Thus the same spending tax shouldn't be applied to all of produce. Obviously kerosene wouldn't be taxed, or only taxed low. Just like food. And prescription meds. And electronics. But you can have an extended spending tax on precious ores, furs, housing, jewellery, stock....I rest my case. And even of the basics, the rich will buy more than the poor. And I don't meen a spending tax as the only tax, but as a supplement for income.
The American tax on stocks and shares has chased portfolio funds overseas; one of the FB founders is a new Singaporean PR.ÂÂ
As said, an additional spending or goods tax is not a good idea. Making it a specific tax on certain kinds of goods will make it all the more inefficient a system of taxation, something which goes against one of Adam Smith's sagely advice on tax systems; that it would not be expensive to implement and Administer. Imagine the bureaucracy needed to determine which goods need to be taxed. And I thought the GoP is against unceasing government size.
We have already witnessed such consumer taxes worldwide. VATs, GST, they have cost an increase in general price levels and increase inequity.
Finally, I am against the notion of wealth redistribution. I don't see it as a good thing nor an objective.
The people who like the status quo generally don't. The people starving on the streets who have been jobless for two years differ. There's no social justice in the system.
I didn't say that that's how it mathematically goes - that someone who earns 10 times more than you pays 10 times more in taxes. I said that is the way it should be - at least in the realm of income.
Again this goes back to the whole idea of proportion of income. A 20% tax on 5 million dollars still leaves one with a very comfortable 4 million whilst a 10% tax on 5 grand might potentially mean mortgage is not paid and food OS not provided.
And as I said, talking about education. Yes, some private schools are expensive. HENCE, vouchers. Which are more cost-efficient that a grid of public schools.
The problem with the whole "vouchers" argument is that it casts taxation and government services in a consumer model.
Government is not in the business of providing services that people want to and can buy individually. Government is in the business of ensuring some kind of minimally supportive society.
The taxes that I pay to support public schools are not a fee to send my kid to school. They are a tax, which should be used to support some kind of common good. In this case, the common good is that society at large should not be saddled with large masses of dangerously uneducated people who are unemployable and therefore a destabilizing element.
My issue with vouchers is not that they drain money from public schools, but that they drain money from supporting a common good. If the best way to spend my tax money is to send poor kids to private schools, that's fine with me.ÂÂ
But if we are going to support draining money from a public utility, we had better understand what that will mean societally, not just individually because this means negative externalities.
And furthermore vouchers do not reduce spending. Youre merely diverting funding to another source via subsidies and tuition fees. It also assumes that parents can even afford to pay.ÂÂ
Vouchers do not decrease education costs. Instead, tax money that would ordinarily go to public schools now pays for vouchers, thus harming public schools. A 1999 study of Clevelandâs program showed that the public schools from which students left for private voucher schools were spread throughout the district. The loss of a few students at a school does not reduce fixed costs such as teacher salaries, textbooks and supplies and utilities and maintenance costs. Public schools run the risk of losing state funding to pay for vouchers without being able to cut their overall operating costs. In addition, voucher programs cost the state money to administer. In Milwaukee, which has been disproportionately burdened in a statewide voucher funding scheme, the city has had to raise property taxes several times since the voucher program began in order to ensure adequate funding for the cityâs schools.
Busted my phone. Dang it.
