Personal Income tax. For or Against ? (2 Viewers)

[Uncle]

the rich prick should pay more moneys in tax what the fuck

 

[Sir-BigBoyJames]

If we analyze the taxation system, we understand that every individual in society acquires their income through hard work and perseverance. This "income" that we make can be through the sale of our bodies, goods and services or voluntary exchange.
But for all the hard work the individuals in our society do for ourselves, the government is the only entity in any society that acquires its revenue through Coercion.

Why is the government the only entity that doesn't have to work to EARN its own money? If we look at the system in the naked sense, taxation is legalized and organized theft on a grand scale. Taxation IS robbery.

 

[loquasagacious]

Interesting thought that decreasing taxes (in isolation) could decrease wages. Think of it like this if everyone's costs stayed the same but they were suddenly earning more by not paying tax there would be significant incentives for individuals to undercut each other in wage negotiations (or for firms to exert downward pressure as employees would accept it).

Also as an aside I pay 48% marginal rate.

 

[ablle]

Why is the government the only entity that doesn't have to work to EARN its own money? If we look at the system in the naked sense, taxation is legalized and organized theft on a grand scale. Taxation IS robbery.

You could argue that it does earn its money by providing goods and services for the public (regardless of whether you think those goods and services could be provided more effectively by the private sector). Also, afaik, taxation is economically good because it redistributes income to lower income earners who spend proportionately more, thus boosting economic growth. I'm pretty sure that's right.

Also, why do people think we are getting taxed too much? I voted "It's about right", but I don't know much about the tax system (no tax for me!).

 

[loquasagacious]

Touché.

In any case I'm a believer in reducing the personal income tax rate. The model which resonates most with me is the 30/30 model e.g. 30% income tax coming in at $30K. No deductions, no offsets. Having said this I would also make some changes to the model:
- No negative income tax (NIT) or a NIT of 50-60% otherwise this model is grossly unfair to the unemployed.
- Increase GST slightly to offset the reduction in income tax revenue.
- And a bunch of other changes around the edges.

 

[KFunk]

If we analyze the taxation system, we understand that every individual in society acquires their income through hard work and perseverance. This "income" that we make can be through the sale of our bodies, goods and services or voluntary exchange.

You are ignoring the fact that an individual's income and property are also largely a function of their physical and social attributes which are distributed unevenly in society. The former are essentially given (ignoring biotechnology and the like) while the latter are little more than arbitrary. Whether one is born female, black (yes, 'female' and 'black' are social as well as biological categories), poor, rural or otherwise has, variably over the course of history, typically limited the ease with which one may increas one's holdings or social standing. There is no hard work or perseverance involved, on the part of the individual in question, in simply being born a male WASP into a wealthy, upper-class family in a nice suburb of a wealthy country.

Why is the government the only entity that doesn't have to work to EARN its own money? If we look at the system in the naked sense, taxation is legalized and organized theft on a grand scale. Taxation IS robbery.

The government in a typical liberal democracy is a categorically distinct entity from things like individuals, households and businesses. I'm not sure why it should be so affronting that such a government acquires money in a different way?

Taxation IS robbery = overused rehetoric (private property is theft of that which is held in common?)

 

[Pace_T]

Why?

A little off topic maybe, but not all high income earners pay 45c in the dollar. The marginal rates say they should, but all those top bracket earners ($150k+) I know are smart enough to explore all possible options of [legally] reducing their tax. As they should.

A "flat rate" taxation system is always spruiked by those that don't understand the dynamics of the tax environment.

lol ok.
where ever there seems to be a loop hole in tax obligations the ato have done some patchwork. the rich pay a lot more tax than you think, nub

 

[SylviaB]

What about the roads?
Won't somebody think about the roads?!?

 

[blue_chameleon]

lol ok.
where ever there seems to be a loop hole in tax obligations the ato have done some patchwork. the rich pay a lot more tax than you think, nub

Family trusts, son. Family trusts.

It's got nothing to do with deductions or tax havens etc, and everything to do the structure that you build wealth.

