I've heard that flat tax encourages economic growth and entrepreneurship, and I've also heard that progressive taxation allows for the poor to easier move up the economic ladder while also taxing the overwhelmingly unused wealth of the upper classes, and creating larger government budgets.
Which is better?
>>79539881
Emily Barry, even though a New York (((resident))) has the most loin inspiring set of mammaries.
>>79579005
I like flat taxes with basic income
>>79579005
I'd rather pay no tax since the majority of spending goes to
1) making weapon systems
2) someone's pocket
2.5) someone's pocket (b/c of incompetence)
3) sustaining a lazy person
>>79579005
Flat tax on those without busty tits.
>>79579005
>>79579317
Red pill on taxes? Negative rate for the poorest instead of basic income, flat for the rest.
Just listen to Milton Friedman.
>>79579480
Interesting.
Would this be badly abused?
Is this to be used in conjunction with welfare?
>>79579480
Too many levers if you are playing with taxes based on income brackets, too easy for politicians to fuck with it and play the people against each other. I think there is a video by Milton of him conceding that the social help that produces the least amount of market manipulation is something like basic income.
>>79579822
Negative rate would make it welfare
>>79579892
I'd rather have welfare with guidelines than basic income, so those getting welfare cant but bullshit with the assistance money
>>79579005
Neither.
Stratified Tax.
For the first 20,000 you earn: You will pay X (Effectively X)
For the next 20,000 on top of that you will pay Y (Effectively X + Y)
For the next 30,000 on top of that you will pay Z amount (Effectively X + Y + Z)
And so on
with the amounts of taxation getting progressively larger within each strata, but not represented as just a % of a bracket as is current.
This would protect the standard of living for all.
No need for flat tax
No need for progressive tax brackets
No need for Universal basic income.
>>79579005
first of all this is stupid they are not moving up the economic latter your just dragging people down from the top the poors lives aren't getting any better. Second of all flat taxes are fair (if you care about that) and typically the rich are less likely to dodge or avoid you can look at Americas history they managed to increase their revenue by lowering their taxes at one point. You would be surprised how many countries have adopted flat tax rates.
Alright now time for the hard one, I don't know what your perception of rich people is but its probably wrong. They don't have "unused wealth." The rich are different from the poor its not like they just horde all their cash in a bank. They measure their wealth in in assets not liquid money so they can't just spend it in whatever they want its already invested and typically the longer it takes to sell the more valuable it actually is. I don't know what your perception of government spending is but they don't get as much done for the same price as the private sector (just look at healthcare.gov) and that "unused wealth" is actually being borrowed and used by someone else (maybe even a poor person) in the economy.
>>79580043
Its true that there is inefficiency with basic income, but putting up strict rules means you may exclude people that may well deserve it.
For example I was unemployed once because I got fired, I paid into unemployment, but if I ask for the benefit I have to legally state I was fired to the unemployment office, if I legally state I was fired no one will hire me because the HR department of companies are always looking for reasons to not hire you. So I can take the assistance and never be hired again, or never take the assistance.
>>79579005
I've played enough Victoria 2 to know flat taxing everything the same isn't optimal.
>>79579005
flat tax is a joke.
Why a flat percentage? If it were truly flat, you'd just charge everyone the same dollar amount.
Except that's capitation and unconstitutional, oops.
>>79579317
>literally wanting to destroy the middle class
I like jobs programs that provide a basic income combined with progressive taxation.
>>79580633
So you tell them you were Laid Off, not Terminated.
They can't penalize you for a Layoff
>>79579005
How about the rich actually invest in their own environment? Thats one negative as patriotism has disappeared. Where is the vision? Money has become disconnected from social goals, maybe because the rich are ostracized. Maybe they don't feel like the "own" their community anymore?
>>79579892
libertarians want a basic income because the only real alternative are jobs programs, and jobs programs make it too easy for the wage-slaves to tell them to fuck off.
>>79579005
FIRST THINGS FIRST
-The federal government must be shrunk and its hold on the tax must be removed
- power of the tax must be brought back to the state which in turn gives to the federal government
- this gives voting power back to the people, if they don't like all the spending or what is happening with their taxes they throw out the city bench then goes the state bench and the Fed is forced to comply.
This can only be done if control of the tax is brought back to the state
Abolish the federal income tax , taking from the person while the person has no say is broken and must be changed
Shrink the fed
abolish the federal income tax
that is first things first
>>79580881
>maybe because the rich are ostracized
maybe because they don't give a fuck and just want money.
Who knows, it's a mystery.
>>79579005
What people on welfare are off welfare as a result of welfare?
>>79580761
Not an argument : Strawman
We are not arguing for a flat dollar amount, we are arguing for a flat percentage.
>>79579480
Flat tax is morally upright and simplifies the whole taxation process which reduces overhead.
>>79580801
I'll keep that in my pocket if it happens again.
>>79580929
I don't have a problem with a jobs program, hell I think we need it right now. It seems like all the jobs in the future will be around supervising and improving robot manufacturing and that requires high levels of education. I think the jobs program needs to be handled separably though. Wanting to solve every issue at once makes the conversation messy.
Land value tax
>>79579005
Nigga need two phones one for the bitches and one for my nose
>>79581285
Taxation is Theft
Tax should be 100%, and government should provide the necessary things to the people, like food etc.
People never decide right which is why we need government intervention
>>79580257
That's pretty dumb because it is basically progressive taxation without precision.
>>79579317
Sounds pointless
>>79581179
jesus christ kid, it's past your bedtime
>>79581242
>simplifies the whole taxation process
Only if you get rid of all the deductions. With a flat tax they're still having to report their income and all the shit associated with that. If we still have all these deductions it'll still be a mess.
Again, once you have people paying a percentage of their income, making the percentage a function of the income doesn't add any meaningful complexity.
>>79580257
that is a progressive tax, fuckwit.
>>79581444
oh estonia
>>79580881
The rich don't owe you anything, society voluntarily made them rich because they provided you more value than you gave them. Don't be a dim marxist please.
>>79581508
>jesus christ kid, it's past your bedtime
Ad hominem
Please actually debate.
>>79581508
>loses argument on /pol/
> i still gotta tell this guy off somehow
>tells him to go to bed
m8 your banter needs work
>>79579005
Progressive tax. Tax people more the less white they are to pay for the enormous cultural and fiscal toll that they place on society.
