Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

I don't really think a progressive tax rate is punishing, even if you're making less money on the dollar than someone lower in income. You're still bringing home more money than you were before.

There CAN be an argument whether you're bringing home enough to make it worth the effort to increase your income past that, though. Depends on how much effort is required. I'll concede that.

[LordBucket]

I don't really think a progressive tax rate is punishing

You're still bringing home more money than you were before.

Well, it's a question of interpretation. I don't anticipate anyone will seriously say "Oh noes! Because of progressive rates I will choose to make only $50,000 and pay 25% rather than make $150,000 and pay 33%!" That would be fairly silly, yes. But what Eaglon was describing was technically valid...even if it's probably not something we really need to worry about.

In any case, it should serve to illustrate how pointlessly complicated the tax system is that we can even have this conversation and need this much clarification to even be sure what we're each talking about.

[SharpKris]

are ranting on tax's in general? i've alot of rant to spare on Israeli tax

[Eagleon]

"To the leader of the opposition, let me just say this; you want to fight cunt?"
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1WjyvFikJZc&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1WjyvFikJZc

I love you, Sexualobster.

Yes, but that point is very low. Using the 90s flat tax proposal numbers, for an individual filling singly, that point is $11,600. Using 2013 real life numbers, for an individual filling singlely (not head of household) it's $5950. Below those values you pay no taxes, and above them you do, but either way, the numbers are low enough that I suspect very few people will try to "make less than that" solely for the purpose of avoiding paying taxes.

Technically you're correct...but I think it's not a huge issue.

More or less the problem that I see is that the value of our money and work doesn't exist in a vacuum. If we suddenly free up billions of man-hours of work from the current tax code, that's still billions of man-hours of financial-sector paper-pushing work. Meaning we'd face the same problem we see with fast food workers demanding better pay (and honestly, making less than them, I have to chuckle at the futility), only on a much higher rung of the social ladder. Fundamentally, who contributes more - a food service line-worker, or an administrative coordinator that's been through six years of school with dual majors in administrative coordination and psychology?

Neither. Everybody loses. They're functionally identical in a service based economy, one's just spent more on educational services than the other. So what exactly are we going to do when they get laid off? Same as we're doing now with the ones laid off by the manufacturing sector - get them on whatever unemployment Congress has agreed to this month, keep wondering where we'll see the next financial bubble, and buy lots more things with the taxes we've freed up.

I have no idea how to fix this beyond freeing education from being a giant sieve for our ambition. We shouldn't be taking the majors that give us jobs, if the jobs that we're taking are fundamentally doing nothing to improve the world. At the same time, that's really the only way to get through college for most people - find work immediately to pay off the debts you've accrued.

So it's a massive disincentive to go into something without seeing some sort of niche or gimmick like social networking - rather than working on new technology that might not pan out, most of our engineers are going to work for an established business making money in a highly competitive, patent-heavy industry that sees charity as a PR tool, rather than a real solution to a specific problem we'd all benefit from solving. We are squandering our capacity for invention in made-up fields to support businessmen that don't have a clue how close we are to making private yachts as commonplace as motorhomes.

[LordBucket]

If we suddenly free up billions of man-hours of work from the current tax code, that's still billions of man-hours of financial-sector paper-pushing work. Meaning we'd face the same problem we see with fast food workers demanding better pay, only on a much higher rung of the social ladder.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was under the impression that fast food workers were demanding more pay because what they're getting isn't enough for them to live off of. How does that relate to eliminating six billion hours worth of work from an industry?

I would think if one worked in an industry in which six billion annual hours worth of employees were laid off, demanding a raise would be just about the last thing you'd do.

who contributes more - a food service line-worker, or an administrative coordinator that's
been through six years of school with dual majors in administrative coordination and psychology?

I would say that depends on what he's coordinating.  The food service line-worker is definitely performing a service that somebody definitely benefits from. If the "administrative coordinator" is coordinating people who are moving pieces of paper around for no particular reason, he's not contributing more simply because he has more education.

Hence the bullshit jobs link that's been posted a few times.