But whatevs, il concede I know nothing.

 

[KFunk]

Why is the government "categorically distinct?" When you strip it of its fancy titles, it is just a group of people. What gives them the right to use force to compel people to do things against their will?

Its not good enough to say simply being a 'liberal democracy' makes this legitimate. It is simply a dictatorship of the majority. The fact that the majority of people within a certain area may want something, does not give them a right to impose it on a minority. Or a JS Mill puts it; "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

A government is a group of people organised in a particular social relation. That something is a government, in the broad use of the term, does not ensure legitimacy, but I am inclined to think that legitimate taxation is possible. In part I think the answer lies in debunking the myth of free, rational agents. We are irrational, short-sighted and emotionally driven. Most notably there are strong arguments which aim to show that our natural form of morality, which is adapted for small community living, is maladapted for life in the global economy in which we must regularly make choice which impact on an unknown other. For similar reasons it seems unlikely that our salvation lies in charity. Therefore I wish to at least posit possibility (of the open-minded, rather than philosophical, variety) that philosophy or institutional structures may play a role in correcting for our failings.

By no means do I intend the above to be a complete argument. It is merely a sketch of relevant thoughts.

Ok, there is some merit in this. At some point most land became private property simply because it was seized by force. But today, private property is rarely acquired by force.

It is almost always acquired by voluntary exchange or the production of new things (i.e. mixing labor with capital.

However, the government does not acquire property in this way. If you continually refuse to pay taxes, it will lock you up, and if you try to resist or escape it will kill you. Its important to remember that taxes are backed up by this underlying threat of very dire consequences.

You have sidestepped this crucial difference, and failed to explain why it is legitimate.

Today private property is built upon private property which was previously acquired by force. We continue to live off the fat of the exploited and disenfranchised. Taxation helps us to address this inequity through service provision and redistribution of wealth. It doesn't bother me that a group of anarcho-capitalists are offended by this policy.

 

[KFunk]

P.S. My criticisms are not simply driven by a social democratic leaning. In moral discourse I tend to endorse a form of moral nihilism in so far as I think objective, normative moral (/political) truths are a load of bunk. It is primarily for this reason that I find libertarian dogmatism to be so silly.

In personal terms I dislike libertarian politics because my own political preferences fall closer to social democracy. In theoretical terms it is moral dogmatism to which I am opposed, especially when voiced in phrases like "taxation is theft", unless underscored by a more modest framework.

 

[KFunk]

Good point, sup monkey sphere. There is a strong case that people will see others who are suffering as being too remote from them to help them voluntarily.

The problem I see, is that government intervention also fails to address the problem adequately. Its hard to prove, but there is certainly a case that welfare dependence helps perpetuate relative poverty.

My intuition is that our intellectual failings seem to suggest that government intervention of some form will be required to overcome these failings. What form this government should take is less clear.

Also, what is the monkey sphere? Google seems to make clear that it is a meme of some sort (where did it originate?).

Ah, but taxation does not distinguish between legitimately acquired property and that which if traced far back enough could be said to have been illegitimately acquired.

The fundamental problem is that it punishes people who are productive and are contributing to the wealth of society, and creates a disincentive for people to perform this crucial function.

Aye, of course not - it is only an approximation (and an extremely rough one at that). I am open to alternative proposals, however, the sheer impossibility of constructing a full history of economic transactions requires that we approximate at some point.

Also, I feel that the disincentive is tolerable if it allows us to better address the inequities that we find in scoeity. To pimp Locke - if the unfettered accumulation of wealth by the individual fails to leave 'as much and as good' for others, or if the productive market fails to significantly better the situation of the depraved then I do not see the moral imperative of productivity.

I'm pretty sure more people than a few anarcho-capitalists are offended by taxation, or at the very least, by the current rates.

and you still haven't really addressed the threats of violence to enforce taxation criticism yet.

