit a few at the expense of the many.
No more huge budget deficits which benefit a few at the expense of the many.

AK_ID · Sep 3, 2010

Ignoramus said:
Social Security wouldn?t have made Dad live any longer, but it would have made the last two years of his life a damn sight easier. It would have made a couple of years of my life a little less Hellish as well. I finally got out by joining the Army during the Korean War two weeks after my seventeenth birthday.
No, maybe you didn?t accept a family dime, but I doubt if your childhood was much like mine.
Life isn?t fair? This sounds like the old all degrees of imperfection are equal argument. I?m not trying to make life fair. That?s impossible. I?m trying to make it fairer. That?s easy.
Your argument seems to be that I?m not creating a perfect system. Not trying to do that. I?m offering what I think is a better system. The first thing going for it over the existing system is simplicity. The second thing is that I?m not penalizing productivity which the present system does. Third, it?s fairer, because I?m taking it from those who have benefited from the system. Forth, it keeps capital moving, if you sit on it, you lose it. Fifth, it eliminates the trade deficit. Sixth, it eliminates the budget deficits.
Now, show me why that?s not true, not that it's not perfect, just that it?s not better than what we have now.
This is not social engineering for equality, it?s social engineering for efficiency and prosperity for the nation as a whole.
No more huge trade deficits which benefit a few at the expense of the many.
No more huge budget deficits which benefit a few at the expense of the many.

Not quite on topic, but thanks for your service, Ignoramus.

And no, I don't suppose my childhood was much like yours. Family money does not a perfect childhood make, though. I suppose I could share a few published stories written years ago to prove the point, but why bother?

I do need to ask why you consider it fairer to take more from those who've succeeded in life? You claim you're not promoting social engineering, and then turn around and use "fairness" as an argument. And I have to ask where you get the idea that wealthy people sit on capital? Generally, they invest it, and by doing so promote further economic growth.

Ignoramus · Sep 4, 2010

AK_ID said:
Not quite on topic, but thanks for your service, Ignoramus.
And no, I don't suppose my childhood was much like yours. Family money does not a perfect childhood make, though. I suppose I could share a few published stories written years ago to prove the point, but why bother?
I do need to ask why you consider it fairer to take more from those who've succeeded in life? You claim you're not promoting social engineering, and then turn around and use "fairness" as an argument. And I have to ask where you get the idea that wealthy people sit on capital? Generally, they invest it, and by doing so promote further economic growth.

Yes, our supermarket racks are fill of magazines mourning the plight of the rich and famous.
You have to ask me why it’s fairer to take from those who benefit from the system the most rather than from those who have been screwed by the system? I can’t relate to any concept of fairness where that isn’t fair. Fairness is an argument? Again, your value system is totally alien to me. Even if you go the Machiavellian route, you have to maintain the illusion of fairness. You just can’t reject fairness, you have to lie a bit. Just plain slopping the hogs doesn’t work in the end. That’s why we are screwed up now. Your preference for the hog may make sense to you, but I can’t imagine any rationale where it makes sense from a social perspective. Even the hogs don’t benefit in the end. Greed isn’t exactly insightful. Enlightened self interest is a reasonable and valid perspective. Greed is folly, it is the path to destruction.
By the way, a rich man is a rich man, a hog is a rich pig. The great dream of the pig is to be a hog.
The purpose of civilization is to take from the Harvesters and give to the Elites. All civilized social orders have their Harvesters and their Elites. However, not all Elites are equal. Some are competent, and some are incompetent.
You can usually tell a competent farmer by his farm. If a man takes from his farm and puts nothing back, then his farm will suffer, and eventually, he will no longer have a farm.
()
Some wealthy people sit on capital. Do you argue with that? Those who put capital to work well should have no problem with my tax system. Remember, it’s our present tax system that penalizes those who put capital to work honestly.

Dirk · Nov 4, 2010

I still fully support a progressive tax system. I'm afraid I can only work in the German framework, but i'll try and make it understandable. The aim is simplification and fairness. However, I'm also enacting my ideals of practical socialism.

Federal Income Tax:

Would be progressive, with some extra bands added, most likely. But it would be cut, so it wouldn't raise much more actual revenue. Most people would pay less.

Value Added Tax:

Would be completely abolished. We would need to leave the EU for this.

