Reduce Government Drag

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-10 10:05:50

I think I can safely assume that all governments have a a lot of drag. They tend to slow down the economy. Of course much of what governments do benefits society - I don't dispute that. I would like to discuss ways of streamlining government. I, of course, have an American point of view. Let me know if your country differs from my examples.

The first thing that I can think of is the tax code. Huge volumes of tax laws are added to it every year. Even accountants don't know all the laws. I don't know how many accountants work in America right off hand, but the accounting classes here at college sure are full. Business accountants actually help businesses and are useful to the economy, so I don't have a problem with them. It's the tax accountants that are a drag on the economy.
Most people I know pay an acountant to do their taxes. (That's kinda like an extra tax, isn't it?) I'm sure many could argue that accountants provide a very useful service - I agree. They just don't need to. They are simply a link between govt. and individuals, a translator if you will, because the govt. has made the tax code too confusing for individuals to handle on their own. (Of course, you can file on your own, but accountants find the loopholes that you might miss.) Engineers, retailers, inventors, doctors, manufactures, etc. all have jobs that actually contribute to the economy. They are involved in the market. Tax accountants just aren't.

I propose a simple tax code. Libertarians want a flat tax (Russia uses one now). I know some in here like the progressive tax. Either way is fine with me as long as it is simple. Put the entire tax code on a postcard. This would put tax accountants into productive parts of the economy.

Here's a sample progressive tax code:
Gross income tax
under 18,000 no tax (don't tax the impoverished)
18,001 - 50,000 15%
50,001 - 150,000 25%
150,001 - 1,000,000 35%
over 1,000,000 40%

That's it - no exemptions, breaks, no loopholes, and most importantly no accountants to pay. (I made this tax code up as I typed so the numbers could be adjusted to fit society better.) You could just fill out the post card and mail in your payment.

No accountants on Mars, please. What else could we streamline.

Let's not talk about the military, OK.

Phobos · 2003-04-10 19:28:49

The only solution is to tax everyone at 95%, have a handful of fools, I mean, experts make all economic decisions for us, use gulag slave labor to make up for work where our genius command economists failed and to resurrect Stalin as dictator. Anything less is fascism and I simply won't stand for it. Long Live the Ten Year Plan! :angry:

Palomar · 2003-04-10 19:48:23

The only solution is to tax everyone at 95%, have a handful of fools, I mean, experts make all economic decisions for us, use gulag slave labor to make up for work where our genius command economists failed and to resurrect Stalin as dictator. Anything less is fascism and I simply won't stand for it. Long Live the Ten Year Plan! :angry:

*Oooooo-eeeeee. Bite me, Phobos! :laugh:

--Cindy :;):

soph · 2003-04-10 19:49:27

15% flat tax->people aren't punished for making more money.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-10 22:30:59

I agree completely with you, soph.

clark · 2003-04-11 08:27:13

Well, the tax code has developed over time as a means to encourage certain behaviour, and discourage other behaviour. Things like tax breaks in space- this is used to add extra incentive to make people develop space. There are tax breaks for education, family, home buying. Things that lead to a more stable society, and might be part of what helps shape our society. I don't think this can be simplified as well as you might hope.

However, if you want to start a tax-revolution, you only need to do ONE thing, and I promise you, you would see a riot like no other:

Change the current system for withholding taxes at every pay check, to one lump sum, paid at the end of the year.

So someone making $50,000 a year, gets the full amount of their work- they just pay all of the taxes they owe at the end of the year. All of them. State, and Federal.

Then, have taxes dues the day before election day.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-11 12:23:03

Heh, humans tend to not think about themselves or the long term, even though it's fully within their ablities. I would think that system would be a pain in the ass, clark. Many wage earners don't own taxed property (vehicles don't count since the DMV takes care of that), so they're not used to this, or wouldn't care for it. I'm a renter, and a lot of people are. People are lazy.

I would drag this into another anarchistic discussion, but I won't. I just want to throw the idea out there. Why not simply have no taxes, and delegate public responsiblities to the local level?

To incite some fears and so on in our right-leaning forum-goers (because they'll take this as some kind of support rather than just sharing something interesting); that's what Cuba did for the longest time. No taxes.

clark · 2003-04-11 13:50:30

I would think that system would be a pain in the ass, clark. Many wage earners don't own taxed property (vehicles don't count since the DMV takes care of that), so they're not used to this, or wouldn't care for it. I'm a renter, and a lot of people are. People are lazy.

No, I think you miss the point. This is related to the federal income tax. Anyone who has received a paycheck will understand what I am talking about:

Look at your next paycheck, do you get the full amount of your work int he paycheck? Yes and no. Yes, you do, but a portion of that paycheck is automatically deducted and sent off to the government. Every paycheck they withold social security, and other taxes.

