6 ms·

The simplest solution for countries like Serbia is just to adopt poll taxes and property taxes, perhaps with a flat income tax of 5% without payroll taxes, and

The simplest solution for countries like Serbia is just to adopt poll taxes and property taxes, perhaps with a flat income tax of 5% without payroll taxes, and to make participation in the welfare state entirely optional and privatised. If low taxes like this are formally embraced, then instead of working as individual freelancers, Serbians can instead formally create companies and increase their productive output and market power. Money could be retained inside the economy and reinvested, instead of hoarded in USD, EUR or BTC. The problem is that it is just too appealing for politicians to run giant taxation and redistribution systems, in order to maintain a voting mass of Government workers and pensioners (and to feed money into their corruption pipelines).

mantas 6y ago
Then people will go the cheap way and hope nothing wrong happens to them. But statistics is a bitch and it will inevitable happen to some. Then they'll start asking around for payouts. We sort of had this in 90s and 00s in ex-USSR when not paying taxes was completely normal. The result is not pretty if you want to have a functioning society.
- ArkanExplorer 6y ago
  Living in Serbia is cheap. Most people have extensive families. If they run out of work, they can move back to the countryside, to live with their father or grandmother. Charities can also fill in the gaps. The question is whether Serbia wants an advanced economy, with individual and corporate transparency and opportunity, or a stagnant welfare state.
  - mantas 6y ago
    If Serbia is not a very interesting exception, the intergenerational links are (sadly) fracturing day by day. While that may have worked a decade ago, that sure won't work a decade or two from now. And social system shall plan for what is coming. While at it, we could also change pension system. If your kids emigrate (or you didn't have any), then you get only half of the minimum payout :)
    - ArkanExplorer 6y ago
      The primary expense of living in the West is rent and housing - due to mass immigration driving up populations beyond their natural size (given that fertility rates are sub-replacement in practically every Western country). By contrast the primary expense of living in the 'East' is food and energy. For many people, housing is practically or exactly free. The Serbian population is already down about a million people from its peak: https://www.populationpyramid.net/serbia/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/serbia/2019/ There is a lot of cheap real-estate out there outside cities. What might make more sense is to have food kitchens and standardised subsidised housing for the poor and out of work. This kind of work could be done super-efficiently at a national level. The other factor is that things like pension and welfare expenses are basically known expenses. It doesn't make sense to charge a % of consumption or income (thereby disincentivizing both of them). Just share the burden across everyone of working age with a poll tax, and to the rich with a property tax (with a credit for the number of children under age 16, to avoid penalizing families). You can find other externalities to tax like drugs, road use, and fossil fuels. The USA, UK, Scandinavia, Australia have embraced these kind of transparent and simple taxes, and their societies are much wealthier because of them.
      - Acinyx 6y ago
        > The USA, UK, Scandinavia, Australia have embraced these kind of transparent and simple taxes, and their societies are much wealthier because of them. Eh, scandinavia doesn't use poll taxes but all have progressive tax rates (Just like the rest of northern Europe)? And AFAIK the UK and US also use progressive tax rates?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        > The USA, UK, Scandinavia, Australia have embraced these kind of transparent and simple taxes, and their societies are much wealthier because of them. This is nonsense. All of these states have complex and much higher rates of income tax than Serbia, plus consumption taxes. The UK tried a poll tax once and there were riots, up to a third of people refused to pay and it was one of the main reasons a Prime Minister of 11 years lost her job to someone who promised to replace it. And that was a relatively low one just to fund local services with a reduced rate for registered unemployed. Of all the potential income tax alternatives it is undoubtedly the worst. It makes far more sense to distribute the burden of paying for pensions according to current ability to afford it than to force people to pay money they don't have into a scheme which simply promises to give it back decades later if they're still alive.
  - hkt 6y ago
    FYI, the UK has a welfare state that works fine for many people. So do many other Western countries. It seems to me that you're presenting a false dichotomy here - one which appears to be based on your own ideological view of the world, rather than evidence.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      FYI, Europe threw away their welfare states when they allowed unemployed African economic migrants into their countries. A country cannot just add 5%-10% in population dependent on welfare and still pay for their obligations to legal residents. Looking forward to the news when the bill comes due. Big up to Poland and Hungary for their foresight in building border fences to enforce legal immigration.
raelmiu 6y ago
This is an excellent point. It's too politically advantageous to run huge systems.
jariel 6y ago
No, people won't save enough for retirement or major health issues. It's an existential problem. Serbia is 7M people for gosh stakes it's the size of Greater Toronto or Chicago, there doesn't need to be a 'giant bureaucracy'.
- djbebs 6y ago
  Then they will die. You can't save people from themselves.
  - hkt 6y ago
    This attitude is precisely why people pursue socialist policies. I'm from the UK and have benefited hugely from socialist healthcare policies that even our conservatives pay lip service to supporting. There's an awful lot of libertarian, social darwinist claptrap in threads on this post. It gets away from the fact that what has happened is a relatively newly capitalist country has made a very substantial error to its citizens' cost, and there exists a possibility of injustice alongside the possibility that the rule of law may appear to be being ignored, depending on when the law changed. It isn't an opportunity to be performatively callous.
  - jariel 6y ago
    This is the thinking of poor countries, like Croatia, Zambia, Tajikistan. All rich countries have some kind of basic retirement benefits and some measure public medical care (the US spends more per capita on socialized medicine than does Canada) - this is partly why they are rich. It's not even controversial anymore, it hasn't been for 70 years.
    - neartheplain 6y ago
      >This is the thinking of poor countries, like Croatia Croatia’s had pretty decent universal healthcare for many years.
    - Annatar 6y ago
      Croatia is anything but poor; can you imagine how rich a country must be to support Western Europe with labor, natural resources, defense and financial wealth for 600 years without interruptions? I know of no other country which has managed such a feat hitherto, do you? Croats just save differently to others due to corruption and adversity in their country: an average Croat's wealth is in real estate. As there is no real estate tax on primary abode, real estate ownership is high, while the mortgage debt is almost nonexistent. Where do you think 7.5 billion euros which pour in every Summer from tourism go? That money mostly ends up in the newly built villas on the coast.
pjc50 6y ago
> an advanced economy, with individual and corporate transparency and opportunity, or a welfare state. These are not in conflict, they are complimentary; the welfare state is necessary for individual opportunity to flourish, rather than a purely family/connections system. Nowhere has successfully done the "low tax advanced economy without a welfare state" transition without also being a tiny tax haven or having a massive natural resource to sell off.
imtringued 6y ago
This is just stupid. Children don't have an income but they would be subject to a poll tax. In fact, you would run into the same problem with inmates in prison. Not only is a part of the population unable to work, there is a part of the population that is not allowed to work at all. If we are going to have a pissing contest about tax reforms the we should abolish corporate income tax and capital gains tax and replace both with slightly lowered income taxes. After you did this simplification you would then replace income taxes by land value taxes. This wouldn't get rid of things like mandatory health insurance contributions. I'm honestly pissed how companies are forced to play tax games for the global race to the bottom. Nothing should stand in the way of a honest corporation earning money through productive work. They shouldn't do weird things like stockpile cash abroad and get into debt within the country. No company should prefer stock buybacks over dividends simply because of tax efficiency. All of this is stupid and that is why we should get rid of it. Meanwhile your idea is just your own flavor of "private market over everything".
inglor_cz 6y ago
Margaret Thatcher had a famous problem implementing a scheme likened to a poll tax. If a proposed solution could not be implemented by the Iron Lady, it can hardly be called "simple".