>>79580761
>flat tax is bad
>because of this other non sequitur
???
no
tax
>>79579005
Low flat tax with massively reduced government spending
>>79581509
I thought so too at first, but I think he means X Y and Z to be actual dollar amounts, not percentages.
Assuming it's a troll it gets a cool 10/10 for subtlety and innovation.
Personally I'd like to get rid of the brackets and just make everything a nice continuous function, but I don't think most people would consider this a simplification.
>>79581632
Please actually got to
>>>/bed/
>>79581720
>he doesn't realize it wasn't even a strawman
fucking white trash nigger
>>79581720
I know, right?
Scrubs need to learn how to debate.
>>79579005
Regressive tax, you pleb
>>79579005
None, tax is theft.
No income tax at all
>>79581817
It's still a progressive tax, it's just an even more retarded version
>>79581801
>massively reduced government spending
prune the federal government, abolish the the federal income tax on the individual person.
bring power of citizen taxation to the state which in turn gives to the federal government and gives voting power back to the people
>>79581022
Underrated and clever, really made me think.
>>79581285
Maybe if we were in an agrarian economy.
20 story skyscraper in 100 square meters, what is the land "value" now?
>>79581817
>Please actually got to
>>>/bed/
lol?
>he doesn't realize it wasn't even a strawman
Well, when you said
>Why a flat percentage? If it were truly flat, you'd just charge everyone the same dollar amount.
It was a Strawman. We are arguing for a flat percentage, and you attacked a "flat dollar amount."
That is the definition of a Strawman.
>>79579005
Progressive taxes haven't been very good at upward mobility, and actively penalize mobilizing upward. Besides the theory being laughable at face value, the results speak for themselves.
>>79581817
im not justifying what he said
just simply saying that your repute to him was to go to bed
absolutely terrible
>>79581416
This.
You cucked faggots want to give everyone else's money to some Jew lawyers in Washington. Go eat a dick.
I'll keep my money in gold and far away from you cucks.
>>79581508
>Only if you get rid of all the deductions
which is what true flat taxers believe
>muh no true scotsman
all wealth is taxed indiscriminately, if you are making 20k a year then you only get taxed a small amount, for example 2k since it is proportionally a small amount of money. While if you make 100k you get taxed 10k.
The point is, no need for deductions/exemptions when the flat tax rate is already low (5-10%) because a low rate and a low income is barely any taxes and it will pay itself off with less overhead costs for the taxation.
>>79579005
Income tax is theft.
>>79579395
I don't mind taxes because they usually go to legit things, but I could see how someone from the third world like yourself would resent taxation.
>>79582070
>It was a Strawman. We are arguing for a flat percentage, and you attacked a "flat dollar amount."
No, I'm clearly saying that having one percentage is arbitrary and still has the rich paying more than the poor. As such it isn't really "flat" and is really a pointless attempt to yet again cut taxes on the rich.
>>79582146
i'm sorry ;_;
>>79582221
Or you could keep the progressive structure and just get rid of the exemtions...
Also it won't pay for itself. You have to have North Korea levels of taxation for a tax cut to pay for itself.
You're a fucking fool if you support a flat tax.
All you're doing is either
A.) Charging the ultra rich pittance, even though our entire system has been built off securing their tax money
B.) Taxing the ever living fuck out of poor and middle class
>>79582200
Well, our goal right now is to shrink taxes to nonexistence. Putting it in gold is a good idea, but you should still fight to protect the common man by trying to shrink taxes.
Thank you for your time.
>>79579005
I'm in favour of progressive taxation for income and a flat rate for corporations.
Make it so the bottom earners and disabled are barely taxed and small corporations get some sort of boost/break so they stand a chance with competition
Most people who say "flat tax" don't even mean a flat tax.
A flat tax is a fixed dollar amount.
I like flat tax but I think it will increase the argument that everyone even the bottom rung is a "tax payer" and gets a say.
There are already many morons that think illegals paying payroll taxes covers all the benefits they use.
>>79582378
Progressive structure still adds complexity, since you need to calculate percentage for each bracket and sum them up.
Regardless, the flat tax means more investment and more future growth which makes everyone more rich so more employment, and people can afford taxes.
Reduce government spending massively, add a small flat tax, remove loopholes, deductions, and other mumbo jumbo special interest crap.
Now everyone is paying taxes equally, corporations start investing at home because it's lucrative, welfare isn't even needed anymore. Substitute the public handicap with private growth.
>>79582544
flat tax is generally confused for proportional tax then you say?
>>79582418
Now you're conflating flat tax supporters with bootlickers or corporate shills.
>Taxing the ever living fuck out of poor and middle class
Funniest part about this complaint is that the middle class gets hit the hardest with our current progressive income tax system because the rich get most of their money through various investment taxes.
>>79579005
W H O
>>79579005
Though I agree with >>79581884, I'll say flat tax. Also post more of that titcow
trump's low rate, zero deduction, 3 tier progressive tax is the way to go. his numbers are low for the size of the US government, and "starving the beast" is a failed strategy to force government cuts.
he needs to up his numbers by 5%, then devolve powers back to the states as separate issues over time.
he should also alter SSI tax to be a flat 10% on everyone, instead of a regressive 12.2%.
>>79580761
Are you really so stupid you can't understand that a flat rate is not the same as a flat dollar amount? Even if it were a flat rate, what exactly is wrong with that aside from buzzwords?
>>79581884
Hello autism.
>>79583204
Its the principal that counts
>>79581969
That's not how it works... The tax is applied to the market value of the land. A plot of land that people are willing to build a skyscraper on would be very valuable, pricey land, probably situated in the city center or downtown or near mass transit, and the tax paid would be accordingly high.
LVT actually promotes densification and development because it punishes low efficiency usage of desirable land so heavily.
Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan aren't agrarian economies yet they've adopted land value tax.
>>79579005
Progressive tax because it's more efficient to take money from the rich than the poor. I still support lower taxes in general though.
>>79579005
end fed; govt makes fiat money to pay contractors
govt is fascist and so incorruptible
dollar is backed by american productivity
gtk rwn
>>79583302
The principle of what?
Reverting back to a pre division of labor society?
>>79583469
This would make sense if money magically was distributed by chance and people only became rich by chance.
taxing anybody more and feeding money from itself does not magically create wealth, supporting business and the free market does.
