bank secrets

[Jester]

I'm in favor for there to be a flatter tax structure.

If ever there was an argument for a flat tax, it's Warren Buffett's rather simple empirical point that he, and those as wealthy as he, pay less % of their income in taxes than do their secretaries. I favour less flat tax systems, but step one would be to make it *at least* progressive enough to be flat!

In terms of rates for both income and capital gains; a) determine the "poverty line", and under that line the people alway pay 10% of income. B)determine the line for "wealthy" and under that line people always pay 15%(on the amount over the poverty line). c) above the line people always pay 20% (on the amount above the "wealthy" line).

How does reducing the number of brackets help? Also, this would be a *gigantic* tax cut. Like "whoops, where did our trillions go". At the very least, you'd need to deal with the debt first.

I would implement a federal sales tax of 5% with no exceptions for anything.

Why no exception for food? Medicine? You're already making people below the poverty line pay 10% of their income. Why tax them on the basics?

On the other hand, at least this is a tax increase. That'll bring in some revenue to help pay for the gigantic drop from income taxes. Assuming you tax *everything* that is bought and sold, you get just under 5% of GDP for that.

Any other revenue generated by the government needs to be garnered through user fees, or tariffs. I would trim many major functions from the federal government and return the power to the States, including SSI, health care, education, welfare, housing, agriculture, most of transportation (except some oversight of interstate routes, ports, airports).

Right, because the individual States have proven themselves to be so much better guardians of the public trust than the Feds. (...)

Again, local control on taxation is most fair.

On the basis of what? Economic geography suggests that some regions are going to be able to collect a hell of a lot more tax than others, simply on the basis of agglomeration effects. Is it really sensible to have no inter-regional tax movement? How is letting the rich areas keep their riches, and the poor keep ther paltry tax incomes more or less fair than having the feds collect it?

I would eliminate the special deductions for marriage, deductions for gifts/donations, and deductions for mortgages. Eliminate the classification of "non-profit" corporation, but allow churches to be tax exempt.

Marriages, check. Gifts and donations, check. Mortgages, double check. (Good god that was a stupid idea.) Why eliminate non-profit corporations, but preserve tax exemptions for churches? Wouldn't that just create a systemic bias in favour of religious charity, for no better reason than that it's religious?

I would eliminate the estate tax. Mostly because it destroys family owned farms and businesses. It is a nice Utopian idea to have each person be self made, however the government becomes arbitrarily punitive while the upper class are able to avoid estate taxes through various legal maneuvers. It is a reasonable desire to pass on to ones offspring the fruits of their labors.

Why eliminate the estate tax, instead of just giving exemptions for businesses up to a certain size? Or just giving a blanket minimum exemption that would cover everyone up to a certain amount, regardless of its form? Estate taxes are one of the most efficient ways to tax enormous pools of accumulated wealth; they're just about the most progressive kind of tax you can get. Why not make them work by closing loopholes, rather than abolishing the tax and greating what amounts to a 100% loophole?

I would set corporate taxes at zero or a low rate equivalent to the lowest rate in the global economy, adjusting for all the positives and negatives. I wouldn't want to give any disincentives for keeping jobs local.

Okay, so that would cost a lot. You'd keep a lot of corporations at home, for sure, but you'd lose a gigantic revenue stream. Adjusting for positives and negatives, as you say, plenty of corporations seem to find the US an attractive place to do business, despite relatively high corporate taxation. (Loopholes may have something to do with this, but still.)

Government employees, including Congress, Executives, Judiciary would earn their congregational districts median salary plus or minus 10% to allow for graduated pay scales. I would repeal all laws that shield government workers from laws, and repeal all special benefits given to them other than protection while they serve (and life long protection for the President). I would limit the tenure of any elected government employee to a total of 12 years (meaning that if you served four 2 year House terms, you would no longer qualify to run for a Senate seat, President or VP).

You would be wrecking what little incentive there is for exceptional (definitionally, not median) people to go into government. There would be no career in it (12 year maximum) and no money in it (median income is not a heck of a lot for the best and the brightest). You would also drain the human capital pool in government automatically; as soon as people have learned the ropes, and are able to pass on knowledge to the next generation of politicians, or to move up the ranks to a higher post, you'd have booted them out forever. I'm economist enough to think this incentive system would be disastrous.

Eliminating immunities sounds good to me.

I would require States to set campaign finance limits on each Congressional, and Senate seat at 2x median salary and fund the first half. For the Presidential Race, I would set the limit at 10x the median US salary and fund the first half. I would eliminate all political advertising on corporate radio and television. All the SPAM and junk mail laws apply to politicians as well. I would eliminate PAC's. I would require all fund raising to remain within the represented geographic boundaries (no more RNC, DNC, or billionaires buying seats in other districts, states, nations), and no contribution can exceed $1,000.

Wow. That's even more draconian than what I'd do. The 2008 prez candidates spent something like a billion dollars. You'd be restricting them to half a million, cutting them down to 0.05%! Needless to say, the race would look very different. They wouldn't be able to travel, to hire staff, or to buy a single commercial (not a problem, since those are banned anyway.) At that budget, lawn signs would probably be off the table.

As for billionaires buying seats, I don't think they succeed too often at that. People tend to resent it, and no amount of money buys an election when the voters resent you.

Finally, I would add an amendment that would prevent the government from intentionally spending more than it raises in revenue. At certain times of crisis (war or economic), the government may be allowed to borrow money (with a hard and fast plan for repayment).

This really is going deep... you'd undo Alexander Hamilton's work? Go back to pre-presidential Jeffersonian ideas? Wow. The entire modern financial state would cease to exist, which might be a good thing, but it certainly would be a shock.

That's off the top of my head, I'm sure I might have a few other idea as well if I pondered about it longer. Some of these are markedly controversial positions for "a libertarian", but in seeing how things like say advertising are perverted and corrupted by the market it seems best to separate State interests from corporate media. My idea of fair taxation is not to grow a basket of government services, then distribute the cost in what some people think is fair and borrow the remainder. My idea is to set a very limited number of necessary federal services, and limit taxes to what is fair.

You seem to have a very definite way of using the term "fair". I'm not sure I understand what it is, or how you manage to escape the category of "what some people think" is fair, and place your beliefs in the category of what "is" fair.

-Jester