# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Proportional speeding ticket fines

## Madison320

I was arguing with some friends who thought the proportional fines for speeding are a good idea. Their argument is that the penalty should "hurt" the same for everyone. My argument is that one of the benefits to working hard and accumulating wealth is that things DON'T hurt as much. Isn't that the point of hard work, savings and delayed gratification? As far as I'm concerned making cost proportional is just another disguised form of communism.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Fines are the problem. If it is not worth 24 Hrs. in jail it shouldn't be illegal.

----------


## acptulsa

> Fines are the problem. If it is not worth 24 Hrs. in jail it shouldn't be illegal.


But fines _make_ the government money and prisoners _cost_ the government money...

----------


## TheCount

> I was arguing with some friends who thought the proportional fines for speeding are a good idea. Their argument is that the penalty should "hurt" the same for everyone. My argument is that one of the benefits to working hard and accumulating wealth is that things DON'T hurt as much. Isn't that the point of hard work, savings and delayed gratification? As far as I'm concerned making cost proportional is just another disguised form of communism.


The problem, in my mind, is that if the person is unable to pay the fine then there are compounding fees and additional fines levied upon them until they, at some point, are imprisoned for their lack of payment or ability to pay.  At this point, the costs of paperwork, court, and prison far outweigh whatever benefit or purpose that the society is deriving from the imposition of the fine.

----------


## Madison320

> The problem, in my mind, is that if the person is unable to pay the fine then there are compounding fees and additional fines levied upon them until they, at some point, are imprisoned for their lack of payment or ability to pay.  At this point, the costs of paperwork, court, and prison far outweigh whatever benefit or purpose that the society is deriving from the imposition of the fine.


The problem with what? Static fines or progressive fines?

----------


## tod evans

> I was arguing with some friends who thought the proportional fines for speeding are a good idea. Their argument is that the penalty should "hurt" the same for everyone. My argument is that one of the benefits to working hard and accumulating wealth is that things DON'T hurt as much. Isn't that the point of hard work, savings and delayed gratification? As far as I'm concerned making cost proportional is just another disguised form of communism.


Are you saying fine rich folks more money than poor folks for the same offense, ie; XX over the limit?

Or are you saying levy fines by the number of miles per hour one exceeds the limit?

And finally.............Why would you skip the debate about limits in general and move right on to accepting financial sanction?

----------


## Madison320

> Are you saying fine rich folks more money than poor folks for the same offense, ie; XX over the limit?
> 
> Or are you saying levy fines by the number of miles per hour one exceeds the limit?
> 
> And finally.............Why would you skip the debate about limits in general and move right on to accepting financial sanction?



I'm talking about rich paying more than poor for the same offense. And I strongly oppose it.

"Finland, Home of the $103,000 Speeding Ticket"

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ticket/387484/

I don't have too much of a problem with fines in general. Is there a better alternative?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I'm talking about rich paying more than poor for the same offense. And I strongly oppose it.
> 
> "Finland, Home of the $103,000 Speeding Ticket"
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ticket/387484/
> 
> I don't have too much of a problem with fines in general. Is there a better alternative?


Jail time.
Anything else is a bribe or blackmail.

----------


## Madison320

> Jail time.
> Anything else is a bribe or blackmail.


I don't know, that seems kind of harsh for minor offenses. I'll have to think about that ...

What about parking tickets? What if someone is constantly blocking your driveway?

----------


## TheCount

> The problem with what? Static fines or progressive fines?


Static fines which are beyond the ability of the person to pay.

Same thing with bail, generally.

----------


## TheCount

> Jail time.
> Anything else is a bribe or blackmail.


"Hey, townspeople, you all need to pay $70,000 to the government in jail costs plus $20,000 in court costs because your neighbor committed a minor crime.  I hope you all have learned your lesson."

----------


## dannno

> https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ticket/387484/





> Steve Jobs was known to park in handicapped spots and drive around without license plates.


I parked in Bill Gates' parking spot at Microsoft one time.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Static fines which are beyond the ability of the person to pay.
> 
> Same thing with bail, generally.





> "Hey, townspeople, you all need to pay $70,000 to the government in jail costs plus $20,000 in court costs because your neighbor committed a minor crime.  I hope you all have learned your lesson."





> I don't know, that seems kind of harsh for minor offenses. I'll have to think about that ...
> 
> What about parking tickets? What if someone is constantly blocking your driveway?


As I said




> If it is not worth 24 Hrs. in jail it shouldn't be illegal.


What is worth jail time and what should not be illegal is another debate (or many other debates)

----------


## Madison320

> Static fines which are beyond the ability of the person to pay.
> 
> Same thing with bail, generally.


Then reduce the amount of the fine. The solution is not to increase it for the rich. 

Bail may be different because you get your money back.

An even better solution would be to restrict voting to net taxpayers only. So even if you did have some type of proportional fine it would stay in check. It doesn't work with 1 man 1 vote, you get mob rule and a $100,000 speeding ticket.

----------


## TheCount

> Then reduce the amount of the fine. The solution is not to increase it for the rich.


Those two are functionally the same to me, either the fines are fixed at one level or they are allowed to float depending on the ability of the person to pay.




> Bail may be different because you get your money back.


If you can't pay then you're in jail, you lose your job, etc.  The effects of inappropriate / excessive bail are much worse than fines.

----------


## TheCount

> As I said
> 
> If it is not worth 24 Hrs. in jail it shouldn't be illegal.





Public urination is up to six months in jail in California.

That would be what, maybe $40,000 in costs to the local government to punish that person.  Is there $40,000 worth of benefit to be gained from that?




