0
0

F@ck the Rich — Let’s Tax the $hit out of them


 invite response                
2007 Jul 19, 8:28am   29,363 views  254 comments

by HARM   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

Mmmm... tastes like... pork

We've often had lively debates here at Patrick.net about tax policy (flat tax vs. progressive tax, taxing wages vs. passive capital gains or consumption, what constitutes a "luxury" good vs. "staple" good, framing the inheritance tax as the evil "death tax", etc.).

Personally, I would like a much less complicated and less loophole-ridden tax structure that accomplishes the following economic and social goals, which are important to me:

  • Greatly simplifies the tax system, so fewer resources are wasted on creating, finding and exploiting loopholes, not to mention needless and costly "make work" programs for tax attorneys and accountants.
  • Eliminates needless preferential taxpayer subsidies for profitable industries that don't need any help (oil, gas, big pharma, big agriculture, REIC, etc.), and gradually phases out subsidies for poorly run unprofitable business that should be allowed to fail.
  • Disincentivizes long-term welfare of BOTH kinds: corporate AND individual. About the only long-term "welfare" we should be providing is for the truly handicapped and too-old-to-work elderly. Everyone else should get off their asses, get a job and pay taxes like everyone else. If unemployed (or the country's in recession), you get a temporary helping hand and some job retraining until you're back to work, but that's about it.
  • Disincentivizes subsidies and bailouts for reckless speculators using taxpayers' money. If you want to gamble on your own dime, go for it. But don't come begging to me and other responsible savers for a bailout because you doubled-down on real estate and threw 7s. Tough shit, pal --suck it up and grow smarter like the rest of us.
  • Moderate bias in favor of redistributing wealth away from the idle uber-wealthy (currently growing richer at a phenomenal rate) to the getting-screwed-from-both-ends working class (not illegals or willfully unemployed welfare "queens" or breeding crack addicts, thank you).
  • While these goals are important to me, I recognize that everyone has their own priorities and agenda, which may be different from mine. Although I tend to lean in favor of a (greatly simplified) mildly progressive tax structure that treats all asset classes and income sources equally, and eliminates pretty much all corporate and individual subsidies (call it "Flat Tax Lite"), I'm open to other suggestions. I consider myself a fairly practical, pragmatic person, not so bound to one particular ideology that I'm unwilling to consider reasonable alternatives and/or compromises.

    So, there you go. Have at it.
    HARM

    #housing

    « First        Comments 2 - 41 of 254       Last »     Search these comments

    2   thepuma   2007 Jul 19, 9:05am  

    Wow. I can't believe that this came up on your site. I have been a fanatical patrick.net reader for a while now, and I am also a rabid proponent of the FairTax legislation.

    If you haven't heard of the FairTax, the best thing to do is to go to FairTax.org and read up about it, or you can read an article that I wrote for TriplePundit.com.

    I believe that the FairTax accomplishes all of your goals:

    Greatly simplifies the tax system: the FairTax abolishes the income tax, payroll tax, estate and gift taxes and capital-gains taxes, and corporate taxes, and replaces them all with a 23% inclusive retail sales tax, collected only once at the final point of purchase. Did I mention that it abolishes the IRS too? States collect the tax and remit it to the federal government, and are paid a small percentage for doing so, the same as the retailers who also receive a small percentage.

    Disincentivizes long-term welfare of BOTH kinds: corporate AND individual: The FairTax eliminates all loopholes, incentives and handouts granted by our tax system. It is fair and simple, and levels the playing field.

    Disincentivizes subsidies and bailouts for reckless speculators using
    taxpayers’ money:
    This isn't a tax policy issue, it is a government spending issue. No tax policy can stop the government from bailing out industries in trouble if they want to...

    Moderate bias in favor of redistributing wealth away from the idle uber-wealthy (currently growing richer at a phenomenal rate) to the getting-screwed-from-both-ends working class: The fairTax does this by including a rebate that every legal resident gets at the beginning of each month for the poverty amount of tax on spending. This provides some progressivity, and relieves the tax burden completely from the most poor americans.

    In addition, it taxes not only wage earners, but anyone who spends money, including illegal aliens, drug dealers, tourists, and the wealthy, who spend a lot of money in this country.

    There's a lot more to know, so please check out FairTax.org.

    3   OO   2007 Jul 19, 9:15am  

    Uh... don't you want to be insanely rich one day? Isn't this what America is about? Everyone has a right to dream, or even has a chance, no matter how small it is, of becoming disgustingly rich?

    4   requiem   2007 Jul 19, 9:17am  

    Was that sarcasm, OO? I mean, that could be used to justify pretty much any abhorrent condition, as long as there was a lottery system to let a couple proles out of the muck from time to time.

