4 ms·

I think you have it exactly backwards. The more points of attack, the larger the vulnerability. There are laws passed for specific corporations to reduce tax li

I think you have it exactly backwards. The more points of attack, the larger the vulnerability. There are laws passed for specific corporations to reduce tax liability. What's wrong with low density? There is a real economic value to variety and a minimum density to support certain kinds of commerce. You can't take this to a limit assuming there is no cost (if only opportunity cost) to moving to a less dense area. Also, at least in the easy coast, the least dense areas are typically already state or national parks. Wyoming is the exact opposite. 5 digit license plates are common there.

staunch 17y ago
A variety of different taxes "catches" everyone at some point. You can dodge some, but you can't dodge them all. Even the super rich hiding their money offshore pay sales tax on their Bentley, car registration, property taxes on their house, etc.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  You're worried about someone dodging a land value tax?
  - pg 17y ago
    You're assuming it would be possible to establish an un-dodgeable tax?
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      Not at all. I'm saying if your reason for favoring multiple taxes is to ensure no one dodges all of them, you're barking up the wrong tree. First, this is a dubious goal -- why should the primary objective be to "catch" everybody? Second, if we go by a measure like "percentage of expected tax revenues dodged," a single land value tax would be far preferable to today's messy tax system. (Consider the number of loopholes exploited today and the danger of avoiding a strict land value tax.)
    - ivankirigin 17y ago
      I came up with a scheme that is un-dodgeable (kinda). Print money to pay expenditures, and limit expenditures to keep inflation in check. The tax is implicit, so you can't avoid it. Those holding the currency can't help but give a percentage of the value to the government. It's perfectly flat too. The only way to get around it is to operate in another currency. But if there are any expenditures at all, they are going to pay someone in the currency, and need to be spent somewhere. This would work best with minimal government expenditures to minimize the motivation to avoid using the currency. It would be pretty easy to make the implicit tax small enough to not only discourage avoiding the currency, but actually make the currency more stable than others tied to governments that don't know how to control spending.
      - tome 17y ago
        Interesting idea, but why does fiat currency have any value in the first place? Largely because the government collects it in taxes.
        ivankirigin 17y ago
        Those that receive that currency as pay will find it valuable, as will those who want to provide services to them.
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Inflation is a tax on holding dollars (and fixed income securities). This tax would be pitifully easy to dodge: simply don't hold dollars. This would drive savings rates to zero. However, it might be temporarily sustainable if a large entity (e.g. China) behaved irrationally and decided to hold dollars in spite of the tax.
        ivankirigin 17y ago
        If the government is small enough, the rate of inflation would be smaller than other currencies. If new cash was created only by government expenditures, and not by a lending model like the Fed, I can easily imagine a smaller inflation rate than any other currency. Just limit spending to be a small percentage of the previous year's growth in GDP. Then people would avoid taxation in other countries and inflation in other currencies by holding this currency. In a libertarian sea-steading micro-nation, the government would spend money on the police, courts, and prison (though banishment would be a common punishment). The police could be a few prefects who control robots.
pg 17y ago
Where did I say that having few taxes made it easier to avoid them? My comment was about the amount of distortion caused by people's efforts to avoid taxes, not the amount of tax people would succeed in avoiding.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  If the concern in the distortion is that people don't pay taxes, my comment is valid. If the concern is for the people themselves, I'm not sure what the problem is with low population density. It doesn't even need some government program to correct if we decide it is bad for society. People already have social and economic incentives to live near eachother. Also, I'm surprised you would suggest that law makers give a shit about the distortion taxes cause, and hope to minimize it. A politician's actions can pretty much always be directly tied to motovations to increasing influence and getting elected. Altruistic politicians that actually care about society don't exist.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  Ohh, another idea: if there is a single dial to adjust, correcting for distortion is easier. If the effects of the distortion are more costly on society than diminishing government expenditures, then the government should shrink and collect less tax.

staunch 17y ago

A variety of different taxes "catches" everyone at some point. You can dodge some, but you can't dodge them all. Even the super rich hiding their money offshore pay sales tax on their Bentley, car registration, property taxes on their house, etc.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
You're worried about someone dodging a land value tax?
- pg 17y ago
  You're assuming it would be possible to establish an un-dodgeable tax?
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Not at all. I'm saying if your reason for favoring multiple taxes is to ensure no one dodges all of them, you're barking up the wrong tree. First, this is a dubious goal -- why should the primary objective be to "catch" everybody? Second, if we go by a measure like "percentage of expected tax revenues dodged," a single land value tax would be far preferable to today's messy tax system. (Consider the number of loopholes exploited today and the danger of avoiding a strict land value tax.)
  - ivankirigin 17y ago
    I came up with a scheme that is un-dodgeable (kinda). Print money to pay expenditures, and limit expenditures to keep inflation in check. The tax is implicit, so you can't avoid it. Those holding the currency can't help but give a percentage of the value to the government. It's perfectly flat too. The only way to get around it is to operate in another currency. But if there are any expenditures at all, they are going to pay someone in the currency, and need to be spent somewhere. This would work best with minimal government expenditures to minimize the motivation to avoid using the currency. It would be pretty easy to make the implicit tax small enough to not only discourage avoiding the currency, but actually make the currency more stable than others tied to governments that don't know how to control spending.
    - tome 17y ago
      Interesting idea, but why does fiat currency have any value in the first place? Largely because the government collects it in taxes.
      - ivankirigin 17y ago
        Those that receive that currency as pay will find it valuable, as will those who want to provide services to them.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Inflation is a tax on holding dollars (and fixed income securities). This tax would be pitifully easy to dodge: simply don't hold dollars. This would drive savings rates to zero. However, it might be temporarily sustainable if a large entity (e.g. China) behaved irrationally and decided to hold dollars in spite of the tax.
      - ivankirigin 17y ago
        If the government is small enough, the rate of inflation would be smaller than other currencies. If new cash was created only by government expenditures, and not by a lending model like the Fed, I can easily imagine a smaller inflation rate than any other currency. Just limit spending to be a small percentage of the previous year's growth in GDP. Then people would avoid taxation in other countries and inflation in other currencies by holding this currency. In a libertarian sea-steading micro-nation, the government would spend money on the police, courts, and prison (though banishment would be a common punishment). The police could be a few prefects who control robots.

pg 17y ago

Where did I say that having few taxes made it easier to avoid them? My comment was about the amount of distortion caused by people's efforts to avoid taxes, not the amount of tax people would succeed in avoiding.

ivankirigin 17y ago
If the concern in the distortion is that people don't pay taxes, my comment is valid. If the concern is for the people themselves, I'm not sure what the problem is with low population density. It doesn't even need some government program to correct if we decide it is bad for society. People already have social and economic incentives to live near eachother. Also, I'm surprised you would suggest that law makers give a shit about the distortion taxes cause, and hope to minimize it. A politician's actions can pretty much always be directly tied to motovations to increasing influence and getting elected. Altruistic politicians that actually care about society don't exist.
ivankirigin 17y ago
Ohh, another idea: if there is a single dial to adjust, correcting for distortion is easier. If the effects of the distortion are more costly on society than diminishing government expenditures, then the government should shrink and collect less tax.