> What is worth jail time and what should not be illegal is another debate (or many other debates)


I generally assume that people who think that judicial punishments should be harsher are not the type of people to decriminalize many things.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

Speeding Ticket = Fast Driving Tax

----------


## Anti Federalist

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

----------


## Madison320

> Those two are functionally the same to me, either the fines are fixed at one level or they are allowed to float depending on the ability of the person to pay.


How can they be "functionally the same?" 

This is similar to progressive taxation. Surely you are not in favor of that?

----------


## TheCount

> How can they be "functionally the same?" 
> 
> This is similar to progressive taxation. Surely you are not in favor of that?


Whether it's reduced for the poor or increased for the rich, both are progressive.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I was arguing with some friends who thought the proportional fines for speeding are a good idea. Their argument is that the penalty should "hurt" the same for everyone. My argument is that one of the benefits to working hard and accumulating wealth is that things DON'T hurt as much. Isn't that the point of hard work, savings and delayed gratification? As far as I'm concerned making cost proportional is just another disguised form of communism.


Speeding fines are a violation of your rights. No victim, no crime.

----------


## Madison320

> Speeding fines are a violation of your rights. No victim, no crime.


I disagree. Speeding can be considered a mild form of assault. Like shooting a gun at you and missing.

I think you're hung up on the fact that these are govt roads. What if there were 2 private roads and one fined speeders and one didn't. Which one would you drive on? Maybe you'd pick the fast and reckless one but I'll bet you'd feel better about your daughter driving on the safer one.

----------


## Madison320

> Whether it's reduced for the poor or increased for the rich, both are progressive.


And they're both bad because they don't apply the same laws to everyone. Don't you agree?

----------


## dannno

> I disagree. Speeding can be considered a mild form of assault. Like shooting a gun at you and missing.


More like shooting a gun away from you and missing.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I disagree. Speeding can be considered a mild form of assault. Like shooting a gun at you and missing.
> 
> I think you're hung up on the fact that these are govt roads. What if there were 2 private roads and one fined speeders and one didn't. Which one would you drive on? Maybe you'd pick the fast and reckless one but I'll bet you'd feel better about your daughter driving on the safer one.


No, speeding is not a form of "mild assault." When someone aims a gun at you and pulls the trigger, they have every intent of harming you. Speeding carries no intent to harm. In fact, speed limits make roads and travel inherently MORE dangerous. https://www.motorists.org/blog/unrea...are-dangerous/

People actually travel from all over the world to drive along the Autobahn which has no speed limit for large lengths of it and the average speed of which is around 88 mph. And it is actually SAFER than urban areas with posted speed limits. 




> In 2014, autobahns carried 31% of motorized road traffic while accounting for 11% of Germany's traffic deaths. The autobahn fatality rate of 1.6 deaths per billion-travel-kilometers compared favorably with the 4.6 rate on urban streets and 6.5 rate on rural roads. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety


Speed limits are solely another method which the State uses to rob the poor, equivalent to literally highway robbery with police as the highwaymen. If you want safety, get rid of arbitrary laws that use the threat of violence leveled against peaceful people in order to extort from them money for doing nothing immoral.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No, speeding is not a form of "mild assault." When someone aims a gun at you and pulls the trigger, they have every intent of harming you. Speeding carries no intent to harm. In fact, speed limits make roads and travel inherently MORE dangerous. https://www.motorists.org/blog/unrea...are-dangerous/
> 
> People actually travel from all over the world to drive along the Autobahn which has for large chunks has no speed limit and the average speed of which is around 88 mph. And it was actually SAFER than urban areas with posted speed limits. 
> 
> 
> 
> Speed limits are solely another method which the State uses to rob the poor, equivalent to literally highway robbery with police as the highwaymen. If you want safety, get rid of arbitrary laws that use the threat of violence leveled against peaceful people in order to extort from them money for doing nothing immoral.


This.

Not to mention the fact that many countries had no speed limits until the 1960s or so.

Thank the Land of The Free for being the firstest with the mostest when it come to speed limits and traffic fines.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Speed limits are solely another method which the State uses to rob the poor, equivalent to literally highway robbery with police as the highwaymen.


On the other hand, if you're a cop or some other August Personage ...

*Cop caught speeding 737 times with no citation*

*KY - Sec of State gets 100mph cop taxi to attend Kentucky Derby*

----------


## TheCount

> And they're both bad because they don't apply the same laws to everyone. Don't you agree?


 Punishments for crimes already vary based upon numerous factors.

I would prefer fixed punishments for crimes but I don't like the effects of the current fine system.  Do you have a better solution for the problem?

----------


## Madison320

> Punishments for crimes already vary based upon numerous factors.
> 
> I would prefer fixed punishments for crimes but I don't like the effects of the current fine system.  Do you have a better solution for the problem?


Yes, I already mentioned it. Don't allow people to vote who receive more in welfare then they pay in taxes. Then there would be a natural upper limit to how much the rich would get bled in the name of "fairness".

Otherwise the next best thing is to have fixed fines low enough that the poor can pay them.

Are you in favor of progressive taxation?

----------


## Madison320

> In fact, speed limits make roads and travel inherently MORE dangerous.


Basic physics would say otherwise.


Here's an article on the autobahn. There's no speed limit but they have to do a bunch of stuff to compensate:

"To get a license in Germany, you are required to take tons of driving lessons, including several where you're taken on the actual Autobahn and put into real, high-speed traffic. Drivers must receive basic first-aid training, and on top of that, you still have an incredibly difficult multiple choice exam and the road test.
All of this can take up to six months to finish up, if it's all done successfully, and it could cost over $2000."


"To accommodate higher speed traffic, Autobahn road surfaces are constructed with multiple layers of concrete. Autobahn roads are also inspected regularly for irregularities in the road surface or any damage. If anything is found during these inspections, the whole area of road around the damaged section is replaced."

