4 ms·

Redesigning Income Tax

4 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

esquivalience 13y ago
I enjoyed this. I also agree with the author that it has no chance of adoption. For me it comes down to varying definitions of "fair". The mathematical approach we have here is inherently fair because percentages have the concept of "fairness" encoded within them; all incomes will treated equally.[0] However, when talking about tax reform "fair" tends to be used to mean the opposite - taxing larger incomes more severely[1]. Sure there's a problem there, but it's not being marketed honestly: using separate scales compounds the effect of the usual more scientific scaling. I'm not saying that this isn't sensible - but it's certainly not the same as fairness. [0] Fair is just a word. I'm not talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax but the concept is similar I suppose [1] For example: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2014/04/30/Canadas-wealthy-take-bigger-slice-of-income-pie-OECD.aspx http://www.bnn.ca/News/2014/04/30/Canadas-wealthy-take-bigge... “Therefore, it is all the more important to ensure that top earners contribute their fair share of taxes” is fine in principle, but it doesn't mean that to "increase effective taxation paid by top income recipients" makes it more "fair".
kapnobatairza 13y ago
I'm not convinced that income tax reform needs to be so radical. However, I am convinced by the first part of his reform which involves instituting a basic universal income. In my mind a basic income solves a few fundamental socio-economic problems: 1) Allows us to eliminate complex welfare and social security schemes, while providing food and life security for every citizen. You can't eliminate all homelessness and poverty, but a basic income goes a long way towards eliminating most of it. 2) Drives development through increased mobility. People tend to cluster around areas where job availability is high leading to overcrowded cities with high real estate prices. A basic income provides the life security necessary to pursue living somewhere else, and will encourage people to move to "cheaper" areas where their basic income will go much further. Why live in NYC on your basic income when you could live in Kansas where your money goes a lot further? You'd instantly re-invigorate middle America and cities badly in need of urban renewal like Detroit. 3) Directly drives up GDP growth through increased consumption - Rather than flowing inflation through fed/bank lending or government spending, flow inflation bottom up through consumer spending. 4) Eliminates the economic paradox of sustaining human labour that can easily be mechanized. 5) A basic income is a cushion which creates an incentive towards higher-education and/or re-training and/or artistic/artisinal endeavours. Whichever country implements a basic income will cultivate the greatest scientific and artistic talent in the world. I could go on but I'll stop there. I realize there are some strong counter arguments against the basic income, but most would simply argue that a basic income would have no real effect. Given the potential benefits of such a proposal, I think it's an experiment worth trying. The potential pros are too numerous to list while the potential con is that it will be a complex poltical exercise that may have no effect.

4 points by AndrewDucker 13y ago

I enjoyed this. I also agree with the author that it has no chance of adoption. For me it comes down to varying definitions of "fair". The mathematical approach we have here is inherently fair because percentages have the concept of "fairness" encoded within them; all incomes will treated equally.[0] However, when talking about tax reform "fair" tends to be used to mean the opposite - taxing larger incomes more severely[1]. Sure there's a problem there, but it's not being marketed honestly: using separate scales compounds the effect of the usual more scientific scaling. I'm not saying that this isn't sensible - but it's certainly not the same as fairness. [0] Fair is just a word. I'm not talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax but the concept is similar I suppose [1] For example: http://www.bnn.ca/News/2014/04/30/Canadas-wealthy-take-bigger-slice-of-income-pie-OECD.aspx http://www.bnn.ca/News/2014/04/30/Canadas-wealthy-take-bigge... “Therefore, it is all the more important to ensure that top earners contribute their fair share of taxes” is fine in principle, but it doesn't mean that to "increase effective taxation paid by top income recipients" makes it more "fair".

kapnobatairza 13y ago

I'm not convinced that income tax reform needs to be so radical. However, I am convinced by the first part of his reform which involves instituting a basic universal income. In my mind a basic income solves a few fundamental socio-economic problems: 1) Allows us to eliminate complex welfare and social security schemes, while providing food and life security for every citizen. You can't eliminate all homelessness and poverty, but a basic income goes a long way towards eliminating most of it. 2) Drives development through increased mobility. People tend to cluster around areas where job availability is high leading to overcrowded cities with high real estate prices. A basic income provides the life security necessary to pursue living somewhere else, and will encourage people to move to "cheaper" areas where their basic income will go much further. Why live in NYC on your basic income when you could live in Kansas where your money goes a lot further? You'd instantly re-invigorate middle America and cities badly in need of urban renewal like Detroit. 3) Directly drives up GDP growth through increased consumption - Rather than flowing inflation through fed/bank lending or government spending, flow inflation bottom up through consumer spending. 4) Eliminates the economic paradox of sustaining human labour that can easily be mechanized. 5) A basic income is a cushion which creates an incentive towards higher-education and/or re-training and/or artistic/artisinal endeavours. Whichever country implements a basic income will cultivate the greatest scientific and artistic talent in the world. I could go on but I'll stop there. I realize there are some strong counter arguments against the basic income, but most would simply argue that a basic income would have no real effect. Given the potential benefits of such a proposal, I think it's an experiment worth trying. The potential pros are too numerous to list while the potential con is that it will be a complex poltical exercise that may have no effect.