Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Optimal Tax Revenue

brant.merrell
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2017 2:59:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I notice that most discussions about taxes center around who ought to be paying more or less. I'd like to zoom out and discuss what the collective body of taxpayers ought to be paying in relation to the GDP, the national debt, the value of government services, and whatever else presents itself as relevant.

Obviously the details for raising revenue involve debates about income tax, property tax, subsidies, loopholes, sales tax, corporate tax, etc... But there ought to be at least one topic devoted to as a whole, should taxation be higher or lower?

The World Bank estimates that the United States has a revenue-to-GDP ratio of 11.3% [1], and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 99.8% [2]. The 2016 Federal Budget [3] allocated $71B for education, $26B for energy, $7B for environmental protection, and suffered a deficit of $552B. Energy + Education + Environmental Protection totaled ($104B / $16.5T = ) 0.6% of GDP.

I am of the opinion that funding the arts and sciences, limiting national debt, providing stimulus packages and training programs for the workforce, managing a transition towards alternative energy, and maintaining / rebuilding the planetary ecosystem are collectively worth a revenue-to-GDP ratio of up to 25%.

This is not to say I believe fulfilling such priorities requires that GDP/revenue = 25%; I expect these expenses could be covered with a ratio of 15%. But I hold that we ought to be able to fund these priorities, and avoid bogging ourselves down with anxieties about socialism until the ratio reaches 25%.

Given that I think tax revenue and spending ought to have been higher during the last year of the Obama administration, it goes without saying that I expect the Trump administration to woefully underspend.

But that's just me; I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

1. https://data.worldbank.org...
2. https://data.worldbank.org...
3. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com...
ViceRegent
Posts: 1,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2017 3:41:02 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/9/2017 2:59:56 PM, brant.merrell wrote:
I notice that most discussions about taxes center around who ought to be paying more or less. I'd like to zoom out and discuss what the collective body of taxpayers ought to be paying in relation to the GDP, the national debt, the value of government services, and whatever else presents itself as relevant.

Obviously the details for raising revenue involve debates about income tax, property tax, subsidies, loopholes, sales tax, corporate tax, etc... But there ought to be at least one topic devoted to as a whole, should taxation be higher or lower?

The World Bank estimates that the United States has a revenue-to-GDP ratio of 11.3% [1], and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 99.8% [2]. The 2016 Federal Budget [3] allocated $71B for education, $26B for energy, $7B for environmental protection, and suffered a deficit of $552B. Energy + Education + Environmental Protection totaled ($104B / $16.5T = ) 0.6% of GDP.

I am of the opinion that funding the arts and sciences, limiting national debt, providing stimulus packages and training programs for the workforce, managing a transition towards alternative energy, and maintaining / rebuilding the planetary ecosystem are collectively worth a revenue-to-GDP ratio of up to 25%.

This is not to say I believe fulfilling such priorities requires that GDP/revenue = 25%; I expect these expenses could be covered with a ratio of 15%. But I hold that we ought to be able to fund these priorities, and avoid bogging ourselves down with anxieties about socialism until the ratio reaches 25%.

Given that I think tax revenue and spending ought to have been higher during the last year of the Obama administration, it goes without saying that I expect the Trump administration to woefully underspend.

But that's just me; I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

1. https://data.worldbank.org...
2. https://data.worldbank.org...
3. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com...

Funny, none of those things is Constitutional. Why not start a private charity to fund these activities instead of advocating the stealing the wealth of your fellow citizens.
brant.merrell
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2017 10:03:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/10/2017 3:41:02 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 11/9/2017 2:59:56 PM, brant.merrell wrote:
I notice that most discussions about taxes center around who ought to be paying more or less. I'd like to zoom out and discuss what the collective body of taxpayers ought to be paying in relation to the GDP, the national debt, the value of government services, and whatever else presents itself as relevant.