"Cars in Germany are required to have regular, thorough inspections to make sure they're safe for road use.These inspections help limit the number of potentially dangerous cars that endanger their own occupants and other motorists. Inspections in some states in America are a complete joke compared to what German cars go through. Germany maintains a country-wide standard, whereas US inspections are handled on a state-by-state basis."

"There aren't too many police on German roads, yes, but if caught tailgating you're in for a hefty fine. Worst case scenario: you could be stuck with a $450 ticket. In America, you'd be lucky if a state trooper even bat an eye."



http://www.businessinsider.com/germa...are-no-tolls-8

----------


## TheCount

> Here's an article on the autobahn. There's no speed limit but they have to do a bunch of stuff to compensate:


There are also laws on tires, and specific times of the year during which drivers can be ticketed for not having winter tires on their cars.

----------


## Madison320

> There are also laws on tires, and specific times of the year during which drivers can be ticketed for not having winter tires on their cars.


Why do you always ignore my questions? 

Are you in favor of progressive taxation?

----------


## TheCount

> Why do you always ignore my questions? 
> 
> Are you in favor of progressive taxation?


A thousand apologies, my liege, I had but time for a quick post before I left my house to go till your fields but not enough to answer your eminence's question.  If you could provide me links to all of the other questions you've asked me which I've ignored, which you say is a thing that I _always_ do, that would be helpful.




> Yes, I already mentioned it. Don't allow people to vote who receive more in welfare then they pay in taxes. Then there would be a natural upper limit to how much the rich would get bled in the name of "fairness".


I don't see how this solves the problem I named, or any other problem.

Is there an epidemic of the persecution of the rich in the judicial system?





> Otherwise the next best thing is to have fixed fines low enough that the poor can pay them.


At that point, why have fines?  To have rules that only the poor need to follow?

You would be creating the Russian traffic law system, wherein the elite enjoy a complete exemption from all rules of the road as well as a flashing blue light which helpfully warns their serfs that they are interacting with a different class of person for whom the law means nothing.




> Are you in favor of progressive taxation?


Not in the sense that the term is actually used, no, but I think that you're making a false comparison here.

Using the language of taxes, a fine that varied based on the income of the person being fined would be not necessarily be considered a progressive fine.  It would be a flat fine in much the same way that a flat tax is a set percentage of income and varies based on income.  A progressive fine in the nature of progressive taxes would vary both the amount and also the percentage.

----------


## PierzStyx

> On the other hand, if you're a cop or some other August Personage ...
> 
> *Cop caught speeding 737 times with no citation*
> 
> *KY - Sec of State gets 100mph cop taxi to attend Kentucky Derby*


When there is a class protected form having to obey the law you know you're living under an authoritarian regime.

----------


## Madison320

> A thousand apologies, my liege, I had but time for a quick post before I left my house to go till your fields but not enough to answer your eminence's question.  If you could provide me links to all of the other questions you've asked me which I've ignored, which you say is a thing that I _always_ do, that would be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this solves the problem I named, or any other problem.
> 
> Is there an epidemic of the persecution of the rich in the judicial system?
> 
> 
> ...


You still haven't answered the question. 

Are you in favor of progressive taxation?

Wait. I'll make it easier. 

=============================

True or False

I am in favor of progressive taxation.


=============================

There, even a child can answer that one. Only 2 choices!

----------


## TheCount

> You still haven't answered the question. 
> 
> Are you in favor of progressive taxation?
> 
> Wait. I'll make it easier. 
> 
> =============================
> 
> True or False
> ...


Did you not see my answer?  It's there.  It includes both the words not and no.

----------


## Madison320

> Did you not see my answer?  It's there.  It includes both the words not and no.



My question was are you in favor of progressive taxation:


This sentence was your answer, buried in the middle of a paragraph? 

"Not in the sense that the term is actually used, no, but I think that you're making a false comparison here".

----------


## TheCount

> This sentence was your answer, buried in the middle of a paragraph?


Not only was it not in the middle of a paragraph, it was not in any way part of a paragraph.  It was the first sentence below the quote of your question, and it was separated from any other sentence by two line breaks.  Did you need me to add some bold and vary the font sizes?  Maybe a little color?




> "Not in the sense that the term is actually used, *no*, but I think that you're making a false comparison here".

----------


## Madison320

> Not only was it not in the middle of a paragraph, it was not in any way part of a paragraph.  It was the first sentence below the quote of your question, and it was separated from any other sentence by two line breaks.  Did you need me to add some bold and vary the font sizes?  Maybe a little color?


Sorry, I misread your answer. I saw my question and didn't see the answer under it. I didn't realize you reposted the question further down. Anyway I'm still not clear on the answer because of this "Not in the sense that the term is actually used". Let me ask it again. Forget about proportional fines. This is only about progressive taxation. I define progressive taxation as having a higher tax rate for higher incomes. So using that definition are you in favor of progressive taxation?




> Is there an epidemic of the persecution of the rich in the judicial system?


100% yes! I'd put progressive taxation at the top of the list. There's a much greater amount of theft in the form of taxation and you're much more likely to get prosecuted if you're a high income earner. Then there's the ex post facto antitrust laws where the law is made up after the fact. There's all sorts of anti business laws like anti discrimination laws for example. They only apply to bigger businesses, I think many of them only apply to companies with 50 or more employees. Imagine special stricter laws for blacks. Nobody would stand for that but we have the same thing for the most productive citizens.

----------


## TheCount

> I define progressive taxation as having a higher tax rate for higher incomes. So using that definition are you in favor of progressive taxation?


No.

