I've brought this up a few times in other threads in response to tax systems I think are more painful than the taxes we have now.

I think that the best way to tax, the most ethical at least, is on the basis of land ownership and on the consumption of scarce, inelastic goods (energy, raw materials) and on pollution of the natural world.
The justification is mostly in that land and natural resources all must have been ultimately stolen. And they create unfair advantages that stick around for generation after generation. The greatest wealth disparity in the country involves the ownership of land.

A land value tax would help to address the unfair advantages of land "ownership" and also encourage people to build on less land. Since property tax as we know it would be eliminated in its favor, the overall expensiveness of the house would have no effect on tax. Only the amount of land used and the market value of that land used.

Other justifiable taxes are those that encourage conservation and efficiency... taxes on pollution, energy consumption, and the use of scarce natural resources. Since all of these things deplete from nature, they are unfair advantages of "ownership" of nature... The status quo encourages using these things as cheaply as possible rather than as efficiently as possible and seems to hold that nature belongs more to some people than to others.

The crucial component is the admission to the fruits of nature being different from the fruits of labor. Concerning the fruits of labor, the products people create, the market should be free. Sometimes the things involved in making those products should be taxed however to reflect that the resources belong to nature.

The taxes collected from the use of nature can be justifiably used for public goods and not be considered coercive in their taking. The taking of natural resources is coercive.
The taxation at least ensures that the gains of that coercion are given back to humanity as a whole.

The only problem with all this... doesn't lie in ethics.
I cannot determine just how well this can work in reality and whether these taxes can feasibly replace the myriad of taxes we have now.

And in any case, tax plans do not solve everything. They cannot make government more accountable and less corrupt. Only an active population can do that.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I totally disagree. I think this would be UNfair.
We should adopt a sales tax and let income earners get all of their earnings to go buy what they think they need and pay a tax at the registar.

How would it be unfair? Do you think some people have more of an inherent right to natural resources that no one had any part in creating than others?

And frankly I still don't see a substantial ethical difference between sales tax and income tax. It will have different economic effects, but it has no real "fair" or "unfair" basis.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

like the idea of a phased in change to tax policy that would include a carbon tax and a pollution tax. Any change would be difficult to accomplish but it seems that there is a unanimous desire for a simplified fair tax system. I favor a tax policy that pushes the country toward less reliance on foreign oil w/o adding to global warming. A change in tax policy could spur change w/o government put in the position of picking the winner. Do you picture it could replace income tax completely?!

I don't know if just a pollution tax could do it. But taxing the part of profit that comes from natural resources and land most likely could, in accordance with Georgist principles (ie the single tax... the origin of the boardgame Monopoly was to advocate this by satirizing the profits of landlords), and pollution tax could coexist on the same vain.
I think we're headed toward a carbon tax of some sort soon, but it will be most likely piled on top of the current system of taxation... and I'm almost certain it will somehow be altered in the process to be more "business-friendly".

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

No, with teh sales tax, you decide what you spend your income on in the real world. With the Income tax they can raise it and you can not do a thing about it. With the sales tax they can raise it on whatever products that state put it on, but I have the choice to not spend my money on that product.

For instance, in some states there is NO sales tax on nessecary food items(except for candy and luxery items)and clothing. But other items have tax added onto them.

This is what I am talking about, put a tax on the non-essential items of sales of products and leave my income alone. Let me be the decider where my money goes, not the government. Remember this government(USA) is suppose to represent me, its not doing that when its doing exactly what the British did to this colony 300 years ago.

Of course the so-called "Fair"tax does not have such exceptions.

The British government imposed sales taxes... without representation.
You are paying taxes to the government that you elect representatives to. It's absolutely ludicrous to compare the income tax to "taxation without representation".

Whether you pay income tax or sales tax has no bearing on how government uses taxes.
And your decision to pay taxes will not reflect your opinion on taxes, but your opinion on spending your own money.

I find this to be a very weak argument.
And you've yet to say what is unfair about land and natural resource taxes.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

No, I find your argument weak.

How is it fair to tax material items that someone owns? You do realize someone owns the lands they get the resources from, right? And how is it right to tax someone for their property, THEIR PRIVATE property.
The founders of the US would be ashamed of what we have done to the system when it comes to how the government earns its money and spends it...


Actually it does. Because when I go out and buy a new brand spanking grill(non-essential product), and pay the tax on it, I KNEW there was a tax on it and went and bought it. But when I have income removed from my pay check, then I have NO control how the tax money is collected.
See, dont you get it? I control the tax income for our government. Maybe this will give the government incentive to make changes on what they spend it for, eh?
We also need to change what we spend taxes on too, would of gotten to this point already, but haven had the chance yet in this thread.

Plus, today in this nation I actually have no control over what we spend in this nation. Fact is most of the politicians could give a hoot what we want.

I think this was the only truthful statement of your first post.

How does someone have the right to own nature, land, air, stuff they had absolutely no part in creating? Income tax taxes labor, which people most certainly own. Sales tax taxes things people buy with the fruits of their labor from the people who created them. Property tax takes from people on the basis of various factors (some of which are present in Georgist taxation), many of which are based on improvements that are created by or purchased legitimately by the owner. Keep in mind, a house is still legitimate property of an individual. Land is not.
So any tax system you can stand for ultimately taxes people on their property.
But when we look at property, why is it that some people allegedly have more rights to things of nature than others? Why is it never questioned how they gain excessive profit from what amounts to a monopoly over things they had no part in creating?


So what? The first Europeans on this soil would hang us for witchcraft for much of what we do today? Frankly I find their slave ownership and their limits to who can vote disgusting, but it really doesn't matter does it?
But really I think we'd need to see them here and now in these circumstances to really get their opinion, don't you?



So you think the citizens of this heavily consumeristic culture will actually start basing their spending on what they think of the government?
And you think people will stop demanding government services when the economy goes down and their spending is curbed?
Riiiiight.

Because the population has split between hardcore partisans, hardcore cynics, and hardcore apathists. The politicians would care if people got organized and motivated.
The partisans have no problem getting responses for that reason.
Apathists just complain and cynics amount to being apathists because they assume government won't work for them and spend more time trying to undermine it than changing it.
The politicians are out of control because the people are not taking it. This has nothing to do with the method of taxation.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III