From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Religious Taxation (was: Madeleine Murray O'Hare)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:24:24 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
>>I have very little respect for economic "science", and I neither know nor
>>care what they label as "progressive".  If you thought I was trying to imply
>>that current tax practices are fair, you were mistaken.
> 
> I did imply that, and I had no basis for it.  It was a straw man, pure 
> and simple.  Really cheap!  No one has less respect for 
> sci.economics than I do, but regressive is a technical term (if economic 
> terms can be contrued as being technical).  You were replying to a 
> definition, and I felt driven to add in, progressively, its opposite 
> number.

I didn't notice any definition.  I was using "progressive" in its normal
English sense, as given in my Concise OED...

>>> Economists, politicians, and philosophers alike seem to insist
>>> that Sales Taxes Fall Disproportionally on the Poor.  Why?
>>
>>Because they do?
> 
> Well of course they do, but so do income taxes without allowances being 
> made at the bottom.

I'm not sure I agree with that.  Certainly income taxes are harder on the
poor than on the rich unless allowances are made at the bottom of the scale;
but that's not disproportionate.  It's just that if you have to survive on
ten quid a week, 25% of that is a lot, whereas if you have to survive on a
hundred quid a week losing 25% isn't so bad.

>>> Food.
>>> Shelter (Motel/Hotel nightly rate > nat'l average is taxed.)
>>> Home energy (below mean consumer usage - anything over gets taxed)
>>> Books, magazines, newspapers, and video tapes. (education)
>>> Household cleaning products.
>>> Medicines and prescription drugs.
>>> Personal hygiene products.
>>> Clothing (item costing <= average nat'l price for similar item).
>>> Basic home appliances: Refrigerator, stove, vacuum cleaner, tv
>>> Medical and dental expenses (insurance payments taxed).
>>> Basic telephone service.
>>> Water and sewage at or below median consumption.  Lawn watering should
>>>       cost the individual extra, e.g.
>>> Home repairs excluding new construction. Exception: repairs to
>>>       homes valued at more than the median home price for the state.
>>> Garbage collection for homes valued at or below the median market
>>>       value for homes in the state.
[...]
>>> This leaves us with new automobiles, jewelry, boats, perfume,
>>> cigarettes, alcohol, camping gear, sports equipment, entertainment,
>>> aircraft, transportation, gasoline, computer hardware
>>> and software, decorations, hobby items, toys, new furniture, long
>>> distance and enhanced telephone service, cable television, the now
>>> tax-free interstate mail order items... and lots of other things.
>>
>>Your lists seem completely arbitrary.  Why should a copy of "Babes Giving
>>Blow Jobs" be a tax-exempt educational video tape, while "Learn to Speak
>>German" is a heavily taxed audio cassette?
> 
> Well, I had hoped the list was a little better than arbitrary, hopefully 
> more in the vein of representative.  In this particular example, 
> certainly they are both educational materials and should be exempt!

But you still seem to be deciding on whether some data must be taxed based on
the medium used to distribute it.  I don't see that it should make any
difference whether I get some music on CD, LP, cassette, video tape, DAT,
DCC, by radio, cable or satellite, or whatever.  And I don't see why computer
software should be fundamentally different from music, books or films for the
purposes of taxation.

>>Does a CD-I unit with built-in screen count
>>as an untaxed TV or a taxed computer, and why?  
> 
> Busy little bureaucrats love this shit, are you kidding?  They'll have 
> lists that make your head spin.

But that's exactly what we *don't* want.  The existing tax system is already
a nightmare; businesses have to spend a fortune on accountants to work out
their taxation.  And in the US, so do individuals, unless they want to spend
hours on it.  Your suggestion is a bureaucrat's wet dream.

>>Why should I pay tax to talk to some of my friends by phone, but not
>>others?
> 
> Hello?  I think we have a bad connection.

You say long distance calls should be taxed, but not local ones.  Why?

>>Christ, you're going to need a twelve volume encyclopedia just to define
>>which items are taxed at which rates.
> 
> As you must be aware, sales taxes as collected in many places already 
> have such lists in place and use them.