I said "as it's commonly used" because it seemed to me that you were saying that a different fine _amount_ would be progressive.  I was trying to make the comparison that if a percentage-based tax rate is not considered progressive, a percentage-based fine could also be considered not progressive.   It's a little more complicated, as I've heard it argued that a person of a higher income is receiving different/more services from the government to explain why a percentage tax is as suitable as a fee-based tax.  Obviously, with a fine there's no such service.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No.
> 
> I said "as it's commonly used" because it seemed to me that you were saying that a different fine _amount_ would be progressive.  I was trying to make the comparison that if a percentage-based tax rate is not considered progressive, a percentage-based fine could also be considered not progressive.   It's a little more complicated, as I've heard it argued that a person of a higher income is receiving different/more services from the government to explain why a percentage tax is as suitable as a fee-based tax.  Obviously, with a fine there's no such service.


The big problem with that (besides the blackmail/bribe problem with all fines) is that the government has to know what your income is or what your total wealth is or both. Neither one is the government's business, this is actually one of the biggest reasons the income tax is evil.

----------


## TheCount

> The big problem with that (besides the blackmail/bribe problem with all fines) is that the government has to know what your income is or what your total wealth is or both. Neither one is the government's business, this is actually one of the biggest reasons the income tax is evil.



The income tax system is less intrusive than a fee system.  In a fee-based system, the government would have to know everything about you and all of the government services that you consume.  That would be an enormous amount of detail.

For example, roads:  The best possible way to charge people for road use would be to place a monitoring device in every car and track, in detail when, where, how, how far, etc. the person drives, along with how heavily loaded the vehicle is.  That would be "fairest" but I don't think anyone would be willing to bear such an intrusion, and would be willing to bear a "less fair" tax system that was also less intrusive.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The income tax system is less intrusive than a fee system.  In a fee-based system, the government would have to know everything about you and all of the government services that you consume.  That would be an enormous amount of detail.
> 
> For example, roads:  The best possible way to charge people for road use would be to place a monitoring device in every car and track, in detail when, where, how, how far, etc. the person drives, along with how heavily loaded the vehicle is.  That would be "fairest" but I don't think anyone would be willing to bear such an intrusion, and would be willing to bear a "less fair" tax system that was also less intrusive.


FALSE the alternative is a sales tax/tariff, minimum intrusion, and the rich who buy more pay more.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> FALSE the alternative is a sales tax/tariff, minimum intrusion, and the rich who buy more pay more.


Sales taxes hit those at lower incomes more than those at high incomes since the spend a higher percent of their income buying things.   It is actually a regressive form of taxation.  Tariffs are hidden sales taxes (if you wanted to fund current government spending via a tariff you would need a 200% tariff on every single item we import including food and energy which would triple their prices- that hurts not just consumers but businesses who make things with any imported inputs). 

https://www.accuratetax.com/blog/reg...x-infographic/

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Sales taxes hit those at lower incomes more than those at high incomes since the spend a higher percent of their income buying things.   It is actually a regressive form of taxation.  Tariffs are hidden sales taxes


The Rich buy more and more expensive things, they will therefore pay more, that is NOT regressive, maybe it isn't progressive enough to suit a communist like you but if you are still concerned then exempt food and other true necessities.




> (if you wanted to fund current government spending via a tariff you would need a 200% tariff on every single item we import including food and energy which would triple their prices- that hurts not just consumers but businesses who make things with any imported inputs).


Then cut government, and include a domestic sales tax. Another good idea at the federal level is a cash-flow tax on state government budgets.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The Rich buy more and more expensive things, they will therefore pay more, that is NOT regressive, maybe it isn't progressive enough to suit a communist like you but if you are still concerned then exempt food and other true necessities.
> 
> 
> Then cut government, and include a domestic sales tax. Another good idea at the federal level is a cash-flow tax on state government budgets.


The rich invest and save more of their money.   As a percent of their money, they spend considerably less. If you start exempting things like food you need to raise your tax rate to generate the same amount of money. 

Sales tax?  What rate would that have to be?   Annual retail sales in the US runs about $5 trillion. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/US...n-2016/1013368  Current spending is about $4 trillion.  That would require a national sales tax of 80% (on top of state and local taxes) at current spending levels.  And note that any of these taxes (tariffs or sales taxes) would cause imports or sales to plummet meaning an even higher tax rate would be required. 

How would a tax on cash flow from state governments work?  Tax their taxation revenues?  Again, we are talking a huge tax rate.  State expenditures for all the states combined totals $1.8 trillion a year. http://www.kff.org/other/state-indic...2:%22asc%22%7D  The Federal Government needs twice that amount.  That would require states start charging triple the tax rates they currently do and send that revenue to the Federal Government.

What would you cut from government?  Social Security (political suicide if you try- even Ron Paul said he would not cut any benefits people had qualified for)?  Defense spending?  Just those two account for about half the budget themselves. Follow Ron and don't cut Medicare either and three fourths of the budget is off limits.  Can't cut interest on the debt either (unless you default).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The rich invest and save more of their money.   As a percent of their money, they spend considerably less. If you start exempting things like food you need to raise your tax rate to generate the same amount of money. 
> 
> Sales tax?  What rate would that have to be?   Annual retail sales in the US runs about $5 trillion. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/US...n-2016/1013368  Current spending is about $4 trillion.  That would require a national sales tax of 80% (on top of state and local taxes) at current spending levels.  And note that any of these taxes (tariffs or sales taxes) would cause imports or sales to plummet meaning an even higher tax rate would be required. 
> 
> How would a tax on cash flow from state governments work?  Tax their taxation revenues?  Again, we are talking a huge tax rate.  State expenditures for all the states combined totals $1.8 trillion a year. http://www.kff.org/other/state-indic...2:%22asc%22%7D  The Federal Government needs twice that amount.  That would require states start charging triple the tax rates they currently do and send that revenue to the Federal Government.
> 
> What would you cut from government?  Social Security (political suicide if you try- even Ron Paul said he would not cut any benefits people had qualified for)?  Defense spending?


