How about we force all government programs to run a crowd fund for all their funding. No one is obligated and everyone can choose which programs get their money.
This way taxes are 100% voluntary. No one is forced to give a dime and you will see which programs are most valuable to the public
Not entirely crazy, but you're forgetting some key components of how taxes work that would make this ineffective. Few individuals hold all the wealth, most of it is tied up not only in assets, but through corporations. In other words: you're relying on a pool of donators who're literally unable to pay the costs.
I'm a huge fan of the crowd sourcing phenomenon, and I'm all about finding new uses for it, but this isn't one of them.
But if you'd like to prove me wrong: go ahead, I'd like nothing more than to be wrong. Start a programme for creating government services through voluntary crowd funded taxes, God speed.
just imagine how much accountability there is on the block chain. now imagine the government claims they lost 6 trillion dollars again. well guess what we could trace those funds. Also when it comes down to it if the people what a service and 10 million people donate a dollar I'm sure we don't need the donations from the few greedy corporations to have local projects succeed. As well as knowing who the few greedy corporations are so you could choose not to do business with them. this would work better than today's model by far
the block chain will really help provide transparency! I doubt that will happen as long as the majority of Americans continue to pay their taxes with out asking where it goes
I think this very doable right now. I'm not saying we stop with what is being taxed right now but, any new taxes they impose should be voted that way. And reallocate the funds already being taxed.
I say we transition all taxes to be crowd funded on the block chain. That way there is complete transparency and things like the nsa will be forced to prove its value
Negative income tax. It encourages the poor to work (current US system penalizes the poor if they work) and gives everyone the freedom to spend their tax refund any way they see fit (current system tries to force people to spend certain ways). It is simpler and removes government from the role of "nanny".
Example:
The income tax rate is 50%.
The tax exemption is $30,000.
The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate.
Under this scheme:
A person earning $0 would receive $15,000 from the government.
A person earning $25,000 would receive $2,500 from the government.
A person earning $30,000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax.
A person earning $50,000 would pay a tax of $10,000.
A person earning $100,000 would pay a tax of $35,000.
I used to love the negative income tax, and I still have a special place for it in my heart.
Except, as I've come to think, it has two really fatal flaws. (Please don't take this as criticism of your idea. I love it, in the sense that I still think that IF it were possible, it would a huge improvement).
The main problem is, you can't actually get it.
It always assumes to be a replacement for ALL OTHER FEDERAL TAXES. I yelled that, like an old guy experiencing a computer for the first time, because it's so important as a corollary to the Negative Income Tax Comment.
If it is put into place as just another system of taxation among others (i.e. exactly what happened with the AMT that we have now), then it's worse than a tax increase. It's a tax increase plus a spending increase.
The problem is that it's politically impossible to sell it to either side of the ideological spectrum. Republicans hate it because it can incentivise less productivity, in order to game out the system and fit into one of those brackets. It also enshrines a permanent welfare system with absolutely no end-point or limits as to how long a person can stay on it until they must get a job. Republicans would never, ever go for that.
And democrats don't like it because of the unspoken assumption that this would be a replacement for ALL other forms of federal taxation (no more gift tax, estate tax, capital gains, tax, and so on and so forth, etc....).
That just would never, ever, ever fly for that side of things.
Which is sad because on a smaller scale, it could probably work and work well.
In fact, in modern kibbutzim in Israel, for the kibbutzum that haven't either totally privatized, or totally retain the old system, many of them are instituting things along these veins and although the results are mixed, it hasn't been as devastating as some have said it would be....but that's likely because it can only work, optimally, in a small community.
But the fact that you are bringing it up is amazing because half the battle is getting people to think outside the box on taxation, because that gets them thinking about what taxes really ARE, WHY we should or shouldn't have them, and how and why they should be apportioned the way they are.
And that's the first step to making a real substantial difference, I think.
I don't disagree with any of that. But if we are talking about a politically feasible system in the US today that would be none.
I was shocked that self styled "deficit hawks" approved a tax plan that they themselves acknowledged would balloon the deficit. The Democrats are only concerned about tweaking the numbers in the current system. There is no appetite for change in DC.
It was insulting that they called some of what they did a “tax-cut” when it was really a deferred massive tax increase on my kids and grandkids. The system is near hopelessly lost.
I am more focused with positioning myself to do well in that system.
But you can expect more of that. If you look at the situation unemotionally, Trump's reputation relies on being good with business. Would it matter to him what your grandkids have to pay in 50 years if his legacy is secure?
That being said, only worry about what you can change. Plan accordingly.