Obviously the details for raising revenue involve debates about income tax, property tax, subsidies, loopholes, sales tax, corporate tax, etc... But there ought to be at least one topic devoted to as a whole, should taxation be higher or lower?

The World Bank estimates that the United States has a revenue-to-GDP ratio of 11.3% [1], and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 99.8% [2]. The 2016 Federal Budget [3] allocated $71B for education, $26B for energy, $7B for environmental protection, and suffered a deficit of $552B. Energy + Education + Environmental Protection totaled ($104B / $16.5T = ) 0.6% of GDP.

I am of the opinion that funding the arts and sciences, limiting national debt, providing stimulus packages and training programs for the workforce, managing a transition towards alternative energy, and maintaining / rebuilding the planetary ecosystem are collectively worth a revenue-to-GDP ratio of up to 25%.

This is not to say I believe fulfilling such priorities requires that GDP/revenue = 25%; I expect these expenses could be covered with a ratio of 15%. But I hold that we ought to be able to fund these priorities, and avoid bogging ourselves down with anxieties about socialism until the ratio reaches 25%.

Given that I think tax revenue and spending ought to have been higher during the last year of the Obama administration, it goes without saying that I expect the Trump administration to woefully underspend.

But that's just me; I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

1. https://data.worldbank.org...
2. https://data.worldbank.org...
3. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com...

Funny, none of those things is Constitutional. Why not start a private charity to fund these activities instead of advocating the stealing the wealth of your fellow citizens.

When *I* believed everything was unconstitutional, it was because I belonged to a homeschool group in which a few radicals relentlessly sowed this belief among children, but the people who actually asked questions about how to apply an interpretive method to the Constitution eventually quit believing the entire government was unconstitutional.

Maybe you can help me see the logic they never managed to express, but you'll have to make a debate challenge out of it. In creating this topic, I took for granted that we live in reality and we have a tax system (legal or not), so I'm asking how to *optimize* it. You can call the puzzle illegal, but that doesn't solve the puzzle.
TheMarketLibertarian
Posts: 543
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2017 9:00:29 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/9/2017 2:59:56 PM, brant.merrell wrote:
I notice that most discussions about taxes center around who ought to be paying more or less. I'd like to zoom out and discuss what the collective body of taxpayers ought to be paying in relation to the GDP, the national debt, the value of government services, and whatever else presents itself as relevant.

Obviously the details for raising revenue involve debates about income tax, property tax, subsidies, loopholes, sales tax, corporate tax, etc... But there ought to be at least one topic devoted to as a whole, should taxation be higher or lower?

The World Bank estimates that the United States has a revenue-to-GDP ratio of 11.3% [1], and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 99.8% [2]. The 2016 Federal Budget [3] allocated $71B for education, $26B for energy, $7B for environmental protection, and suffered a deficit of $552B. Energy + Education + Environmental Protection totaled ($104B / $16.5T = ) 0.6% of GDP.

I am of the opinion that funding the arts and sciences, limiting national debt, providing stimulus packages and training programs for the workforce, managing a transition towards alternative energy, and maintaining / rebuilding the planetary ecosystem are collectively worth a revenue-to-GDP ratio of up to 25%.

This is not to say I believe fulfilling such priorities requires that GDP/revenue = 25%; I expect these expenses could be covered with a ratio of 15%. But I hold that we ought to be able to fund these priorities, and avoid bogging ourselves down with anxieties about socialism until the ratio reaches 25%.

Given that I think tax revenue and spending ought to have been higher during the last year of the Obama administration, it goes without saying that I expect the Trump administration to woefully underspend.

But that's just me; I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

1. https://data.worldbank.org...
2. https://data.worldbank.org...
3. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com...