Or, consider SalmonGod's post from page 6:

You know how I spent the last 7 years?  My job was to pull up a commercial invoice for a shipment being imported into the country.  I'd classify the goods being shipped according to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, which is a system whereby every material item imaginable is associated with a 10-digit number, because... well, after 7 fucking years I still don't really get the point.  Then I'd identify the country of origin, commercial value, shipper, importer, and some potential other requirements having to do with government agencies (such as FCC forms).  I'd enter that into a system which produced a nice little one page document so that a customs officer could glance at it and stamp the goods ok for import.  Literally just copying information from one form into another all day every day, with a sprinkling of specialized knowledge about completely made up crap of zero tangible consequence, for the sole purpose of making another guy's job a tiny bit easier.  That other guy's job being enforcement of taxation on imports, which has absolutely zero relevance outside of everyone's favorite imaginary number game.  It was soul-crushing.  And there are millions of people wasting away in jobs like this.

So what exactly are we going to do when they get laid off?

Well, that's a problem, and I don't think this thread has generated a perfect solution. But to do nothing, and let six billion man-hours worth of pointless paper shuffling ad computation continue to be done every year just because it might be inconvenient to some people...seems like a bad choice to me.

If it were me in charge, I might be inclined to do something like take a 100 billion or two out of our "kill people in foreign countries" budget and use it to take care of the people displaced by reform. If you get laid off because we made your entire industry obsolete, here's $30,000 cash, and now you're on your own. According to the Bureau of Labor there are ~60,000 people employed as "Tax Examiners, Collectors and Preparers, and Revenue Agents." 60,000 * $30,000 is only 1.8 billion. That's a drop in the bucket of the $683 billion defense budget. We could permanently liquidate 100,000 jobs every month for a year, hand everyone liquidated $30,000 in cash, and it would only come to 36 billion.

Just go a year without invading or bombing anyone and we could do that easily.

It might not be a "perfect solution" but it might be preferable to allowing the status quo to continue.


Of course, once you start down that path this sort of becomes a different discussion. I rather suspect that with a hundred billion/yr siphoned from the defense budget, even well-intentioned idiots could make a lot of problems go away.

[sneakey pete]

Lord Bucket, I find it odd, being that you are in such favor for any means necessary to reduce work, that your first instinct is to replace a generally fairer tax practice with a less fair one, when you could just automate the process?

I mean, it took me 30 minutes to do my tax this year. Just because the US government is really crap at administering is progressive tax system, it doesn't mean that its impossible to administer a progressive tax system well. Australia has an (optional) Automated electronic tax system, and a single tax payment point per year (apart from council rates, I guess), the state government gets their cut from the federal government. You just put in your tax file number (social security number equivalent, basically?), put in a tax statement from any jobs you've had, fill out any fields for your assets, other income, dependents etc and then lodge it online. Businesses are being increasingly integrated into the system, both for ease of use and government checks (for example, they monitor transactions from small businesses, and can have their servers farms etc automatically detect if you under report your income and so on) Give it a few years and you probably won't even need to be inputting much of your data at all, the government will already know much of what it needs to, you'll just review it and accept.
Now, to be fair I don't have a very complex set of assets or income, just work, some interest on money, plus deductions from health insurance. However, even then if you are adequately prepared it'll only take you a pretty short time, not the 20 hour average that your statistic mentioned for the US system

Anyway, this is just another nitpicking point, not really adding anything to the work reduction theme of the thread, but since you've spent the last 3 pages responding to it I figured i'd post it here.

However, if I may, I'd like to call you out on those figures you gave for the sewer system upgrades. San Antonio, for example, is looking to spend $1 billion on a sewer system for 1 million people. That's 100 bucks a person. Its an equivalent cost to a septic tank for everyone.

also also, there's probably on the order of upward of 1 trillion man hours (of just work, not including peoples spare time) per year in the USA anyway, 6 billion is a pretty small drop in the bucket. Infact, the collective hours lived by people in the USA every year is 2.77 trillion, and tax takes up .216% of this time.

edited: spelling, grammar and fun fact

[scrdest]

That's an interesting definition of 'fair' you use here. While it does not mean your entire income gets shifted, progressive taxes mean that once you reach a certain level of income, you essentially get less money for the same amount of work.

Also, honestly, the easiest measure to eliminate unnecessary work would be to remove income tax altogether and use sales taxes. If rich people do indeed buy a fuckhuge car, a percentage of the money they pay for it is paid in taxes. Since we have electronic banking services, it could automate the process entirely.

[LordBucket]

i find it odd, being that you are in such favor for any means necessary to reduce work, that your first instinct
is to reduce a generally fairer tax practice with a less fair one, when you could just automate the process?