Inheritance Tax:

Would probably be reasonably high, in the interests of meritocracy.

Corporation Tax:

Would be made considerably higher. It would be raised from 15% to 35% - other taxes on corporate income (solidarity surcharge & local trade tax) would remain the same and bring the figure up to 50%, just below where it was in 2000. This would change Germany's rate from one of the very lowest in Europe to the highest.

Charitable foundations will remain exempt. Cooperative enterprises will be made exempt. Church institutions will lose exempt status.

State Income Tax:

Would be similar to Federal income tax. Also, many of these taxes may be passed down to states, in order that popular sovereignty is held at a more local level.

Carbon Tax:

In the style of Sweden, specifically, as it has no discernible effect on the economy.

Financial Transactions Tax:

On banks. No real effect on the operation of financial enterprise. Due to Germany's relatively small financial trading sector when compared to the United Kingdom, or United States, I would estimate about a hundred billion Euros would be raised.

Land Value Tax:

At first, a rate of roughly 30%, but will probably rise. Has considerable potential for raising revenue - Germany has plenty of land. It will encourage the use of land and thus stimulate the economy.

Wealth Tax:

A one-off tax on those with liquid assets exceeding seven thousand Euros would generate a hundred billion Euros, which would be used to build social housing, create useful jobs, upgrade public transport and fund green initiatives, among other things.

obtuseobserver · Nov 5, 2010

Dirk said:
Inheritance Tax:

Would probably be reasonably high, in the interests of meritocracy.

Wealth transfers triggered simply by dying are even more offensive than regular spreading the money around, you know, to make things more equal.

Dirk said:
Corporation Tax:

Would be made considerably higher. It would be raised from 15% to 35% - other taxes on corporate income (solidarity surcharge & local trade tax) would remain the same and bring the figure up to 50%, just below where it was in 2000. This would change Germany's rate from one of the very lowest in Europe to the highest.

And drive capital out of Germany at a rate difficult to calculate.

Back to my Florida story... Florida had a thriving luxury boat building industry. Florida decided to bump taxes on it considerably. Now the Bahamas have a thriving luxury boat building industry.

Lesson: Capital is portable... boats are too.

Dirk said:
Church institutions will lose exempt status.

Why?

In the US there may well be an equal protection argument that would prohibit this but that's a different issue.

Dirk said:
Carbon Tax:

In the style of Sweden, specifically, as it has no discernible effect on the economy.

Why have it at all?

Dirk said:
Land Value Tax:

At first, a rate of roughly 30%, but will probably rise. Has considerable potential for raising revenue - Germany has plenty of land. It will encourage the use of land and thus stimulate the economy.

Raising taxes on a thing discourages the use or sale of the thing because it became more expensive.

myp · Nov 6, 2010

Dirk, did you consider the Laffer curve when coming up with your tax policies? If so, don't you think some of those hikes- especially corporate tax, would lead to less state revenue and possibly fewer jobs? Obtuseobserver gave a good example of essentially what happens.

obtuseobserver · Nov 6, 2010

Capital.. and its owners are portable.

Without regard to Laffer (that no longer matters... debt grew too much too fast to be able to reasonably hope to grow the economy out of the debt)... human behvior is quite predictable with regard to taxes. The higher the rates the more effort people will put into avoiding them. Either by moving themselves, their money of using more aggressive or even illegal schemes to avoid higher taxes.

Just one more comment on "meritocracy." That's not an american value. Its a european value. It is changing in the US to be sure but our Framers established a form of government to placed liberty as the highest value. More and more people are ceding that to the government in exchange for comfort.... the exact thing de Tocqueville warned about two hundred years ago.

So, why is meritcocracy not an american value? The only way to acheive it is to take from Peter and give to Paul. It presumes Peter got more stuff because he took advantage of Paul. So, meritocracy can only accomplish its goal through force... forcing Peter to give up stuff to Paul is quite specifically at odds with liberty.

myp · Nov 6, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Without regard to Laffer (that no longer matters... debt grew too much too fast to be able to reasonably hope to grow the economy out of the debt)...

Oh that was in no way an endorsement of Laffer- I just used the phrase since it was a short way of saying what I was getting at.

obtuseobserver · Nov 7, 2010

Didn't read it be be one or not one

Laffer is correct that there's a point at which taxation becomes such a burden on growth that it actually results in less tax owed.

