4 ms·

This is about state-level tax revenue, not federal-level. Plenty of states don't have a sales tax.

by gph 9y ago

neverminder 9y ago
I guess what I was trying to say why don't they just scrap all state sales tax in favor of one country wide tax like VAT.
- abfan1127 9y ago
  because we are a federation of states, with whats supposed to be a thin layer of federal government intended to only make sure the states play nicely with eachother, provide a post office, and a national defense. Clearly, we've gotten away from these basic services.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  "New" Federal taxes in the US - even if they make sense and just replace a different one - are basically a non-starter in the current political climate.
- gph 9y ago
  Why doesn't the EU scrap all state level VAT for an EU wide VAT?
- ergothus 9y ago
  US attitudes and logic about taxes are quite different, particularly in the last 30 years. In my mind, the main difference is the attitude about the role and benefits of govt - see the "you didn't build that" debate, that I believe would viewed as obvious in most European countries and yet was used as fodder for political attacks in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
  - nybble41 9y ago
    The "you didn't build that" debate is an excellent example of why the role of so-called "public goods" should be minimized at all costs. Normally, when someone else has a good or service you'd like to use, you negotiate a price and—assuming you reach a mutually agreeable accommodation—pay them for the privilege at the time of use. That's the end of it; the books remain balanced. Contrast this with the "you didn't build that" argument, which amounts to "we think you once may have benefitted from something we did without consulting you, so you owe us a share of your profits from now until the end of time". As a moral argument (i.e. saying that an individual should contribute back voluntarily) this claim is tenuous at best; as a justification for simply taking a share of the profits (i.e. taxation) it falls completely flat.
    - ergothus 9y ago
      Interesting. I see it as a bit orthogonal: Even if you negotiate with private parties, you are still dependent upon the system and should support the system. In many cases this is public goods, but any system (free market, a positive anarchy, socialism) has actions you can take to support or oppose (make harder) the system. In essence: Unless you're in the woods fashioning your own clothes, tools, shelter, education, communication, transportation, health care, using only natural resources that fully replenish, you're dependent on some system. The level of dependency varies, and the nature and level of support varies, but it is present. > which amounts to "we think you once may have benefitted from something we did without consulting you, so you owe us a share of your profits from now until the end of time". A fairly biased-sounding interpretation, particularly the "once may have benefitted". The whole point of the argument is that there are so many assets that are not of your making: Educated workers. Healthy workers. Means of transportation. Educated customers. Healthy customers. Ways to communicate. I can see arguing if these are more/less efficient or reliable via free market vs another system, but to say "once may have benefitted" is pretty disingenuous. Heck, living to be old enough to MAKE the clever decisions, being educated enough at that time (oh, you were home schooled? How did your instructor learn what they learned?) and healthy enough (how do we know what IS healthy? One need only look at certain remedies that are still passed around today to see we can't just count on our own opinions on cause/effect) and had customers likewise, and a common currency, not to mention not having someone with enough friends and weapons take everything away from you - these didn't manifest because someone is just that awesome, they are the result of a system. Re: Taxation, here's a libertarian-friendly argument: Let's imagine a group of people get together and agree to a set of rules. They agree on consequences for breaking those rules. Now you have a govt and taxation. "But _I_ didn't choose these!" you declare. True. I support that people should be able to revoke their citizenship and leave. "But it's not fair to have these rules forced upon me! I should be able to stay, or..." It totally isn't "fair". Or is it? How do you define "fair"? Regardless, there are number of ways to set your own rules that have been proven to work: negotiate a price in a mutually agreeable accommodation with enough people to enforce the rules you want. We call this government, and one of the rules is taxation. Most agreed-upon sets of rules define additional ways to change the rules, but with or without those changes, all governments are such systems. I truly do support the idea that people should be able to revoke their citizenship, because being born and early childhood are a place where you have no choices - but you don't get to keep "your" land and "your" property when they ARE the result of the system you are rejecting. An investment manager doesn't get to keep all the profit they generate because THEY increased the value - a 200% return is still 0 if you start with 0. But yeah, if anyone wants to leave that isn't a criminal, I think the system should support it. They are welcome to find some place to live that isn't already under the control of a group of free-thinkers that have leveraged their natural talents to be able to enforce their rules. Good luck to them. Outside of that, I don't understand the argument that governments are somehow inherently evil when they are the direct result of the very principles that argument is arguing in favor of.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

This is about state-level tax revenue, not federal-level. Plenty of states don't have a sales tax.

by gph 9y ago

This is about state-level tax revenue, not federal-level. Plenty of states don't have a sales tax.

