Keith, what is your position on gasoline tax. A turnover tax on auto traffic.
A poor person pays the same as a rich person. The state is indifferent as to what the car is used for: Pleasure driving or for selling things like diamonds. The end purpose doesn’t matter, just the turnover tax. Much the same as paying on a toll road. Or to use public transport for that matter. Everyone pays the same, rich or poor. People who use public transport wearing a suit and carrying an expensive briefcase pay the same as a poorer person carrying a lunch bucket. Easy to collect. Applies to everyone. This indirect tax is used in the Cayman Islands where people are reluctant to disclose sources of funds but where the government needs to raise money to provide public services. Seems to be working well. The Cayman govt works with the telco to collect a kind of bit tax on digital traffic. arthur From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:58 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION; Arthur Cordell Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW: Progressive taxation -- what a concept! Arthur, At 02:57 12/04/2012, you wrote: How about the bit tax? A turnover tax on digital traffic. Because, as Gertrude Stein would have said: "Digital information is digital information is digital information". Digital information is totally neutral as to its end-use. The amount of information that an individual or a corporation uses has no relationship with income or profitability respectively. A poor person downloading a film from the Internet might use more digits in one evening than a major transnational corporation might use in whole year for its own internal purposes. Differentiating between end-uses for taxation purposes would necessitate a counting mechanism on every single device attached to the Internet. A taxation authority would then end up with having to apply differential fair, tax-rates against the traffic of every owner of every device. Whether by topping up or replacing the present tax schedules, a differential digital tax would then end up with a system that would be little different from that which is imposed now. Keith P.S. As to my own suggestion of taxing the public display of status possessions, note that the only way that Greek and Italian tax inspectors are finally beginning to get to grip with the 20-class tax evaders is by actually noting the possession of garden swimming pools, luxury cars, yachts, etc. Hitherto, the inspectors haven't been able to tax the 20-class fairly according to the digital information given to them by private accountants employed by the 20-class. K Read on: The clip below is from a newspaper article of some years ago. ===================== SHOULD GOVERNMENTS PUT A TAX ON DIGITAL TRAFFIC? > >Walter Truett Anderson > >       A Canadian economist, Dr. Arthur Cordell, has come up with an >intriguing idea about how governments may be able to survive the >Information Age, and perhaps deal with some of the massive problems -- >such as mounting deficits and huge numbers of people thrown out of work >by automation -- that seem to come with the territory of this brave new >high-tech world. > >       Cordell calls it a bit tax. He proposes that every digital >bit >of information flowing along the electronic highways be taxed at an >amount of, say, .000001 cents per bit -- that's five zeros, meaning >one-millionth of a cent. Since all information is rapidly becoming >digitalized, the tax would take a miniscule chunk of revenue out of >every piece of data, every voice message, every visual image that >passes through the system. The tax would be automatically calculated >by the trunk carriers and remitted to the appropriate national tax-collecting >agency. > >       Cordell is a well-known expert on information-communications >technology (commonly known these days as ICT or IT). He edits a >newsletter on information society trends, and describes himself as an >"unabashed technophile." So his proposal isn't a Luddite effort to >slow or reverse technological change. On the contrary, he declares >that ICT is "wonderful, liberating and amazingly productive," but that >we can't manage it with the ideas and theories of the Industrial Age -- >definitely not with the standard ideas about how to raise public funds and >finance social services. > >       He says: "We have to think about a world where, as a >vice-president of Microsoft put it, ICT has made routine tasks >automatic and complex tasks routine. The quality and quantity of work >has changed, and the new wealth of nations is to be found in the >digital information pulsing through the global information networks, >where fewer and fewer people are needed to create more and more wealth. >Only by getting at the productivity that is now in the networks -- all >those displaced bank clerks, gas attendants and store clerks -- can we >maintain the social and physical infrastructure and develop new ways of >gaining revenues to pay for all the new jobs that will be needed in teaching >and caring areas." > >       Cordell says the idea originated out of a number of >conversations with T. Ran Ide, a communications specialist, in which >the two wrestled with the question of what is going wrong, economically, in >the Information Age. >They were particularly puzzled by the twin problems of chronic >unemployment and high deficits that bedevil so many advanced industrial >countries. >"Information technology was supposed to make us all wealthier, and we >seem to be be getting poorer. We kept asking ourselves, what happened >to all the wealth? We began batting that around, and we realized that >a lot of the productivity of information technology is kind of >evaporating, or going into networks." > >       Using the popular "information highway" metaphor, Cordell >compares the bit tax to "a gasoline tax or a toll on a bridge or toll >road or licence plates on a car. These payments, which are really >taxes, apply by the weight of the truck or the amount of gas used." >And although a millionth of a cent per bit may not sound like much, >economists who have taken a preliminary look at the bit tax idea agree >on one thing: It would generate a huge amount of money. > >       Cordell admits to feeling "a certain missionary zeal" about his >idea, but at this point the zeal is aimed at getting it discussed and >evaluated rather than getting it passed into law. He floated it at a >recent economic conference in Belgium, and is currently shopping it >around in on-line computer conferences -- giving it a test drive, so to >speak, on the information highway. > >       The first responses to the idea have been guardedly favorable >from various economists and tekkies who have had a look at the idea, >but at this point there has been nothing like the huge public debate >that generally accompanies new tax proposals. Cordell plans to convene >a roundtable of fiscal types to go into the proposal in greater depth, >think about how it might work in practice, and begin to "tease out the >salient issues" that need to be explored. > >       One of those salient issues is likely to the question of >whether the tax will simply get "passed along" to end users -- people >paying for cable TV services, for example -- and thus be vulnerable to >the charge that it is really a "user pay" tax. Cordell thinks it >won't, or that the amount that does get passed along will be so diffused as to >prove more or less painless. > But he acknowledges the possibility that certain affected interest >groups >-- such