    5   HARM   2007 Jul 19, 9:28am  

    @OO,

    I repeat:

    “Don’t forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.”
    –John Dickinson (character from the play "1776")

    Honestly, I'd prefer to have a society where everyone (who is willing to work) can live safely and be "comfortable", have 6-8+ weeks of paid vacation every year, cradle-to-grave healthcare, be able to afford to buy a modest house (without having to compete with govt-subsidized speculators) and send their kids to college (if that's important to them).

    Becoming disgustingly rich would "nice", but it's pretty far down on my list of really important priorities. Especially if being rich means spending much of my money on bribes and my own private army of security forces, designed to keep out the hordes of angry, starving commoners who all want to kill me.

    6   monkeyinchief   2007 Jul 19, 9:29am  

    Even if one could succeed in simplifying the tax code, the complexity would creep back in over time. The reason we have a convoluted tax code full of deductions and special rules is that politicians get rewarded or at least think they do for creating the mess. Every deduction or special rule has a constituency it serves.

    The only way to get and keep a reasonable tax system is for politicians to start governing like adults which requires voters to start voting like them. As long ads like "X voted for higher taxes 137 times" continue to work when what X was really doing was closing loopholes, we'll have an awful system.

    7   HARM   2007 Jul 19, 9:38am  

    "Ditto" to what requiem said.

    8   DennisN   2007 Jul 19, 10:03am  

    "Honestly, I’d prefer to have a society where everyone (who is willing to work) can live safely and be “comfortable”, have 6-8+ weeks of paid vacation every year, cradle-to-grave healthcare, be able to afford to buy a modest house (without having to compete with govt-subsidized speculators) and send their kids to college (if that’s important to them)."

    There is such a place. It's called France. But their economy has been tanking for decades now - everyone in the world now is competing with workers in the less-developed world. Having a ultra-labor-union view of life just doesn't work in the modern world. Even the French have woken up and elected Sarko.

    Modifying the tax code to give untargetted penalties will merely add many more unintended consequenses. Why not TARGETTED penalties? For example, professional atheletes contribute NOTHING to society. They are idiots with big muscles and pea brains that take their ill-gotten loot and blow it on dope and crime. Why not target them on the basis of their job, not on the amount of money they make? Make the tax rate on jocks 100% on anything over $50K.

    9   Idaho_Spud   2007 Jul 19, 10:12am  

    Might as well eliminate all tax on business. Tax on business is really just a hidden tax on their customers. Face it, YOU pay Apple, GE, PG&E's tax bill, not them.

    10   Glen   2007 Jul 19, 10:12am  

    A certain amount of complexity is probably unavoidable. However, if we had smart, well-intentioned and honest elected officials running the show, then a great deal of tax simplification could likely be achieved.

    I had a tax professor who said that any system of taxation should have three essential goals (in no particular order):
    1. economic rationality (which is somewhat measurable);
    2. administrative feasibility (which is also somewhat measurable); and
    3. fairness (which is in the eye of the beholder--but reasonable people could conceivably agree on the correct level of tax progressiveness, redistribution, etc...)

    Unfortunately, in our dysfunctional political/economic system, it seems that the driving goals for each public official are:
    1. get the most money possible to my biggest contributors
    2. penalize my political opponents as much as possible; and
    3. try to do #1 and #2 in ways that will be as opaque as possible to my constituents.

    11   Jimbo   2007 Jul 19, 10:22am  

    There is such a place. It’s called France. But their economy has been tanking for decades now - everyone in the world now is competing with workers in the less-developed world. Having a ultra-labor-union view of life just doesn’t work in the modern world. Even the French have woken up and elected Sarko.

    How about Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway, all of whom are doing just fine. France isn't even really doing that badly. The standard of living has been improving from an already pretty high level.

    We need more Unions in this country. That is the only way to reverse the massive rise in inequality we have seen over the last few decades.

    I won't hold my breath waiting for Americans to wake up to that fact, though.

    12   astrid   2007 Jul 19, 10:31am  

    What Requiem said. Silicon Valley is basically a lottery scheme with slightly better odds.

    13   Brent   2007 Jul 19, 10:37am  

    And for Christ sake stop treating religious groups differently in the tax code. I thought we were guarantied separation of church and state? All these gargantuan cathedral boxes popping up everywhere are disgusting, and really hinder my ability to worship internal combustion.

    14   Vicente   2007 Jul 19, 10:39am  

    Couldn't we just blame rich people for all our problems? Then round them up, kill them, redistribute their house and personal wealth.

