Two Tier Taxation ... Could it work ?

[Trajan]

WHAT IF ....

What if we established a two tiered method of taxation ? ... In other words: What if we established two groups in this nation ?

> One group would pay ZERO taxes from here on out, BUT; they would have to pay their own way for access to the commons, including roadways, police coverage, fire protection coverage, public schooling, etc etc ... EVERYTHING that taxation pays for currently would become 'FEE FOR USE'. They pay no taxes, but the free ride is over for them; They pay for everything ...

> The other group would agree to reasonable levels of taxation, and would therefore obtain those services they desire, and which the other groups seems to despise: FULLY FUNDED public schooling, including university, single payer health care, transportation systems, et al ....

Could it work ? .... Just something that crossed my mind, but I don't understand the math ...

Inform us .... Please.

[aquart]

1. Is your pasture pastry tasty?

[Trajan]

2. Does the rain fall in the plain ?

Too obscure a response ... I was hoping for some sort of reasonable reply ...

[Electric Monk]

14. I do believe by "pasture pastry" they meant cow pies, aka bull pucks

fwiw

[Trajan]

17. I understood that part ...

Just didn't understand why it needed to be posted ... It really didn't, as it isn't in the least germane to the question

[RandomThoughts]

3. That would not work.

That misses the basic purpose of progressive taxation as a balance to a broken system that moves money to consolidations.

you can argue about taxation that gets spent by government,

spent by private sector, although there is conflict of interest in many contracts that is a part of corruption.

or just given to people in the lower brackets.



The system takes money from the top because it is broken, then that money is suppose to go back to the bottom economic layers, or middle by works projects or entitlements. However the top bought much of government so that it will go back to the top. That leads to the top getting from skimming off of workers, and from government lack of progressive taxation and regulation, and the system to stop consolidations gets broken, leading to large distances in distribution and eventual revolution or worse.

At some point consolidations in the system will break it, so whenever consolidations occur, diverse systems occur to break it up.

[Trajan]

4. I am not sure I understand your response either ...

Is it mathematical or ?

[FooshIt]

5. I have a better idea

If you are wealthy you pay a lot of taxes
If you are poor you pay nothing.

[Trajan]

6. While I agree with this ... It doesn't seem to be fairing well in the electorate ...

Not in any small part to the inability of Democratic party members to articulate such a policy and sell it to a plurality of voters ...

The lack of a persuasive argument FOR such a tax structure has been a primary issue : I agree to it, and you agree to it, but our neighbors are wary ...

How do we get around this problem ?

[Gaedel]

8. Right you are

Everything up to my level of income should be tax-free.

Everything above my level of income should be taxed at 99%.

[Trajan]

9. Another obviously bogus answer

Methinks there is a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with legitimate debate ...

[FooshIt]

15. depends on what your income is

[angstlessk]

7. No unitl you can 'absolutely' say what something costs...ie..an anbulance ride includes safe roads

and traffic control...not written into the cost of the ride of the ambulance...there are costs that are never included into the actual price of goods...so no....we MUST CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE COMMONS!

[Trajan]

10. I am not sure why you claim this is not support for the commons ...

I see it this way: Those who support the commons gets the commons ...

Those who do not will have to pay a fee, which could included increased costs for the necessity of processing those fees and other incidentals that would ...

Those fees ? .... They would also fold into the commons .....

The libertarian hate the commons ? ... fine: STOP paying taxes, and START paying for services that taxation normally support ...

I do not think this is outlandish ... I think it is rational, and has the effect of bringing home the reality to 'conservatives' that; whether they pay taxes, or they pay fees; They will pay ...

Unfortunately, not many here wish to provide rational responses as to exactly why it would not solve at least some of the political acrimony surrounding 'big government spending'

STOP paying taxes, and start paying as soon as you set foot away from your front gate or drive off your driveway ....

[cynatnite]

11. If you can get a consensus on what "reasonable levels of taxation" are...

you might have something.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Impractical

For some things, you have to have everybody pay. You cannot, for instance, marshall your own national defense. The defense that your taxpaying neighbor is paying for defends you, too. To a great extent that can be said about police protection, although we could charge you to investigate a break in to your home, if your own weapon were not sufficient to prevent it.

Also, it would get cumbersome to charge you a usage fee for the roads, while your neighbor pays for it out of general taxes, as well as the 'use' taxes of gasoline and automobile excise taxes.

Finally, there is the problem of those who need more of something taking the taxation approach, and those who don't need it, taking the fee for service approach. You have a lot of needier people on the tax-based system, and the non-needy people not paying anything, although it can be argued that they get collateral benefits from a government-provided service.

I'm not against the concept of fee-for-service on a lot of things, such as National Park access, or college tuition, but for most (admittedly not all) things that government provides, using a uniform tax structure to pay for such things makes economic sense, especially when the costs of assessment and collection are higher than the value of the service provided.

[Trajan]

19. Agreed on defense ...

But on issues such as police protection - Police would be obligated to investigate all crime .... If they utilize resources to investigate crime on behalf of someone who opted out, whether that someone as victim or perpetrator; that someone would receive a bill for the entire cost, and that fee would be returned to the commons ...

There is no free ride - You pay for it up front, or you pay for it on the back side ....

It cannot be much more cumbersome than paying taxes .... Maybe as simple as processing groceries through a checkout line .... Toll booths are aplenty on private roads; they dont seem to mind the cost of collecting fees ....

I do appreciate you at least thought about it ....

[customerserviceguy]

20. You have a point about toll booths

At some point, when a substantial number of autos are either electric, or mostly so, I do expect that government will add a "miles driven" tax to the electricity used to recharge cars. I can envision circuitry in electric cars that must authenticate through a government database, that will download how many miles the electric car has travelled, and will assess a tax for use of the roads, in lieu of the gasoline tax that is imposed on internal combustion engine autos. I would suppose it would be easier to assess a use tax for the roads for someone who theoretically went "off the tax system" for their share of road maintenance. Clearly, the falling cost of electronically processing 'uses' (I use an EZ Pass to pay my road tolls) makes charging users more and more feasible.

However, your example regarding police protection bears some looking at in a negative way. If a politician or a political system wanted to bankrupt an individual, all they would have to do is simply continually investigate a person, and constantly send him the bills for doing so. Clearly, there would have to be some limiting mechanism, but how do you prevent the Mafia don from using it? How do you make sure that the legal immigrant does not bear the cost of constantly being questioned as to his status?

I saw you were getting a lot of BS answers, and you raise an intriguing thought experiment. It has been fun to participate in.

[grahamhgreen]

13. I think it could work, but the implementation of a legitimate system w

Would likely fail.

[rucky]

16. who would pay for its enforcement?

play it out. enforcement would be impossible, or turn us into a police state.

[Trajan]

18. I dont believe that ...

We have to have IDs ... If we have a commercial driver's licence; That would be statused in the system, and we live with that .... If our car registration is current, or not, that is also flagged and known.

If we cross a tool bridge everyday, we can choose to use 'EZpass', and our sensor is recognized ...

As it stands, you cannot buy a goddamned thing without revealing who you are and what you are permitted to do ....

I think it is quite feasable, notwithstanding someone saying you cant ... I guess just saying you cant is enough ...

[vim876]

21. It might...

But even if it did work, I wouldn't want to live in a society where some people didn't get fire and police protection because they're too stupid to figure out that socializing risk is a good idea. But also, who has to pay when the police arrest an arms dealer? They weren't directly protecting people in the untaxed group, they were indirectly protecting everyone.