All of those things are utterly useless wastes of money. The public indoctrination system doesn't teach kids anything, and so called alternative energies are inefficient and unable yo function without subsidies. One coal mine produces more energy than all the windmills in America.
The proper portion between government spending and the GDP should be that authorized under the constitution, anything further should go out the window.
ViceRegent
Posts: 1,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2017 4:47:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/16/2017 10:03:26 PM, brant.merrell wrote:
At 11/10/2017 3:41:02 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 11/9/2017 2:59:56 PM, brant.merrell wrote:
I notice that most discussions about taxes center around who ought to be paying more or less. I'd like to zoom out and discuss what the collective body of taxpayers ought to be paying in relation to the GDP, the national debt, the value of government services, and whatever else presents itself as relevant.

Obviously the details for raising revenue involve debates about income tax, property tax, subsidies, loopholes, sales tax, corporate tax, etc... But there ought to be at least one topic devoted to as a whole, should taxation be higher or lower?

The World Bank estimates that the United States has a revenue-to-GDP ratio of 11.3% [1], and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 99.8% [2]. The 2016 Federal Budget [3] allocated $71B for education, $26B for energy, $7B for environmental protection, and suffered a deficit of $552B. Energy + Education + Environmental Protection totaled ($104B / $16.5T = ) 0.6% of GDP.

I am of the opinion that funding the arts and sciences, limiting national debt, providing stimulus packages and training programs for the workforce, managing a transition towards alternative energy, and maintaining / rebuilding the planetary ecosystem are collectively worth a revenue-to-GDP ratio of up to 25%.

This is not to say I believe fulfilling such priorities requires that GDP/revenue = 25%; I expect these expenses could be covered with a ratio of 15%. But I hold that we ought to be able to fund these priorities, and avoid bogging ourselves down with anxieties about socialism until the ratio reaches 25%.

Given that I think tax revenue and spending ought to have been higher during the last year of the Obama administration, it goes without saying that I expect the Trump administration to woefully underspend.

But that's just me; I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

1. https://data.worldbank.org...
2. https://data.worldbank.org...
3. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com...

Funny, none of those things is Constitutional. Why not start a private charity to fund these activities instead of advocating the stealing the wealth of your fellow citizens.

When *I* believed everything was unconstitutional, it was because I belonged to a homeschool group in which a few radicals relentlessly sowed this belief among children, but the people who actually asked questions about how to apply an interpretive method to the Constitution eventually quit believing the entire government was unconstitutional.

Maybe you can help me see the logic they never managed to express, but you'll have to make a debate challenge out of it. In creating this topic, I took for granted that we live in reality and we have a tax system (legal or not), so I'm asking how to *optimize* it. You can call the puzzle illegal, but that doesn't solve the puzzle.

Ignorant moron, to deny this or that is constitution is not to argue that everything in unconstitutional. No straw man arguments, for they only make you look irrational. And yes, starting and ending with the Constitution forms the only basis for the tax discussion.
brant.merrell
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2017 5:53:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/17/2017 9:00:29 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
All of those things are utterly useless wastes of money. The public indoctrination system doesn't teach kids anything, and so called alternative energies are inefficient and unable yo function without subsidies. One coal mine produces more energy than all the windmills in America.

The "public indoctrination system" teaches kids to read, for starters. It's insufficient, but it's necessary. And improving it requires money.

And sure, you can produce a kilowatt-hour with $0.07 using coal, versus $0.11 using solar... but the solar panel sits there indefinitely and continues producing. It's that parable about how the best time to plant an oak tree is 20 years ago, but the 2nd best time is now. Reducing our coal consumption increases our ability to draw on it in the future, investing in solar increases our ability to draw on it in the future, and increasing the cost of energy stimulates the construction of more energy-efficient technology. It's three long-term energy investments in one step.

At 11/17/2017 9:00:29 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The proper portion between government spending and the GDP should be that authorized under the constitution, anything further should go out the window.

At 11/17/2017 4:47:26 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Ignorant moron, to deny this or that is constitution is not to argue that everything in unconstitutional. No straw man arguments, for they only make you look irrational. And yes, starting and ending with the Constitution forms the only basis for the tax discussion.

Okay, Article 1 Section 8 told me the ratio of revenue to GDP should be whatever is authorized by the United States Congress.