    I call this the Pirate Solution.

    15   HARM   2007 Jul 19, 10:47am  

    @DennisN,

    I never mentioned labor unions and honestly I don't even know if they're necessary or that relevant anymore. However, since you brought the subject up, I'm against forcibly hiring anyone purely due to gender or ethnicity, or preventing employers from firing for good cause (assuming it really is *good cause* and not just retaliation against whistle-blowing, etc.).

    16   HARM   2007 Jul 19, 10:48am  

    I believe we used to have "such a place" right here in the U.S. and can have it again --even without mass unionization.

    17   HARM   2007 Jul 19, 10:52am  

    I'm personally not against "targeted" taxes against pro athletes, but the problem is if any one particular group is singled out like that, cries of "discrimination" and "racism" are sure to follow. A gradually progressive "quasi-flat" tax that rises with incomes would be far easier to sell on "fairness".

    18   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 11:02am  

    Vicente says: Couldn’t we just blame rich people for all our problems?

    We do that already. It's called being a socia1ist. :o

    Vicente says: Then round them up, kill them, redistribute their house and personal wealth. I call this the Pirate Solution.

    The worldwide decline in pirates correlates to increased housing prices. Thus a return to piracy would help housing affordability in the United States. Also, we would be able to talk about wenches without fear of lawsuits.

    19   Glen   2007 Jul 19, 11:10am  

    I like the idea of a consumption tax with modest exemptions for occupied housing (owned or rented)--eg $20K/year, food-- eg $2500/year per family member and clothing -- eg $1000/year per family member. There would be no COLAs for expensive states, etc.--too complicated.

    Every legal US citizen or resident would get three plastic voucher cards from the gov't, which could be redeemed for tax free goods or services in the amounts indicated. Voucher cards would be as good as cash and could be sold or exchanged freely so that thrifty types could benefit by living on even less than the exemption amounts.

    Anything and everything above the exemption amount would be subject to consumption tax. Stocks, bonds, income-producing real estate and other investments would be entirely tax free. However, antiques, artwork or precious metals would not be considered "investments," even though they may have investment-like characteristics (maybe that isn't fair, but it is easy to administer--if certain kinds of cars, arwork, etc. were exempt, it would create too many complex definitional problems).

    Imagine replacing income tax and payroll tax with such a consumption tax scheme. This would instantly create powerful incentives to invest and hire employees and massive disincentives to be a wasteful spendaholic.

    20   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 11:18am  

    Glen, it's a consumer-driven economy. If people aren't spending any money on goods, then employment plummets.

    21   Malcolm   2007 Jul 19, 11:51am  

    Vicente Says:
    July 19th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
    "Couldn’t we just blame rich people for all our problems? Then round them up, kill them, redistribute their house and personal wealth.

    I call this the Pirate Solution."

    Ha ha, they tried that in China already, but I guess once they were allowed to see how the United States compared to their quality of life they had a change of heart.

    22   Malcolm   2007 Jul 19, 12:01pm  

    Brent, I am so with you on taxing churches, or at the very least not allowing them to be deductible charities. A few decades ago, churches were actually an incredibly costly loophole since people would donate to them, write it off, and then do "charitable work" for them or use some other mechanism to have a portion go back to them. That was cleaned up, but it is still an abuse, and I suspect it is rife with corruption. Since churches have no penalty for income (ie income tax) then there is no control mechanism to stop a scheme of inflating contributions to them for the writeoff. You know, the same scheme of valuing an old car at 5 times what it is actually worth to basically get Uncle Sam to buy it at above market when it was donated.

    23   PermaRenter   2007 Jul 19, 12:15pm  

    Now all my 401k accounts have greater than 60% in international funds:

    What will deliver the greatest returns in the next 12 months?
    U.S. Stocks 30%
    International Stocks 51%
    Cash 8%
    Bonds 6%
    Real estate 8%
    120269 Votes to date

    24   Malcolm   2007 Jul 19, 12:18pm  

    I wonder if in California we could pass an initiative removing the deductibility on church contributions? It would be one line on the adjustment to federal deductions schedule on the state form, and tax software could easily automatcally do the calculation of adding the deduction back to the itemized deductions.

    25   B.A.C.A.H.   2007 Jul 19, 12:23pm  

    Eventually there will be a backlash.

    Bubba in the red states, young urban people (and I don't mean the froo-froo beautiful young and rich urban people - more like the ones who far outnumber them and live in places like east & central LA, West Oakland, etc.), exploited immigrants, keep tightening the screws on everyone who comes around to realize they're all getting screwed, and the rich'll only wish that the backlash will look like a Scandanvian system.

