Perry Proposes a Flat Tax

[Ideologue]

My first response is to suggest that a high income individual is likelier to use more government-provided infrastructure, from roads to the court system, than a poorer individual.  Likewise, because they consume more, their needs must be serviced, on average, by more people than a poorer person.  This is more tenuous, but it segues into my second point.

I don't see how yo can sustain this one.  There are a number of services and infrastructure whose provision has zero corelation to income.  A poor person walks on a sidewalk just as much or more than a rich person.  A middle class person drives across a bridge roughly as frequently as a rich person. 

My second thought is that taxing individuals highly valued by the market due to high demand and low supply is a market corrective for the lower income earned by those whose skills are in higher supply, but are foundational and necessary to society, without which the higher valued individual could not function in his or her higher valued role.  However, I suspect you wouldn't buy that, because I reckon you assume that the market valuation of any activity is its intrinsic value, whereas I assume that supply is an extrinsic factor to value that affects the market valuation of an activity but not its intrinsic value.  If that makes sense.

Sounds like your're trying to argue that some jobs generate positive externalities that the market doesn't account for.  The first problem with that argument is that typically we try to account for jobs that generate externalities by making them public sector jobs.  The second problem is to show that those extenalities rise at a faster rate than income.  I.e. you and I only get 30 cents worth of police protection on our marginal dollar of income but Lemonjello and Marty get a full dollar on their marginal dollar. 

If *that* makes any sense.

Well, yeah, that's sort of exactly what I mean--although I wouldn't use police protection as an example.  But wealthy people's divorces, deaths, and disputed business transactions most certainly occupy more court resources than otherwise law-abiding people with fewer assets (indeed, there's a certain barrier amount below which civil disputes are unprofitable).  Likewise--and you're cherrypicking pretty neutral examples--a rich person walks on sidewalks to the same extent, but a wealthier person is likelier to use far more electricity, gasoline, and transportation infrastructure in the delivery of their greater amount of goods, than a poor person.  They are definitely responsible for more negative externalities.  Specialized taxes, or specific laws and regulations, could reduce this, and may be fairer in many regards (not every rich person drives a nitro-burning funny car) but a progressive income tax is administratively simpler.

But even as far as "police protection" goes, to a certain degree that's true.  It may be argued that the government provides significantly more to a wealthy person in terms of creating a stable environment than a poor person.  Outside of the unpleasant argument that the poors would eat them if nothing stood in their way, certainly wealthy persons benefit more from an environment which provides them with the stability to engage in contracts where they tend to have greater bargaining power (usually through an organized collective intermediary, like a corporation--but who most benefits from shareholder status? probably not poor people).  The stability government provides is vital to wealthy people's wealth, and arguably less so to poor people's poverty.  That is, a person unemployed even within a stable environment loses comparatively little were government institutions to vanish, and may even stand to gain as without a court system or police power foreclosures and the like are somewhat more difficult to pull off; a wealthy person stands to lose everything if the government went away.

[Ideologue]

Houses and cars have market value.  When I register a car or the deed to a house, the state tells me how much I have to pay in taxes.  I don't see an equivalent enforcement mechanism for bank account balances, bonds, stocks, unincorporated partnerships, and the like.

I think houses and cars and things like art are included in the European 'solidarity' wealth taxes.  I think Luxembourg, France and Switzerland have them - they're progressive which is somewhat curious when they're on net assets over, say, €1million.  I believe there's been a fair few other wealth taxes introduced as part of the austerity measures in various Euro countries.

You guys have your outrageous sales taxes, though.  How can one enjoy solidarity when a pack of cigarettes costs $20?

[Admiral Yi]

<snip>

I concede the one about use of the courts, though itsn't it true that in civil cases and divorces and such the parties pay the court costs?

Electricity and gas "infrastructure" is paid for by electricity bills and gas bills.  You could argue that Scrooge McDuck puts more of a stress on bridges, ports, etc. because he is consuming more goods, but you still need to argue that this use of infrastructure is *disproportionate* to his income.  I.e. you and I spend $1 so we beat up the infrastructure a penny, why does the ratio go up when Marty spends $10,000?  Shouldn't the same ratio of expenditure to infrastructure apply at both levels?

But even as far as "police protection" goes, to a certain degree that's true.  It may be argued that the government provides significantly more to a wealthy person in terms of creating a stable environment than a poor person.  Outside of the unpleasant argument that the poors would eat them if nothing stood in their way, certainly wealthy persons benefit more from an environment which provides them with the stability to engage in contracts where they tend to have greater bargaining power (usually through an organized collective intermediary, like a corporation--but who most benefits from shareholder status? probably not poor people).  The stability government provides is vital to wealthy people's wealth, and arguably less so to poor people's poverty.  That is, a person unemployed even within a stable environment loses comparatively little were government institutions to vanish, and may even stand to gain as without a court system or police power foreclosures and the like are somewhat more difficult to pull off; a wealthy person stands to lose everything if the government went away.

Well this is an interesting line of argumentation.

[Neil]

By the wealthy, of the wealthy and for the wealthy?

[Sheilbh]

Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.

This is a big political issue in this country for the elderly.

[Neil]

Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.

This is a big political issue in this country for the elderly.

It's been an issue for the elderly everywhere, although I don't think it's gained much traction here.  It's commonly held that the elderly shouldn't live in Alberta, and that they'd be happier someplace else.

[fhdz]

Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.

Since schools are funded in large part by property taxes - at least in this state - where would you find the revenue to fund those schools when the property taxes go away? Additional income tax? A sales tax?

[Habbaku]

In Georgia, the proposed solution to eliminating property taxes was a 3% state-wide sales tax.

[fhdz]

In Georgia, the proposed solution to eliminating property taxes was a 3% state-wide sales tax.

Sounds good to me.

[grumbler]

Actually, I always liked the reverse mortgage solution to property taxes for the elderly.  They don't have to pay the taxes, but the unpaid liability becomes a lien on the house, to be paid off when sold or inherited.  The interest rate for that type of arrangement could be quite low.

[sbr]

In Georgia, the proposed solution to eliminating property taxes was a 3% state-wide sales tax.

Sounds good to me.

Aren't you in Oregon too?  That'll never happen.

[Ideologue]

<snip>

I concede the one about use of the courts, though itsn't it true that in civil cases and divorces and such the parties pay the court costs?

To a degree, that depends upon the jurisdiction.  In most places, I don't think they're self-sustaining.

Well this is an interesting line of argumentation.

Oh, yeah, fahdiz reminded me, public education tends to favor the intelligent, which is correlated with wealth, and advanced classes for smarties would seem to require better teachers than dumbass classes for dumbasses.  I don't know exactly how all this shakes out, though, so I'm presenting that simply as food for thought.

[fhdz]

Aren't you in Oregon too?  That'll never happen.

I know. Sad.

I rather like grumbler's idea, on first read. I'll want to think about that more.

[sbr]

Aren't you in Oregon too?  That'll never happen.

I know. Sad.

I rather like grumbler's idea, on first read. I'll want to think about that more.

I really like the way the value of my house keeps going down, but the property taxes I owe keeps going up.

[garbon]

We tax cars and houses, I don't see why taxing a bank account would be particularly different (in fact, it'd be far superior, since taxing a bank account is taxing liquid assets, as opposed to potentially forcing the sale of a physical asset that generates wealth, like a car).

Yi, I didn't ignore you, I'm thinking about your question.

Wouldn't you be encouraging people to never save money / not keep money in banks?