EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

What taxes should there be?

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
admin
By admin | Jan 6 2017 11:00 PM
How is the tax system in your country? What taxes would you change / add / remove if you had the power?
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jan 7 2017 1:16 PM
admin: I live in the U.S., which has the most progressive tax system and highest corporate income tax rate (third highest if counting non-OECD countries). There are so many taxes and a complicated tax code that I would prefer to reform it. How I would reform it is not clear to me, but I would likely keep the progressive tax structure and eliminate many deductions that complicate it. I would eliminate the estate tax. I support imposing tariffs which are eliminated in many cases by trade agreements. I also support a "new deal" market stimulus that has a combination of tax cuts and fees. I believe taxes have more benefits than just raising revenue.

Would you favor eliminating all taxes if you didn't need to worry about raising enough revenue for spending (suppose you got the money from elsewhere)? A question that attempts to demonstrate whether you favor taxes for just raising revenue or other reasons as well.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jan 8 2017 7:38 AM
Bi0Hazard: Well, I am not a huge fan of tariffs since free trade has done great at fighting poverty, but they can be useful nonetheless.
admin
By admin | Jan 8 2017 9:33 AM
Bi0Hazard: If that were to happen the inflation would be ridiculous so of course I wouldn't favor that. Money is not a magical way to acquire stuff.

I like estate taxes. Yeah there's loopholes but overall in principle you want to stop too much generational wealth preventing others from having a fair go.

First thing I'd do if I was in charge of NZ taxes would be index the income brackets to inflation. Also I'd reduce the company tax for starting-out companies and introduce a capital gains tax.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jan 9 2017 12:01 PM
admin: If that were to happen the inflation would be ridiculous so of course I wouldn't favor that. Money is not a magical way to acquire stuff.
That is counter to the purpose of my question, but whatever.

I am opposed to estate taxes, but you hold a different view on wealth and capital's relationship with capitalism than I do.
New Zealand has no capital gains tax?
How high do you think the corporate income tax should top out at? 40%? 50%? 70%? 90%?
admin
By admin | Jan 9 2017 12:09 PM
Bi0Hazard: Yeah, we don't have a capital gains tax and it's a HUGE problem! Basically it makes speculation ridiculously easy for the upper class, especially on property.

Currently in NZ the corporate tax is flat at 33%. My personal view is that it should top out at the same amount the individual income rate tops out at. Trusts etc likewise should be taxed at the same basic rates. It should also be progressive, not flat.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jan 9 2017 12:30 PM
admin: Here is an interesting question, Why are progressive taxes more fair than flat taxes?
admin
By admin | Jan 9 2017 2:30 PM
Bi0Hazard: Kinda depends on what you think is fair. To me, it's not fair to put massive tax burdens on those who cannot afford it, and a relatively minuscule tax burden on those who can.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jan 9 2017 7:19 PM
admin: If you believe in equality of burden when it comes to taxes, is a flat tax or progressive tax the better option?
admin
By admin | Jan 9 2017 7:24 PM
Bi0Hazard: Progressive. That way each person pays an equal burden. 25% of income is worth a lot more to a poor person than to a wealthy person, so they have a bigger burden in a flat tax.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
boris7698
By boris7698 | Feb 5 2017 10:52 AM
A flat tax is us unfair as a progressive tax. A flat tax of 1% means that a person who is making $100k per year must pay a thousand dollars, and a man who makes $10,000 per year must pay only $100. But, both men use the same roads, the same public services, the same public schools.

There should be no tax at all. People should finance the government by donations.
"You can avoid reality, but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." -- Ayn Rand
admin
By admin | Feb 7 2017 9:01 PM
boris7698: Ah yes, more commonly called "government by bribes"
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
boris7698
By boris7698 | Feb 11 2017 7:12 PM
admin: One of the objectivists wrote an article on cronyism last week.

http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/crony-in-chief-donald-trump-epitomizes-ayn-rands-aristocracy-of-pull/

He dug out the following quote by Ayn Rand:

" So long as a concept such as “the public interest” … is regarded as a valid principle to guide legislation — lobbies and pressure groups will necessarily continue to exist. Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals takes precedence over the interests and rights of others.

If so, then all men and all private groups have to fight to the death for the privilege of being regarded as “the public.” The government’s policy has to swing like an erratic pendulum from group to group, hitting some and favoring others, at the whim of any given moment — and so grotesque a profession as lobbying (selling “influence”) becomes a full-time job. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy [a mixture of freedom and economic controls] would bring them into existence.

The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle. The best that an honest official can do is to accept no material bribe for his arbitrary decision; but this does not make his decision and its consequences more just or less calamitous.
"You can avoid reality, but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." -- Ayn Rand
boris7698
By boris7698 | Feb 11 2017 7:17 PM
admin: The overall point being that "government by bribes" is impossible by capitalism, that it is an always present feature of socialism.
"You can avoid reality, but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." -- Ayn Rand
admin
By admin | Feb 11 2017 7:24 PM
boris7698: Depends how honest the socialist people are. Bribery is still happening in your model, you just call it "voluntary interactions". So like when I pay off a judge to avoid criminal sentencing, that's a legitimate transaction in your model, and bribery in mine. I think a system that acknowledges its deficits is always superior.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
boris7698
By boris7698 | Feb 11 2017 7:36 PM
admin: What makes you think that under capitalism I would be able to pay off a judge ? In this case it would be illegal in both socialism and capitalism. But note: lobbying is legal in socialism. There is a big difference.
"You can avoid reality, but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." -- Ayn Rand
admin
By admin | Feb 11 2017 7:39 PM
boris7698: I don't think lobbying should be legal in the way it is commonly practiced now, for the record.

If you do not accept the existence of bribery, it cannot be a crime. So if you say there's no bribery in capitalism, what's to stop me paying off a judge? That's literally what bribery means - making a payment to effect a legal change (in this case, probably, my conviction). The point: bribery happens under your model and is perfectly possible.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
boris7698
By boris7698 | Feb 12 2017 5:51 AM
admin: If the government declares something as illegal (for instance, murder), yet someone does it anyway, then this perpetrator is prosecuted and penalized. The ability to do so (to enforce its own legal decree) is the absolute requirement of any government.

The government is not one man, but a system of "checks and balances" that keeps each member of the government act within the permitted legal framework. In the case of a judge that takes bribes, the first alarm would be that other judges that review cases would notice that the verdict is wrong. This would trigger a police investigation into the subject judge. The second level would be the alarm sounded by the free press and the politicians (in USA, it is the Senate and the House of Representatives) who would do a police investigation into the matter.

A socialist government that would make lobbying illegal, would be a dictatorship. The top man in the government would decide what is "public good" in case. For instance, Mao Tzsetung decided that the industrial progress of China is worth more to its own citizens, than 80 million deaths of these citizens from starvation, and ensued cannibalism.
"You can avoid reality, but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." -- Ayn Rand
Wylted
By Wylted | Feb 27 2017 1:39 PM
admin: I would implement the fairtax from fairtax.org. It males taxation voluntary, is progressive after the stipend, and simultaneously increases tax revenue while decreasing the tax burden. Also with a zero percent corporate tax rate, companies would flock to America, bringing unemployment yo close to zero percent. Given all the upsides and no downsides, we can easily tell which politicians are good and evil by who supports and opposes it
Libertyhunter
By Libertyhunter | Apr 23 2017 6:52 AM
admin: i dont think there should be any taxes, personally.
Page: 12Most Recent