kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/05/86)
From: "James B. VanBokkelen" <JBVB@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
The only prospect for any actual reduction is based on
shifting some of the tax burden back to corporations, ...
No, taxes can't be swept under the rug. If corporations are taxed
more they will simply pass on the cost to consumers in the form of
increased prices and to employees in the form of decreased wages and
benefits.
It doesn't really matter whether all taxes are payed by individuals
or by corporations or by any combination. The same amount of money is
payed by the same number of people.
Actually, it's better that it be payed by individuals for one
important reason: People should know what government is costing them.
For that reason I oppose such 'painless' taxes as corporate taxes,
payroll witholding, employer contributions, seperate sales taxes,
property taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, gift taxes, etc, etc.
If everyone supposedly agrees that we have the right amount of
taxation, or too little, why not simply merge all the taxes into one,
and present each individual with a bill for total taxes owed at the
end of each year? Preferably, it would be itemized as to how much
money was going to pay for each government program. I think if they
were to do that, people would start realizing just how much money is
being taken from them and would insist on a radical tax cut, like by a
factor of two at least.
There is really only one choice open to government: Cutting taxes,
and, to eliminate the national debt (not just the deficit, i.e. the
annual increase in the national debt) cutting spending by an even
greater amount.
...Keith
-------sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/14/86)
More specifically, the way conscientious objection to taxes could work would be as follows. All taxes would be collected together. The government would send out with the tax forms some sort of chart of where your taxes were going (or at least it would be available at standard places along with the conscientious objection forms). People could refuse any category, and calculate the percentage of their taxes that that would be. Then they could enter that amount as a tax credit. The government could take people's word that they conscientiously object, since it really is no judge of people's consciences. Alternatively, it could ask a certain randomly selected group to justify their claim, as it now audits some returns. That puts the government in a position of judging people's consciences, but it is better than the current system, where you can't object no matter how objectionable any government expenditure is to you. For the most part, people would probably still pay their taxes, and the government could make up the difference by increasing users' fees to cover some services or by cutting back expenditures which nobody believed in. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (08/18/86)
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
... People could refuse any [government spending] category, and
calculate the percentage of their taxes that that would be. Then
they could enter that amount as a tax credit. The government
could take people's word that they conscientiously object, since
it really is no judge of people's consciences.
Wouldn't a lot of people just object to everything and pay no taxes?
Does a legitimate objection have to be to the use of the money, or
can it be simply to the fact that it is MY money? For instance am I
allowed to object to government programs that give my money, directly
as cash, to people wealthier than me? I do not think there is
anything intrinsically evil about people wealthier than me getting
even more money. What I DO conscientiously object to is that the
money is being taken from me against my will.
Does this apply to state income tax, to local property tax, and to
Social Security tax? It could get a little unwieldly with sales
taxes, especially if there are several people waiting behind you in
the cashier line while you decide which programs your ten cents should
go to.
Don't you think it is a great invasion of privacy for the government
to know which of its programs you object to? Why should people who
prefer to keep that information secret, like their ballot, be
penalized on April 15th?
A similar idea is for everyone to pay the same amount of tax as now,
but be free to decide which programs their money should go to. I see
many problems with this approach as well as yours, but both are
interesting alternatives to the present system.
