10 ms·

Taxes are ineffective and unjust because of loopholes which the most rich people can exploit. Government should just print more money instead.

max1984_2 6y ago
If you print money, you will typically create inflation. Which pushes prices up. Yes you can mitigate the effects for quite a while by exporting inflation and other tricks but all you are doing is kicking the can down the road. If you want a "fair" tax. You would have a sales tax. Richer people and larger companies will typically spend more money than smaller businesses or poorer people and therefore will will pay a large proportion of tax and it will be taken at the point of purchase.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Sales tax is a joke to the very rich and powerful. A guy with million dollars does not have to spend 1000x more on products and services than a regular guy with 1000 dollars. He uses that big money in different ways that do not get taxed by the sales tax. On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same.
  - max1984_2 6y ago
    > Sales tax is a joke to the very rich and powerful. A guy with million dollars does not have to spend 1000x more on products and services than a regular guy with 1000 dollars. He uses that big money in different ways that do not get taxed by the sales tax. They literally do spend a lot more of products and services than a regular Joe on the street, a sales tax would be taken at the point of purchase. Flash cars, fancy furnishings etc don't just come out of thin air. > On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same. Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people. It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc. I don't wish to be rude but you haven't thought this through.
    - posix_me_less 6y ago
      > They literally do spend a lot more of products and services Yes, but not that much more. The smart rich people do not waste money like that. > Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people. Yes, but that is the case even now. I am not proposing any big change from status quo regarding devaluation. > It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc. That is true. It also does not affect the regular Joe who buys physical goods that appreciates in time. And devaluation helps the poor guy who is indebted and has to pay back with interest.
thehappypm 6y ago
The reason why this wouldn't work is really interesting, actually. Money has meaning in large part because of taxes; you need a certain amount of money because you owe the government. Since you need money to pay taxes (and therefore buy things, earn income, or own property) money has value. In Ancient Rome, armies would enter conquered areas, carrying coins. Everyone in the conquered area was expected to pay a tax of (say) 20 coins to the army each year or face punishment. The newly conquered citizens, then, had no choice but to find ways to get coins from these soldiers so that they could pay their taxes. Farmers would trade food for these coins. Merchants would trade goods. These coins suddenly had value. If the soldiers suddenly stopped the taxation, do you think the coins would retain their value?
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  This is just one point of view of money and taxes, a mechanism to extract value from conquered population. This probably still happens in 21 century, but I hope we can see beyond that, at least in 1st and 2nd world. Money infrastructure for most people there is primarily a convenient bookkeeping mechanism for trade. In most cases, government should not directly involve itself with such trades. Towards your question, if soldiers stopped taxation, their supervisors would rectify that eventually. If Rome stopped taxation of conquered populations, the coins would still retain value in Rome.

max1984_2 6y ago

If you print money, you will typically create inflation. Which pushes prices up. Yes you can mitigate the effects for quite a while by exporting inflation and other tricks but all you are doing is kicking the can down the road. If you want a "fair" tax. You would have a sales tax. Richer people and larger companies will typically spend more money than smaller businesses or poorer people and therefore will will pay a large proportion of tax and it will be taken at the point of purchase.

posix_me_less 6y ago
Sales tax is a joke to the very rich and powerful. A guy with million dollars does not have to spend 1000x more on products and services than a regular guy with 1000 dollars. He uses that big money in different ways that do not get taxed by the sales tax. On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same.
- max1984_2 6y ago
  > Sales tax is a joke to the very rich and powerful. A guy with million dollars does not have to spend 1000x more on products and services than a regular guy with 1000 dollars. He uses that big money in different ways that do not get taxed by the sales tax. They literally do spend a lot more of products and services than a regular Joe on the street, a sales tax would be taken at the point of purchase. Flash cars, fancy furnishings etc don't just come out of thin air. > On the other hand, inflation taxes every positive-valued bank account roughly the same. Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people. It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc. I don't wish to be rude but you haven't thought this through.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    > They literally do spend a lot more of products and services Yes, but not that much more. The smart rich people do not waste money like that. > Inflation wrecks (the typically meagre) savings of regular people. Yes, but that is the case even now. I am not proposing any big change from status quo regarding devaluation. > It does not affect the wealthy who will have diversified investments and that will include things that are a hedge against inflation such as (but not limited to) precious metals, overseas investments etc. etc. That is true. It also does not affect the regular Joe who buys physical goods that appreciates in time. And devaluation helps the poor guy who is indebted and has to pay back with interest.

thehappypm 6y ago

The reason why this wouldn't work is really interesting, actually. Money has meaning in large part because of taxes; you need a certain amount of money because you owe the government. Since you need money to pay taxes (and therefore buy things, earn income, or own property) money has value. In Ancient Rome, armies would enter conquered areas, carrying coins. Everyone in the conquered area was expected to pay a tax of (say) 20 coins to the army each year or face punishment. The newly conquered citizens, then, had no choice but to find ways to get coins from these soldiers so that they could pay their taxes. Farmers would trade food for these coins. Merchants would trade goods. These coins suddenly had value. If the soldiers suddenly stopped the taxation, do you think the coins would retain their value?

posix_me_less 6y ago
This is just one point of view of money and taxes, a mechanism to extract value from conquered population. This probably still happens in 21 century, but I hope we can see beyond that, at least in 1st and 2nd world. Money infrastructure for most people there is primarily a convenient bookkeeping mechanism for trade. In most cases, government should not directly involve itself with such trades. Towards your question, if soldiers stopped taxation, their supervisors would rectify that eventually. If Rome stopped taxation of conquered populations, the coins would still retain value in Rome.