3 ms·

I can't speak to the economic side of this, but intuitively, the idea that one required to sell their labor to survive must pay taxes on that, has always rubbed

I can't speak to the economic side of this, but intuitively, the idea that one required to sell their labor to survive must pay taxes on that, has always rubbed me the wrong way. Interestingly enough, the DPRK ("North Korea") outlawed income taxes in 1974, calling them "remnants of an antiquated society."

justrealist 3y ago
> Interestingly enough, the DPRK ("North Korea") outlawed income taxes in 1974 Yes they discovered that slavery has lower deadweight loss.
- droptablemain 3y ago
  Yes, so says Western propaganda. Drink it up!
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Truly, propaganda https://www.38north.org/2023/04/a-fresh-look-at-north-korea-at-night/ https://www.38north.org/2023/04/a-fresh-look-at-north-korea-...
TulliusCicero 3y ago
Society needs money to function, and income is roughly as sensible to tax as other things. Having a floor that exempts low incomes is probably fine and good though.
- dantheman 3y ago
  Society needs far less money to function than is captured by taxes. There are US states without an income tax - the majority of government spending that is relevant to an individual is provided the state government in the US.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    > There are US states without an income tax Yes, I live in one of them, Washington state. But your reasoning here is highly flawed: 1. Even within Washington, much of society's necessities are paid for by the federal government, which DOES use income taxes. 2. Instead of using income taxes, Washington simply relies on other taxes. Not having income taxes doesn't automatically mean the tax burden is lower. 3. Because it relies on other taxes, the state's overall tax burden is highly regressive*, with poorer people paying proportionately more of their income than richer people. This is great for me, a SWE, but it's a lot less great for poor and working class folks. * The lowest income quintile pays 17.8% of income to state and local taxes, whereas the top 1% of income earners pay only 3% to state and local taxes - https://itep.org/whopays/washington/ https://itep.org/whopays/washington/
- umeshunni 3y ago
  The trouble with income tax is that every transaction along that path (manufacturing, transportation, employment) is already taxed, as is consumption (sales).
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    Money in an economy is a flow. Yes, it's 'already taxed', this is always true because money is always flowing around.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  Income is easier to calculate, but wouldn't "total net worth" be more fair? An ultra rich person might show no income for a year and pay no taxes, because they lost a small fraction of their wealth, whereas an ultra poor person who has a lucky year and makes the median income once will be taxed even though keeping extra cash in their pocket would probably be the best possible use for the money.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    I think the reasoning is that you already paid taxes on the income before it became wealth. That said, I don't have a problem with wealth taxes for sufficiently high net worth.

justrealist 3y ago

> Interestingly enough, the DPRK ("North Korea") outlawed income taxes in 1974 Yes they discovered that slavery has lower deadweight loss.

droptablemain 3y ago
Yes, so says Western propaganda. Drink it up!
- justrealist 3y ago
  Truly, propaganda https://www.38north.org/2023/04/a-fresh-look-at-north-korea-at-night/ https://www.38north.org/2023/04/a-fresh-look-at-north-korea-...

TulliusCicero 3y ago

Society needs money to function, and income is roughly as sensible to tax as other things. Having a floor that exempts low incomes is probably fine and good though.

dantheman 3y ago
Society needs far less money to function than is captured by taxes. There are US states without an income tax - the majority of government spending that is relevant to an individual is provided the state government in the US.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  > There are US states without an income tax Yes, I live in one of them, Washington state. But your reasoning here is highly flawed: 1. Even within Washington, much of society's necessities are paid for by the federal government, which DOES use income taxes. 2. Instead of using income taxes, Washington simply relies on other taxes. Not having income taxes doesn't automatically mean the tax burden is lower. 3. Because it relies on other taxes, the state's overall tax burden is highly regressive*, with poorer people paying proportionately more of their income than richer people. This is great for me, a SWE, but it's a lot less great for poor and working class folks. * The lowest income quintile pays 17.8% of income to state and local taxes, whereas the top 1% of income earners pay only 3% to state and local taxes - https://itep.org/whopays/washington/ https://itep.org/whopays/washington/
umeshunni 3y ago
The trouble with income tax is that every transaction along that path (manufacturing, transportation, employment) is already taxed, as is consumption (sales).
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  Money in an economy is a flow. Yes, it's 'already taxed', this is always true because money is always flowing around.
oh_sigh 3y ago
Income is easier to calculate, but wouldn't "total net worth" be more fair? An ultra rich person might show no income for a year and pay no taxes, because they lost a small fraction of their wealth, whereas an ultra poor person who has a lucky year and makes the median income once will be taxed even though keeping extra cash in their pocket would probably be the best possible use for the money.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  I think the reasoning is that you already paid taxes on the income before it became wealth. That said, I don't have a problem with wealth taxes for sufficiently high net worth.