Print

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

[zilpin]

The oft-quoted 90% tax rate was back when corporations and human beings used the same tax rate sheets.
Very few (if any) human beings ever paid that.

Today, America is so clever as to give corporations a separate schedule with the aforementioned loopholes, tax domestic corporations higher than foreign, and permit corporations to deduct any and all spending whereas human beings can only deduct specific expenditures.
Brilliant!

[Andir]

The oft-quoted 90% tax rate was back when corporations and human beings used the same tax rate sheets.
Very few (if any) human beings ever paid that.

Today, America is so clever as to give corporations a separate schedule with the aforementioned loopholes, tax domestic corporations higher than foreign, and permit corporations to deduct any and all spending whereas human beings can only deduct specific expenditures.
Brilliant!

If only we had a uniform and concise tax structure... maybe even a singular value used for all sales transactions with exceptions for staple products.

Ok, now you can all commence your tirade toward me suggesting that...

[Earthquake Damage]

If only we had a uniform and concise tax structure... maybe even a singular value used for all sales transactions with exceptions for staple products.

Taxing consumers but not industry?

Is it feasible in theory?  Hell if I know.

Is it politically feasible?  Nope.  The tax code is a powerful tool for encouraging or discouraging certain activities.  It's also useful for reelection by shifting the tax burden away from your constituents.

[Leafsnail]

Not to mention that, well, corporations do use government services (roads, security services, state education...).

[Andir]

Who said anything about not taxing corporations?

[Sowelu]

Who said anything about not taxing corporations?

Taxing consumers but not industry?

[Andir]

Who said anything about not taxing corporations?

Taxing consumers but not industry?

I'm pretty sure industry needs to buy things... supplies, tools, equipment, food...

[Sowelu]

Still though.  Let me start from a local example, and then expand it to state and country level.  Locally, let's hypothesize that a small town exists which is a major hub for the regional lumber industry.  Not much else goes on there, the companies don't buy industrial materials there, but they do operate lumbermills in the area.  They sell out-of-region.  They need a hell of a lot of good roads for those heavy logs, they need nice strong power infrastructure, probably good water service for whatever reason, and a town with a lot of lumber industry needs good fire coverage etc.  If these companies only paid sales tax, they wouldn't pay much of anything.  Yeah, they're paying industries a lot, but industries often work pretty close to the government, especially on local scales.  Shouldn't they pay taxes for all the services they're using?

(Note that this is actually kinda going on in the real world too:  Over here by Microsoft, the local corporations are really forcing the local government's hand to spend a ton of cash to improve the highways, add more overpasses, etc.  There's some controversy.)

Expand it up to the state level.  Corporation buys and sells its goods out-of-state, but uses a lot of local resources.  Or expand up to national level, same diff.

Okay, but that can be solved via tariffs, right?  I guess that's true, but consider another one:  Wal-mart.

Wal-mart undercuts prices.  They sell things super cheap.  Just because their goods are super cheap does NOT mean that they require less government-provided services to produce!  They are a national chain, which means more trucks on the road, for one thing.  Thus, increasing your strain on the local government services does not always mean that individuals, or even corporations, are paying more for their goods and thus paying more taxes.

I...don't even know if I'm on topic any more.

[Shrugging Khan]

Not really. The only true options are full-on communism, which can be perfect as long as no corruption pours sand into the governmental machine (or they somehow manage to protect against corruption, however that might be possible), and totally free capitalism, which, in a sufficiently deregulated economy, can work fine as long as no rich man ever considers fucking over the poor people, just because he can. Which rich people never do...right?

Anyways, those two socio-economic systems have, under ideal conditions, the potential to offer pretty much flawless performance, one way or another. (Implementing them being a different issue altogether.) Which is due to them being either fully in control of the economy, or the economy in full control of them - either way, things are simple.

And anything in between is just inherently flawed, due to the impossibility of a bureaucratic government doing a proper job in coexistence with a free, evolving market. Taxes, tariffs, social services, infrastructure, subsidies, payouts, bailouts...the inflow and outflow is impossible to regulate appropriately.

[Andir]

Sure, but the people shopping at Walmart probably outweigh (literally! /rimshot) the trucks used to bring in the goods... (ie: more consumers drive their cars weight over the roads than the trucks weight combined.)  So for every sale made to those people would go to the local government to pay for their usage of said roads to get to Walmart and buy that new TV.

