6 ms·

We pay taxes wrong. A silly example shows this to be true. Suppose there's a planetary government and a solar government. Hear me out. Filing a local, state,

by RhysU 4y ago

We pay taxes wrong. A silly example shows this to be true. Suppose there's a planetary government and a solar government. Hear me out. Filing a local, state, federal, planetary, and solar return each year is stupid. The solar government shouldn't process trillions of returns. We should file local. Local should file state. State should file federal. Federal should file planetary. Planetary should file solar. Now take away planetary and solar. Clearly the way to traverse a tree is one level at a time.

baby 4y ago
That makes sense to me, states are basically tiny countries. You should pay taxes to the body that has your best interest, and that body is probably your city. Who has the city's best interest at heart? The state. And so on.
jrib 4y ago
Ha, I can just imagine what happens when the planetary government finds an error in an individuals taxes: Planetary: Uh, federal, please correct this issue. Federal: Uh, state, please correct... ...
- rsstack 4y ago
  The state should have ultimate responsibility once it accepts the return from a resident. If the federal runs an audit and finds a mistake it needs to "convince" the state to do better: actions through Congress, fines based on a narrow system, forced training, etc., or just eat the loss (or take the gain). In this model the federal government only deals with inter-state taxation and with collecting taxes from the state. The goal is to take away the responsibility AND authority from the federal IRS, to streamline the process. If the IRS remains responsible but just has the states "do a first draft", it's useless.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
My state and local governments have figured out the right way to do this. I pay property tax to the state, and income tax to the federal government. There's no overlap or issue. I used to live in NYC, and that was a kafkaesque nightmare in comparison.
- throwaway742 4y ago
  Property tax is regressive. Income tax is better.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    How is it regressive to tax the people who literally have land-based wealth? I thought everyone was pushing for a wealth tax these days.
    - throwaway742 4y ago
      It's not as bad as say sales tax, but it is regressive. Say I make $200,000 and my neighbor lives in an identical house and makes $400,000. We will both pay the same property tax. With an income tax they would pay more. I don't advocate for a wealth tax, but I do think a progressive income tax is a better way to raise revenue than property tax.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        Wait, who defined income as the gold standard of the "progressiveness" of a tax system? If I make $200,000 and have $20 million of property, should I pay less tax than someone who makes $400,000 and has $500,000 in property?
        throwaway742 4y ago
        It's not taxing net worth it is taxing one specific type of property. Most of Jeff Bezos' money isn't in real estate. It is regressive in that everyone needs housing. With an income tax you can have a zero/negative tax rate on low earners. Everyone who isn't homeless (even if through rent) pays property taxes. You can see this effect if you compare the effective tax rates of California that has a income tax to Texas which relies on sales and property taxes. https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgZ6KOOGww/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgZ6KOOGww/ California still has sales and property taxes so it isn't perfectly progressive, but it is much better. I also don't really like how with property tax you can end up losing your assets. Let's say you work for years doing construction and pay off your house and then you end up on disability after hurting yourself. With property taxes you can end up losing your home. I'm not convinced though that you are arguing in good faith and aren't just one of the few who benefit from a lower effective tax rate from regressive taxes. Why do you think a wealth tax is the best form of taxation and how would you implement it?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
everforward 4y ago
It won't happen because it creates a problematic power structure for the federal government. In that scenario, any of those intermediaries who are unhappy with the tiers above them can simply refuse to pass on the income. If Texas wants to strong-arm looser federal gun regulations, or California wants to strong-arm abortion protections at the federal level, they can just refuse to pay taxes to the federal government. Citizens can do the same thing, but at a much higher risk and dramatically more organizing. Citizens risk being arrested and funds can be confiscated, but what can the feds do if a state does it? Invade? Plus you would need millions of citizens to not pay taxes to have an effect, but you need a tiny number of states to throw the entire budget into chaos. What you're saying makes sense from an efficiency perspective, but I don't think the power dynamic is acceptable to the federal government.

by RhysU 4y ago

baby 4y ago

That makes sense to me, states are basically tiny countries. You should pay taxes to the body that has your best interest, and that body is probably your city. Who has the city's best interest at heart? The state. And so on.

jrib 4y ago

Ha, I can just imagine what happens when the planetary government finds an error in an individuals taxes: Planetary: Uh, federal, please correct this issue. Federal: Uh, state, please correct... ...

rsstack 4y ago
The state should have ultimate responsibility once it accepts the return from a resident. If the federal runs an audit and finds a mistake it needs to "convince" the state to do better: actions through Congress, fines based on a narrow system, forced training, etc., or just eat the loss (or take the gain). In this model the federal government only deals with inter-state taxation and with collecting taxes from the state. The goal is to take away the responsibility AND authority from the federal IRS, to streamline the process. If the IRS remains responsible but just has the states "do a first draft", it's useless.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

My state and local governments have figured out the right way to do this. I pay property tax to the state, and income tax to the federal government. There's no overlap or issue. I used to live in NYC, and that was a kafkaesque nightmare in comparison.

throwaway742 4y ago
Property tax is regressive. Income tax is better.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  How is it regressive to tax the people who literally have land-based wealth? I thought everyone was pushing for a wealth tax these days.
  - throwaway742 4y ago
    It's not as bad as say sales tax, but it is regressive. Say I make $200,000 and my neighbor lives in an identical house and makes $400,000. We will both pay the same property tax. With an income tax they would pay more. I don't advocate for a wealth tax, but I do think a progressive income tax is a better way to raise revenue than property tax.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      Wait, who defined income as the gold standard of the "progressiveness" of a tax system? If I make $200,000 and have $20 million of property, should I pay less tax than someone who makes $400,000 and has $500,000 in property?
      - throwaway742 4y ago
        It's not taxing net worth it is taxing one specific type of property. Most of Jeff Bezos' money isn't in real estate. It is regressive in that everyone needs housing. With an income tax you can have a zero/negative tax rate on low earners. Everyone who isn't homeless (even if through rent) pays property taxes. You can see this effect if you compare the effective tax rates of California that has a income tax to Texas which relies on sales and property taxes. https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgZ6KOOGww/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CdgZ6KOOGww/ California still has sales and property taxes so it isn't perfectly progressive, but it is much better. I also don't really like how with property tax you can end up losing your assets. Let's say you work for years doing construction and pay off your house and then you end up on disability after hurting yourself. With property taxes you can end up losing your home. I'm not convinced though that you are arguing in good faith and aren't just one of the few who benefit from a lower effective tax rate from regressive taxes. Why do you think a wealth tax is the best form of taxation and how would you implement it?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

everforward 4y ago

It won't happen because it creates a problematic power structure for the federal government. In that scenario, any of those intermediaries who are unhappy with the tiers above them can simply refuse to pass on the income. If Texas wants to strong-arm looser federal gun regulations, or California wants to strong-arm abortion protections at the federal level, they can just refuse to pay taxes to the federal government. Citizens can do the same thing, but at a much higher risk and dramatically more organizing. Citizens risk being arrested and funds can be confiscated, but what can the feds do if a state does it? Invade? Plus you would need millions of citizens to not pay taxes to have an effect, but you need a tiny number of states to throw the entire budget into chaos. What you're saying makes sense from an efficiency perspective, but I don't think the power dynamic is acceptable to the federal government.