If we started from ground zero...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

What sort of taxing structure would you prefer?

What kind of taxes would you be willing to pay?

Assuming that you would be willing to be taxed, how would you prefer taxes to be spent.

Should certain taxes be spent on only certain things?

Assuming some agency collects and dispurses these taxes, how should they be held accountable.

How should new projects get started and funded? (e.g. If there were no bridges across Lake Washington, how should such a project come into being?)

How should voters raise issues to their representatives and how should representatives be held accountable?

-- g_ma2000 (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999

Answers

Taxes should be voluntary- read 'incentive' based. And, those taxes would be paid by mostly the richest people in society, as the system could be structured so that they end up putting the most into the system, not because we arbitrarily 'progress' the system toward them.

What system is this? Well, many have been suggested, and really, they can't be argued in this forum here, because in a complex, post industrial society, the details of a plan can't be effectively laid out in four paragraphs on the i695 discussion board.

As I said before, people of considerable vision have proposed such systems. One system that I found interesting, is that all persons engaging in credit-based transactions could mutually elect to pay a fee associated (some percentage thereof) with said transaction so as to receive civil legal protections from government concerning the particular deal. Now, definitions and determinations of which credit transactions would apply, vs those that wouldn't, plus what particular legal protections the parties would have, regardless of fees paid, under criminal statutes, vs civil and contract law would have to be hashed out. This system would most likely evolve, not simply be implemented. There would be many bugs to work out.

If the system worked correctly, the richest people and institutions would end up paying most of the taxes, where the poorest people would probably pay NO taxes, but would receive all the benefits of government infrastructure bye simple default. There would also be no reason for government to not create social programs serving a specific demographic, as long as they could make ends meet with the revenues paid by the private sector. There would still be plenty of reason for political wrangling, because sure as the sun rises in the east, some politician, or group would outspend the revenues and demand a raise in fees, or try to 'impose' old style, mandated taxation, to some level. Constant vigilance would be required to keep this from happening. Even barring this problem, there would always be arguments about how the existing revenue *should* be spent.

But, overall, the primary benefit would be, that no one or no private institution would pay taxes unless they wanted to. And again, if the system worked correctly, those parties engaged in transactions would have an excellent incentive to pay their voluntary fees. People could always argue that it in turn would end up being a 'government protection' racket: "Pay your fee, or have no say in court". But these are details that would have to be worked out so that 'protection' racket only extended to business or 'credit transactions'. Everyone would always get criminal protections, no fees paid.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), December 17, 1999.


This appears to be an interesting form of government. Does it have a name? Government revenue is generated from credit-based transactions and the tax is strictly voluntary.

I fail to see the reasoning why a person or business would voluntarily pay taxes. Would taxes be paid strictly out of the goodness of the person's heart? I would think that the board members of any corporation paying voluntary taxes would quickly be cast out by the stock holders.

-- Questioning (g-ma2000@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.


IIRC, businesses would pay fees on credit transactions in order to get government protections for those transactions. IOW, if you don't pay the fee, don't expect government assistance in enforcing your contract.

Put more simply, it would be "contract insurance."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 20, 1999.


Pardon my ignorance, but what do the abbreviations that you are using mean?

I can see that paying off someone to protect a transaction is reasonable, but doesn't insurance do that today?

And if we did pay the government for transaction protection, what existing government items would that cover and not cover? Medical? Armed Forces? Highways? Social Security? National Parks? Museums?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.


No, civil legal protections. It could be called a form of insurance, but ultimately, no. Basically, when you take someone to court over contract law-- you would be 'allowed' to take someone to court over a breach of contract if you paid the 'fee'. As I said, the structure for this is too deep for the forum, and, like any other system, would always have its problems.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), December 21, 1999.


Oh, and to answer the last 1/2 of your question-- carefully re-read my message above.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), December 21, 1999.

g_ma,

How can you expect realistic answers to such an unrealistic group of questions?

Assuming we start at ground zero, there would be no government, no infrastructure, and no population, other than indigenious people. So, in answer to your questions;

1)What sort of taxing structure would you prefer? None would be neccessary.

2)What kind of taxes would you be willing to pay? None would be neccessary.

3)Assuming that you would be willing to be taxed, how would you prefer taxes to be spent. Your assumtion is not correct.

4)Should certain taxes be spent on only certain things? No taxes, no need to spend.

5)Assuming some agency collects and dispurses these taxes, how should they be held accountable. "Some agency" would not be in existance under ground zero scenario.

6)How should new projects get started and funded? (e.g. If there were no bridges across Lake Washington, how should such a project come into being?) New projects would be undertaken by enterprising individuals. If there were no bridges, you would use a canoe.

How should voters raise issues to their representatives and how should representatives be held accountable? What's a voter? What's a representitive?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.


Marsha,

I admit that the questions are unrealistic, but it was just a list of questions for discussion. So for this exercise, let's assume that the state of Washington has been allowed to succeeded from the Union on the provision that it is done peacefully. We wouldn't want to start with total anarchy. That should give us a starting point with an existing population and infrastructure. This should get us back to my original set of questions and maybe a more basic question... What type of government would you like to see?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.


If given a choice, I would make the following changes to our current system of funding, and government functions. I would institute more user fees for services, like transit. I would privitize, or contract out more government services. I would lower the sales tax. I would change to funding construction of roads and bridges via toll collection. I would pay for all local services except schools, with reasonable property taxes. I would consider a one time cash payment for sterilization for any adult with 1 child, who had received welfare benefits in the last 5 years. Last, but not least, I would maintain the initiative process.....it's working quite nicely, don't you think? It would appear our politicians are finally listening.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Marsha,

Some people might have a big issue with that sterization idea, though I sometimes feel that a license (and training) should be required to become a parent.

Most of your other ideas are fairly reasonable. There will be people who will not agree, but what else is new in the world. I have a follow up concerning the reduction of the sales tax. Do the things that it sponsers cost too much? If so what are those items? Or should the sales tax be reduced just on principal?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.



I agree many people would take issue with the sterilization suggestion. Many people are also having children they are unable to cloth, feed and nurture. Any of them, who are intelligent enough to step forward for the sterilization, should be encouraged to do so. (after giving live birth to one child)

Training and licensing people to drive hasn't helped keep the traffic accident rate down, and I doubt it would do much for parenting either. Parenting is a much more complicated situation too. We do have the right to take a drivers license away. This would by no means be mandatory.

Sales tax should be reduced at least by as much as the revenue gained by user fees.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 22, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