>>79583450
Why not tax all wealth indiscriminately. Why have all these taxes that are not directly calibrated to wealth. No double taxation, no unnecessary dichotomies of taxation, just tax any income at a flat rate whether it be from capital gains, wages, dividends, etc.
>>79583573
Basic belief that taxation is a necessary evil, and must be done correctly and efficiently if at all while respecting peoples liberties and rights. while also surveying the benefits of a capitalistic free market and minimal federal regulation
>>79582418
Using income tax as a tool to extract revenue from the ultra rich is retarded as fuck.
They've already amassed a huge fortune that they're sitting on, so an income tax doesn't touch any of that. Also, they can afford the lawyers and whatever to devise trust funds and offshore accounts to insulate their wealth.
All you're doing is protecting the ultra rich from the up-and-coming rich, because those are the people that a heavy progressive income tax would harm the most.
>>79579005
realistically it will have to be progressive.
the top brackets are too good at negotiating everything and all the bottom retards get fucked.
Lower tax. Period.
let me give u analogy because i know everyone in this thread is stupid.
u have government that needs 100 shekels. village gdp is 1000 shekels. village population is 200. 2 guys make 250 shekels/year, 5 guys make 50 shekels a year, 15 guys make 10 shekels a year, and and all the rest make ~1 shekel a year, typical capitalist village.
now u could take 10% of everyones shekels and come up with what u need, but the 180 or so people are gonna be inconvenienced much more than the 20 guys. the 180 people are pretty fucking dumb but they aren't retarded, so they will use what limited political power they have to move the shekel burden onto the guys that can pay it more readily.
now, unless you were one of the big shekelmen, why the fuck would you want a flat tax? why would you want to be taxed at all if you knew that just a few guys could basically finance the entire system themselves and remain insanely wealthy?
u probably wouldnt, but you're not one of those unfortunate, stupid, 180 shekel donkeys, are you?
Neither. Income tax is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockean_proviso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend
Educate yourself.
>>79579005
True flat tax. $50k per citizen yearly.
>>79583680
The poor are always going to exist and always going to be a drain on society. Taxing them too much will cause riots, revolts and discontent Their best contribution to the economy is to frivolously spend. I'm not a supporter or high taxes; I'm just saying it's more efficient to get it from richer people than poorer ones. There's less negative consequences.
How much would it cost for everyone in the states to have basic income? Is it even feasible? I mean we give niggers money, why can't the rest of us get some money?
>>79584157
We're already 19 trillion in debt.
>>79584157
It would mean all other welfare programs and would only be around 1k$/month.
Which would be pretty acceptable but some people would disagree and insist that single mothers/blacks/immigrants/whatever get more which would kinda ruin it.
>>79584307
Your debt is kinda irrelevant.
>>79584307
Rand Paul was the only candidate that even addressed attacking the debt. sucks that he fell through the cracks
has Trump mentioned the national Debt problem?
>>79584157
multiply ~300 million times whatever u want the basic income to be. there are more than 300 million people in usa but some of them are already on social security which was already paid for.
for 10k/year basic income it would be about 3 trillion dollars which is 20% of gdp. it would require a large investment indeed, but its not unthinkable.
>>79584573
>giving basic income to children
Why?
>>79584157
The scenario in which UBI actually makes sense and was originally intended for it, is for it to completely replace ALL forms of welfare.
So... social security gone, healthcare gone, public schools gone, everything gone! Not just the welfare system for poor people.
You delete that gargantuan, bureaucratic mess of gov't spending, take that money and distribute it evenly to everybody, and that's UBI. Let the free market figure things out.
It's a much fairer method of wealth redistribution.
UBI as described will NEVER happen though, because any government will never cede power and voluntarily amputate itself.
>>79583955
Because trickle down economics, but poor people are too stupid to think long-term
>>79579005
Taxing the rich makes the country poorer and not richer. The bottom line is that rich people wealth is not "unused wealth" this is a stupid progressive liberal idea.
That wealth is always used to create investments in other businesses, that's how the rich go from wealthy to super rich, because they re-invest their wealth and that creates growth and jobs. When you take away wealth from those who have proven how to best invest it, you hinder the ability to invest and create new jobs.
If anything the rich should be taxed less, government should be vastly shrunk anyway it's far too big today.
>>79579005
>wanting to give anything to the poor, lazy, and ignorant
my sides
>>79583821
Land value tax is meant to be a single tax, replacing all others.
In implementation, it is a 100% tax on the value of land. Before you freak out and say "but I can't afford to pay a million dollars a year!," the market adjusts for the tax. It crushes land prices down to, essentially, what someone is willing to pay to use the land for the interval of time between each assessing of the tax. It is a rent for land. Instead of paying $1,000,000 to own land forever and ever, you would pay something like $5,000 a year or something reasonable like that.
Also, @ people asking about basic income, look at the citizens' dividend as part of the geolibertarian philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_dividend
Not exactly a basic income, but a similar and SOLVENT concept.
>>79584549
Yes. But the media dogpiled him because he spoke of a partial default on the debt if worst came to worst.
What flew over their heads though, is that the US has been doing just that for many years already with "quantitative easing".
>>79581585
>The rich don't owe you anything
How about we deport them to uninhabited island then, let's see them provide there. Whoops, can't do that without wretched poor to exploit. How unfair.
>>79584039
>>79584958
These ideas are antiquated because our wealth is increasingly derived from intellectual resources in our service economy. Which is why all income should be taxed indiscriminately, because it generalizes all of these societal trends to one thing - income.
>>79584573
Yes but you are removing all other forms of welfare. Pretty sure it comes close to 3 trillion with social security, medical care and such.
>>79584759
>public schools gone
Not welfare.
>>79585068
If you deport all rich people you are going to be even more poor, whatever poverty means nowadays.
>>79579005
Fucking Libertarian Party
they say Rand isn't libertarian enough but their fucking nominee is Gary Johnson and Weld
really let me down
>>79579005
Flat tax is shit. Progressive tax is good without getting crazy. America could be higher then it is now but not like the old insanely high days.
>>79585171
False.
Other people would just take their place.
Has happened every time there was a change of power. People are replaceable, rich or poor.
>>79585072
They are antiquated if your goal is to get as much revenue from people as possible. If you're a socialist.
