5 ms·
> Great. Let's add more paperwork to the incorporation/reporting process. Many of the systems required to create a more complete accounting of assets already e
by whakim 5y ago
> Great. Let's add more paperwork to the incorporation/reporting process.
Many of the systems required to create a more complete accounting of assets already exist. For example, in the United States financial institutions already generate 1040s for profits/losses/dividends on financial assets; it wouldn't be particularly difficult for those forms to also include the actual assets themselves and their values. Local governments already collect property taxes (which, at various points throughout history have included a lot more than just property - such as cars/boats/etc.; equipment, etc. - so the infrastructure already exists to tabulate these other categories too) - it wouldn't be hard to transmit that data. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't take any work to have a transparent accounting of who owns what, but it's certainly not impossible - after all, we do it for income and no one seems to bat an eyelid. Not to mention that we live in an age of fast and easy electronic communications. Transparent wealth accounts have existed before in much more difficult circumstances (e.g. wealth taxes imposed on war profiteering by various governments after WWII) and it didn't prove to be an insurmountable burden.
> Taxation has a hard time changing the current laws because these are revenue for government. It can't do an overhaul but it can make new rules/regulations. Great, more paperwork.
Taxation is law - in fact, the tax code and how it is structured is probably the most important part.
> More paperwork, regulations, rules and advisors. That should simplify your tax diagram.
There is already an incredible amount of paperwork, regulations, rules and advisors involved in the gaming of the global tax system that already occurs. More transparency around asset ownership would help lead to a simpler global tax regime, not a more complicated one.
- tekknik 5y ago> but it's certainly not impossible - after all, we do it for income and no one seems to bat an eyelid. Certainly, given we’ve been to the moon, will be on mars soon, and are standing on the brink of cures for some of the worse diseases we could figure it out. But then you’ve removed a measure of privacy. Why does everybody need to know what everybody else owns? Then comes the difficulty in tabulating this data. The rich will pay someone to do it. The rest of us will spend even more time each year figuring out everything we own vs got rid of that year. Progressive taxes are a failure. Millions of words are in the current tax code and it still failed. Why add more words? Flat tax, no deductions, pull it at the income source. QED. OR, we can keep futzing around trying to implement a “fair” tax code, only to find out in the end it’s impossible
- whakim 5y ago> But then you’ve removed a measure of privacy. I don't think such a system of accounts would need to be publically accessible. It could work similarly to income taxes - where the public is able to look at robust aggregate data, the IRS is able to collect taxes as necessary, and central banks are able to make good monetary policy based on real data. > The rest of us will spend even more time each year figuring out everything we own vs got rid of that year. For the vast majority of wealth that the vast majority of people own (property and financial assets), nothing would be required because (as I mentioned above) there already exist reporting mechanisms for those types of assets. > Progressive taxes are a failure. Millions of words are in the current tax code and it still failed. Why do you think progressive taxes are a failure? Taxes used to be much more progressive during a period of much higher growth (1950-1980). Over the last 40 years we've gradually made the tax system more regressive by lowering rates and inserting more and more loopholes (which primarily benefit the wealthy)
- tekknik 5y ago> I don't think such a system of accounts would need to be publically accessible. It could work similarly to income taxes - where the public is able to look at robust aggregate data, the IRS is able to collect taxes as necessary, and central banks are able to make good monetary policy based on real data. OK, what will this do? Nothing. > For the vast majority of wealth that the vast majority of people own (property and financial assets), nothing would be required because (as I mentioned above) there already exist reporting mechanisms for those types of assets. Again, it sounds like you’ve changed nothing. > Why do you think progressive taxes are a failure? Taxes used to be much more progressive during a period of much higher growth (1950-1980). Over the last 40 years we've gradually made the tax system more regressive by lowering rates and inserting more and more loopholes (which primarily benefit the wealthy) For a few reasons, including the left constantly saying they’ve failed and they don’t have enough money. Another reason is income tax was originally meant for the wealthy, then inflation caught up. With an inflationary currency taxes implemented for the rich only will eventually apply to all, as income tax does today but didn’t before. Not to mention the massive overhead to process all of this data, we literally picked the most complicated way to do this.