I guess what I was trying to say why don't they just scrap all state sales tax in favor of one country wide tax like VAT.

abfan1127 9y ago
because we are a federation of states, with whats supposed to be a thin layer of federal government intended to only make sure the states play nicely with eachother, provide a post office, and a national defense. Clearly, we've gotten away from these basic services.
ceejayoz 9y ago
"New" Federal taxes in the US - even if they make sense and just replace a different one - are basically a non-starter in the current political climate.
gph 9y ago
Why doesn't the EU scrap all state level VAT for an EU wide VAT?
ergothus 9y ago
US attitudes and logic about taxes are quite different, particularly in the last 30 years. In my mind, the main difference is the attitude about the role and benefits of govt - see the "you didn't build that" debate, that I believe would viewed as obvious in most European countries and yet was used as fodder for political attacks in the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that
- nybble41 9y ago
  The "you didn't build that" debate is an excellent example of why the role of so-called "public goods" should be minimized at all costs. Normally, when someone else has a good or service you'd like to use, you negotiate a price and—assuming you reach a mutually agreeable accommodation—pay them for the privilege at the time of use. That's the end of it; the books remain balanced. Contrast this with the "you didn't build that" argument, which amounts to "we think you once may have benefitted from something we did without consulting you, so you owe us a share of your profits from now until the end of time". As a moral argument (i.e. saying that an individual should contribute back voluntarily) this claim is tenuous at best; as a justification for simply taking a share of the profits (i.e. taxation) it falls completely flat.
  - ergothus 9y ago
    Interesting. I see it as a bit orthogonal: Even if you negotiate with private parties, you are still dependent upon the system and should support the system. In many cases this is public goods, but any system (free market, a positive anarchy, socialism) has actions you can take to support or oppose (make harder) the system. In essence: Unless you're in the woods fashioning your own clothes, tools, shelter, education, communication, transportation, health care, using only natural resources that fully replenish, you're dependent on some system. The level of dependency varies, and the nature and level of support varies, but it is present. > which amounts to "we think you once may have benefitted from something we did without consulting you, so you owe us a share of your profits from now until the end of time". A fairly biased-sounding interpretation, particularly the "once may have benefitted". The whole point of the argument is that there are so many assets that are not of your making: Educated workers. Healthy workers. Means of transportation. Educated customers. Healthy customers. Ways to communicate. I can see arguing if these are more/less efficient or reliable via free market vs another system, but to say "once may have benefitted" is pretty disingenuous. Heck, living to be old enough to MAKE the clever decisions, being educated enough at that time (oh, you were home schooled? How did your instructor learn what they learned?) and healthy enough (how do we know what IS healthy? One need only look at certain remedies that are still passed around today to see we can't just count on our own opinions on cause/effect) and had customers likewise, and a common currency, not to mention not having someone with enough friends and weapons take everything away from you - these didn't manifest because someone is just that awesome, they are the result of a system. Re: Taxation, here's a libertarian-friendly argument: Let's imagine a group of people get together and agree to a set of rules. They agree on consequences for breaking those rules. Now you have a govt and taxation. "But _I_ didn't choose these!" you declare. True. I support that people should be able to revoke their citizenship and leave. "But it's not fair to have these rules forced upon me! I should be able to stay, or..." It totally isn't "fair". Or is it? How do you define "fair"? Regardless, there are number of ways to set your own rules that have been proven to work: negotiate a price in a mutually agreeable accommodation with enough people to enforce the rules you want. We call this government, and one of the rules is taxation. Most agreed-upon sets of rules define additional ways to change the rules, but with or without those changes, all governments are such systems. I truly do support the idea that people should be able to revoke their citizenship, because being born and early childhood are a place where you have no choices - but you don't get to keep "your" land and "your" property when they ARE the result of the system you are rejecting. An investment manager doesn't get to keep all the profit they generate because THEY increased the value - a 200% return is still 0 if you start with 0. But yeah, if anyone wants to leave that isn't a criminal, I think the system should support it. They are welcome to find some place to live that isn't already under the control of a group of free-thinkers that have leveraged their natural talents to be able to enforce their rules. Good luck to them. Outside of that, I don't understand the argument that governments are somehow inherently evil when they are the direct result of the very principles that argument is arguing in favor of.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]