[Shrugging Khan]

Unless they walk. (as if!)

[Sir Pseudonymous]

The oft-quoted 90% tax rate was back when corporations and human beings used the same tax rate sheets.
Very few (if any) human beings ever paid that.

Today, America is so clever as to give corporations a separate schedule with the aforementioned loopholes, tax domestic corporations higher than foreign, and permit corporations to deduct any and all spending whereas human beings can only deduct specific expenditures.
Brilliant!

If only we had a uniform and concise tax structure... maybe even a singular value used for all sales transactions with exceptions for staple products.

Ok, now you can all commence your tirade toward me suggesting that...

"I know! Let's punish people for spending money! That'll sure help the economy!"

I don't understand what the hell this fixation with sales taxes is. The "flat tax" obsession can be be explained by an antisocial sense of entitlement, made inexplicable by the fact that 99% of the people that argue for it would be harmed by it ("I want those rich people to have more money, and I should be paying higher taxes so they don't have to!"), but arguing that the best thing would be to actively punish people for spending their money? That shows an even more fundamental lack of comprehension of how an economy actually works, namely by people spending their money on shit. Both sales and flat taxes directly harm the economy, the first by discouraging purchasing to begin with, and both by reducing the purchasing power of the largest demographics. With a sales tax you also get the very real issue of much of your potential income being burned away by spending on foreign soil, unless you impose extremely high tariffs and either tax or greatly restrict currency changing.

You want the richest demographics to be taxed the most, because it will do next to nothing to reduce their purchasing power (since they can really only spend so much under normal circumstances, and are more likely than poorer demographics to spend their money in other countries), and whatever slight effects it may have are lost under the positive effects of reinvesting that money at the lower levels, improving and maintaining infrastructure (and hence the ability of the economy to function) and employing someone that would otherwise be left unemployed and without money to put into the economy.

Not really. The only true options are full-on communism, which can be perfect as long as no corruption pours sand into the governmental machine (or they somehow manage to protect against corruption, however that might be possible), and totally free capitalism, which, in a sufficiently deregulated economy, can work fine as long as no rich man ever considers fucking over the poor people, just because he can. Which rich people never do...right?

Anyways, those two socio-economic systems have, under ideal conditions, the potential to offer pretty much flawless performance, one way or another. (Implementing them being a different issue altogether.) Which is due to them being either fully in control of the economy, or the economy in full control of them - either way, things are simple.

And anything in between is just inherently flawed, due to the impossibility of a bureaucratic government doing a proper job in coexistence with a free, evolving market. Taxes, tariffs, social services, infrastructure, subsidies, payouts, bailouts...the inflow and outflow is impossible to regulate appropriately.

"The only solutions are either no government (because everyone will be nice and help each other and no one will ever be mean and take advantage of the lack of strong authority to become a petty warlord or anything like that) or no government (because everyone will fuck each over as best they can so everyone wins because MAGIC!), nothing else can work because when has a strong, organizing authority ever worked except for always?"

[Shrugging Khan]

Hold on, what kind of pussy-/anarcho-communism is that? My favoured flavour of communism is the one with a strong, healthy government and full centralised control over the economy. Not the kind that...my god, what is that even supposed to be? Anarchists with a coordinated economy? That's beyond utopian.

[Sowelu]

Anyone who considers sales tax to be in any way, shape or form a punishment has a fundamentally broken view of the economy.

(Except for sin taxes, which are screwed up anyway.)

[Andir]

"I know! Let's punish people for spending money! That'll sure help the economy!"

I don't understand what the hell this fixation with sales taxes is. The "flat tax" obsession can be be explained by an antisocial sense of entitlement, made inexplicable by the fact that 99% of the people that argue for it would be harmed by it ("I want those rich people to have more money, and I should be paying higher taxes so they don't have to!"), but arguing that the best thing would be to actively punish people for spending their money? That shows an even more fundamental lack of comprehension of how an economy actually works, namely by people spending their money on shit. Both sales and flat taxes directly harm the economy, the first by discouraging purchasing to begin with, and both by reducing the purchasing power of the largest demographics. With a sales tax you also get the very real issue of much of your potential income being burned away by spending on foreign soil, unless you impose extremely high tariffs and either tax or greatly restrict currency changing.

You can tax people on money they spend so they take a second look at buying something they don't need...
or you can tax someone for working so they don't want to work.  (Especially if they can get government aid not working...)