However, if you are more of a classical liberal and just want a government to provide the necessary services for a civilization - courts, police, and military - then a LVT is more than sufficient for that purpose. Keep in mind that LVT captures value of certain positive externalities created by society. It is not just the value of resources contained within land. It captures the value of "living in a safe neighborhood," "living near lots of services (urban)," or "locating my business close to a high-traffic thoroughfare," etc.
It is more than capable of providing the basic functions of government. In fact, there would be a surplus.
>>79579005
Fair tax is best tax
Bureaucracy matters more than taxation
>>79579005
No income tax.
All tax money is collected via:
- Sales tax / VAT (lower bracket for living necessities - water, basic food, basic living needs)
- Profit tax (flat)
>>79579480
This
>>79585260
As an aftermath, sure.
Except for the fact that the rich are generally the higher castes of society with the intellectual infrastructure to employ resources effectively thereby sustaining the economy and increasing the wealth of everyone.
So his literal solution is to replace all capitalists with dumber capitalists.
>>79585336
>They are antiquated if your goal is to get as much revenue from people as possible. If you're a socialist.
I believe in an small indiscriminate flat tax on income, period.
Your notion of land-value tax is not calibrated to wealth which is fundamentally in error.
For example, I can be a lawyer making 300k a year by providing my intellectual services, but live in a tiny apartment so I'm being taxed next to nothing. Remember, simplicity is the true mark of intellectualism, you just need to be able to generalize your simplicity appropriately.
>>79585506
Sales tax makes our goods less competitive to foreign goods.
>>79585260
Uhhh.... that's a really difficult assertion to prove.
For a simple counterexample... look at the third world. All the smartest, most capable people consistently emigrate to countries with more opportunities, with the end result that the country they're leaving stays poor.
>>79581585
there's a difference between marxism and the elite having a sense of noblise oblige.
the rich no longer have this, that's why they're globalists now, they're busy jerking off to the fact that they can hang out in NYC one day and Beijing the next and servants are interchangeable.
>>79579480
this!
>>79585580
Ah, so your problem is that some people get a "free ride" or something like that?
My view is that a man's labor belongs to himself. No one created the earth, and no individual creates the positive externalities of social living. That makes the land tax fair game, ethically speaking.
I also like that it is capped. You can only get so much revenue out of the LVT. Overcharge, and people will vacate the land. The income tax is not capped in that way. I would like to keep government as limited in scope as possible.
>>79579005
Progressive tax is literally just punishment for being rich.
Flat tax with a federal sales tax, or better yet just a sales tax.
The richer you are, the more often you buy stuff, the expensive the stuff you buy, the more tax you pay.
Sales tax.
>>79585482
The reason I say this is that complicated systems of taxes often have hidden costs that outplay their desired effects.
Progressive systems often become a bureaucratic mess and force companies/workers to shift time from producing stuff to fill forms and the price of the hour spent by an worker will always be more costly than the tax itself.
>>79579480
although this is more progressive then the current taxation system and i would also argue the best system for productivity barring slavery, i still think it is less ideal than a basic income which is being discussed in this thread, it still forces people to work for income and there is a diminishing need for labor, a program like that which incentivizes productivity might paper over the employment problem in the short term but really we are innovating ourselves out of the need for labor and we need to consider radical alternatives like basic incomes to keep society from fraying or from creating useless redistribution programs in the form of retarded make-work jobs, like having factories with 20 janitors subsidized by the state bureau of employment.
desu.
>>79579005
>overwhelmingly unused wealth of the upper classes
When will this meme fucking die? The rich do not hoard wealth, they invest it. Because they're smart enough to know that hoarded money is depreciating money. And where do those investments end up? Back in the economy.
The fact that poor people think rich people keep their money in huge vauts like Scrooge McDuck is part of the reason they are poor, because becoming, and most importantly, staying rich, requires some intelligence and awareness of how finance works.
>>79585580
>As an aftermath, sure.
Except for the fact that the rich are generally the higher castes of society with the intellectual infrastructure to employ resources effectively thereby sustaining the economy and increasing the wealth of everyone.
So his literal solution is to replace all capitalists with dumber capitalists.
It wasn't a solution he just said that the rich operate within the society and profit from that. They should be required to contribute to the society by the way of taxes that allow the society to have an education system, infrastructure, laws, etc that allowed those people to become successful in the first place.
>Sales tax makes our goods less competitive to foreign goods.
No they don't. That's why you have tariffs and taxes for foreign goods.
>>79585924
>The richer you are, the more often you buy stuff, the expensive the stuff you buy, the more tax you pay.
No. There is a limit to how much stuff a single person needs. There is little difference between how much someone worth 5 billion and 50 billion spends on goods and services.
>>79585997
More still: if the wealth was acquired justly, it is their property right? Who are we to tell them what they should do with it? If a man cuts down a tree and crafts a chair out of it, I will not tell him what he should do with that chair. He can burn it for all I care.
>>79583955
>"You two bring an incredible skill-set to this village that no one else comes close to. You are so brilliant in your field that you make 5x the 2nd highest paying job here."
>"Remember how we were all going to split the costs evenly for the new village wall? Well since other people aren't as smart as you or haven't been as lucky we decided they don't have to pay anything - you'll just have to pay double your fair share."
>"What do you mean you're leaving this village? That will drop our gdp by half to 500 shekels - that would ruin us! You can't go! Think about all of the people who weren't contributing anything that were counting on your to pay their share! Why isn't this argument working?"
>>79585903
LVT is just an indirect way of stealing man's labor like any tax. Government can't run on money grown from trees (unless they have a central bank). How do you reconcile that?
>>79580761
Flat tax means everyone pays the same %, not the same flat amount. This way, raising taxes will affect EVERYONE, along with lowering them
>>79586433
I don't think it's stealing. Let me put it this way.
Why does this country exist? Why are we even able to use our land? Because men with guns ensure that this land is available for us to use. In fact, I am one of those men with guns (in a way). I'm not actually serving, but I am subject to be conscripted should that need arise.
So who really "owns" the land? Well, the men with guns do. The people that are responsible for protecting this land, such as myself. If this land is attacked, I could be conscripted and made to defend this land.
So if someone wants exclusive rights to use the land, which partly belongs to me, shouldn't I be compensated for it? If I am responsible for defending the land, shouldn't I be compensated when someone will use that which I defend (in part)?
