4 ms·

You do get some choice in how to file. I'd much rather the tax code applied equally to everyone - single, married, children or childless. The goal should be f

You do get some choice in how to file. I'd much rather the tax code applied equally to everyone - single, married, children or childless. The goal should be for the tax return to be less than a page long and so dead simple that billions of dollars are not spent each year just on filling them out.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
Agreed. The government should not be in the business of social engineering to increase tax revenues. That aspect of governance should be entirely reactive, not proactive. The government should be a subservient entity, not a manipulative one.
- majormajor 14y ago
  Eh, overall I think tax-related stuff is the "least bad" way for the government to influence behavior, compared to criminalization and the use of force. (The assumption here being that a government with no way of exerting control over its populations behavior is impractical, though I know some disagree with that premise.) (Referring to the idea of using taxes to influence behavior in general rather than the specific; in this case, I'm having trouble coming up with any realistic (for the modern UN) way more heavy-handed approaches could be applied.)
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Government should not be in the business of influencing behaviour at all, except for preventing direct harm by one person to another. Any thing else is just nanny state visit bullshit
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Government should not be in the business of influencing behaviour at all, except for preventing direct harm by one person to another. Any thing else is just nanny state visit bullshit
csense 14y ago
I've heard of a proposal to replace income taxes with consumption taxes. This way, the government wouldn't have an excuse to poke its nose into every citizen's private finances. Unless you're running a business, paying your taxes is dead simple: When you buy stuff, pay the price that comes up on the register. Of course, it punishes people who save money, because anyone with savings at the time the law changes would be taxed twice: the (pre-change) income tax they paid earning the money, and the (post-change) consumption tax they paid spending the money. You'd think it'd be political suicide to propose something like this (and, indeed, despite the IRS's regularly topping the list of most-loathed government agencies, the consumption-tax proposal has remained well on the fringe). But consider: The US government's inflationary fiscal and monetary policies punish savers, too, and they get away with it. Clearly, living within one's means is only for losers.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  Fun fact: the poor consume more than they produce, while the rich produce more than they consume. Thus, a consumption tax would hit the poor the hardest (proportionate to income), and are thus unpopular. Don't get me wrong - I personally favor them. Consumption taxes hit people in proportion to the benefit they receive from society. But they are a political non-starter for this reason.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I think consumption taxes combined with a basic income/negative income tax (to replace other government assistance) are more politically viable than strictly consumption taxes on the first dollar alone. But then you have the "they're taking away your food stamps! your social security! and new taxes" etc., even though you're giving them net more money.

notdrunkatall 14y ago

Agreed. The government should not be in the business of social engineering to increase tax revenues. That aspect of governance should be entirely reactive, not proactive. The government should be a subservient entity, not a manipulative one.

majormajor 14y ago
Eh, overall I think tax-related stuff is the "least bad" way for the government to influence behavior, compared to criminalization and the use of force. (The assumption here being that a government with no way of exerting control over its populations behavior is impractical, though I know some disagree with that premise.) (Referring to the idea of using taxes to influence behavior in general rather than the specific; in this case, I'm having trouble coming up with any realistic (for the modern UN) way more heavy-handed approaches could be applied.)
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Government should not be in the business of influencing behaviour at all, except for preventing direct harm by one person to another. Any thing else is just nanny state visit bullshit
- tomjen3 14y ago
  Government should not be in the business of influencing behaviour at all, except for preventing direct harm by one person to another. Any thing else is just nanny state visit bullshit

csense 14y ago

I've heard of a proposal to replace income taxes with consumption taxes. This way, the government wouldn't have an excuse to poke its nose into every citizen's private finances. Unless you're running a business, paying your taxes is dead simple: When you buy stuff, pay the price that comes up on the register. Of course, it punishes people who save money, because anyone with savings at the time the law changes would be taxed twice: the (pre-change) income tax they paid earning the money, and the (post-change) consumption tax they paid spending the money. You'd think it'd be political suicide to propose something like this (and, indeed, despite the IRS's regularly topping the list of most-loathed government agencies, the consumption-tax proposal has remained well on the fringe). But consider: The US government's inflationary fiscal and monetary policies punish savers, too, and they get away with it. Clearly, living within one's means is only for losers.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Fun fact: the poor consume more than they produce, while the rich produce more than they consume. Thus, a consumption tax would hit the poor the hardest (proportionate to income), and are thus unpopular. Don't get me wrong - I personally favor them. Consumption taxes hit people in proportion to the benefit they receive from society. But they are a political non-starter for this reason.
- rdl 14y ago
  I think consumption taxes combined with a basic income/negative income tax (to replace other government assistance) are more politically viable than strictly consumption taxes on the first dollar alone. But then you have the "they're taking away your food stamps! your social security! and new taxes" etc., even though you're giving them net more money.