Now, taking a little bit of your money at a time is not as noticable as taking a bunch of your money at one time. Think of it like the death of a thousand paper cuts.

If taxes were not withheld in each paycheck, and instead were paid in full at the end of the year, most people would riot when they have to write a check to the government for tens of thousands of dollars.

Just for the reality oriented: take $60,000 dollars a year, with no exemptions (max tax bracket). You would end up writing a check to the government for $20,000 - 25,000 each year.

Could you imagine a well armed populace receiving a bill like that?

soph · 2003-04-11 15:53:27

Now, now Josh, delegating everything to the local level would be stepping back 1500 years, and wouldn't work for an advanced, integrated society.

However, I think if we used a 15% tax from the beginning, and put a constitutional cap on the highest tax (and a law making the flat tax the only form of taxation), it would create a more economically responsible government from the start.

We could also include laws that require all laws to be written in plain language, that anybody can read. And, illegalize pork, which cuts out a lot of expense in the government. By pork, I mean completely unrelated parts of a bill (i.e. Mississippi naval ship contracts in an agriculture bill).

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-11 19:48:54

clark, ahh, I understood what you were saying, I thought you were serious! But hey, my point still stands, people wouldn't even have that kind of money to write off in a check since they're so silly. Who saves that kind of money? Jesus, I'd need to be reminded daily to not spend that couple of hundred they take out of my check, and I consider myself quite fiscally responsible.

And that's crud soph! All it is is respecting your surrounding environment, and designing things smartly. I remember when I was in Colorado. Oh boy. I can't imagine how much taxpayer money went into laying new streets and digging them back up. And believe me, Colorado Springs has the best streets of any city I've lived in (they were bad when I first got there, I believe they passed some local law to fix up the streets). Problem was, that the underground lines were often going right down a street. And I swear, I would see them jack hammering a street which was just layed not a week before, to get at some underground lines which needed to be fixed! And this happened on quite a few ocassions! If I didn't know better, I'd think the public works people were doing it on purpose, to leech more money from the city. I think though, that they were honestly just doing their job one day at a time, not really having any indication of what future repairs were to be done. The digging guys are probably not even in contact with the paving guys. There is one possiblity; that they did this to lay softer pavement (they weren't digging up the road to put down a sewer cover, they were repaving it) so that important access points could be accessed quicker, but I think this is a stretch.

The point is, though, lay underground stuff under sidewalks or something! And have sidewalks segmented so that they can be lifted. Problem pretty much solved.

Anyway, I'm digressing, and I'm sure many here wouldn't consider public works to be the most inefficient part of government, but if we were to redesign how things function at the local level, a larger government would be unnecessary (though some might consider all that local participation ?big government?). Without property taxes, anyone, on any wage level, could own property. We've almost fixed 90% of societies problems, right there. I think the best way to do it (without running rich people into the ground and pissing off half of the forum members here), is to make it so that someone can be tax exempt on their cheapest property only, this way people can still appropriate, they just can't get the tax exempt status on all their properties! Don't get me wrong, though, this rule is almost perfect for a transitional society. You could have a million dollar house, but as long as you don't own any other houses, you don't pay taxes on it. Taxes would then become the ?usufructy fee,? so that your property isn't ?inhabited? when you're not possessing it.

BTW, soph, that definition of pork doesn't really fit. I mean, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars of NASAs budget goes to building schools and observatories, and things of that nature. How can you conclusively prove that this isn't inherent to NASAs duties? Some would claim it was pork, others would claim that it was legitimate spendature (I'm in the latter for most things people would call pork, there are obviously exemptions though).

soph · 2003-04-11 19:56:53

BTW, soph, that definition of pork doesn't really fit. I mean, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars of NASAs budget goes to building schools and observatories, and things of that nature. How can you conclusively prove that this isn't inherent to NASAs duties? Some would claim it was pork, others would claim that it was legitimate spendature (I'm in the latter for most things people would call pork, there are obviously exemptions though).

But that does not fit my definition of pork. Schools and observatories fall within the realm of NASA. A farm bill has nothing to do with oil in Canada, for example.

Trent Lott (among others) likes to throw in pork projects for his state in completely unrelated bills, even if the projects are useless. For example, as I mentioned before, he threw into some bill (I can't remember) a contract for his state to build naval vessels, which the Navy told him they wouldn't use. But he built them anyway, so he could tell his constituents, "Look, I've gotten you this contract."

And yes, public works are often inefficient. But this doesn't mean that government is inherently inefficient. This means that in government, certain regulations and laws are needed that limit this inefficieny. This doesn't mean we have to throw away a federal government, no, not at all. It means that we need a more intelligently planned federal government, using what we have learned from the governments of today.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-13 23:02:58

clark,
If I understand my tax history, they did use the Lump sum at the end of the year system you're talking about...oh, about fifty years ago. I read it somewhere but can't remember much of the details. The main idea about taking a little every paycheck was to increase the total taxes without us putting up much of a fight. It worked! We pay up to 30% in taxes now. It was under 10% ond only for the rich back when they instituted this new system. A lot of people now even like tax season because they get a refund!