No one created the land, but the men of this country keep it within our possession. It belongs to the citizens. When citizens are excluded from using the land that they defend, there is injustice.
LVT does not steal, because the land does not belong wholly to the person paying the tax.
>>79586365
>>79585997
its a stupid meme but you guys are just burping right wing memes. you guys heap praise on this rich investor class but guess what, there is excess capital, shitloads of excess capital, but at the same time excess labor. if this capital was so good and wise as you say, why is a large % of the population idle? why can't they wisely find something profitable or desireable for this excess manpower to do?
government needs to take a larger share of excess capital and distribute it downwards, your arguments ONLY make sense in a world of full employment which the capitalist class is failing at. the mutual existence of excess capital and excess labor negates your entire argument.
>>79586183
>They should be required to contribute to the society by the way of taxes
I haven't seen anyone here post that rich shouldn't pay taxes, although it was proposed by some people at the Austrian school for the rich to have a negative income tax (reverse wealth redistribution) to encourage investment and profiteering.
>No they don't. That's why you have tariffs and taxes for foreign goods.
Yes they do, you are just adding another layer of complexity to the taxation system in order to try to hide the negative symptoms.
Tariffs discourage external competitive signals and encourage the other nation to do the same to us, thus reducing buyers.
>>79586953
>LVT does not steal, because the land does not belong wholly to the person paying the tax.
I should add, contrasted with income tax. Labor belongs wholly to the person who labors.
>>79586963
Why did you quote me? You didn't address anything I said.
Let me ask you: If wealth is acquired justly (e.g. a man that cuts a tree down and crafts a chair), doesn't that wealth rightly belong to him? What is your justification for stealing the labor of other people?
>>79585997
>The fact that poor people think rich people keep their money in huge vauts like Scrooge McDuck is part of the reason they are poor, because becoming, and most importantly, staying rich, requires some intelligence and awareness of how finance works.
You're preaching to the choir for me.
Poor people are almost always dumb, otherwise they would have found a way out of poverty with the opportunities they have. So they want to inflict their dysgenic attributes on the productive members of society through calling on a 3rd party entity to coerce force against them. Essentially they are violent savages under the facade of being altruistic.
>>79586404
where do you think the wealth comes from? what do u think the shekelmen do in their shekel village?
money is just an abstraction. real value is goods produced, services provided. you conflate the services and the earnings. big shekel earner leaves but the demand for his service remains, another engineer with an even bigger dick takes his place and begins fucking his wife, he does mind the taxes and his dick is so fucking huge he doesn't mind her used up cunt either. you are a shill and a cuck. bring it.
>>79579005
Neither, just use tariffs faggot.
Also, keep sales tax.
>>79586953
>Why are we even able to use our land? Because men with guns ensure that this land is available for us to use
Not necessarily, I'm hoping you are being more metaphorical, but taken literally: men with guns don't make the gold or petroleum in the ground have subjective value to individuals.
>So if someone wants exclusive rights to use the land, which partly belongs to me, shouldn't I be compensated for it?
By compensate, you mean coercing the public to pay for your defensive services which you wouldn't know were needed without coercion.
>LVT does not steal, because the land does not belong wholly to the person paying the tax.
Again, LVT steals the wealth of productive members of society through taxation.
>>79587176
because in reality the wealth is acquired vicariously in the context of a complex system of torts that includes taxation. employer, employee, investor, and assets (both physical and conceptual, the latter of which largely exist only as state monopolies) share many relationships in this system, including taxation
if there wasn't taxation then the economy of business itself would be different. your chair analogy is like a spherical chicken in a vacuum. we both know that's a poor analogue for how the rich acquire wealth
>>79587176
you're such a shrimp-dick cuck. we don't tax chairs, and people that make chairs don't really pay much tax, i think they should pay no tax, in fact.
we should only take CURRENCY away from people, and we should only be taking it from people that own the chair factories, the people that PROFIT from the labor of other people. i dont think we should EVER steal the labor of other people, we should only tax scum like landlords and factory owners that get rich off of the sweat of others.
from the tone of your post you sound like you agree that labor should have a much higher place in society, good on you, you soft, ugly worm.
>>79580727
0% tax on rich and 90% tax on poor sounds like solid plan in real life.
>>79587276
Here you go.
Means of production influences labor though. If it wasn't for that capitalist with his forward thinking buying ultra-weaver 3000 in bulk because of his profiteering, the laborers would be half as productive and therefore would only be able to demand half the wealth.
Management of a company, allocation of resources, opportunistic insight, these are all worth a significant multiple of one measly laborer in the broad scope of the economy.
>>79579005
There is absolutey nothing wrong with implementing a flat tax with a decreased sales tax nationwide
Fuck these gay ass brackets
Government doesn't need more money than god. 10% tithe, 10% tax. And some sort of simple-qualification bread and circus for NEETs, because jobs programs are boondoggles, and the last thing anyone wants is more government paperpushers to oversee unnecessary program bloat. Everyone says volunteer armies are superior because the soldiers want to be there. Do you really want to force people to work? They're not going to be very productive. But they are going to circulate all that taxpayer cheese. If the Romans could afford it, we can afford it. Just close the fucking borders.
>>79579480
Flat tax destroys government bureaucracy. It will never happen in America.
>>79587024
>I haven't seen anyone here post that rich shouldn't pay taxes, although it was proposed by some people at the Austrian school for the rich to have a negative income tax (reverse wealth redistribution) to encourage investment and profiteering.
Ok.
>Yes they do, you are just adding another layer of complexity to the taxation system in order to try to hide the negative symptoms.
>Tariffs discourage external competitive signals and encourage the other nation to do the same to us, thus reducing buyers.
See japan, british empire, etc. Tariffs do work even if they are not "free market". They might not be an ideal solution but you have to protect some of your core industries such as food and heavy industry by the way of either tariffs, subsidies or govt. contracts.
>>79587256
>Poor people are almost always dumb, otherwise they would have found a way out of poverty with the opportunities they have. So they want to inflict their dysgenic attributes on the productive members of society through calling on a 3rd party entity to coerce force against them. Essentially they are violent savages under the facade of being altruistic.
Explain then why 90% of the population of China/India/Africa is poorer than the poor of Europe/US. Govt. policies, education quality, etc.