Supposn · Nov 29, 2010

MYP, in my opinion to the extent that (taxes can or are properly drafted and enforced), general consumption taxes are more equitable and preferable to other basis of taxation to fund general government expenditures.

The most taxpayer friendly, economically beneficial and least intrusive general consumption tax is the value added tax, (VAT) sales tax method.

To the extent that individual taxes overhead expenditures do not excessively decrease a tax?s net revenue yields or increase intrusions upon taxpayers, multi taxes of lesser rates are preferable to lesser numbers of higher rate taxes. Actual or perceived tax inequities undermine confidence of the taxing government; such lack of confidence can hinder a government?s ability to perform its function (to govern).
If consumption taxes of acceptable rates cannot entirely replace income taxes, partial replacing significant portions and decreasing our dependence upon income taxes would better enable reforming the taxes to be more equitable.

Refer to the discussion threads entitled:
?The fair tax can only be implemented incrementaly? last posted on 09-06-2010 11:59 PM;
? FICA?s the most regressive federal tax? last posted on 09-06-2010 11:48 PM;

? Value Added Tax, (i.e. VAT); a sales tax method? last posted on 09-06-2010 09:56 PM;

? The unjustified tax discount for capital gains incomes? last posted on 08-08-2010 12:12 AM.

Respectfully, Supposn

Dirk · Dec 14, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
And drive capital out of Germany at a rate difficult to calculate.

This is unlikely to happen on a particularly large scale. An empirical study on comparisons between economically successful countries in Europe and the variance of corporate taxes found minimal differences. Since cooperatives will be exempt, there will be a huge incentive to start such an enterprise, which would stimulate the economy considerably. Furthermore, Germany has been highly economically successful at a higher rate of corporate tax in the past, and so it shouldn't be considered a major concern.

If anything, it will eat away at the larger corporations, which tend to monopolise markets, take money out of the economy and cause inefficiency. And so would be an economic benefit.

Why?

In the US there may well be an equal protection argument that would prohibit this but that's a different issue.

And Germany is not the US. I think that if people believe in whatever, they're welcome to go and pursue that. But I don't think religious institutions shouldn't be exempt from tax.

Why have it at all?

Because the Swedish system of carbon tax is more effective than most in reducing pollution.

Raising taxes on a thing discourages the use or sale of the thing because it became more expensive.

Not so. A lot of land is simply not in use. A Land Value Tax would not only gather revenue from otherwise useless land, but would encourage use of land. This is because landowners will have an incentive to exploit and exact a profit from it.

myp said:
Dirk, did you consider the Laffer curve when coming up with your tax policies?

Yes. However, we must also keep in mind that the Laffer curve is a concept. It is almost impossible to calculate figures for any specific tax. A number of efforts have been made, and all face significant criticism. There are far too many variables to consider. And so we keep in mind the concept but recognise that we cannot use it as a key tool in determining policy.

If so, don't you think some of those hikes- especially corporate tax, would lead to less state revenue and possibly fewer jobs?

It is a significant hike, yes. However, consider that Germany currently has a historically low rate of corporate tax - one of the lowest in Europe. However, there are good reasons behind the taxes I suggest. The corporate tax would be largely offset by the VAT abolition. The base of Germany's industry is manufacturing. Notably, cars, chemicals, electronics, etc. The abolition of VAT would mean that the immediate potential for cost efficiency of manufacturing enterprises would be increased. This would mean an extension of these industries, greater productivity and exports, a significant reduction in unemployment as a result, greater economic power to Germany, greater incentive to do business in Germany, and a higher volume of net revenue collected.

As a result, we could reform and extend the welfare system, reform the health system, abolish tuition fees for university (again), invest in green technology (and abandon nuclear power at last), reform public transport, and many other things I would love to do.

I would say we could also pay our debts back faster than other countries and thus increase confidence in the German markets and encourage investment, but the truth is, we're already doing this.

(I apologise for such an extended response, but I wanted to answer as fully as I could)

Dina5Cowell · Dec 17, 2010

I think a flat income tax is regressive; that is, it impacts poor people more than the rich..... Plus, to earn the same level of income that we do now, low and middle class income taxes would sky rocket to make up for lowering taxes on the rich....

What tax system do you prefer?

Similar threads