Sales revenue would go up without the income tax.
And apparently you just can't give up any one of the planks of the communist manifesto can you?
There is plenty to cut in the Federal budget (DoD I'm looking at you), but you just want it to keep growing.
And you can divide the tax burden between the sales tax, the tariff and the cash-flow tax on state budgets, but you want to make any reform seem impossible, so you keep acting like only one will be used and that no cuts are possible.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *Sales revenue would go up without the income tax.*
> And apparently you just can't give up any one of the planks of the communist manifesto can you?
> There is plenty to cut in the Federal budget (DoD I'm looking at you), but you just want it to keep growing.
> And you can divide the tax burden between the sales tax, the tariff and the cash-flow tax on state budgets, but you want to make any reform seem impossible, so you keep acting like only one will be used and that no cuts are possible.


Half of all current income tax filers owe no net income taxes.  Getting rid of the income tax gives them no more money so they can't buy a single additional item.  Then they get hit with your new taxes and have even less to spend than before.  The rich would get breaks on their income taxes but already have most of the things they want/ need so are not likely to buy much more (this is why tax cut stimulus ideas always fail to generate the desired results- if you want to increase sales of things, give the money to those at lower incomes- they are the most likely to actually spend it on more things).
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/238329/

OK- let's divide up your tax ideas.  We have state taxes only going up by 100% and import prices only doubling. We could lower that national sales tax to 30% (states would have to be raising theirs to fund their "cash flow" taxes too). That will do wonders to stimulate the economy.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The rich invest and save more of their money.   As a percent of their money, they spend considerably less. If you start exempting things like food you need to raise your tax rate to generate the same amount of money. 
> 
> Sales tax?  What rate would that have to be?   Annual retail sales in the US runs about $5 trillion. https://www.emarketer.com/Article/US...n-2016/1013368  Current spending is about $4 trillion.  That would require a national sales tax of 80% (on top of state and local taxes) at current spending levels.  And note that any of these taxes (tariffs or sales taxes) would cause imports or sales to plummet meaning an even higher tax rate would be required. 
> 
> How would a tax on cash flow from state governments work?  Tax their taxation revenues?  Again, we are talking a huge tax rate.  State expenditures for all the states combined totals $1.8 trillion a year. http://www.kff.org/other/state-indic...2:%22asc%22%7D  The Federal Government needs twice that amount.  That would require states start charging triple the tax rates they currently do and send that revenue to the Federal Government.
> 
> What would you cut from government?  Social Security (political suicide if you try- even Ron Paul said he would not cut any benefits people had qualified for)?  Defense spending?  Just those two account for about half the budget themselves. Follow Ron and don't cut Medicare either and three fourths of the budget is off limits.  Can't cut interest on the debt either (unless you default).


Food and Ag                  3%
Housing and community    2%
Education                                            2%
Energy and environment    1%
International affairs                  1%
Science                                                     1%
half of DOD                                         7%
                                  =17%
Cuts else where                 X%
And federalize the Fed and shred the debt they hold.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Food and Ag                  3%
> Housing and community    2%
> Education                                            2%
> Energy and environment    1%
> International affairs                  1%
> Science                                                     1%
> half of DOD                                         7%
>                                   =17%
> Cuts else where                 X%
> *And federalize the Fed and shred the debt they hold*.


Your suggested cuts would take us down to $3.5 trillion.  My figures were based on $4 trillion.  Still need lots of taxes.  

What does "federalize the Fed" mean?   As for the debt they hold, that is about twelve percent of US government debt.  Won't effect things much.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Half of all current income tax filers owe no net income taxes.  Getting rid of the income tax gives them no more money so they can't buy a single additional item.  Then they get hit with your new taxes and have even less to spend than before.  The rich would get breaks on their income taxes but already have most of the things they want/ need so are not likely to buy much more (this is why tax cut stimulus ideas always fail to generate the desired results- if you want to increase sales of things, give the money to those at lower incomes- they are the most likely to actually spend it on more things).
> https://www.theatlantic.com/business...-taxes/238329/
> 
> OK- let's divide up your tax ideas.  We have state taxes only going up by 100% and import prices only doubling. We could lower that national sales tax to 30% (states would have to be raising theirs to fund their "cash flow" taxes too). That will do wonders to stimulate the economy.


A hopeless communist.
Sorry I don't buy your Lies, "Nothing can be done, Now just relax and enjoy this" says the Boa Constrictor.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What does "federalize the Fed" mean?   As for the debt they hold, that is about twelve percent.  Won't effect things much.


Sieze it from the Fraudulent and Treasonous private banks that own it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Sieze it from the Fraudulent and Treasonous private banks that own it.


It isn't owned by private banks.  Would you put Congress in charge of controlling the money supply?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> A hopeless communist.
> Sorry I don't buy your Lies, "Nothing can be done, Now just relax and enjoy this" says the Boa Constrictor.


It can be done, but that is just what it would entail.  If you want to replace the income tax with a sales tax, it will have to be a high one.  If you want to replace the income tax with tariffs, they are going to be extremely high (and trading partners may react with tariffs on their own igniting a trade war and kill our trade and businesses who sell anything imported or exported as part of their business).  If you want to extort money from the states, residents of the states will have to pay a lot more in taxes.

There isn't a painless way to do it.  It will cost more to those at lower incomes and will mean more money to those at higher incomes without increasing any jobs for anyone (and would likely be costing jobs). That is math- not communism.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It isn't owned by private banks.  Would you put Congress in charge of controlling the money supply?