mantas 6y ago

Then people will go the cheap way and hope nothing wrong happens to them. But statistics is a bitch and it will inevitable happen to some. Then they'll start asking around for payouts. We sort of had this in 90s and 00s in ex-USSR when not paying taxes was completely normal. The result is not pretty if you want to have a functioning society.

ArkanExplorer 6y ago
Living in Serbia is cheap. Most people have extensive families. If they run out of work, they can move back to the countryside, to live with their father or grandmother. Charities can also fill in the gaps. The question is whether Serbia wants an advanced economy, with individual and corporate transparency and opportunity, or a stagnant welfare state.
- mantas 6y ago
  If Serbia is not a very interesting exception, the intergenerational links are (sadly) fracturing day by day. While that may have worked a decade ago, that sure won't work a decade or two from now. And social system shall plan for what is coming. While at it, we could also change pension system. If your kids emigrate (or you didn't have any), then you get only half of the minimum payout :)
  - ArkanExplorer 6y ago
    The primary expense of living in the West is rent and housing - due to mass immigration driving up populations beyond their natural size (given that fertility rates are sub-replacement in practically every Western country). By contrast the primary expense of living in the 'East' is food and energy. For many people, housing is practically or exactly free. The Serbian population is already down about a million people from its peak: https://www.populationpyramid.net/serbia/2019/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/serbia/2019/ There is a lot of cheap real-estate out there outside cities. What might make more sense is to have food kitchens and standardised subsidised housing for the poor and out of work. This kind of work could be done super-efficiently at a national level. The other factor is that things like pension and welfare expenses are basically known expenses. It doesn't make sense to charge a % of consumption or income (thereby disincentivizing both of them). Just share the burden across everyone of working age with a poll tax, and to the rich with a property tax (with a credit for the number of children under age 16, to avoid penalizing families). You can find other externalities to tax like drugs, road use, and fossil fuels. The USA, UK, Scandinavia, Australia have embraced these kind of transparent and simple taxes, and their societies are much wealthier because of them.
    - Acinyx 6y ago
      > The USA, UK, Scandinavia, Australia have embraced these kind of transparent and simple taxes, and their societies are much wealthier because of them. Eh, scandinavia doesn't use poll taxes but all have progressive tax rates (Just like the rest of northern Europe)? And AFAIK the UK and US also use progressive tax rates?
    - notahacker 6y ago
      > The USA, UK, Scandinavia, Australia have embraced these kind of transparent and simple taxes, and their societies are much wealthier because of them. This is nonsense. All of these states have complex and much higher rates of income tax than Serbia, plus consumption taxes. The UK tried a poll tax once and there were riots, up to a third of people refused to pay and it was one of the main reasons a Prime Minister of 11 years lost her job to someone who promised to replace it. And that was a relatively low one just to fund local services with a reduced rate for registered unemployed. Of all the potential income tax alternatives it is undoubtedly the worst. It makes far more sense to distribute the burden of paying for pensions according to current ability to afford it than to force people to pay money they don't have into a scheme which simply promises to give it back decades later if they're still alive.
- hkt 6y ago
  FYI, the UK has a welfare state that works fine for many people. So do many other Western countries. It seems to me that you're presenting a false dichotomy here - one which appears to be based on your own ideological view of the world, rather than evidence.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    FYI, Europe threw away their welfare states when they allowed unemployed African economic migrants into their countries. A country cannot just add 5%-10% in population dependent on welfare and still pay for their obligations to legal residents. Looking forward to the news when the bill comes due. Big up to Poland and Hungary for their foresight in building border fences to enforce legal immigration.