Yes, and I think it's ridiculous.  I spent two weeks in the US, but never did
work out sales tax for the areas I visited.  Sometimes when I bought something
there'd be extra sales tax to pay, sometimes not.  When the consumer has to
worry about whether a T-shirt has tax but a baseball cap doesn't, or the
other way around, the tax system has got too complicated.  At least over here
we only have the one VAT rate, and it's almost always included in the price
you see.  Shit, I don't want to work out 9.25% of $13.99 when I buy a CD.

>                                                   Many similar decisions 
> have already been made.  A twelve volume encyclopedia fits nicely on 
> laser disk and compiling the lists would give legislatures something better 
> to do than figuring out tax-exemptions for personal income taxes.

Why don't we just take 'em out and shoot 'em? :-)

>>> Although a national sales tax may have many flaws, the personal income and
>>> corporate profits taxes seem to have even more, not just in the
>>> problems of collection, personal injustice and socioeconomic unfairness,
>>> but in the infringement of our liberties and the waste of everybody's time
>>
>>OK, enlighten me.  
> 
> 1)      The richer you are, the more income you can hide or legally avoid.

This flaw applies to every tax system: The more money you have, the more
chance you have of avoiding paying tax.

> 2)      We are required to sign documents of self-incrimination that can 
>         be used against us in court and lead to our imprisonment.

Ever been to Italy?  There, the VAT Police can stop you on the streets, and
demand that you declare where you bought any items newer than about six months
old which you have on your person.  They can also demand receipts, and if you
fail to produce the receipts you can be fined or arrested.  All that, just to
make sure sales taxes are paid.

It's not the method of calculation of tax that's the problem, it's the
attitude of the government concerned.  Personally, I'd rather have to worry
about declaring my income once a year on paper than face interrogation on the
streets whenever the sales tax police decide they don't like my face.

> 3)      We have to account to the government for our private finances.
> 4)      The government has to check all these returns out.

See above.

> 5)      Businesses, large and small, must maintain detailed records of 
>         salaries paid.

How many businesses wouldn't do that anyway, to make sure they weren't paying
their employees too much?

> 6)      Large numbers of people are employed to interpret tax law, to 
>         avoid payment of just taxes, to fill out individual returns (HR 
>         Block produces nothing useful -- all that effort is pure waste),

Yet you suggest an alternative tax system which will employ similarly large
numbers of bureaucrats to argue over which items are taxable and which are
not.

> 7)      The government uses failure to pay personal taxes to seize all 
>         of that person's assets.  Sales taxes don't produce this situation,
>         at least not directly.
> 8)      The government supports a collection operation that intrudes on 
>         personal freedoms. (Wiretapping, for instance. Federal crime.)

See above.  Again, this is a problem with the government, not the tax system.

> 7)      The paper waste in this system of personal taxation is appalling.

Which generates more paper -- sales tax returns produced by shops listing how
many of each item were sold for how much to whom and at what tax rate, or a
single statement of an individual's income?

> 8)      The waste of people's time is incredible.
> 9)      People are thrown in jail for tax evasion, costing us the price 
>         of more inmates. (Remember Leona?)
> 10)     Attornies who now apply their subterfuge to arguing tax cases 
>         could apply their talents in meaningful ways. (AIIIEEEE!!)
> 11)     CPAs could find some time on unemployment to spend quality 
>         time with their children. 8^)

Again, these are problems with the government and the legal system, not the
tax scheme.

> 12)     A lot of the brainpower applied to personal income tax 
>         preparation could be redirected to the educational system (or 
>         somewhere!).

My suggestion is for a flat rate tax of X% on all earnings over Y, with a
payment of Z per year guaranteed to all citizens.  No bands, no exemptions,
that's it.  You can work it out on the back of an envelope.

> 13)     Preparing personal income tax returns requires that I keep 
>         personal records, outside of the business world, to be produced 
>         at the pleasure of the gov't.  This is both slave labor and 
>         unreasonable search.

My income tax is paid automatically by my employer every month.  At the end
of the year I get handed a certificate saying how much was paid.  I just keep
the bit of paper safe.

It amazes me that the USA manages to get its citizens to do their own tax
calculations (especially given the average intelligence of said citizens...)
Once again, this is a problem with the government, not with the basic method
of taxation.

And I think this has long ceased to have anything to do with atheism,
religion or paganism, so let's take it to mail.


mathew