    More likely, in this country of rights to Bear Arms, the backlash'll look less like a Swedish tax system, and more like what happened in Indonesian during the Asian currency contagion.

    Instead they oughta consider giving a little to keep a lot, but instead they'll allow themselves to be blinded to what is obvious. They too self-absorbed to realize the demographics are not favorable- they're not reproducing as fast as the squeezed masses. It might have something to do with the maldistribution of resources available for medical care and for leisure activity. I don't really know. But the demographics are not in their favor.

    26   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 1:13pm  

    sybrib, I think a Green Goblin quote will suffice here: Here's the real truth. There are eight million people in this city. And those teeming masses exist for the sole purpose of lifting the few exceptional people onto their shoulders. You and me… We're exceptional.

    If the teeming masses are growing, does that mean that we can have a few more exceptional people? I am working towards that moment when the mundane hoist me onto their shoulders! :twisted:

    All this talk about Germany, Scandanavia and other European countries tends to ignore one obvious fact. Americans are rampant consumers. We want it super-sized, and we want it right now. European citizens accept a more humble lifestyle in exchange for their many benefits. To attain better social balance, Americans either have to consume less or produce more. We're running a ridiculous budget deficit as it is.

    My guess: We're not going to do a damn thing. People will clamor for change, but NIMBYism is not limited to just backyards. They want taxes from somebody, just not themselves. Any politicians put in office on the premise of changing things will quickly be ousted when people stop perceiving a benefit to themselves. Every soccer mom wants to save the whales and rainforests, but they'll make seat-covers from baby seal hides before they give up their 9 mpg Ford Expedition.

    And I have said this many times, but it bears repeating. THE RICH ARE MOBILE. If you want to see the wealth move swiftly to a different country, start slamming the rich here. How many rich foreigners do you think emigrated to the U.S. to avoid persecution? A damn lot. Their descendants can just as easily emigrate somewhere else--the Cayman Islands, Lichtenstein, Eastern Europe or dozens of other global tax shelters.

    The fault lies primarily with the teeming masses. Their greed is causing this train wreck (my greed and your greed included). To punish the exceptional is a naive, jealous approach that will only cause immediate wealth drain. What's the cultural message--don't become exceptional, because the lazy peasants will penalize you?

    Yeesh.

    27   David J   2007 Jul 19, 1:27pm  

    One of the reasons for the growing disparity between the rich and the poor here in the U.S. is the out sourcing of jobs to third world countries. I know the idea of a global economy and free trade is a sacred cow to many on this blog but I wonder if the loss of good high wage manufacturing jobs and wage suppression for those jobs that remain might outway any gains. Those companies that choose to remain and manufacture goods here at home must overcome enormous obsticles to profitability in the form of increasingly strict environmental regulation and labor issues. The temptation to say to hell with it and move the factories overseas is only made worse by free trade agreements that have allowed many of their competitors to do exactly that. The predictable result is that these competitors can now lower their prices while at the same time increasing profitability due to lower production costs. This in turn causes the manufacturers that kept their plants here to loose market share or lower their prices(if they can) in an effort to remain competitive. Lowering prices makes them less profitable and increases the temptation to jump ship and follow their competitors example by letting their American employees go and moving their own factories over seas. To allow this to continue seems suicidal to me. I believe that if a company like Nike wants to build a plant in China to make shoes that are sold in China and other less developed countries that is their right. However; under no cicumstances should those shoes be allowed back into the U.S.! If they wish to sell shoes here they need to make them here. Free trade agreements should only be made between nations of like economic status and circumstance. Unions and labor laws are of no benefit if companies can get around them simply by leaving and still have unfettered access to our domestic markets. The most beneficial way for any company to share it's wealth is not through taxes but rather decent paychecks to employees.

    28   David J   2007 Jul 19, 1:29pm  

    Can someone please get my comment out of moderation.

    29   LurkinLeech   2007 Jul 19, 1:38pm  

    Every time a new law is enacted, I lose another piece of my freedom.

    I am in favor of only one new law:

    "For every new law enacted, 10 old laws have to be eliminated."

    As for the current tax system, and the overall sorry state of affairs, nothing is going to change until enough people quit being so politically apathetic, and get off their fat, stupid, over-consuming rear-ends and do something about it ...

    But I don't see that happening anytime soon, so the small portion of middle class that actually realizes how screwed they are will just have to find a way not play in a game that is so unfairly stacked against them.

    Maybe the founding fathers had a small glimpse of the future, and could foresee how the populace would eventually devolve into lazy, uneducated masses, hence the Electoral College... ;)
    (On the flip side, did they foresee how the uber-rich could eventually just buy the presidency?)

