4 ms·

Nice textbook phrases. What does it matter whether laws are broken or not if the result is still people not paying their taxes while benefiting massively from s

Nice textbook phrases. What does it matter whether laws are broken or not if the result is still people not paying their taxes while benefiting massively from society. If the best you can say about someone's behavior is that it's "not technically illegal", that's quite telling. And don't get me started on Switzerland. I live there. I'm Swiss. We have massive tax evasion. We have special tax deals for foreign nationals living here. Here in Zurich, where I live, the cantonal (state) finances are under huge strain because all the wealthy people live across the border in other cantons where the taxes are much lower, but commute into Zurich to work. So Zurich gets to pay for the infrastructure, for the poor who live here rather than across the border, etc. So please don't talk about some imaginary Switzerland that supports your self-serving rhetoric.

cpursley 12y ago
This is a perfect example of why taxing income is not the correct way. Things like progressive sales tax and taxing usage is. For example, those commuters should be taxed enough to support their burden each time they come in to the city. And for those companies within the city limits enjoying the infrastructure, protection of law, etc, a sales tax on their products sold should cover that. The point of tax extraction should be consumption, not production. It's more efficient, more market (reality) based and a whole lot less political.
- raquo 12y ago
  What should the sales tax be progressive on? You don't know the buyer's income when they pay for stuff. Some usage taxes might work, but unless they specifically target out-of-canton persons, they will just drive more rich people out of Zurich, exacerbating the problem. At the end of the day having every 20x30 miles plot of your country independently decide on taxation is not be the best idea. Different tax regimes can only coexist when taxpayers' mobility is limited, otherwise the cheapest tax-land wins. EDIT: I forgot to mention that standard sales tax is regressive by nature (poor people spend a much higher percent of their income than rich people).
  - Zarkonnen 12y ago
    Thanks for that - I was trying to figure out how to respond, and you did it much better than I would have.
  - cpursley 12y ago
    Good point, I should clarify: A progressive sales tax not based on purchasers income, but the type of good. For example, luxury goods should be taxed higher and basic staples very low to none. This the wealthy could not avoid tax by simply shifting money around political jurisdictions. This system would encourage transparency, encourage wealth creation as well as thrift in lower and middle income earners. Also, a side benefit (not that I entirely agree with it) is this is a way to enforce social policy like healthy eating. Tax unhealthy items like sugary food and tobacco highly (up to a point). This is done already in the United States successfully. And if you want more tube riders and less drivers in a city, have a very high toll and vehicle purchase tax. Singapore does this successfully. Some countries that have no income tax already employ this to an extent by taxing certain sales and imports. I think this type of system is worth experimenting with at least on the city-state or state level (canton / province / state). If it does not work, you can always go back. There's been talk of this type of system in the US but it's not likely to gain traction. The real reason for progressive income tax is not good policy, but divide and conquer class politics. Something all sides of the political probably spectrum agree with: governments need to be good stewards of tax revenue no matter the collection method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax (note the section on prebates for poor people - similar to basic income).
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      This kind of proposals tend to ignore how mobile wealthy people are. They might have more than one home - say, one in US, onw in Switzerland, one in Hong Kong, etc - and they might have luxury items here and there. Taxing such things with wildly different percentages is not going to work very well. The rich guys will just shop for that jewellery in Dubai and keep it in Hong Kong. Will you require him/her to declare and pay tax on it if he brings it to Paris for throwing a party there? Not likely going to work out. Effectively, a country engaging in such tax procedures would be throwing out rich people, and while I can hear the jeers of "good riddance", I'm afraid that it's not really a good thing for tax revenues.
saiya-jin 12y ago
waaait, you call people living ie in Zug canton and commuting to Zurich "a massive tax evasion"??? People are doing what they want and can, within the swiss law, which is perfectly OK with this scheme of things. If it wouldn't be OK, the could easily pass laws ie for work permit/canton of residence relationships. There is this part of the tax called Federal tax, ya know... Now that you personally find the already uber-rich Zurich city somehow being on the wrong end of tax deal is your own personal issue. Personal anecdote - my friend is living in Zurich, commuting daily to Zug for work. But that's another story :)
s3nnyy 12y ago
Is there any interest in a HN meetup in Zurich? (If yes, contact me...)

cpursley 12y ago

This is a perfect example of why taxing income is not the correct way. Things like progressive sales tax and taxing usage is. For example, those commuters should be taxed enough to support their burden each time they come in to the city. And for those companies within the city limits enjoying the infrastructure, protection of law, etc, a sales tax on their products sold should cover that. The point of tax extraction should be consumption, not production. It's more efficient, more market (reality) based and a whole lot less political.

raquo 12y ago
What should the sales tax be progressive on? You don't know the buyer's income when they pay for stuff. Some usage taxes might work, but unless they specifically target out-of-canton persons, they will just drive more rich people out of Zurich, exacerbating the problem. At the end of the day having every 20x30 miles plot of your country independently decide on taxation is not be the best idea. Different tax regimes can only coexist when taxpayers' mobility is limited, otherwise the cheapest tax-land wins. EDIT: I forgot to mention that standard sales tax is regressive by nature (poor people spend a much higher percent of their income than rich people).
- Zarkonnen 12y ago
  Thanks for that - I was trying to figure out how to respond, and you did it much better than I would have.
- cpursley 12y ago
  Good point, I should clarify: A progressive sales tax not based on purchasers income, but the type of good. For example, luxury goods should be taxed higher and basic staples very low to none. This the wealthy could not avoid tax by simply shifting money around political jurisdictions. This system would encourage transparency, encourage wealth creation as well as thrift in lower and middle income earners. Also, a side benefit (not that I entirely agree with it) is this is a way to enforce social policy like healthy eating. Tax unhealthy items like sugary food and tobacco highly (up to a point). This is done already in the United States successfully. And if you want more tube riders and less drivers in a city, have a very high toll and vehicle purchase tax. Singapore does this successfully. Some countries that have no income tax already employ this to an extent by taxing certain sales and imports. I think this type of system is worth experimenting with at least on the city-state or state level (canton / province / state). If it does not work, you can always go back. There's been talk of this type of system in the US but it's not likely to gain traction. The real reason for progressive income tax is not good policy, but divide and conquer class politics. Something all sides of the political probably spectrum agree with: governments need to be good stewards of tax revenue no matter the collection method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax (note the section on prebates for poor people - similar to basic income).
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    This kind of proposals tend to ignore how mobile wealthy people are. They might have more than one home - say, one in US, onw in Switzerland, one in Hong Kong, etc - and they might have luxury items here and there. Taxing such things with wildly different percentages is not going to work very well. The rich guys will just shop for that jewellery in Dubai and keep it in Hong Kong. Will you require him/her to declare and pay tax on it if he brings it to Paris for throwing a party there? Not likely going to work out. Effectively, a country engaging in such tax procedures would be throwing out rich people, and while I can hear the jeers of "good riddance", I'm afraid that it's not really a good thing for tax revenues.

saiya-jin 12y ago

waaait, you call people living ie in Zug canton and commuting to Zurich "a massive tax evasion"??? People are doing what they want and can, within the swiss law, which is perfectly OK with this scheme of things. If it wouldn't be OK, the could easily pass laws ie for work permit/canton of residence relationships. There is this part of the tax called Federal tax, ya know... Now that you personally find the already uber-rich Zurich city somehow being on the wrong end of tax deal is your own personal issue. Personal anecdote - my friend is living in Zurich, commuting daily to Zug for work. But that's another story :)

s3nnyy 12y ago

Is there any interest in a HN meetup in Zurich? (If yes, contact me...)