Extremely foolish. The poor don't work far more often because they can't, not because they're lazy or don't want to.
"...current US system penalizes the poor if they work"
A little, but this is way, way, way overblown.
Also like I said elsewhere: one of the key points of universal income is the libertarian small government aspect. Half the point of a tax reform is to save money, and cut down on corruption, a negative tax system will explode those two categories.
I think governments should get out of the business of social engineering, of deciding the best way for individuals to spend their money. When a few people substitute their knowledge for the knowledge of millions of consumers making billions of decisions, dislocations and misallocations occur. @davidpakman is a smart guy, to be sure, but he's not smarter than all of the knowledge that drives the marketplace.
A 1:1 deduction in individual tax payable, for donations to Non-Profits who provide healthcare (actual care, not insurance) services to individuals at or under the poverty level.
This should be acceptable to all sides. It’s a tax-cut and a tool to increase a transition from government-bureaucracy in medicine to more efficient non-profit management of medical services for the underprivileged. And it would specifically assist the weakest and most vulnerable members of society by definition.
It’s a relatively simple (relatively being the opereative word) method of incentivizing the funding of more medical care for those who need it by those who, for whatever reason, have more wealth, without punishing those with the wealth, but, instead, actually provides financial incentives to give money directly to help the people suffering the most in society.
It’s actually kind of unbelievable that it’s not a thing already.
I'm not trying to be nasty, but you'll see if you read that again up there, there is not a single tax proposed. It's a tax-cut.
I'm not talking high theoretical stuff here (which, you'll find if you search a little through my comment history, I probably agree with you on more things than I disagree with you on).
Just a pragmatic, real-world type of thing as a proposal assuming we live in a world where the State, in all its many forms, exists, and people are looking for ways to reduce it's footprint while helping out the people in society who have traditionally been (and continue to be) treated more poorly by the State than even the rest of us.
How about we force all government programs to run a crowd fund for all their funding. No one is obligated and everyone can choose which programs get their money.
This way taxes are 100% voluntary. No one is forced to give a dime and you will see which programs are most valuable to the public
Finally someone's talking sense! ☺
Not entirely crazy, but you're forgetting some key components of how taxes work that would make this ineffective. Few individuals hold all the wealth, most of it is tied up not only in assets, but through corporations. In other words: you're relying on a pool of donators who're literally unable to pay the costs.
I'm a huge fan of the crowd sourcing phenomenon, and I'm all about finding new uses for it, but this isn't one of them.
But if you'd like to prove me wrong: go ahead, I'd like nothing more than to be wrong. Start a programme for creating government services through voluntary crowd funded taxes, God speed.
just imagine how much accountability there is on the block chain. now imagine the government claims they lost 6 trillion dollars again. well guess what we could trace those funds. Also when it comes down to it if the people what a service and 10 million people donate a dollar I'm sure we don't need the donations from the few greedy corporations to have local projects succeed. As well as knowing who the few greedy corporations are so you could choose not to do business with them. this would work better than today's model by far
That would be ideal but I doubt it would happen anytime soon, even though I think blockchain would gradually change how governments function.
the block chain will really help provide transparency! I doubt that will happen as long as the majority of Americans continue to pay their taxes with out asking where it goes
I think this very doable right now. I'm not saying we stop with what is being taxed right now but, any new taxes they impose should be voted that way. And reallocate the funds already being taxed.
I say we transition all taxes to be crowd funded on the block chain. That way there is complete transparency and things like the nsa will be forced to prove its value
Negative income tax. It encourages the poor to work (current US system penalizes the poor if they work) and gives everyone the freedom to spend their tax refund any way they see fit (current system tries to force people to spend certain ways). It is simpler and removes government from the role of "nanny".
Example:
The income tax rate is 50%.
The tax exemption is $30,000.
The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate.
Under this scheme:
A person earning $0 would receive $15,000 from the government.
A person earning $25,000 would receive $2,500 from the government.
A person earning $30,000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax.
A person earning $50,000 would pay a tax of $10,000.
A person earning $100,000 would pay a tax of $35,000.
Yep, I've actually discussed negative income tax vs UBI, there are pros and cons to both
I used to love the negative income tax, and I still have a special place for it in my heart.
Except, as I've come to think, it has two really fatal flaws. (Please don't take this as criticism of your idea. I love it, in the sense that I still think that IF it were possible, it would a huge improvement).
The main problem is, you can't actually get it.
It always assumes to be a replacement for ALL OTHER FEDERAL TAXES. I yelled that, like an old guy experiencing a computer for the first time, because it's so important as a corollary to the Negative Income Tax Comment.