    30   Different Sean   2007 Jul 19, 1:57pm  

    Unionism was an early 'real world' response and reaction to inequality -- it's effectively a way of redistributing wealth in more laissez-faire economies when the govt won't do it through tax schemes or welfare redistribution. Unions empower workers and force the 'owners of the means of production' to return a greater share to the workers (who are actually producing the good) by mass action or the threat thereof. Historically strongly unionised countries like the UK, Australia and possibly Germany have therefore managed to claw their way up to a more egalitarian position in a ranking of welfare states due to leveraging higher wages for their workers.

    31   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 1:57pm  

    Maybe the Founding Fathers looked around and saw their brave countrymen, fresh from shedding their blood in the name of freedom. And they decided that none of their descendants could possibly end up as lazy, entitled, apathetic or childish about their civic responsibilities.

    By the way, the other reason I'm against penalizing the newly wealthy is because many of them are recent immigrants. If you choke off the supply of hardworking foreigners, then we're going to be *really* screwed.

    32   Different Sean   2007 Jul 19, 2:09pm  

    LurkinLeech Says:
    Maybe the founding fathers had a small glimpse of the future, and could foresee how the populace would eventually devolve into lazy, uneducated masses, hence the Electoral College…

    They already had a mistrust of the uneducated, unwashed masses at that point in time -- it was an inherently elitist system that argued against 'the tyranny of the majority' -- that the average joe in 1776 was uneducated, ignorant, lacked judgement and was out of touch with matters of good govt and realpolitik -- therefore an electoral college of your betters was necessary to act as a check. Modern views of 'pure' democracy would say that this was an unfair artifice. But modern views of what democracy should be don't think highly of 1 seat-1 electorate systems or 'representative democracy' in general either -- rather that all major decisions affecting the polity should go to a referendum -- e.g. did the people of the US as a majority decide to invade Iraq and create a 'Coalition of the Willing' of a few begrudging allies?

    33   Jimbo   2007 Jul 19, 2:27pm  

    ). To punish the exceptional is a naive, jealous approach that will only cause immediate wealth drain.

    What's exceptional about winning the Sperm Lottery?

    34   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 2:40pm  

    DS says: (the Founding Fathers believed) that the average joe in 1776 was uneducated, ignorant, lacked judgement and was out of touch with matters of good govt and realpolitik

    So basically we haven't moved much in 231 years, huh? :)

    35   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 2:42pm  

    Brand says: To punish the exceptional is a naive, jealous approach that will only cause immediate wealth drain.

    then Jimbo says: What’s exceptional about winning the Sperm Lottery?

    Jimbo, how much U.S. wealth do you think is hereditary?

    36   B.A.C.A.H.   2007 Jul 19, 2:52pm  

    Many of the "founding fathers" owned slaves.

    One of them fathered children by one of the slaves that he owned. I think we'd call that rape in today's language. Is that what you meant by "founding fathers?"

    Enough about the founding fathers.

    37   Jimbo   2007 Jul 19, 3:04pm  

    Median per capita income in the United States has not been going up for quite a while, not since 1998 or so. And even going all the way back to 1974, as far as I can find, it has only gone up 0.7% per year.

    Unfortunately I cannot find good statistics for any of the European countries. Anyone know where to look?

    38   Different Sean   2007 Jul 19, 3:08pm  

    Jimbo Says:
    Unfortunately I cannot find good statistics for any of the European countries. Anyone know where to look?

    The LIS? Luxembourg Income Study...

    39   Jimbo   2007 Jul 19, 3:09pm  

    Jimbo, how much U.S. wealth do you think is hereditary?

    Most wealthy people in the US are born to wealth. Most of them had the advantages of wealth passed on them by their parents long before they inherited a dime.

    How much US wealth do *you* think is hereditary?

    The answer is not settled by the way and is subject to a great amount of debate between economists.

    40   Brand165   2007 Jul 19, 3:14pm  

    Jimbo: I know a hell of a lot more self-made millionaires than heirs. I would point out that being children of someone rich carries a lot of benefits, but the money source isn't yours until the rich parent dies.

    I would be interested to know what ratio of Americans on the Forbes wealthiest 1000 list are self-made vs. heirs/heiresses.

    41   Randy H   2007 Jul 19, 3:22pm  

    Oh my. And I even used to like Motorhead when I was a teenager.

    I guess now's not a good time to launch into my "eliminate all forms of income and gains taxation" set of irresistibly logical arguments...

    « First        Comments 2 - 41 of 254       Last »     Search these comments

    Please register to comment:

    api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste