A solution to the current economic crisis could come from merely changing the current tax system.
The estimated compliance and operating cost of the current federal income tax system – an amount in addition to actual tax revenue – is, including disincentive to production, sixty cents for every dollar of collected revenue. This is – on a $2,6 trillion budget – a $1.6 trillion hit to the economy!
The estimated increase in effective net income for individuals and businesses – if we had a stable and objective federal revenue system – is an astounding 18% per annum. One tax reform proposal that may be the answer can be seen on the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia at . . .
People are effectively losing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars during their lifetime through economic corruption and inefficiencies in the tax system. Why haven’t elected officials – who have been briefed on the above and other proposals – been challenged by the media to take a stand on tax policy and justify their political philosophy and specific fiscal policy positions? Why hasn’t there been public debate on this issue?
Radically changing the tax system won’t radically realign our economy’s capital structure magically, it won’t reduce burdensome government regulations, and it won’t cut government spending.
Radically changing the tax system WOULD dramatically change the economy, as the huge amount of intellectual and physical capital now wasted in compliance tasks could be applied to the production of real goods and services. One and a half trillion dollars is a lot of money.
And, of course, a simplified tax code would dramatically reduce government regulations AND – with increased economic stability and visibility – there would most probably also be a dramatic decrease in unwarranted spending.
People should be looking at real, immediate solutions like the RPUT . . . before the country goes down the tubes.
You present this with the premise that government is necessary. Any form of taxation is theft. Thus, eliminate government, and theft from the state is eliminated. A “stable and objective federal revenue system” is not possible. This is like saying a thief should choose his/her victims in a stable and objective fashion. Any thief will target victims that have the most to lose.
The “pure” Libertarian asserts no native obligation to anything he has not voluntarily contracted for. However, the purist may indeed receive huge benefits in the current system – national defense and highways, for instance – which would then be paid for by others. Still, if the pure Libertarian wants to propose a specific socioeconomic model that can be tested – and the proposed system does not consist of competing tribes or gangs with their own armies and courts – then that model can be examined.
The immediate problem, however, remains. So, logically, rather than posit vague theoretical concepts unlikely realized, it would be much better for a citizen to actually do something to substantially heighten their personal liberty and wealth, and actually improve society, even if the improvement does not correspond with a theoretical optimum. And since “engineers” have designed a bridge over the chasm of government despotism by providing new tax reform to replace the income tax [see link above], then why not carry a small plank of support in the construction that bridge?
True, the barbarians are not at the gate right now, and one can sit on the green grass debating hypotheticals. But, when the barbarians do come over the ridge – and they are coming – and the bridge is not there, where will you and your family go?
I think it best to stand with the “battle engineers” now and get that bridge built, lest I be stranded with little resources, no one to cover my back – and, yes, no escape over that chasm.
A “vague theoretical concept”? Eliminating government is vague? How so? And how would you test a “specific socioeconomic model”? I am not going to engage in scientific jargon to explain myself. I will say this: taxation is theft, and for one to say “well, I cannot do anything about it, so I may as well go along with it and attempt to find the ‘optimal’ solution” is absurd. Eliminating government is not a “vague” concept. It is a goal that can be realized, if people quit being sheep and discontinue believing the lies of politicians. The best way to start is by not voting, which I am very proud to say that I do not.
Yes, it would change the economy. No, it would not change the economy dramatically. This is no “silver bullet” for the current economic crisis.
It would only do so regarding the tax code itself.
RPUT would not increase economic stability or visibility, nor would any other tax, nor even an abolition of any tax. Economic stability is threatened by factors different from taxation.
RPUT won’t save the country from going down the tubes. Really, replacing a less efficient tax with a more efficient tax is probably a bad thing, since it would encourage government to raise taxes and spend MORE.
The arguments above – against government and against fiscal policy reform – are in my opinion – fantastically immoral and intellectually lazy.
Essentially, the position of the “pure” Libertarian is that there are no implied obligations in life, and the pure Libertarian can benefit from other peoples’ work and labor without liability if he does not explicitly volunteer to participate in related social and economic management tasks. There could be, but I have not seen, any modern socioeconomic model or example where there was no government, and self-interest groups – or gangs – lived peaceably amongst themselves and others.
Further, to ignore both argument and empirical evidence – from people who have accomplished decades of research on the subject – that a stable and objective federal revenue system can dramatically improve personal liberty and save trillions of dollars in the country is, well, perplexing.
Asserting there should be no improvement in federal fiscal policy – no tax reform – because no improvement in society should occur unless governments are dissolved and taxation is completely abandoned is – in my view – foolish, and is a position, if continually held, that could lead to further social and economic devolution and a much worse situation than we have now.
