TheDunk
10-27-2011, 07:36 AM
I haven't heard anyone advocating or much less even mentioning a truly fair and equal tax by equally dividing the federal budget for a given year across all citizens and residents, or alternatively only adults, only adults not retired, or some similar scheme. What follows is something I posted elsewhere with little response, which I will edit slightly for here. I'm interested in hearing what fellow libertarians think of this idea. I'm not sure I'm sold on it, but I don't like progressive tax structures like we have now as it punished people more as they are more productive. The federal government does need funding even once reduced to a sensible Constitutional level, and this seems like a good way to do that. For young lower middle class folks like me, looking for another job or a second job for supplementary income it could very well push me into another tax bracket negating much of my hard work which is to dig my way out of student loan debt so I can have a better quality of life going forward. This would be much easier with a better tax structure.
Population: 308,745,538
Excluding children: 234,564,071
Excluding children+elderly: 184,591,890
2010 Federal budget: $3,552,000,000,000
Easy cuts (entitlement and military): $2,188,000,000,000
New proposed Federal budget w/ cuts: $1,364,000,000,000
I would say fair share means the same specific amount. Divide federal government expenses by number of adults in this country, and there you have your fair tax burden. I firmly believe in small government with a primary role of protection of individual liberty and property rights. Other roles would include major infrastructure, defense, and others... All of which could be run successfully at much lower levels. Taxing the same dollar amount from every adult citizen to cover a given years expenses would fix government rather quickly as everyone would have a vested interest in keeping government spending at reasonable and justifiable levels. Entitlements and other socialist programs would end quickly as there would be no sense paying your fair share of taxes and then receiving some smaller amount back after government has taken a large chunk off the top.
For example...
2010 Federal spending: $3,552,000,000,000
2010 population: 308,745,538
2010 population excluding under 18: 234,564,071
2010 population excluding under 18 and over 62: 184,591,890
So under a truly fair and equal tax, every adult from 18-62 years old would pay $19,242.45. Alternatively, make the fair and equal share of taxes payable by everyone, and it's only $11,504.62 per person. In this scenario parents would have to be liable for childrens taxes up to age 18. This would work as a great disincentive for the poor to have children, as opposed to the current system that rewards and incentivises the poor to have children.
This isn't a ridiculously unreasonable amount when fairly divided. People would be very angry and would quickly become interested in what government is spending money on instead of what the latest celebrity wore or said. What if we cut a few entitlement programs and other government waste we can see how that might affect the tax burden. This is just a modest first cut, ignoring that MANY smaller programs that are wasteful and redistribute wealth.
Eliminate Social Security: $724 billion savings
Eliminate Medicare: $462 billion savings
Eliminate Medicaid: $293 billion savings
Eliminate unemployment: $158 billion savings
Eliminate food stamps: $69 billion savings
Cut military spending by 2/3 (probably could do more): $482 billion savings
Just those big ticket entitlements and defense spending amounts to $2,188 billion in savings... How does this apply to the tax burden on individuals under a truly fair and equal tax?
2010 federal spending after cuts to entitlements and defense: $1,364,000,000,000
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among adults age 18-62: $7,389.27
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among all adults: $5,815
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among everyone: $4,417.88
That tax burden doesn't seem all that unreasonable for anyone to pay under any of those three ways of dividing the tax burden. Those numbers are still quite high as I just cut the big easy ones. Military could probably be cut more, and with less military spending and of course an less unconstitutional wars and invasions of sovereign nations, spending on veterans, war injuries, military reitrements and pensions, etc. would drop sharply once those people die off and the new base of such spending is on a smaller military that actually defends the country. There are surely plenty of other programs at lower spending levels that amount to entitlements and other redistribution programs. I would wager that is what most of the remaining spending under my quickie budget cut plan consists of, and in fact that budget could be cut a lot more with a closer look at spending.
Population: 308,745,538
Excluding children: 234,564,071
Excluding children+elderly: 184,591,890
2010 Federal budget: $3,552,000,000,000
Easy cuts (entitlement and military): $2,188,000,000,000
New proposed Federal budget w/ cuts: $1,364,000,000,000
I would say fair share means the same specific amount. Divide federal government expenses by number of adults in this country, and there you have your fair tax burden. I firmly believe in small government with a primary role of protection of individual liberty and property rights. Other roles would include major infrastructure, defense, and others... All of which could be run successfully at much lower levels. Taxing the same dollar amount from every adult citizen to cover a given years expenses would fix government rather quickly as everyone would have a vested interest in keeping government spending at reasonable and justifiable levels. Entitlements and other socialist programs would end quickly as there would be no sense paying your fair share of taxes and then receiving some smaller amount back after government has taken a large chunk off the top.
For example...
2010 Federal spending: $3,552,000,000,000
2010 population: 308,745,538
2010 population excluding under 18: 234,564,071
2010 population excluding under 18 and over 62: 184,591,890
So under a truly fair and equal tax, every adult from 18-62 years old would pay $19,242.45. Alternatively, make the fair and equal share of taxes payable by everyone, and it's only $11,504.62 per person. In this scenario parents would have to be liable for childrens taxes up to age 18. This would work as a great disincentive for the poor to have children, as opposed to the current system that rewards and incentivises the poor to have children.
This isn't a ridiculously unreasonable amount when fairly divided. People would be very angry and would quickly become interested in what government is spending money on instead of what the latest celebrity wore or said. What if we cut a few entitlement programs and other government waste we can see how that might affect the tax burden. This is just a modest first cut, ignoring that MANY smaller programs that are wasteful and redistribute wealth.
Eliminate Social Security: $724 billion savings
Eliminate Medicare: $462 billion savings
Eliminate Medicaid: $293 billion savings
Eliminate unemployment: $158 billion savings
Eliminate food stamps: $69 billion savings
Cut military spending by 2/3 (probably could do more): $482 billion savings
Just those big ticket entitlements and defense spending amounts to $2,188 billion in savings... How does this apply to the tax burden on individuals under a truly fair and equal tax?
2010 federal spending after cuts to entitlements and defense: $1,364,000,000,000
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among adults age 18-62: $7,389.27
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among all adults: $5,815
Tax burden spread fairly and equally among everyone: $4,417.88
That tax burden doesn't seem all that unreasonable for anyone to pay under any of those three ways of dividing the tax burden. Those numbers are still quite high as I just cut the big easy ones. Military could probably be cut more, and with less military spending and of course an less unconstitutional wars and invasions of sovereign nations, spending on veterans, war injuries, military reitrements and pensions, etc. would drop sharply once those people die off and the new base of such spending is on a smaller military that actually defends the country. There are surely plenty of other programs at lower spending levels that amount to entitlements and other redistribution programs. I would wager that is what most of the remaining spending under my quickie budget cut plan consists of, and in fact that budget could be cut a lot more with a closer look at spending.