1) First? No, this was just one example out of several that were mentioned.
2) I dispute "generally fairer." It's only "fairer" if you think it's fair that people who make more money not only pay more tax, but also pay a higher percentage. That is however, for both of us, personal bias, and not really relevant to the efficiency discussion.
3) I have nothing against automating the process. But what's the value of maintaining a system that's clearly stupid?
4) You personally might have been able to do your taxes in 30 minutes, but that's not representative. The averages were 20 hours labor per year per person. It doesn't really matter if you personally spend 30 minutes doing taxes, when it takes the nation has a hole SIX BILLION HOURS every year. Feel free to hunt down the link in the thread, it's been linked a bunch of times now.

I'd like to call you out on those figures you gave for the sewer system upgrades. San Antonio, for example, is looking to spend $1 billion on a sewer system for 1 million people. That's 100 bucks a person. Its an equivalent cost to a septic tank for everyone.

It's also in addition to the payments those million people have been making month after month, year after year. Forgive me if I don't go digging up the link, but the number I remember seeing for the national average monthly payment when I looked it up earlier in the thread was $51 for people on sewer systems. So, if everyone's paying an average of $51/mo, that's ~$600/year. Compared to the...again, just from memory "between $250 and $500 every 3 to 5" for septic tank maintenance.

Even if you pretend the billion dollar upgrade costs just don't happen, the base costs of maintaining sewer systems are vastly higher than septic. In one year the average consumer cost of a sewer system is higher than five years worth of septic pumpouts. For us to even be having this conversation I can only assume that you don't even know what a septic tank is, and you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Here are some wiki links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sewerage_infrastructure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_treatment_plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_station

Read them...understand what the things we're talking about are...and it will be completely obvious why septic is cheaper and less labor intensive. It's like asking which is more labor intensive: installing a wireless router in every house, or digging up the ground and installing underground network cables connecting every house. I shouldn't even need to be giving links corroborating this. Here are a couple specific comparisons anyway:



http://blog.crewsenvironmental.com/2012/07/26/septic-vs-sewer-cost-comparisons/

" when it comes to cost comparison of city sewer vs. septic systems – septic always wins."


http://www.co.grand-traverse.mi.us/Assets/Departments/Public+Works/2013+Municipal+Sewer+vs+Septic+Tank+Costs.pdf

Municipal Seewer yearly costs: $240 - $495/yr

Septic tank yearly costs: $78.20 to $130.33/yr


http://www.willeyco.com/blog/central-sewer-and-water-systems-vs-septic-and-wells.html

Total Cost to Home Owner for Sewage over 30 Years on average for a septic system $10585

Total Cost to Home Owner for Central Sewage over 20 Years on average $26915


Can we seriously put this issue to rest?

[LordBucket]

Also, honestly, the easiest measure to eliminate unnecessary work would be to remove income tax altogether and use sales taxes. If rich people do indeed buy a fuckhuge car, a percentage of the money they pay for it is paid in taxes. Since we have electronic banking services, it could automate the process entirely.

...huh. That might be a better solution than the flat tax, yes.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

It might have some peculiar implications, though. For example..retirees who've already paid income taxes on earnings for decades with specific retirement plans estimating how much money they'd need...and then suddenly the cost of everything shoots up because sales tax increases enough to replace income tax.

It might be a bit bumpy, but at first glace I like the solution.

[Draxis]

The thing about high sales tax is, it hits the poor disproportionately, as they spend a far higher proportion of income on buying goods than the rich, who can afford saving and services like medical care, which are currently not covered.  If you extended the sales tax to all transactions, that would be more fair, but the poor would still lose access to more things while providing less revenue.

[sneakey pete]

4) You personally might have been able to do your taxes in 30 minutes, but that's not representative. The averages were 20 hours labor per year per person. It doesn't really matter if you personally spend 30 minutes doing taxes, when it takes the nation has a hole SIX BILLION HOURS every year. Feel free to hunt down the link in the thread, it's been linked a bunch of times now.

I don't have time to do any more digging for the sewage thing, however i'd like to clarify for the sake of this point, I'm from Australia, not the USA. My example is quite representative of what could be with a better processing system.

[alexandertnt]

This is a pretty good explanation of the problems with the FairTax.

Also, have you considered that implementing a tax system that further disadvantages the poor may reduce the net time spent on doing taxes, but make more (i.e. low income) people unhappy? i.e. reducing labour does not necessarly equate to more people being happier.

