12
posted ago by Jaunty_Haul ago by Jaunty_Haul +13 / -1

If we were to do away with the 16th Amendment, thereby eliminating Federal income taxes, could the gov't make up the lost revenue via tariffs on imports (or some other method which creates American jobs)?

Seems like a win to me, but I don't know where to start to find the right stats.

Comments (28)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
Jestre 0 points ago +1 / -1

The problem is income taxes are very good for their redistributive properties. You do want some redistribution in society. Thats why I think property taxes can help as you can make them extremely progressive. Corporate taxes can be good too but you'd need a whole new set of laws to prevent tax evasion and fraud (and probably lobbying) which we don't have in place right now (which is why Amazon and Hollywood etc basically shit all over America)

1
Jaunty_Haul [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ayn Rand proposed a tax I've always found compelling. It's a transactional tax that is completely voluntary, and available for every transaction in which you engage.

Basically, if you choose to pay the tax, then you reserve the right to appeal to the court system in the case you are defrauded in that transaction. Both sides of every transaction have the option to pay.

I like it because it balances the revenue received with the obligations of the courts with regard to the disputes that might arise.

This proposal was within a larger one regarding drastically reducing the size of government, so it was strictly trying to pay for the justifiable gov't expenses like the courts.

As far as redistribution, I think it's better to teach people that resentment is evil.

I'm not against a social safety net, but I think it needs to be one net, not 19.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Jaunty_Haul [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your mention of property taxes is one I hadn't considered on a Federal level.

I'm trying to avoid the reduction effect that taxes can have when we tax good things. But, real estate is static. The amount of real estate in a given area will never go down, absent natural catastrophe. The values might go down, but the actual underlying asset is essentially unchanging.

This might make this idea our winner, as the land value in the whole of the US must be insane. How much would we need to tax our real estate to make up for getting rid of income taxes?

This idea helps those who don't own much but are willing to work. I like it.