Yes it is, And that is what the Constitution says to do, and we should return to either a gold or silver standard.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> It can be done, but that is just what it would entail.  If you want to replace the income tax with a sales tax, it will have to be a high one.  If you want to replace the income tax with tariffs, they are going to be extremely high (and trading partners may react with tariffs on their own igniting a trade war and kill our trade and businesses who sell anything imported or exported as part of their business).  If you want to extort money from the states, residents of the states will have to pay a lot more in taxes.
> 
> There isn't a painless way to do it.  It will cost more to those at lower incomes and will mean more money to those at higher incomes without increasing any jobs for anyone (and would likely be costing jobs). That is math- not communism.


This is Communism, "we are already X% close to 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', you can't dial back the ratchet, what we need is to tax the rich more.'

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yes it is, And that is what the Constitution says to do, and we should return to either a gold or silver standard.


The Constitution says STATES may use only gold and silver for money.  It gives Congress the power to decide what money is and what value it has. 




> Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 5
> [*Congress* shall have Power ... ]* To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof*, and of foreign Coin, ...;
> 
> Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1
> [No* State* shall ...] make* any Thing but gold and silver Coin* a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...
> 
> Note that there is no such prohibition against Congress, or any delegated power to make anything legal tender.


http://www.constitution.org/cs_money.htm

As for the Federal Reserve:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/default.htm




> Who owns the Federal Reserve?
> 
> The* Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone.* Although parts of the Federal Reserve System share some characteristics with private-sector entities, the Federal Reserve was established to serve the public interest.
> 
> The Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. This central banking "system" has three important features: (1) a central governing board--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.
> 
> The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government. The Board--appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate--provides general guidance for the Federal Reserve System and oversees the 12 Reserve Banks. The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations. In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board--and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committe--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.
> 
> Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors. Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The Constitution says STATES may use only gold and silver for money.  It gives Congress the power to decide what money is. 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/cs_money.htm


Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 5
[*Congress* shall have Power ... ]* To coin Money*

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 5
> [*Congress* shall have Power ... ]* To coin Money*


The term "coin" can mean a hard object used as money or it can also mean "to create" like "to coin a phrase".  It does not say that Congress can only allow gold and silver to be used as money- that is a restriction it applies only to the states (who often issued their own money at the time the Constitution was written).

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The term "coin" can mean a hard object used as money or it can also mean "to create" like "to coin a phrase".  It does not say that Congress can only allow gold and silver to be used as money- that is a restriction it applies only to the states (who often issued their own money at the time the Constitution was written).


To Coin is to cast _metal_ into a coin.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> To Coin is to cast _metal_ into a coin.


coin
koin

*noun
*1. a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.
synonyms:	penny, nickel, dime, quarter; More
*verb* 
1. make (coins) by stamping metal.
synonyms:	mint, stamp, strike, cast, punch, die, mold, forge, make
"dimes were coined"

*2. invent or devise* (a new word or phrase).
"he coined the term “desktop publishing.”"
synonyms:	invent, create, make up, conceive, originate, think up, dream up
"he coined the term"

----------


## Swordsmyth

> coin
> koin
> 
> *noun
> *1. a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.
> synonyms:    penny, nickel, dime, quarter; More
> *verb* 
> 1. make (coins) by stamping metal.
> synonyms:    mint, stamp, strike, cast, punch, die, mold, forge, make
> ...


A metaphor is not legally operative.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> coin
> koin
> 
> *noun
> *1. a flat, typically round piece of metal with an official stamp, used as money.
> synonyms:    penny, nickel, dime, quarter; More
> *verb* 
> 1. make (coins) by stamping metal.
> synonyms:    mint, stamp, strike, cast, punch, die, mold, forge, make
> ...


*2. invent or devise (a new word or phrase)*

----------


## TheCount

> FALSE the alternative is a sales tax/tariff, minimum intrusion, and the rich who buy more pay more.


Sales taxes affect consumer choices by discouraging consumption.  Specifically domestic consumption.  Income taxes do not.  As an econ dork, I prefer the tax scheme that influences/disrupts the market least.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Sales taxes affect consumer choices by discouraging consumption.  Specifically domestic consumption.  Income taxes do not.  As an econ dork, I prefer the tax scheme that influences/disrupts the market least.


All taxes discourage consumption, and if sales taxes do it more that might just be a good thing, people waste too much money and get into too much debt, this warps culture, the economy and politics in too many ways to count.
And I would prefer the taxation method that gets the government's nose out of everybody's bank statements.

----------


## TheCount

> All taxes discourage consumption


No.  Income taxes reduce consumption but do not discourage it.  In economic terms, they reduce the quantity demanded but not the demand itself.

Sales taxes encourage consumers to redistribute their spending to non-taxed uses, reshaping consumer demand in an artificial way.




> if sales taxes do it more that might just be a good thing, people waste too much money and get into too much debt, this warps culture, the economy and politics in too many ways to count.


I don't agree because I'm not a statist.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I don't agree because I'm not a statist.


Says the guy who wants big brother (The State) to stick his nose into my finances.

----------


## TheCount

> Says the guy who wants big brother (The State) to stick his nose into my finances.


Says the guy who thinks that the federal government should decide what consumer spending is good and bad for 'muh culture' and use the power of the government to change society in the image that they think is correct.


Next to that, reporting your income to the government is nothing.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Says the guy who thinks that the federal government should decide what consumer spending is good and bad for 'muh culture' and use the power of the government to change society in the image that they think is correct.
> 
> 
> Next to that, reporting your income to the government is nothing.


They don't do that with the income tax code?

----------


## TheCount

> They don't do that with the income tax code?


They do it with all of the funky exemptions and loopholes to the income tax, but that's 'muh special interests' and not 'muh culture.'