as telephone and cable companies -- may take a strong dislike >to the proposal. > >       Another question is what would be done with the revenues. >Since the bit tax idea grew out of a concern about the employment >impacts of ICT, Cordell hopes that any revenues it generates will be >used in that area -- not just for the conventional public-works and >job-training programs that are routinely proposed, but for a radically >new exploration of how to "plan for a new world of work and working," >moving from "an educational system where people are trained to make a >living to one where people are trained to cope with living." >---################ From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:26 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Harry Pollard Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Progressive taxation -- what a concept! Harry, Good to see you emerging from the woodwork. I totally agree with what you have written. The more "progressive" a tax system is the more it will be successfully evaded by the rich because they can always employ cleverer people than politicians or civil servants. There's only one tax that's fair and which can't be evaded. This is a flat tax on the value of possessions which are publicly exhibited for status reasons -- house, personal jewellery, car, airplane, etc. This would even catch those who have no provable income but are suspected of being major criminals. If a very rich person (e.g. Warren Buffet) wants to avoid heavy taxation by living simply, well, that's fine. If he isn't spending his money personally then it's either being invested (giving jobs to others) or it's going to a charity (for public benefit). If someone who derives his wealth from the citizens of country A wants to avoid taxation by living and enjoying his personal possessions in country B for all or part of the year, well, that's fine, too. If X is the number of days he spends abroad then Government A simply requisitions his corporate possessions in country A for that financial year (and receives income therefrom) in the ratio X/365. Keith At 16:37 10/04/2012, you wrote: Progressive taxation is a terrible concept. If you are rich because governmental actions give you a special privilege you should pay it all back - in other words the special deal should be removed. If you are rich because you produce things - or provide services - that people want, you shouldn't pay anything. There is an economic argument that if taxation reduces the income of someone who is needed in the system, then taxing him, thereby reducing his take, will make his occupation less attractive to new prospects, thus producing a shortage. To induce more people to undergo the training and devote the time needed to join this occupation, wages will rise, perhaps to a point where after tax income will be at the required level to keep the occupation manned (or womanned)! In other words, the tax payment is avoided by the intended target. So, who pays the tax? Well, the customer always pays. This result can be noted when it is suggested that instead of taxing the common people, taxes on business will be increased. (They are trying to do this in Los Angeles now.) So, business pays the tax and promptly passes it on to their customers. So the idiots who support a "business tax" pay it themselves. Harry \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:12 AM, michael gurstein <[email protected]> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: Progressive taxation -- what a concept! * http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1149981--walkom-these-high-income-docs-want-the-rich-to-pay Toronto Star March 21, 2012 These high-income docs want the rich to pay Thomas Walkom* Here’s a novel idea. A new ew organization of well-paid doctors thinks that they â€â€ and other high-income earners â€â€ should pay more in taxes. “Who knows?†sp; physician Michael Rachlis, one of the founders of Doctors for Fair Taxation, told me Wednesday. “Maybe e we’ll start a trend. Maybe be we’ll see a Lawyers for Fair Taxation start rt up.†I’m not going to hold my breath. h. Still, it’s refreshing to see someone stand up up for a more progressive tax system. The conventional wisdom these days is that progressivity in taxation â€â€ the notion that people should pay proportionally more as their incomes rise â€â€ is counterproductive. Most governments don’t have the he nerve to scrap progressive taxation entirely. So they’ve been doing it gradually by reducing the he number of income-tax brackets and by raising more money through user fees and consumption levies like the HST. They’ve have been aided and nd abetted in this by mainstream economists who argue, usually without any proof, that taxes on income discourage people from working. The upshot of this, as a recent study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives demonstrates, is that the poor in Canada now pay a greater share of their income to government in the form of taxes than do the ultra rich. Which is the antithesis of the bargain made when governments first began to levy income taxes almost 100 years ago. Doctors for Fair Taxation argues that a more progressive tax system would be good for human health. First there’s the obvious point. t. Governments almost invariably deal with their fiscal problems by cutting back spending on health care. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s federal Conservatives and Ontario io Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals are heading ng down this path. The second point, well-known since the 1970s, is that poverty breeds poor health. The uber-rich may not like sharing their money with the very poor. But doing so increases the overall health of Canadian society and, in the end, is both cheaper and more efficient than allowing an underclass to fester. The third point, demonstrated by history, is that society as a whole does better when there are fewer income extremes. Such stolidly middle-class societies tend to be more stable, less violent and more productive. The suggestions by Doctors for Fair Taxation are modest. The group recommends that the federal and provincial governments create four new tax brackets for those earning more than $100,000. Someone with a taxable income of $170,000 would pay an extra $1,400. But someone earning $7 million would pay an extra $787,400. Rachlis figures the scheme would net Ottawa an extra $3.5 billion a year and Ontario an additional $1.7 billion. That’s not enough to wipe out the he deficit for either level of government. But it would go partway along the path. More to the point, it would preclude the need for drastic spending cuts. Up to now, the anti-tax movement has held centre stage. Even leftish politicians are reluctant to talk of taxing the wealthy. In Ontario, New Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath focuses instead on taxing anonymous corporations, in the hope that this won’t spook voters. Yet, there’s nothing wrong with th having the well-to-do pay more. It’s fair. It It works. We’ve done it it successfully. So kudos to this new pro-tax bunch. Usually, when people talk of taxing the rich, they exclude themselves. This group may be quixotic. But at least it doesn’t employ that at dodge. The average gross income for Ontario physicians is about $325,000. Doctors for Fair Taxation reckon people making that kind of money can pay a little more. They’re re right. Thomas Walkom’s column appears rs Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
