The Least Harmful Tax?

[Carcano]

They had a small government post-WWII. Lots of private corporations. Grew fabulously wealthy. Grew government to it's grossly bloated size of today. Promised too much. Printed too much. Bailed out too much. And are nearing total economic collapse. Not Civil collapse. But, I wouldn't doubt if they have to default on their commitments. They've been grooming Japanese for years and years (starting in middle school) that their generation should expect to pay into, but not get retirement (or much of it - but usually they're told NOTHING). Can you imagine if you tried that in the USA?!? There'd be blood in the streets (even though that's what's happening, but people don't know it). Most Japanese just suck it up and accept they probably won't get a retirement and will work until the day they die.

Europe demonetized silver in 1873 diminishing the value of the yen considerably...and then it was further devalued from being worth 50 cents to less than a penny during and after WWII.

Wars are expensive and governments usually print vast oceans of paper money to afford them. They drum up a sense of patriotic heroism in their soldiers, while paying them in increasingly worthless currency.

Sadly, Japan is now committing demographic suicide, ensuring a deflationary spiral for another decade at least.

This is what happens when the government does not support domestic birthrates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3EZl...eature=g-all-u

[Michael]

You know, I was just thinking of this, this very morning

Japan has a homogeneous population and I think this works well for them. The population will condense down to 80 million. But, maybe that's good? Sure, it means hard times now, but maybe good times then? I mean, in the mean time housing is more affordable and when things stabilize it might start to expand?

It's either that or immigration and this would cause a lot social strife.

[Carcano]

You know, I was just thinking of this, this very morning

Japan has a homogeneous population and I think this works well for them. The population will condense down to 80 million. But, maybe that's good? Sure, it means hard times now, but maybe good times then? I mean, in the mean time housing is more affordable and when things stabilize it might start to expand?

It's either that or immigration and this would cause a lot social strife.

The alternative to immigration is government support of the domestic birthrate using the tax system...something that is also required in western nations.

Its odd that China has used draconian measures to prevent births...while the average Japanese couple has no will to even replace themselves.

The most economically painful part of depopulation is that young people will have to support an increasing ratio of retirees.

[river]

the least harmful tax though is upon the rich

[keith1]

the least harmful tax though is upon the rich

This is true, as proven by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and should have been re-adopted, but for the new evil sinister incompetence residing in the Republican Party after Reagan (Bush), and Clinton (Bush), and continues today.

[Michael]

The biggest tax levied onto the American people is inflation which erodes 100s of billions a year. Why anyone would want to take money from Steve Jobs and give it to a politicians to spend bribing his district is beyond me. One person creates wealth and the other destroys it.

[steampunk]

The least harmful tax is on luxury items. Items of necessity would be the most harmful. One major solution we have in our present situation is to lower consumption. Luxury type taxes would lower consumption. The tax money would be applied to necessities. This would result in lowering the production of luxuries and lower employment rate, which puts more people on a lower energy diet through using less energy. Good for sustainability. Although, the unemployed should share the hours of employment that do exist to be fair.

[Michael]

The alternative to immigration is government support of the domestic birthrate using the tax system...something that is also required in western nations.

Its odd that China has used draconian measures to prevent births...while the average Japanese couple has no will to even replace themselves.

The most economically painful part of depopulation is that young people will have to support an increasing ratio of retirees.

Why is it that people are not having children? Some of the reason is (I think) that people generally
do what the TV tells them to do - mainly to "Buy Buy BUY". And also paints family life as boring. I noticed in Japan there's starting to be some TV shows on about the joys of family. I wonder.... will it work? I think it would. If the TV showed a lot of stuff telling people to have children and how wonderful it is, they'd do it. Or I think they would.

[Carcano]

Why is it that people are not having children? Some of the reason is (I think) that people generally
do what the TV tells them to do - mainly to "Buy Buy BUY". And also paints family life as boring.

Some of the reasons are economic and some cultural. Anything less than a 2.1 birthrate will eventually diminish the population to zero without immigration.

This is a problem not just in Japan but most western nations. In older agricultural societies having lots of children was a source of free labour on the farm, as well as being a form of old age security.

In a sense, the government has taken over the economic role of the extended family in modern urban civilization.

[spidergoat]

Why is it that people are not having children? Some of the reason is (I think) that people generally
do what the TV tells them to do - mainly to "Buy Buy BUY". And also paints family life as boring. I noticed in Japan there's starting to be some TV shows on about the joys of family. I wonder.... will it work? I think it would. If the TV showed a lot of stuff telling people to have children and how wonderful it is, they'd do it. Or I think they would.

Because children are expensive, and I don't find the parenting experience appealing. I would rather spend the money on myself.

[quadraphonics]

Generals are useless without soldiers, and soldiers are useless without generals...both are less useful without scientists coming up with better military technology.

And soldiers and generals who are too ignorant to employ the latest technology effectively get no benefit from the scientists.

And so it is with the economy, it cannot function without forms of employment that do not require a university or even a high school education.

So what?

Note that said forms of employment mostly don't even need to occur in a developed country, these days.

Public investment is wasted on higher education for those not suited for it, and should ideally be applied according to a bell curve graph.



On the far left are students who will barely benefit from primary school,

You realize that the far left of an IQ curve - the 2.1 percent there - represent actual mental retards, right? And that they're statistically insignificant in the first place, by definition?

The fact that the small handful of mental retards in the population don't get much out of high school (which is bullshit, actually, since the socialization they get there is of huge value to them) is not an argument that has anything to tell us about education policy in general.

in the central majority are students who will benefit from high school and technical school training, farther to the right are candidates for management and engineering positions, and at the extreme right are the geniuses best suited for pure science and mathematics.