>>79587709
However men with guns do make sure that the store you own doesn't get robbed, that the offshore oil rig you won doesn't get blown up by your competition and that your factory does not get stolen by a foreign power. Those defensive services are necessary even if some people would argue that we dissolve the military completely since tax is theft,etc,etc.
>>79587709
>men with guns don't make the gold or petroleum in the ground have subjective value to individuals.
They make them available for use. I wish everyone was an ancap, but it is not so. There is no free market in land ownership. Violence is the currency in that market.
>By compensate, you mean coercing the public to pay for your defensive services which you wouldn't know were needed without coercion.
Not 100%. Think of it like a form of conflict resolution.
The land only has value because someone wants to use it. If no one wanted to use the land (no positive rent value), you don't pay anything.
But if someone wants to use the land, and values it more than you do, then I do think that person should get to use the land.
Sure, it is a bit coercive. But it is a kind of conflict resolution. Without solving the problem of land use with markets, it will be solved with violence.
>Again, LVT steals the wealth of productive members of society through taxation.
It returns the wealth to the owners of the land, the citizens. I incorporate the citizens' dividend into my philosophy.
>>79587889
>>79587928
Forget the chair, answer the principle of the question: Is wealth rightly owned when it is justly acquired?
More: what is your idea of the just acquisition of wealth?
My point is that you should focus on correcting instances where wealth is acquired unjustly, rather than ignoring that problem and taxing "le evil fat cats" while inflicting collateral damage on innocent people in the same stroke.
You are literally advocating for carpet-bomb solutions.
>>79579005
I like no tax
taxation is theft
>>79588183
you certainly make a compelling case but let me tell you reality
the usa could have 99% tax rate but it wouldn't matter because its the only place on earth where its ok to have prostitutes and cocaine and a yacht and not be royalty. its either the americas or the old world and cocaine and titties in florida and california are what drives usa economy.
>>79588285
ken m for president.
My thought perhaps posted in this thread is a true flat tax. The government provides certain services: police, army, fireman, hospitals, enforcement of contracts. Etc. theoretically every citizen benefits from these services equally. Say the government costs 100 billion and a year; and there are 100 million citizens, the fairest taxation would be 1000 dollars per citizen since each benefits equally right?
Isn't a flat tax worse for people who make less? If the tax is 10% across the board someone making 50k is going to miss that 5k a lot more than someone who makes 1 mil losing 100 grand.
>>79589200
>the fairest taxation would be 1000 dollars per citizen since each benefits equally right?
Not necessarily. The people that own the factories, farms, etc. benefit from having access to a working judicial system, an army/police protecting their interests, a functional education system that supplies them with educated labor more than a normal citizen.
The rich should be taxed more than the average person but not overly so they would have a noticeable improvement in their quality of life to encourage other people to strive to become better.
>>79589539
Yes.
>>79579005
Progressive tax because I do tax returns for a living. It's selfish, I know. The tax code needs to stay complex for my own gain. Fuck you.
Progressive tax, but keep the levels pretty flat (say like between 10-20%)
>>79589539
But it's fair.
>>79588442
It would do more than work, the bureaucrats just wouldn't be able to steal half your labor for more political power anymore.
>>79588679
>Tariffs do work even if they are not "free market". They might not be an ideal solution but you have to protect some of your core industries such as food and heavy industry by the way of either tariffs, subsidies or govt. contracts.
I'm not anti-tariff, but sales tax goes against your goal of supporting local industries. I like local industries to be well invested, but on the other hand, I don't like them to be cradled to stagnation.
>Explain then why 90% of the population of China/India/Africa is poorer than the poor of Europe/US. Govt. policies, education quality, etc.
Because european civilization had a head start recently with centuries of capitalism, while those areas are still developing.
>>79588713
>But if someone wants to use the land, and values it more than you do, then I do think that person should get to use the land.
Of course, I believe in the state property regime, where the natural resources are owned by the state and its use is bid out to private contractors. Effectively, the entities which manage the resources more productively can utilize them. This also allows for the conservation of natural resources by the state - for example preventing extinction of biology.
>It returns the wealth to the owners of the land, the citizens. I incorporate the citizens' dividend into my philosophy.
Can you just concede that LVT is coercion of labor?
>>79589737
I guess you're right, rich benefit more from the gov't protecting their property more than poor
>>79588947
yeah I really made you think huh
now stop being a marxist
>>79589539
No, the rich person who saves 300k on taxes reinvests in the economy, buys more efficient means of production, and either the costs of your goods go down, or your wages go up thereby cancelling out your small loss. You're not looking at the grand scheme.
>taxation is theft
>>79585982
The negative income tax is similar to basic income, it's just some scaling that is different. In theory the taxation goes up faster for negative income tax, but of course numbers can always be changed and exceptioins can always be added. Also: Middle class must pay enough taxes to pay for their basic income AND all the other expenses of the state, so the taxation would be much higher. Then taxation probably would skyrocket for the 1% and they would leave the country.
>>79590051
>I'm not anti-tariff, but sales tax goes against your goal of supporting local industries. I like local industries to be well invested, but on the other hand, I don't like them to be cradled to stagnation.
Fair enough.
>Because european civilization had a head start recently with centuries of capitalism, while those areas are still developing.
Yes and governments are mainly the entities that keep those civilizations together and protect them even though recently they seem to have acquired other interests.
>>79579395
Don't forget subsidizing terrorists
>>79586335
Not an argument.
>>79591805
How is that not an argument?
>>79589200
In theory the people with more stuff would need more protection, which justifies a flat tax or a ridiculous tax calculated by everything you own and do.
Making it progressive is really the best way, less taxes for poorer people makes it easier for them save money or buy more stuff and get out of poverty eventually. More important: It feels better.
Because employers can pay lower wages (if you only need $900 to survive and you have 10% tax at $1000, you will get $1000, if it were 20%, employers must pay you ~$1120). So it encourages low level employment more than high level employment. Sales tax is just a tax on products and therefore consumers.
desu I'm not that informed about taxes and I had to google a list of all the countries with flat tax, so I will need some time to compare these countries with neighbour countries and their taxation.
>>79586963
Yeah, those countries with actual socialist regimes are so good at managing their economies and keeping people employed.
>Venezuela
>Brazil
>Spain
>Greece
>China
>just about any leftist-run nation
>not in the middle of economic downturn and record unemployment while the capitalist world has nearly fully recovered from the 2008 crisis
>>79588727
b-b-but muh roads
>>79591805
wtf is with this "not an argument" meme I keep seeing. Not sure if you're the one make all those posts or what
>>79585068
>implying they can't hire people to develop the island.