...Keith
-------sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA (08/18/86)
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU I can't think of any reason that state and local governments have a greater right to take money from me than the federal government, so I can't see why they wouldn't be included. Social Security is also included. Sales tax and phone tax would be eliminated; it would be unwieldy to use this method of taxation on them, and I can't think of any reason for their existence except to hide the amount of taxes the government is demanding. Certainly some people would refuse to pay any taxes. They would get a free ride. But there would be enough people paying taxes to cover them, just as enough people pay taxes now to cover those who cheat. And it is better for them to get a free ride than for people to be compelled to pay for something which violates their conscience. The advantage of this system over only relying on donations is that people wouldn't not pay because they had been too lazy to get around to it or because they had underestimated their share, but because they didn't believe they should be paying. They could object to the use of the money either because it is intrinsically bad or because it is not appropriate for the *government* to use the money in that way (I shouldn't have to object to people spending money to teach children "secular humanism" to object to the government spending taxes in this way). I don't see why it is an invasion of privacy for the government to know which of its programs I object to. How else can it not put my money there? Unless the government collects no money at all (in which case it can't exist) or takes money from everyone, whether they like it or not (which is an even greater invasion of privacy), it will be able to know to which of its programs I have given money and to which I haven't. People who don't want the government to know that information will just be stuck with a choice between refusing all their taxes and paying all their taxes. I suppose if we instead had the other plan you mentioned, where people pay the same tax as now but allocate it as they choose, then it would be possible to separate the allocations from a person's name by having the person just list income and how to allocate the money on a separate form from the income tax form. But then there would be no way to know which people are lying about their income on the allocation form. Lynn Gazis sappho@sri-nic ------- -------
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (08/21/86)
> From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> > Subject: taxes > ... All taxes would be collected together. The > government would send out with the tax forms some sort of chart of > where your taxes were going ... This leads me to mention a desire I have had for several decades (ever since I began paying property [real estate] taxes). At least around here, and I would assume in many other localities, the real estate tax bill does contain a breakdown somewhat similar to the above -- it shows the taxing rate for each category and the amount you are being charged for it, and then a sum total which is what you owe. This shows clearly that you are paying x dollars for the public school system, y for the library, z for the zoo-museum district, and so on. I have never objected to paying this sum total amount which I have been billed. What I DO object to is paying for some of the sub-categories. For example, I simply do not believe in public education, which is what well over half of the total tax bill goes to. I believe that I should have the right to specify, when I pay the total amount, that my tax money is to NOT go to that category. If the sum total is, say, $500, and $300 of that is for public schools while $15 is for the library system, I should be able to pay my $500 but specify that the library gets $315 and the public schools $0, or any other modification of the default breakout I choose. When I do this, it is important that the amounts really get debited from the "losing" categories and credited to the "gaining" ones. For example, suppose that the yearly budget for the library system is $20,000,000 (derived from applying their tax rate against the total amount of taxable property). Because I assigned that $300 on my tax bill to them, they actually get $20,000,300 and the school system gets $300 less than they would have gotten. Now, of course, everybody else is doing this too, and I'm sure there are those out there who love public education, and assign all their tax money to it, while there are others who cut off the library and put it all into "interest on outstanding bonds" because they own a bunch of municipal bonds, and so forth. However, as is universally true, the vast majority will do absolutely nothing and let the default amounts get applied to each sub-category just like the bill shows. So maybe the public schools would lose or maybe they would gain. Maybe the library would get a windfall or maybe they would barely eke by. The point is that it allows people to vote with their dollars in a very real and effective manner. And, since everyone is still liable for owing that full sum-total amount, it's not a matter of just cutting parts off to save yourself money -- you still pay the same amount regardless of what breakout you ascribe to it. So this is "ideologically pure" -- you are not able to reduce what you owe by doing this, just specify where YOUR dollars are going. This would not have been possible before the advent of computerized accounting, since the manual processing of thousands of variant assignments would have been impossible, but an automated implementation should be relatively simple. A few other touches could be added, such as late payments lose the option of making such reassignments, and the like. It would introduce an element of chaos into municipal government, but I think this would be a good thing -- it would force elements of this system to become more responsive to the actual needs of individuals, as opposed to vague committments to the "public good", because action by individuals could actually affect the funding those elements receive. Looking at the theoretical versus actual budgets after the first of the year, when all these tax bills have come due and any of these reassignments are applied to the funding available for the next fiscal period, will be a clear indication of what segments of the municipal government people value and what they dislike or want to reduce. I have no expectations that this could ever become reality, of course. Will Martin -------
kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (01/05/87)
... I'm rather suprised you would designate taxes as being like a
contribution! Taxes are coerced out of people, it is not at all
like giving food to the poor. The IRS will not take away your
house if you don't give food to the poor. -CWM]
Taxes are not voluntary contributions. However, since tax rates are
set by the people we elect, the amount of tax money that goes to a
given cause is usually roughly equal to the amount that would go to
that cause if the contributions were truly voluntary.
For instance if half the people think that the space program should
get $100 per person per year, and the other half think it should get
$200 per person per year, the government (if truly representative)
would spend about $150 per person per year on the space program.
This is unfair to those who don't choose to spend that much. If the
space program were to be financed entirely by voluntary donations, it
would receive the same amount.
...Keith
[ I find no real proof of this. I don't buy that people would take
their tax monies, turn right around and spend it on exactly what their
taxes would have gone for. (Not to say that I favor the current
system of taxation.) -CWM]
-------