I really think we should revert to this original way of paying taxes. And yes, we should pay right before elections. I bet taxes would go way down.

And Josh, if you're too lazy to save the tax money yourself you could just have your empoyer put it away in a savings account before you get to spend it. Then come tax time you could pay your taxes and take the interest you earned all year and party!

clark · 2003-04-14 09:49:58

The main idea about taking a little every paycheck was to increase the total taxes without us putting up much of a fight. It worked! We pay up to 30% in taxes now.

It also caused our employers to be defacto collectors of tax revenue for the government. This way the IRS could focus on a smaller number of people or organizations, instead of individuals, now it need only watch the business books. The only way we end up owing money to the government is if we make extra cash outside this system, or, we declared exemptions from our employers withholding- yet even this accounts for only a small overall amount of the tax revenue.

Josh made a point that he wouldn't neccessarily have the restraint neccessary to pay the taxes- he wouldn't save enough. That is one of the primary justifications of this system- it increases compliance with tax law.

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 11:30:17

Here is a simple tax system for Mars:
1) Owner of a dome charges a flat service fee per unit area within the dome. All building owners (such as apartment buildings) would pay this. It would pay for roads, pressure, heat, air recycling, etc. It would also pay for ambulance, paramedics, and any other "municipal" services. Anyone who lives outside a dome is exempt from the service fee, but they also don't have any municipal services; they're on their own.
2) Utilities (electricity, etc) would be charged as they are today.
3) Employers would be charged a 10% payroll tax. That is, if an employee is paid $50,000 per year then the employer must pay $5,000 per year tax. This would not be deducted from the employee's paycheque, the employer would pay it. The payroll tax would pay for healthcare and social security (for any Canadians, social security is a combination of the pension plan and employment insurance).
4) The government would own certain key industries. Profits from these would pay for executive expenses such as the capital buildings.
5) No other taxes. This means no sales taxes, no income taxes, no luxury taxes, no corporate income taxes, no capital taxes, no inheritance taxes, no nothing!

If anyone is unemployed, they must accept job placement or mandatory job training; failure to accept would disqualify them from receiving benefits. Job training entails mandatory job placement upon completion, if they are fired or quit within a certain time period after placement then they must pay for their training. Employers specify how many employees they need for which jobs, and are involved in job interviews before individuals enter training so everyone in training has a guaranteed job upon graduation.

clark · 2003-04-14 11:57:08

What happens to those unable to pay for baisc utilities?
What happens if you are unemployed?
What happens if you are hurt in an accident, which is your own fault, and can no longer work?
What happens if you develop an addicition and blow all your money on said addicition?
What happens if all of the above, and people on Mars cannot return to Earth?
What happens if you refuse to continue working or are unabel to learn any new skills?

The system as proposed cannot deal with this.

System Fails.

Any system that allows profit for basic life support neccessities is by its very defintion anti-freedom and will engender a system of exploitation and economic slavery.

If people must work for their basic neccessities of life, then those neccessities can be priced to reduce most of the economic prosperity to be gained from personal labor.

It established the relationship of feudlism- security=life.

On mars, power=life. Those that control power production, control life..

RobertDyck · 2003-04-14 12:09:30

What happens to those unable to pay for baisc utilities?
What happens if you are unemployed?
What happens if you are hurt in an accident, which is your own fault, and can no longer work?
What happens if you develop an addicition and blow all your money on said addicition?
What happens if all of the above, and people on Mars cannot return to Earth?
What happens if you refuse to continue working or are unabel to learn any new skills?

If you are unemployed, you receive employment insurance benefits. That is what the payroll tax is there to pay for. To ensure the system is not abused, and does not drain funds from healthcare, employable people will be placed with open jobs. If there is no open job in their field for an extended time, they will be trained in another job. That is what the training is for: it is not an education system. If you don't want to work; tuff! We don't need welfare bums on Mars. Every ticket to Mars would be a round trip, so everyone has a free return to Earth. Get a job, or a job will be assigned to you, or go back to Earth.

If you get hurt, the healthcare system will pay medical expenses. The employment insurance system (all built into payroll tax) will pay for your living expenses until you heal. Then get back to work, or be trained in a new field that you can do. If you are permanently injured so you can never do the same job, you will be trained in something you can do. As long as you are conscious there will always be something you can do. If you are unwilling to work, go back to Earth.

If you develop an addiction, you have no one to blame but yourself; just don't do it.

clark · 2003-04-14 12:17:19

Okay, your system is predicated on the final solution as ejecting those within the society to another location if they do not comply with the working requirements of living on Mars.

How exactly do you deal with the people that can't be sent back?