>>79589917
>>79591991
>>79592493
Why are leafs always so fucking stupid?
It's not an argument because you're just pulling baseless opinions out of your ass to sound smart.
>>79590552
>enough taxes to pay for their basic income
Just divvy it up from a fixed percentage of revenue. That way it's always solvent. You can't draw blood from a stone. There's no reason to drastically increase taxes, or tax the rich to the point where they emigrate.
1 in 5 Americans are on food stamps, and those top out at about $200 a month. Double that in cash, it'd be enough to eat and pitch a tent someplace warm, share an apartment -- whatever. Comfortably. US budget is in the trillions. $400 for every man woman and child would run 120 billion. And that's if you didn't qualify it and gave it to everybody. It's a spit in the bucket.
>>79583955
Because sometimes voting to spite others and to shift the burden can end up biting you in the arse yourself.
>>79584847
slash thread.
>>79579822
>implying the current welfare/tax system isn't being abused
>>79592943
Not an argument.
>>79592943
Are you really this much of a retard? It's not baseless to realize the plain fucking obvious that a person worth 5 billion doesn't spend their money like a thousand people worth 500k.
>>79592961
Nah, it's 400$ a month, so 4800$ every year. It would be impossible to live on ~10k a year as a single mother. It has to be more money.
The US has a budget of max. 3.5 trillion, a basic income would be $4800*330m = ~$1.5 trillion. That would be almost half of the budget.
>>79579005
Tits
>>79590481
BLACKED
>>79579317
> Basic income
Yeah, no.
>>79579005
Flat taxes are ok if they're small, say up to 15%, maybe even 20%, preferably with a slight progressive bent that excludes people who make under a certain amount of income
The only reason I could see flat tax being useful is that some rich cunts might actually pay more tax because they're not laundering their money as much.
At the same time if everyone had to pay a flat tax rate then poor people would nearly all be committing tax evasion.
For the majority of society a progressive tax is better. If you want the advantages of a flat tax rate then just don't make it go too high.
10% flat tax.
Government builds infrastructure, uphold the law and maintains border and security. Nothing else. Maximum pay for government official is 2.5x median wage in country.
No welfare
No state involvement schools
No state involvement in healthcare
No state involvement in culture
No state involvement in anything else then infrastructure, law and military. If 10% flat tax isn't enough they have to cut down.
>>79582293
People here are too dumb to realise what taxes are for..
> no taxes
> no welfare
> no healthcare
> no streets
> no military
> no police
> no firefighters
"Im just gonna pay the police when I need them and healthcare just gets abused by blacks"
>>79590008
Yeah, I guess rich people should be given welfare as well?
If you have daddy bear, mommy bear, and baby bear then giving babby bear less makes sense. He's fucking smaller. He doesn't need as much porridge.
It's not unfair that daddy bear and baby bear have different amounts of porridge.
>>79579005
Kill, fuck, marry.
>>79583955
>why the fuck would you want a flat tax?
Because its fair, encourages entrepreneurship, and working more.
Did i say that its fair? Every one literally pays the same rate, 100% fair.
>muh fair share
Why is their fair share more then your fair share? Fucking retarded leftistleaf.
>>79598109
Poverty tends to correlate with stupidity; I really don't think a bunch of ghetto single moms are going to have the critical thinking skills to be able to commit large scale tax evasion.
Progressive is the way to go, we already have progressive in a lot of taxes
>>79598486
>Laws are unfair. Just because he didn't rape someone and I did, I should go to prison?
>>79598620
>>Laws are unfair. Just because he didn't rape someone and I did, I should go to prison?
what?
>>79598109
Why would poor people evade a flat tax?
>>79598671
Saying something that applies equally to everyone is unfair doesn't really make sense. It's almost the definition of fairness.
>>79598836
Progressive tax is not fair though.
Get rid of income tax and have flat VAT on everything but fresh food and medicine.
>>79598673
Why would you declare any income if it all had to be equally taxed?
If I have to choose between paying rent and declaring income then I'm going to choose paying rent. Equally they don't pay tax either way so I guess it doesn't matter.
>>79598892
You're going to have to explain why that is the case.
>>79579480
Why doesn't negative taxation qualify as a basic income
>>79579480
Why would poor people be allowed to not pay taxes ?
>>79579005
>I've also heard that progressive taxation allows for the poor to easier move up the economic ladder while also taxing the overwhelmingly unused wealth of the upper classes
You've heard wrong.
>>79598673
Looking it up the USA tax system is different. In the UK you don't get taxed at all up to a certain point.
>>79580257
That's a progressive poll tax.
>>79579005
Kill, marry, fuck, in that order. Didn't read your post, op, but the right 2 are some nice tiddies
>>79579005
>I've also heard that progressive taxation allows for the poor to easier move up the economic ladder while also taxing the overwhelmingly unused wealth of the upper classes, and creating larger government budgets.
Poors stay poor (and never paid shit anyway), middle class get squeeze and the wealthy elites continue paying fuck-all as always.
Putting the higher-income middle class through the wringer does bring in a lot of revenue to the government coffers, though.
>>79579005
No tax.
Taxation is theft.
>>79599143
Because something-something equality.
>>79599272
Wouldn't equality be about everybody paying taxes ?
this is now a high test thread and i require sauce on the girl on the middle
>>79579005
>dere fare shair!!!
Flat tax and tell everyone to stfu.
Flat tax is recessive in practice
So is a sales tax
Progressive/mildly progressive is best
>>79599306
sup
>>79599344
yes goy, i need sauce
>>79599109
Because you have to start working and get paid percentage extra based of what you earn
Key word being earn
>>79599109
basic income has no condition. Being poor is a condition.
That is why i don't like the idea of negative taxes for low income, you'll letterally win nothing more if you work for low wage than if you do nothing.
>>79599471
Negative income tax often gets called a form of basic income.
What Nixon tried to implement was a form of that.
>>79599306
It's literally the first reply, retard
>>79599471
>>79599492
>>79599525
fucking nerds, how can you care more about these kikenumbers than high tests
>>79599553
thanks poo in loo, finally you do something right
>>79599306
Emily Barry she is one of (((you)))
>>79599081
Because 1 guy is forced to pay a higher percentage just because he works more or makes more money. How is this fair?