If it is put into place as just another system of taxation among others (i.e. exactly what happened with the AMT that we have now), then it's worse than a tax increase. It's a tax increase plus a spending increase.
The problem is that it's politically impossible to sell it to either side of the ideological spectrum. Republicans hate it because it can incentivise less productivity, in order to game out the system and fit into one of those brackets. It also enshrines a permanent welfare system with absolutely no end-point or limits as to how long a person can stay on it until they must get a job. Republicans would never, ever go for that.
And democrats don't like it because of the unspoken assumption that this would be a replacement for ALL other forms of federal taxation (no more gift tax, estate tax, capital gains, tax, and so on and so forth, etc....).
That just would never, ever, ever fly for that side of things.
Which is sad because on a smaller scale, it could probably work and work well.
In fact, in modern kibbutzim in Israel, for the kibbutzum that haven't either totally privatized, or totally retain the old system, many of them are instituting things along these veins and although the results are mixed, it hasn't been as devastating as some have said it would be....but that's likely because it can only work, optimally, in a small community.
But the fact that you are bringing it up is amazing because half the battle is getting people to think outside the box on taxation, because that gets them thinking about what taxes really ARE, WHY we should or shouldn't have them, and how and why they should be apportioned the way they are.
And that's the first step to making a real substantial difference, I think.
I don't disagree with any of that. But if we are talking about a politically feasible system in the US today that would be none.
I was shocked that self styled "deficit hawks" approved a tax plan that they themselves acknowledged would balloon the deficit. The Democrats are only concerned about tweaking the numbers in the current system. There is no appetite for change in DC.
It was insulting that they called some of what they did a “tax-cut” when it was really a deferred massive tax increase on my kids and grandkids. The system is near hopelessly lost.
I am more focused with positioning myself to do well in that system.
But you can expect more of that. If you look at the situation unemotionally, Trump's reputation relies on being good with business. Would it matter to him what your grandkids have to pay in 50 years if his legacy is secure?
That being said, only worry about what you can change. Plan accordingly.
Respectfully:
Extremely foolish. The poor don't work far more often because they can't, not because they're lazy or don't want to.
"...current US system penalizes the poor if they work"
A little, but this is way, way, way overblown.
Also like I said elsewhere: one of the key points of universal income is the libertarian small government aspect. Half the point of a tax reform is to save money, and cut down on corruption, a negative tax system will explode those two categories.
I think governments should get out of the business of social engineering, of deciding the best way for individuals to spend their money. When a few people substitute their knowledge for the knowledge of millions of consumers making billions of decisions, dislocations and misallocations occur. @davidpakman is a smart guy, to be sure, but he's not smarter than all of the knowledge that drives the marketplace.
No taxes :)
Taxation is theft
Some of the founders of steemit would say that taxation is theft.
A partisan hack trying to ruin shit for others....Go back to Hillary and her minions DAVIDHACKMAN
The best idea is to believe in your own ideals, not to fall into the famous trial and error
Nice video. You make some interesting points. I also agree that all medical expenses should be tax deductible.
David i would definitely cut capital gains tax for corporations (reference to one if David's other video) lol
One small but, I think, potentially useful, idea:
A 1:1 deduction in individual tax payable, for donations to Non-Profits who provide healthcare (actual care, not insurance) services to individuals at or under the poverty level.
This should be acceptable to all sides. It’s a tax-cut and a tool to increase a transition from government-bureaucracy in medicine to more efficient non-profit management of medical services for the underprivileged. And it would specifically assist the weakest and most vulnerable members of society by definition.
It’s a relatively simple (relatively being the opereative word) method of incentivizing the funding of more medical care for those who need it by those who, for whatever reason, have more wealth, without punishing those with the wealth, but, instead, actually provides financial incentives to give money directly to help the people suffering the most in society.
It’s actually kind of unbelievable that it’s not a thing already.
No one should be forced to pay taxes. Any forced taxation is theft
I'm not trying to be nasty, but you'll see if you read that again up there, there is not a single tax proposed. It's a tax-cut.
I'm not talking high theoretical stuff here (which, you'll find if you search a little through my comment history, I probably agree with you on more things than I disagree with you on).
Just a pragmatic, real-world type of thing as a proposal assuming we live in a world where the State, in all its many forms, exists, and people are looking for ways to reduce it's footprint while helping out the people in society who have traditionally been (and continue to be) treated more poorly by the State than even the rest of us.
a deduction and eradication are two different things. a tax deduction still leave some taxes.