The threat of violence doesn't bother me that much because it stands only as a threat. I am assuming that anarcho-capitalists are generally aware of the consequences of not paying tax - just as they are aware of the dubious status of vandalism, speeding and possession of firearms (to examples which are more controversial than murder and the like). The law limits freedom in all sorts of way. Granted, it is imperfect, but I feel that we would do well to come to accept this. A perfect political constitution is, in my opinion, a Platonic pipedream. If individuals choose to evade tax then they do so knowing full well that there are potential consequences (just as they do when they drive too fast or carry a firearm).

 

[bayside9]

I think that the tax its a bit unfair for those that earn a middle class wage. Also flaws within the system such, an example being someone who earns over 100k being able to spit the income with his wife such that his wife won't have to work and will pay a huge amount less tax than anyone else. Fairness vs Equality?

 

[KFunk]

So you can use violence, and threats of violence, as long as you make people aware of the threats and act consistently?

So if I say, "I will kill you if you make a post the disagrees with me", and I establish clear guidelines as to what constitutes such a post, if you then disobey me, is it legitimate for me to kill you?

No (=strawman), because your restriction on positing does not serve a socially useful purpose (amongst other things). Surely you can be fairer in your exposition than that. I did not say that threats of violence legitimate further violence as long as people are aware of these threats. I assume that you allow for violence against individuals who kill or assault others? My logic will, at least in part, be similar, but with relevant extensions to address the differences in terms of freedom/harm etc.

Re: firearms and other "laws that limit freedom"; likening taxation to other things you know I disagree with does not bolster your argument. Its just an appeal to authority.

I'm trying to help you understand my views rather than trying to form a forceful argument (and less still one which appeals to authority). I chose those examples because I know that you disagree with them on the grounds of freedom - this is why they are relevant (and murder is not).

The point is to show you the analogy I draw between things like taxation and restrictions on firearms, in so far as I view them as restrictions on freedom which can be justified on the pragmatic grounds of their collective benefit. Again, the aim here is understanding --> I am trying to show you that I have a political alternative which is internally coherent (or at least roughly so).

<3 pluralism (as long as it is my pluralism!)

 

[blue_chameleon]

I think that the tax its a bit unfair for those that earn a middle class wage. Also flaws within the system such, an example being someone who earns over 100k being able to spit the income with his wife such that his wife won't have to work and will pay a huge amount less tax than anyone else. Fairness vs Equality?

If his wife does ample work to justify being paid, then I don't see any issue with income-splitting.

Are there really moral issues with people finding smart/innovative solutions [provided they are within the law, of course] to "problems", even if they do relate to taxation?

The smartest person will always be one step ahead of any changes.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

They can if you privatise everything, abolish most public goods and services.

Which, accepting that you're not a token Libertarian (I dunno, you might have changed for the worse), is ludicrous.

 

[blue_chameleon]

lol ok.
where ever there seems to be a loop hole in tax obligations the ato have done some patchwork. the rich pay a lot more tax than you think, nub

...Using family trusts to minimise tax by distributing income among family members will be harder, with the Government extending tax file number withholding arrangements for so called "closely held trusts" to ensure distributions paid to beneficiaries are the same as the amount included by those beneficiaries on their tax returns.
The measure, expected to raise up to $50 million a year, would stop rorts such as pretending to pay an out-of-work brother $70,000 a year to mow the lawn...

Pace T, this is more what I was referring to regarding perfectly legal avenues to distribute income through a family using a Family Trust structure.

It's only now through this budget that it's being addressed. However, there's still ample room to move with these new restrictions, and people will continue to exploit this.

Go see a tax planner.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Its a constant game of cat and mouse. The government closes a loophole and people find a new one to exploit.

In the process of collecting revenue, we pay a fortune to a whole bunch of unproductive bureaucrats and equally unproductive people in the tax minimization industry to play this silly little game.

It is indeed.

It's in anyone's best interest to legally reduce their tax liabilities through exploring the workings of the system. The naive think otherwise.

Even with these new measures introduced by the Rudd Govt, they seem to largely miss the target. Clawing back a whole $50 million a year isn't exactly a large amount given the amount tax savings my people realise through using the Family Trust structures.

Anyway, back on topic I guess...