Taxation is theft. Please present an argument that supports it, other than simply saying that we need to find a way to minimize the amount and improve the efficiency in the way we are robbed. You come to this forum arguing for a way improve the efficiency of a “stable and objective” tax system, when the majority of people here do not support ANY tax system. Do not find it perplexing that we do not agree with you. Furthermore, the RPUT violates private property rights the same way that the income tax does, because earned income is private property.
Really? So you stand by your claim that simply reforming the tax system will be the “silver bullet” for the economic crisis? Most members of this board would correctly find that belief to be intellectually lazy.
Actually, “pure” libertarianism would be that no one has the right to initiate violence on another. In other words, the non-aggression axiom/principle is libertarianism. That means that any monopoly on force - the state - is immoral.
I never denied this fact. I did, however, deny that fiscal reform would be the “silver bullet” to get us out of this economic crisis. Unless you are prepared to make the argument that fiscal reform will automatically liquidate any and all malinvestments, you must agree with me.
Ahh, what a perfect straw man. If you read all of my posts in this thread, I never wrote, asserted, or even implied this statement. My posts have been consistent: tax reform will not magically repair our spiralling economy, more efficient taxes might just be incentives for government to raise taxes even more and spend more. How can you deduce that I am against any and all fiscal policy reforms?
“Taxation is theft” is a simplistic mantra, repeated ad nauseum, that allows a whole host of radical libertarians to avoid serious philosophical debate and – most importantly – practical reality. Historical examples of ancient tribes with little or no goverment functioning do not – in my mind – validate modern no-goverment/no-taxation political theory. The primary question is force, and the use of it. When is force justified?
Say you owe somebody a $100 and have not yet paid them. Are you not using force against them by withholding 'their" money? Do they have a right to kill you to get that property, even if taking it means that you die of starvation? Maybe it might be a good idea to have an entity like government to adjudicate such disputes.
It is reality that government can be more oppressive and highly wasteful, or less intrusive and more efficient. A rational person, even an anarchist, should prefer the latter, even if it does not fit his theoretical ideal. It is untrue – and makes no sense – to suggest extremely bad and wasteful government and high taxastion is better than less restrictive government with efficient revenue operation because any improvement in tax policy will automatically create more spending. So it would seem logical – to me – that tax reform that improves your personal liberty, reduces the size of government and allows you to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars more of your own money over your lifetime would be something to support. You can say that you do not owe anything to anybody even if you benefit greatly from national defense, highways, air traffic controllers, etcetera. But even given that, to oppose a significant reduction or improvement in government through tax reform is – in my mind – not only foolish, but a recipe for potential societal disaster.
You’ve changed the position of those opposing you again. There has been no argument that there shouldn’t be something in place to settle disputes. But that it has to be government doesn’t follow from this assumption.
no one is opposing a reduction of taxation, and the corresponding reduction in spending that is necessary to make the reduction REAL. (spending which you dont mention). As such your above arguments are mostly strawmen. If your tax reform inacted, would give the illusion of having rendered the tax regime above criticism, then it will have dealt a blow to liberty in that particular respect. As taxation is theft.( though less theft is better than more theft.)
Perhaps it is simplistic, but taxation is still theft because I did not come to a voluntary agreement with the government to have my money taken. Moreover, should I refuse, force will be used against me to collect what I owe.
And should someone owe me $100, more than likely I agree to lend him/her that amount. Your analogy does not apply. It is false.
[Note: My previous post has been edited just prior to this one.]
The RPUT does not address spending. It is a mechanism for applying the cost of government after a budget (spending) is decided by a legislature.
However, a stable and objective tax system like the RPUT – unlike the convoluted federal income tax – would make wastelful spending less likely, and spending in general probably much lower because of accountabily and visibility in the system. So one could be in favor of zero government spending under the RPUT, but still expect visibility and accountabilty if such spending occurs.
Walter, just to let you know, I myself was a minarchist when I came here. I am sure many others were as well. We are not against government running better. However, we are not so concerned with government running better, we are more concerned with eliminating government.
We recognize that the United States is now a fascist state. The main stream media does not report on this issue because they are in bed with government. They do what the government wants them to do.
And yes, taxes are theft. The government never got my consent to govern me, therefore anything they take from me is theft. It is just like the local grocery store owner breaking into your bank account, taking your money, and then giving you groceries that he thinks you want at the price he wants. Just because there was an exchange, does not mean it was not theft.
pure speculation. federal tax reform, says absolutely nothing about spending.if the government is committed to spending, it will just use other taxes aside from income taxes to raise its funds; inflation tax for example.