That was after the preamble told me to promote the general welfare, but before Article 3 told me constitutional is defined by the supreme court.

If you want to disagree with the Constitution, you'll be in company with about half of its writers. They didn't expect it to preside over a two-century rise to hegemony, they wrote it to prevent reigns of terror & European invasions for a few decades, they gave the President more power than they were philosophically comfortable with because they assumed George Washington would be president, and they wouldn't have been surprised if they'd had to re-write it after Washington died.

So I won't judge you if you disagree, but "Constitutional" budgets & taxes are whatever the House of Representatives wants them to be. And we elect the House of Representatives. So maybe we can discuss them without trying to glean an opinion from a set of rules.
ViceRegent
Posts: 1,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2017 6:58:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 11/21/2017 5:53:34 PM, brant.merrell wrote:
At 11/17/2017 9:00:29 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
All of those things are utterly useless wastes of money. The public indoctrination system doesn't teach kids anything, and so called alternative energies are inefficient and unable yo function without subsidies. One coal mine produces more energy than all the windmills in America.

The "public indoctrination system" teaches kids to read, for starters. It's insufficient, but it's necessary. And improving it requires money.

And sure, you can produce a kilowatt-hour with $0.07 using coal, versus $0.11 using solar... but the solar panel sits there indefinitely and continues producing. It's that parable about how the best time to plant an oak tree is 20 years ago, but the 2nd best time is now. Reducing our coal consumption increases our ability to draw on it in the future, investing in solar increases our ability to draw on it in the future, and increasing the cost of energy stimulates the construction of more energy-efficient technology. It's three long-term energy investments in one step.

At 11/17/2017 9:00:29 AM, TheMarketLibertarian wrote:
The proper portion between government spending and the GDP should be that authorized under the constitution, anything further should go out the window.

At 11/17/2017 4:47:26 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Ignorant moron, to deny this or that is constitution is not to argue that everything in unconstitutional. No straw man arguments, for they only make you look irrational. And yes, starting and ending with the Constitution forms the only basis for the tax discussion.

Okay, Article 1 Section 8 told me the ratio of revenue to GDP should be whatever is authorized by the United States Congress.

That was after the preamble told me to promote the general welfare, but before Article 3 told me constitutional is defined by the supreme court.

If you want to disagree with the Constitution, you'll be in company with about half of its writers. They didn't expect it to preside over a two-century rise to hegemony, they wrote it to prevent reigns of terror & European invasions for a few decades, they gave the President more power than they were philosophically comfortable with because they assumed George Washington would be president, and they wouldn't have been surprised if they'd had to re-write it after Washington died.

So I won't judge you if you disagree, but "Constitutional" budgets & taxes are whatever the House of Representatives wants them to be. And we elect the House of Representatives. So maybe we can discuss them without trying to glean an opinion from a set of rules.

Ahh, the standard BS of the history-adverse tyrannical left. No, moron, government schools only teach kids to be arrogantbin tgeir ignorance to serve the state. Education is the last thing they do, which is why private and home schools do better for less money. Nope, government schools do not server the general welfare, but the teachers unions, making them grossly unconstitutional. They also violate the 1st Amendment by surprise ideas not approved by the state.

And this assumes the preamble grants power the Congress. It does not. Article 1, Secton 8 grants power and absent from that section is anything about taking my money to fund your kid"s education.

That nonsense about the Framers needs no comment, but they were clean on the limits of the Congress, opposing all forms of welfare, including government schools. Try again.
Nac
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2017 9:09:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm a little confused. Are you proposing a 25% revenue-GDP ratio for all programs, or just the ones listed?
dsxdsm
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2017 6:34:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
high taxes just means business and the rich leave the country. when you want to atrract big business and the rich. the objective for any normal and working and bizness is too pay as little tax as possible, thats the objective,you dont work to give all your money in taxes. low tax attracts investors, the usa could use some