raelmiu 6y ago

This is an excellent point. It's too politically advantageous to run huge systems.

jariel 6y ago

No, people won't save enough for retirement or major health issues. It's an existential problem. Serbia is 7M people for gosh stakes it's the size of Greater Toronto or Chicago, there doesn't need to be a 'giant bureaucracy'.

djbebs 6y ago
Then they will die. You can't save people from themselves.
- hkt 6y ago
  This attitude is precisely why people pursue socialist policies. I'm from the UK and have benefited hugely from socialist healthcare policies that even our conservatives pay lip service to supporting. There's an awful lot of libertarian, social darwinist claptrap in threads on this post. It gets away from the fact that what has happened is a relatively newly capitalist country has made a very substantial error to its citizens' cost, and there exists a possibility of injustice alongside the possibility that the rule of law may appear to be being ignored, depending on when the law changed. It isn't an opportunity to be performatively callous.
- jariel 6y ago
  This is the thinking of poor countries, like Croatia, Zambia, Tajikistan. All rich countries have some kind of basic retirement benefits and some measure public medical care (the US spends more per capita on socialized medicine than does Canada) - this is partly why they are rich. It's not even controversial anymore, it hasn't been for 70 years.
  - neartheplain 6y ago
    >This is the thinking of poor countries, like Croatia Croatia’s had pretty decent universal healthcare for many years.
  - Annatar 6y ago
    Croatia is anything but poor; can you imagine how rich a country must be to support Western Europe with labor, natural resources, defense and financial wealth for 600 years without interruptions? I know of no other country which has managed such a feat hitherto, do you? Croats just save differently to others due to corruption and adversity in their country: an average Croat's wealth is in real estate. As there is no real estate tax on primary abode, real estate ownership is high, while the mortgage debt is almost nonexistent. Where do you think 7.5 billion euros which pour in every Summer from tourism go? That money mostly ends up in the newly built villas on the coast.

pjc50 6y ago

> an advanced economy, with individual and corporate transparency and opportunity, or a welfare state. These are not in conflict, they are complimentary; the welfare state is necessary for individual opportunity to flourish, rather than a purely family/connections system. Nowhere has successfully done the "low tax advanced economy without a welfare state" transition without also being a tiny tax haven or having a massive natural resource to sell off.

imtringued 6y ago

This is just stupid. Children don't have an income but they would be subject to a poll tax. In fact, you would run into the same problem with inmates in prison. Not only is a part of the population unable to work, there is a part of the population that is not allowed to work at all. If we are going to have a pissing contest about tax reforms the we should abolish corporate income tax and capital gains tax and replace both with slightly lowered income taxes. After you did this simplification you would then replace income taxes by land value taxes. This wouldn't get rid of things like mandatory health insurance contributions. I'm honestly pissed how companies are forced to play tax games for the global race to the bottom. Nothing should stand in the way of a honest corporation earning money through productive work. They shouldn't do weird things like stockpile cash abroad and get into debt within the country. No company should prefer stock buybacks over dividends simply because of tax efficiency. All of this is stupid and that is why we should get rid of it. Meanwhile your idea is just your own flavor of "private market over everything".

inglor_cz 6y ago

Margaret Thatcher had a famous problem implementing a scheme likened to a poll tax. If a proposed solution could not be implemented by the Iron Lady, it can hardly be called "simple".