You can have two guys with the the same hourly pay and but if one works a little bit more and gets over an arbitrary limit he is taxed more. How is this fair? The best system would obviously be taxing every one at the same rate.
>>79579005
Land value tax.
>>79599596
Her insta is locked though :)
>tfw she lets you see her photos
Here's the latest pic
>>79579480
>Negative tax
Holy shit that's actually brilliant
It indemnifies fair work since the more money you earn, the more money you will get thanks to negative tax.
It would probably be abused though
>>79599762
Why's Indonesia so retarded?
>>79599749
fugg, wrong pic
This is the GOAT pic
>>79599681
>same rate
Then the guy working more will still get taxed more.
The only fair tax is obviously a poll tax
>>79581416
Almost no land has an unbroken chain of ownership transfer from initial homesteading (because of theft, eminent domain etc). So even if the concept of homesteading wasn't retarded it doesn't matter.
Land ownership is a privilege, not a natural right.
Latest pic
>>79599826
damn son, i would ask to get access (literally too) but my gf keeps stalking me
>>79599596
Tell me who
>>79599375
is
>>79580929
what?
The libertarian position is:
Taxation is theft.
Doesn't matter what any libertarian """"Party""""" says.
This commie shit is not libertarian.
>>79583821
Can't hide land.
>>79600042
Make a separate account, that's what I do.
>>79580929
>Leftist """""libertarians""""""
>>79579005
You MUST tax the poor 70-80% because it is the only way to fund everything the rich are the good people because they earn so much they create jobs and help people while the middle and lower class are dirty filthy scroungers and usually immigrants that need to be taxed any way, once we stop taxing the rich and stop nationalizing banks everything will be good over a billion jobs will be created because of this and I am right!
>>79599681
It's fair because it applies equally to everyone. You didn't explain how that wasn't fair.
If you had to pay more tax because you were 6 foot tall that would be unfair because you can't really stop being 6 foot tall. You can totally stop earning less money if you don't want to pay less tax.
In many tax systems the guy that works more hours in your scenario only pays more tax on the income over the "arbitrary limit". It's fair because if they other guy worked more he'd pay it as well.
You are both doing different things and therefore you get a different rule enacted on you.
>>79599306
Name for research
Only voluntary taxes arefair, everything else is theft.
Literally can't prove me wrong.
>>79600253
sorry, i dont have a name. but here, have another one
>>79600415
Found her
https://www.instagram.com/labella_reina/?hl=en
Now tell me who
>>79599375
is
Making people pay more taxes just because they're rich is wrong. Period. It's pure jealousy, and absolutely discriminatory. "Flat" tax is already a compromise with socialists (one that shouldn't be made) by making it a flat percentage and not a flat amount, so people with more money still wind up paying more than those with less. 20% of a million is a lot more than 20% of a hundred. We live in the same society, we benefit the same from it, we should each pay a fair share. That means everyone pays the same set amount.
Somehow, the percentile system still isn't good enough for socialists. Like spoiled children, they always want more, demanding the rich pay a higher percentage of their income even though they're already disproportionately affected by the same percentage. It would literally be more fair for the taxed percentage to go down as your income increases, that would balance the amount everyone pays in.
>>79579005
>I've also heard that progressive taxation allows for the poor to easier move up the economic ladder while also taxing the overwhelmingly unused wealth of the upper classes, and creating larger government budgets.
Sure if the tax rate is 0-10% for the bottom 60% of income earners.
But once you let the progressive tax jew in, in his concern for the poor he'll slap them with 15% right off the bat, 30% when they get anywhere near the middle class, and 45% when they've barely crawled out of the mud, to make sure they never ascend higher.
And he has an easy time getting away with it, because at each increase he's like "shh goy, i'm just adjusting the taxes for this tiny bracket here! Don't protest, or it'll be your turn next!"
>>79601023
>being this retarded
> being Brit
Always choose both.
>>79601023
BASED
A
S
E
D
>>79582114
>and actively penalize mobilizing upward
It's obvious that you don't understand how tax brackets work
>>79600415
Fucking gross
Oompa Loompa
>>79601171
Triggered commie detected. I wish McCarthy had gassed you all.
>>79579005
The super-rich will always find a way to weasel out of paying taxes, guaranteed. The entire accounting industry is built on this.
Simplifying the tax code to a flat tax rate that nobody can write their way out of will net far more money for the government.
>>79599375
SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUCE
>>79600074
Friedman himself wanted basic income to ensure a security net for everyone
>>79579005
A 25% Flat Income Tax with a $45,000 Tax-Free Threshold and only deductions on retirement savings, up to $20,000 a year
A 15% Consumption Tax on Goods and Services, with Healthcare, Education and Food excluded (Not Foods that have high Sugar and Transfat content)
A 3% Property Tax on the Fair Value of Residential Land in Urban areas above 1 million people
A 2% Property Tax on the Fair Value of Residential Land in Urban areas between 500,000-1 million people
A 1% Property Tax on the Fair Value of Residential Land in Urban areas below 500,000 people and Rural areas
*Those aged of 60 are excluded from paying taxes on Land that is used for their principal place of Residence
Example: Family earns $90,000, lives in a home in a city with a population of 750,000 with a land value of $300,000 and spends $40,000 on unexcluded Goods and Services
Income: $11250 ((90,000 - 45,000)*0.25)
Land: $6000 (300,000*0.02)
GST: $5217.4 (40,000-40,000/1.15)
Total Tax Payable: $22467.4 (25% of 90,000)
>No Payroll Taxes
>No Corporate Income Taxes except on Mining, Oil Drilling and Gas Extraction
>Land Taxes on Commercial and Industrial land that also varies based on population
Tell me what's wrong with this system
>Protip: You can't
>>79603270
first of all you can't live in your land off the grid, you'll have to pay those 1% property tax. Therefore you are required to make profit.
>>79579317
>I like communism
No.
>>79579005
Chestlet tax
>>79581416
Does this trigger you ?
>>79579005
I propose tax cuts for titcows
>>79603520
I wrote a tax code in 1000 words
Obviously there'd be exceptions on some land that doesn't have to pay taxes
Personally I do believe people should be able to opt out of society If they want to live in the designated Wilderness and have zero support from the Government