So you agree, now, that essentially the entire population (>97%) clearly benefits from publicly-funded high school education (or higher). Glad we were able to clear that up.

Also, you sound like a total fascist ideologue, what with all of this deterministic sorting of people into fixed intellectual categories and assignment of social roles accordingly.

It takes all kinds of people to make a world,

It actually does not. The world got on for quite a long time without scientists or engineers, and will eventually have enough robots to get by without many grunts to speak of.

and government can play an ideal role in supporting its productive aspects by extracting from the unproductive.

Isn't the whole producerist complaint that the unproductive don't produce anything to extract, by definition?

But regardless, your view of the ideal government is one whose primary function is to punish people for not working hard enough? At this point I'm going to have to just ask you outright whether "fascist" is a label you're even trying to avoid?

[wellwisher]

I think the private sector should be able to tax the government. They have a lot of waste and a tax will help them tighten up their ship. I would treat government agencies like corporations and have them pay the same taxes rates the IRS charges corporations. This money goes to pay down the national debt.

The economic crisis that Obama inherited was due to people overextending themselves with debt due to easy loans. Obama is not learning from history. We need to skim money off the top and pay off the bad debt.

[iceaura]

I agree. In the past what happened was a very very very few wealthy people or people with expertise invested their capital in companies they understood quite well.

There was no time when the wealthy in general understood the companies they were putting their money into.

The wealthy are not in general overwhelmingly more intelligent, competent, or even prudent, than the rest of us.

The economic crisis that Obama inherited was due to people overextending themselves with debt due to easy loans.

Who are you talking about?

Goldman Sachs? Lehman Bros? AIG? JPMorgan? Wells Fargo? Alan Greenspan? Hank Paulson? Lloyd Blankfein? Kenneth Lay even?

Most on the left prefer a corporate tax...but considering companies taxed equally across the board will simply raise their prices to compensate, it seems clear that corporate tax is really just a sales tax in disguise.

Most on the left prefer above all a graduated or "progressive" income tax on all income.

btw: Econ 101, chapter three in your textbook: Companies do not simply raise prices to cover increased costs, because demand in usually elastic to some degree. So the normal response is to absorb some of the tax in smaller profit margins and/or higher volume, cut other costs, etc.

[Carcano]

Companies do not simply raise prices to cover increased costs, because demand in usually elastic to some degree. So the normal response is to absorb some of the tax in smaller profit margins and/or higher volume, cut other costs, etc.

Doesnt matter whether demand is elastic...companies set prices as determined entirely by their costs including tax, plus the profit margin needed to expand.

[quadraphonics]

Doesnt matter whether demand is elastic...companies set prices as determined entirely by their costs including tax, plus the profit margin needed to expand.

In a free market, companies do not have the power to "set" prices independently of demand.

Looks like iceaura should have recommended you start on Chapter one of your Econ 101 textbook.

[wellwisher]

I still think the least harmful tax would be connected to taxing government agencies as though they are corporations. A corporation has to pay 35% plus taxes, compete in the free market and turn a profit. Government agencies don't have to compete or turn a profit, so paying their share of taxes, at the corporate levels, should be easy.

For example, a grocery store provides food to the masses. We have government agencies that also provide food. The grocery store has to compete and make a profit. The government does not have to do either, so it starts having an easier job. The only thing we will add is the corporate tax which is the third thing the private sector has to deal with. I assume government was not desgned to be wasteful and incompetent and one of three constraints could be met.

The revenue would pay down the debt.

[quadraphonics]

I still think the least harmful tax would be connected to taxing government agencies as though they are corporations. A corporation has to pay 35% plus taxes, compete in the free market and turn a profit. Government agencies don't have to compete or turn a profit, so paying their share of taxes, at the corporate levels, should be easy.

Uhh... government agencies are funded by tax revenues in the first place, and doesn't produce any profits to tax.

The revenue would pay down the debt.

Why not just levy on a tax on the national debt, and use that to pay down the debt?

[wellwisher]

Government agencies have it easy. They don't have to compete or turn a profit and put all that effort to get revenue. With a government agency, the money falls from the sky in a large bundle. Already this is far easier getting to step one. Based on what they get from the sky gods, we tax it. Since the private sector still have to provide goods and services afteer their tax, we should expect the same level of service from the government agencies.

The purpose of this exercise is efficiency and not waste.

[quadraphonics]

Government agencies have it easy. They don't have to compete or turn a profit and put all that effort to get revenue.

True enough, I suppose... but:

With a government agency, the money falls from the sky in a large bundle.

No, they get that money from the taxpayers.

You really think that government agencies are funded by money literally falling from heaven?

Based on what they get from the sky gods, we tax it.

If you think that you can generate more tax revenues by having the government take back tax revenues that it has just handed to government agencies, then I don't know what to tell you. Are you saying this as a joke?

Since the private sector still have to provide goods and services afteer their tax, we should expect the same level of service from the government agencies.

The private sector gets taxed on profits, which means that the provisions come before the taxation, not after.

The purpose of this exercise is efficiency and not waste.

How do you figure?

[Carcano]

Most on the left prefer above all a graduated or "progressive" income tax on all income.

The interesting thing here is that income tax originated as a 'graduated' tax...and wasnt dreamed up by Karl Marx.

The original culprit was England's William Pitt in 1799...with a .83% tax on incomes over 60 pounds, up to 10% on incomes over 200 pounds.

Marx came along later in 1848 and included it as part of his manifesto.
Which is odd because if everyone is working for the state why have an income tax at all...instead of simply paying everybody less and taking higher profits on sales.

The graduated nature of the tax will tend to level the net incomes of the workers...making it futile to pay them a graduated income in the first place.

His ten point plan appears below:


1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.


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