6 ms·
It clearly shows how the tax system based on taking a cut from profits is totally leaky and should be abandoned. It only results in endless cat and mouse game o
by snidane 8y ago
It clearly shows how the tax system based on taking a cut from profits is totally leaky and should be abandoned. It only results in endless cat and mouse game of tax consultants (the big 4) finding loopholes in such tax systems against governments trying to plug the holes, just with much smaller budget and efficiency than the tax-evasion consulting armies.
There are other models of tax systems. Some are even not production and consumption based (you want to maximize production and consumption for growth, not stifle it with taxes). For example land taxation proposed by single-tax movement or monopoly based taxation in general. Ie. for providing a company the privilege to be a monopoly on a market, it needs to pay a fee to those guaranteeing such privileges, which is the state.
For example big pharma lobbied for its monopoly and now it is super hard for competitors to enter the market. Let these companies pay a monopoly tax for such privileges.
Other example. Somebody appropriates for himself a valuable piece of land with oil deposits. He prevents others from utilizing that land. Let him pay for having that exclusive rights of use, since clearly the government is providing private property related services (police, courts and army to guarantee his property) for him that others (non-owners) are not getting.
- microcolonel 8y agoIn my humble opinion, this has more to do with the tremendous, ever-growing cost of the EU and its member governments; as well as a lack of protective principles in their legal systems. These rulings seem to show them retroactively interpreting and applying laws which would be too vague to enforce in the U.S. The EU's courts seem so abusive and vague that there is virtually no way to avoid running afoul of them if you do any profitable business, even completely within a reasonable interpretation of the rules.
- robin_reala 8y agoI mean, your second sentence is not even remotely true. You’re implying that the chance of being sued by the EU is near 100% for every profitable business in the EU.
- microcolonel 8y ago> You’re implying that the chance of being sued by the EU is near 100% for every profitable business in the EU. I mean to say that you can be fully aware of a law, interpret it broadly, and comply with that broad interpretation to the fullest extent, and you still have a reasonably high chance of being liable for damages in a suit related to that law.
- robin_reala 8y agoIt’s a reasonable assertion, but it’s not backed up by any figures that I can imagine.
- jdoliner 8y agoI completely agree, I would love to see a monopoly based tax system. I consider property ownership just a special case of a monopoly, since you have a monopoly on that plot of land. The one question you didn't broach here though is how you set the tax rate. Current systems do this on property by looking at the sale price, but property value can change, so they use an appraisal process. That's no good, it's expensive and prone to political manipulation. I'd prefer to see a market based solution. Imagine this: at any time you can make an offer on a piece of property and submit that offer to the government, the owner of the property can either accept or reject the offer. Offers are binding, so if they accept you're required to pay. But whether or not they accept this offer becomes the new valuation of the property and they must pay taxes accordingly. This should give you a system where the taxes paid on a property are always relative to the value derived from it by the party that values it most. And property should in general wind up being owned by that party. The same basic structure should work for other monopolies like Pharma and internet infrastructure monopolies.
- stormbrew 8y agoSo you get your buddy to make you a low-ball offer on your property that you'll definitely refuse so you can pay less taxes. Then you do the same for them. Meanwhile, that person you don't like? Make a ridiculous offer on their property to either force them to move or suddenly have to pay absurd taxes.
- jdoliner 8y agoYou'd value the property based on the max offer the person had gotten, not the minimum. This gives the person you don't like the option to take your ridiculous offer and stick you with the absurd taxes. Sure they have to move, but they now have the resources to do it.
- jannes 8y agoHow many people would accept a new tax system where rich people can arbitrarily force poorer people to move?
- abraae 8y agoYou start out strongly, but then this: > Somebody appropriates for himself a valuable piece of land with oil deposits. He prevents others from utilizing that land. Let him pay for having that exclusive rights of use, since clearly the government is providing private property related services (police, courts and army to guarantee his property) for him that others (non-owners) are not getting. If by "appropriates for himself" you actually mean "buy", then your position basically boils down to an "all property is theft" manifesto.
- diplocorp 8y agoHow did the person he bought the land from acquire it?
- bryanrasmussen 8y agoWell probably they bought it to, but yeah if you go far enough back there is probably some shenanigans going on with the land much as when you pass money around in America sooner or later somebody gets cocaine on it.
- nafey 8y agoLand is extremely limited in supply. If there is one thing that should not be openly bought and sold in markets (apart from humans) it is land.
- CamperBob2 8y agoHow do you recommend allocating it, then? Difficulty: without murdering millions of people to make it happen.
- unknownkadath 8y agoWell, they seem to do OK in Hawaii. Not perfect by any stretch, but it isn't gulags and cold borcht.
- diffeomorphism 8y ago
- lkrubner 8y agoThis is a production tax: "For example land taxation proposed by single-tax movement" Land is an input to production, so this would be a production tax.
- snidane 8y agoLand means 'land use rights', not the actual soil. Rights are provided by other people. The community agrees that they won't squat on the owner's plot of land. The community is not paid for providing these rights nowadays though. You could expect an uprising of unhappy people soon.
- rorykoehler 8y agoOne interesting idea I came across lately is to abandon taxes altogether and just print money as necessary. The inflation is the tax. This allows companies and people to pursue revenue without limit whilst also allowing for all public good/needs to be met. This approach coupled with a basic income could be a very powerful enabler. The difficulty will be in learning what the limits to and pitfalls of this system are as we don't have any practical experience implementing it.
- dorgo 8y agoJust buy gold/Bitcoin/anything to dodge inflation and taxes?
- mikhailfranco 8y agoJust make the state a passive non-voting shareholder, with a stake of, say, 10%. It receives a dividend, just like any other shareholder, so interests are exactly aligned, and there's nothing management can do to avoid paying the state, while also paying shareholders. The state would benefit from share price rises by existing capital gains tax paid by the individual shareholders when they realize the equity gain. This would prevent avoidance of dividends in favor of share price appreciation through buybacks. It leaves the problem of cross-border flows, such as fradulent notional payments for intangible assets, such as licensing, which would still be able to move profits and dividends to other countries.