Hello Helen, > There are very good reasons for avoiding the cascading effects of such > taxes. Like the horrible distortion and the massive vertical integration > that would follow.
Sorry, but could you elaborate? I'm pretty bad with the buzzwords du jour and under distortion I would understand that everybody pays based on their consumption rather than their income or wealth, which I wouldn't find horrible. Well, and for me vertical integration has to do with conglomeratization in which companies produce everything from raw material to finished product. The time where this was beneficial has passed and the most money is being made by smart outsourcing strategies. So, while I can see that someone would look into saving some of the tax by making everything inhouse, the increased cost of the workforce (which is taxed) higher overheads (which are taxed) and lower efficencies due to larger internal bureacratic procedures would be likely to erase the mere thought before it was going into a business plan. Of course, I might have completely misunderstood you, which is why I'm asking. > Income tax, as it operates now, can be greatly simplified by: > 1. territorialisation --tax only income earned from the territory of the > taxing authority > 2. source orientation -- tax income at the first suitable opportunity and > exempt it from any taxation and reporting after this > 3. low flat rates > 4. depersonalisation -- tax income assessable from property and business, > without discimination among recipients. I do agree with all points, but believe that your proposal would lead to higher overall taxes, as more and more high income eraners will simply move overseas and take their wealth (and brains) with them, to take advantage of the territorialization. But again, i might be wrong. > I'm afraid your macro-economics are as bad as your fiscal policy economics. That must be why I'm getting all those job offers from the US. They need someone to blame ;o) > It just does not work to stimulate the economy by fiscal policy, apart from > structural reform of fiscal policy to reduce taxation and eliminate > inefficient taxes and government programs (i.e. pretty much all of them). I did not argue for or against stimulation as such, but considered it a give. Everybody does it - well, every decent size economy - and they appear to believe in it, even if might not work. My question was actually if such a system could replace interest rate manipulation. I sort of implied that this was continuing the genral discussion about inflation, paper, fiat, gold, etc. Hence my proposal was that maybe a flexible rate of a flat GST could do what everyonone else is trying to do with rising and lowering interest rates - possibly with the same result. George, What happens if I plant trees on my land? You know, I buy the land, plant trees to start a saw mill in a decade or two. hence I will derive an income in future, but not till then. If the government confiscates my land because of that, who will invest into Agrobusiness - in other words, what will we eat and where do we get natural raw materials (timber, pulp, etc.) from after all trees are cut? Just wondering. Cheers, Robert. budget & privacy website hosting http://www.cyberica.net e-commerce & e-business services http://www.cyfrocash.net budget domain registrations http://www.u2planet.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