However, that's beside the point.  What they actually do with the current, universally hated tax code and what I think they should do with the income tax are entirely different things. I don't think that the government should encourage or discourage market behavior via the tax code.  You, on the other hand, directly said that the social engineering that the government currently does with the tax code is a good thing and should be continued, though with your goals and pet projects instead of the current ones.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They do it with all of the funky exemptions and loopholes to the income tax, but that's 'muh special interests' and not 'muh culture.'
> 
> However, that's beside the point.  What they actually do with the current, universally hated tax code and what I think they should do with the income tax are entirely different things. I don't think that the government should encourage or discourage market behavior via the tax code.  You, on the other hand, directly said that the social engineering that the government currently does with the tax code is a good thing and should be continued, though with your goals and pet projects instead of the current ones.


No I said that it was a beneficial side effect. And government will try to encourage or discourage market behavior via the tax code, no matter what kind of tax is used.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
> 
> 
> The big problem with that (besides the  blackmail/bribe problem with all fines) is that the government has to  know what your income is or what your total wealth is or both. Neither  one is the government's business, this is actually one of the biggest  reasons the income tax is evil.
> 
> 
> The income tax system is less intrusive than a fee system.  In a fee-based system, the government would have to know everything about you and all of the government services that you consume.  That would be an enormous amount of detail.
> 
> For example, roads:  The best possible way to charge people for road use would be to place a monitoring device in every car and track, in detail when, where, how, how far, etc. the person drives, along with how heavily loaded the vehicle is.  That would be "fairest" but I don't think anyone would be willing to bear such an intrusion, and would be willing to bear a "less fair" tax system that was also less intrusive.


I can't resist the temptation to point out that this is an excellent illustration of why "the best possible way to charge people for road use" is actually to fully privatize muh roads ...

Acme Road Co. would just quote a schedule of prices. There would be no need for tracking devices or privacy invasions or etc.

----------


## Madison320

> FALSE the alternative is a sales tax/tariff, minimum intrusion, and the rich who buy more pay more.


One thing I don't like about the sales tax is that it disproportionally affects retailers. But I'd probably still take it over a flat income tax.

----------


## Madison320

> No.
> 
> I said "as it's commonly used" because it seemed to me that you were saying that a different fine _amount_ would be progressive.  I was trying to make the comparison that if a percentage-based tax rate is not considered progressive, a percentage-based fine could also be considered not progressive.   It's a little more complicated, as I've heard it argued that a person of a higher income is receiving different/more services from the government to explain why a percentage tax is as suitable as a fee-based tax.  Obviously, with a fine there's no such service.


That's a good point. A true non-progressive tax would be a flat amount, say $1000 that we all have to pay. A flat tax is really a compromise. It's still progressive in a way since some people pay more than others. I think a progressive tax may actually be worse than a progressive fine. A progressive fine is changing the penalties for breaking the law depending on the person. A progressive tax is actually changing the LAW depending on the person. That seems worse to me.

As I've said before, the real flaw is the 1 man 1 vote democracy. It's a logical flaw to have a majority vote to steal from the minority. That's why in unchecked democracies you get tax rates of more than 50% on the most productive citizens, $100,000 speeding fines, antitrust laws, discrimination laws, etc.

----------


## TheCount

> As I've said before, the real flaw is the 1 man 1 vote democracy. It's a logical flaw to have a majority vote to steal from the minority. That's why in unchecked democracies you get tax rates of more than 50% on the most productive citizens, $100,000 speeding fines, antitrust laws, discrimination laws, etc.


When things go the other way, then the minority steals from the majority.

The solution is limitation of government power to prevent such theft, not implementation of reforms that just hand the weapons of government to the people that we deem most fit to utilize them against their neighbors.

----------


## TheCount

> Acme Road Co. would just quote a schedule of prices. There would be no need for tracking devices or privacy invasions or etc.


Smart meters and vehicle-tracking devices for auto insurance purposes seem to be counterexamples to your theory.


I can't envision a system through which Acme Road Co. could charge legitimate users and also prevent free riders on their road network without some level of tracking and privacy invasion.

----------


## Madison320

> When things go the other way, then the minority steals from the majority.


If you only allow net taxpayers to vote the minority won't be able to steal from the majority because they'll lose their voting privilege. It's self correcting.





> The solution is limitation of government power to prevent such theft, not implementation of reforms that just hand the weapons of government to the people that we deem most fit to utilize them against their neighbors.


How can you limit government power in a democracy where everyone can vote? It's impossible as far as I can tell. You can make rules but they'll eventually get eroded away by politicians that buy votes by stealing from the few to give to the many. You need to fundamentally change the election process to fix it.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If you only allow net taxpayers to vote the minority won't be able to steal from the majority because they'll lose their voting privilege. It's self correcting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you limit government power in a democracy where everyone can vote? It's impossible as far as I can tell. You can make rules but they'll eventually get eroded away by politicians that buy votes by stealing from the few to give to the many. You need to fundamentally change the election process to fix it.


Limiting voting is not a democracy.  It becomes government by the elites for the elites.

----------


## TheCount

> If you only allow net taxpayers to vote the minority won't be able to steal from the majority because they'll lose their voting privilege. It's self correcting.


They'll steal in indirect ways.  Contracts to their companies and friends and whatnot.  See the Russian oligarchs for an example.





> How can you limit government power in a democracy where everyone can vote? It's impossible as far as I can tell. You can make rules but they'll eventually get eroded away by politicians that buy votes by stealing from the few to give to the many. You need to fundamentally change the election process to fix it.


No matter who you give the power of the vote, it's possible for them to erode the protections built into the government over time.  I don't see how it would be different if it were a majority or minority of the population.  Arguably, a small minority would have an easier time of working together in that direction.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Posh and flim flam in this thread.