This is why private enterprise is a dead end in space. Here, on Earth, you get tossed on your rear, and you sleep out in the cold.

What are you going to do to those that can't go back to Earth? Space them?

Oops, forgot to pay the electricity bill- <poof>, lights go off, air runs out, my family dies.

What happens to people in a situation where they lives are endangered? They start to think very rationaly about how they can survive. Things like respect for law suddenly make little sense. I applaude you for the well thought out social net- but it still isn't enough.

The system is unstable. Open environment systems do not work in closed environment situations. Something else is requried.

foadi · 2003-04-14 12:18:02

What happens to those unable to pay for baisc utilities?

They don't get them.

What happens if you are unemployed?

Whatever the unemployed person wants.

What happens if you are hurt in an accident, which is your own fault, and can no longer work?

You die.

What happens if you develop an addicition and blow all your money on said addicition?

You're broke

What happens if all of the above, and people on Mars cannot return to Earth?

Adapt or die.

What happens if all of the above, and people on Mars cannot return to Earth?

You die.

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-14 12:18:08

Clark makes the point that if you can't pay for things for whatever reason you're basically screwed. True...but he hasn't taken into account private welfare groups. These are independent of government and taxes and are generally considered to be more effective at rehabilitating people and getting them back on their feet than government welfare.

One nice thing about letting the private sector take care of welfare is that the government isn't sponsoring any one set of values. Values get intermingled with religion, and then people start accusing the govt. of sponsoring religion, etc.

Clark mentioned that the tax code is a way to encourage or discourage certain behavior. He implies that this is a good thing. I disagree. The govt. should not encourage anything but peaceful behaviour, otherwise if you're in the minority you get punished just because you're different. For example: Married couples get a better tax rate than two gay people living their entire lives together. That discriminates against gays just because they are different. This law obviously comes from religious ideas and therefore indirectly sponsors a state religion which goes against much of what democracy stands for.

clark · 2003-04-14 12:21:26

Foadi,

Your small quips betray you.

You accept the results of the situation without examining the implications.

If you agree that the results are acceptable, then how shall we maintain the social stability neccessary to protect all individuals within an environment that can be destroyed by ONE individual.

One disenfranchised loon can bring the whole thing down.

Adapt or die.

Ah, adapt by perpetuating the same friggin system that we have been trying for thousands of years in an open environment.

Well thought out.

foadi · 2003-04-14 12:23:54

True...but he hasn't taken into account private welfare groups.

The strong will live, the weak will die. Private welfare, state welfare, no welfare; makes not difference.

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

clark · 2003-04-14 12:27:21

The strong will live, the weak will die.

Ah, Darwin.

Do you know who was smarter than Darwin?

Smith and Wesson.

"The smart will live, the stupid will die," was forever altered by Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wesson.

Now, the well aimed shot shall live, and the poor mark, will die.

Those in a situation where their lives are in jepordy will act out to ensure their own personal survival. This means we have to develop a State to deal with these individuals. Back to square friggin ONE from your own bent philosphical views.

How do you reconcile that?

foadi · 2003-04-14 12:33:07

You accept the results of the situation without examining the You accept the results of the situation without examining the implications.

So?

If you agree that the results are acceptable, then how shall we maintain the social stability neccessary to protect all individuals within an environment that can be destroyed by ONE individual.

Do whatever you want, I wont get in the way.

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

foadi · 2003-04-14 12:34:03

Ah, Darwin.
Do you know who was smarter than Darwin?

No. I don't care either.

- foadi(se) de la Ter-Rani

clark · 2003-04-14 12:36:08

No. I don't care either.

I applaude your indifference.

Thank you for your previous personal views. I will try to care in the future.

Have a great day.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-10 10:05:50

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#2 2003-04-10 19:28:49

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#3 2003-04-10 19:48:23

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#4 2003-04-10 19:49:27

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#5 2003-04-10 22:30:59

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#6 2003-04-11 08:27:13

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#7 2003-04-11 12:23:03

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#8 2003-04-11 13:50:30

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#9 2003-04-11 15:53:27

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#10 2003-04-11 19:48:54

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#11 2003-04-11 19:56:53

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#12 2003-04-13 23:02:58

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#13 2003-04-14 09:49:58

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#14 2003-04-14 11:30:17

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#15 2003-04-14 11:57:08

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#16 2003-04-14 12:09:30

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#17 2003-04-14 12:17:19

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#18 2003-04-14 12:18:02

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#19 2003-04-14 12:18:08

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#20 2003-04-14 12:21:26

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#21 2003-04-14 12:23:54

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#22 2003-04-14 12:27:21

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#23 2003-04-14 12:33:07

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#24 2003-04-14 12:34:03

Re: Reduce Government Drag

#25 2003-04-14 12:36:08

Re: Reduce Government Drag

Board footer