[scrdest]

The thing about high sales tax is, it hits the poor disproportionately, as they spend a far higher proportion of income on buying goods than the rich, who can afford saving and services like medical care, which are currently not covered.  If you extended the sales tax to all transactions, that would be more fair, but the poor would still lose access to more things while providing less revenue.

So... make services that allow saving on other things have a higher transaction tax? Although I would like more specific examples, so that we'd be clear in what we're talking about.

This is a pretty good explanation of the problems with the FairTax.

Also, have you considered that implementing a tax system that further disadvantages the poor may reduce the net time spent on doing taxes, but make more (i.e. low income) people unhappy? i.e. reducing labour does not necessarly equate to more people being happier.

Urgh, rationalwiki. It does highlight some problems, but I don't... really... like... the attitude of the people there. It's like the equal opposite to Conservapedia.

And nobody is trying to screw over the poor on purpose, but mindstorming an actually fair system is like navigating a minefield where you have to look out not to screw over someone. There's also the problem that for one person who just was shat on by luck there's nine drunk, loutish brutes who refuse to work no matter what, and for one person who got rich by curing cancer there's nine who stole, coerced, bribed, etc. their way into money (or were children of someone who did).

[10ebbor10]

4) You personally might have been able to do your taxes in 30 minutes, but that's not representative. The averages were 20 hours labor per year per person. It doesn't really matter if you personally spend 30 minutes doing taxes, when it takes the nation has a hole SIX BILLION HOURS every year. Feel free to hunt down the link in the thread, it's been linked a bunch of times now.

I don't have time to do any more digging for the sewage thing, however i'd like to clarify for the sake of this point, I'm from Australia, not the USA. My example is quite representative of what could be with a better processing system.

it works that way for many other countries too. You sign into the governement systems, look over the data, change what's needed, and are ready within half an hour.

I mean, just because the US sucks at something, doesn't mean it can be done well.

On a side note, on the sewer issue. LB, you conveniently ignored a number of my arguments. I'll repeat them here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

1. Septic waste needs additonal processing. Dedicated filtration installations remain.
2. Sewers are needed to prevent floods, by carrying away rainwater. No sewers, no gutters. (Rainwater tanks are not a solution. They're mandatory in Belgium, and stuff still floods.)
3. Septic tanks require drainage fields.          
         -Large (Impossible in cites and some surburban areas)
         -Effects on water table if used en masse. A septic tank can last so long by filtering out all the water.This water is slightly polluted. (phosphates and other things. Comparable with overuse of fertilizer).
         -If the water table is too high (after rains, or because everyone is using them), the system backfires and the tank floods.
4. Everyone has to use biodegradable products or the internal filtration process fails and polluted water is dumped into the drainage field.

Note: the point of a septic tank is that most of the water is filtered out and dumped, hence why you can stuff so much waste in such a small area.

[alexandertnt]

And nobody is trying to screw over the poor on purpose.

Of course not. When I said that it negatively effects poor, I did not mean to imply it was a goal of the tax system, only a side-effect.

Urgh, rationalwiki. It does highlight some problems, but I don't... really... like... the attitude of the people there. It's like the equal opposite to Conservapedia.

I find it an entertaining political wiki-thing (blog?), but anything beyond entertainment you have to take with a grain of salt...

but mindstorming an actually fair system is like navigating a minefield where you have to look out not to screw over someone. There's also the problem that for one person who just was shat on by luck there's nine drunk, loutish brutes who refuse to work no matter what, and for one person who got rich by curing cancer there's nine who stole, coerced, bribed, etc. their way into money (or were children of someone who did).

Having a truely fair system is impossible, yeah. But they can still vary in fairness, and coming up with a reasonably fair system is not a simple task.


I think my function based system seems pretty good though, given I thought it up just then. it (seems to) avoid shifting the tax burdon on those that cant afford it, whilst remaining simple and could function as a welfare system too. Surely someone else has thought of it before though...

It would seem a sales tax would greatly reduce the ammount of tax, assuming that basics (like medicine, food, water etc) are not taxed (like here in Aus, with the [url-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_%28Australia%29]GST[/url]), and the majority of the population are average-joe's whose purchases consist mostly of these basics.

I also think that a problem with an overly simple tax system is that the current monetery/wealth system is complex (people trading in money, shares, objects, inheriting assets etc), and as such an overly simple tax system might end up working poorly.

I actually agree (quite strongly, infact) with LordBuckets basic premise (reducing the ammount of work required) as I think it would allow more people to pursue their goals and thus become happy. I just disagree with some of the implementations.