You want to reduce overall taxation, the size and scope of government and possibly the very concept of income taxation?

Eliminate the "temporary" WW2 measure of "incoming withholding" and employer "matching". 

Other than that, don't change a thing. 

*Force* _Boobus_ to cut a check, for the full freight of FedGov taxation, every single month to Uncle Sucker.

Oh, and while we're at it, pass a federal law banning the practice of escrow accounting to "bundle" mortgage and property tax payments.

*Force* _Boobus_ to cut a check every month to his local Liege Lords as well.

Watch how fast this $#@! would change.

Even idiot Kalifornians are up in arms over a relatively minor increase in gas taxes. Go figure, they vote, in overwhelming numbers, for liberal progressives, and then get upset when they do liberal progressive things.

And the reason why is because they *see it.*

----------


## Madison320

> Posh and flim flam in this thread.
> 
> You want to reduce overall taxation, the size and scope of government and possibly the very concept of income taxation?
> 
> Eliminate the "temporary" WW2 measure of "incoming withholding" and employer "matching". 
> 
> Other than that, don't change a thing. 
> 
> *Force* _Boobus_ to cut a check, for the full freight of FedGov taxation, every single month to Uncle Sucker.
> ...


I like that idea but it would only work if there was a flat tax. What is it? Half the population that doesn't pay any income tax?

----------


## Madison320

> They'll steal in indirect ways.  Contracts to their companies and friends and whatnot.  See the Russian oligarchs for an example.


How do you know this? Does Russia only allow net taxpayers to vote?




> No matter who you give the power of the vote, it's possible for them to erode the protections built into the government over time.  I don't see how it would be different if it were a majority or minority of the population.  Arguably, a small minority would have an easier time of working together in that direction.


Except that it WOULDN'T be a minority. The current minority of taxpayers would vote to spread the tax burden to the entire population and taxpayers would soon become the majority. The way it should be. And it's not just some random group we're talking about. It's taxpayers. People that are FORCED to give up their property. How can you give the guy who receives stolen goods that same voting power as the guy who gets the goods stolen from him? 

What's your idea? Or do you think "socialism", "class envy", "soaking the productive" are not a problem? In my opinion it's the number one problem in most countries, by far.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I like that idea but it would only work if there was a flat tax. What is it? Half the population that doesn't pay any income tax?


Oh yes they do...they pay FICA and Medicaid taxes.

----------


## Madison320

> Oh yes they do...they pay FICA and Medicaid taxes.


That's true and I agree I like the idea, but I don't know if it will help lower the taxes on the most productive. It'll definitely lower taxes on the middle class. Look at the UK. I remember they were talking about switching to withholding maybe 10-15 years ago. So I'm assuming they've had to write a check and I they don't seem to be all that capitalistic to me.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's true and I agree I like the idea, but I don't know if it will help lower the taxes on the most productive. It'll definitely lower taxes on the middle class. Look at the UK. I remember they were talking about switching to withholding maybe 10-15 years ago. So I'm assuming they've had to write a check and I they don't seem to be all that capitalistic to me.


They have withholding, they just don't call it withholding.

They call it Pay As You Earn, also instituted during WW2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-as-you-earn_tax

----------


## Madison320

> They have withholding, they just don't call it withholding.
> 
> They call it Pay As You Earn, also instituted during WW2.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-as-you-earn_tax


Thanks, I don't know what the hell I was remembering.

----------


## pcosmar

> I was arguing with some friends who thought the proportional fines for speeding are a good idea. Their argument is that the penalty should "hurt" the same for everyone. My argument is that one of the benefits to working hard and accumulating wealth is that things DON'T hurt as much. Isn't that the point of hard work, savings and delayed gratification? As far as I'm concerned making cost proportional is just another disguised form of communism.


woah,,

this is a thread about the correct or incorrect manner of Highway Robbery

It is theft. Period.
It has been theft since roadways were co-opted and fines imposed.

The roads are stolen.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Sales taxes affect consumer choices by discouraging consumption.  Specifically domestic consumption.  Income taxes do not.  As an econ dork, I prefer the tax scheme that influences/disrupts the market least.


Isn't a sale tax the least intrusive tax?

Income taxes discourage production. A consumption tax discourages consumption.  If you are going to discourage one or the other discouraging consumption would be preferable.  An income tax is entirely bad. A sales tax might shift behavior toward investment over consumption which offset the negative effects of the tax.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Isn't a sale tax the least intrusive tax?
> 
> Income taxes discourage production. A consumption tax discourages consumption.  If you are going to discourage one or the other discouraging consumption would be preferable.  An income tax is entirely bad. A sales tax might shift behavior toward investment over consumption which offset the negative effects of the tax.


And you get Uncle Sam's nose out of everybody's finances.

----------


## TheCount

> Isn't a sale tax the least intrusive tax?


Depends on how you define intrusive.




> Income taxes discourage production. A consumption tax discourages consumption.


Discouraging production is the same as discouraging consumption.  Also, I'm skeptical that a flat percentage tax would be as discouraging as a progressive tax.




> If you are going to discourage one or the other discouraging consumption would be preferable. An income tax is entirely bad. A sales tax might shift behavior toward investment over consumption which offset the negative effects of the tax.


The income tax would affect all things equally, hampering the economy, but in an equal manner across all sectors of the economy, favoring none.  As you begin to point out, the consumption tax would disproportionately only affect certain things, favoring the financial sector, as well as all of the initial and intermediate stages of industry (unless it's a VAT), and potentially parts of the services sector such as education, depending on how and to what the sales tax is applied.

If you asked which would be 'less intrusive' to my ability to run, I would choose a ten pound weight on each leg over a twenty pound weight on just one leg.

----------

