h a l f b a k e r yInexact change.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
How about this: don't index rates to income AT ALL. Instead,
sell lottery tickets, each of which has a tax rate, which could
be anywhere between 0 and (say) 75 percent. You pay the
lowest rate from all the tix you buy. Availability of the
different rates is on a bell curve - so, very few zeros
(1:20MM, say), very few 75, most around, I dunno, 20%. The
more tix you buy, the better your chances of winning the
zero-percent rate. Revenue from the lottery sales goes
straight into the Treasury, and no more arguing about who
gets taxed how much.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
As your income would still affect how much tax
you
had to pay, those with higher incomes would buy
low
tax rates from lower income winners for more than
the low income people would save in tax. |
|
| |
If the high income and low income people both
benefit, the only loser is the treasury, unless the
chance of getting a ticket with a low tax rate is
extremely small and only 1% lower. |
|
| |
This would turn the lottery from a tax on hope to
a tax on tax. |
|
| |
Trading in tickets between taxpayers could be forbidden. |
|
| |
[marklar] Damn, that's smart. |
|
| |
[pocmloc] Why forbid
trading
in tax rates? Much of government tax revenue is transfer
from wealthy to poor, no? If more money goes direct from
rich
to poor (as payment for low tax rates), and less goes
indirectly via government, mightn't
that be a good thing? Free market enthusiasts would
definitely say so. Administrative costs of the transfer
might
be less, and the poor would have more say in how the
funds
transferred to them would be spent. |
|
| |
But [marklar] the high income people only "benefit" in
comparison to the
present system; it's still not as good for them as lower
taxes would be. |
|
| |
Hmm, since there's uncertainty about the future income
of a particular person, could there be a futures market in
tax rates? Might be interesting to model an economy with
freely tradable randomly assigned tax rates. Not
sure this is a good idea, but it's starting to seem like an
*interesting* one. [+] |
|
| |
[MP], [Mark] has already explained. The rich would pay the poor to swap to lower tickets. The treasury's total tax take drops well below mean. End of experiment. |
|
| |
It's not like you can currently trade in tax codes. I have a low income so am in the lowest bracket. I can't do a deal with a high-earning city worker to exchange tax codes, so he need only pay 10% on his super bonuses, in exchange for him subbing my punitive higher rate tax on my minimum-wage income. If we tried that wheeze I think HMRC might be interested. |
|
| |
So if one buys a ticket which returns a rate higher than one is currently paying, doesn't on just 'lose' the ticket? |
|
| |
This would only appeal to the kind of person daft enough to buy into a lottery with a staistically insignificant (1.4E7 : 1) chance of winning. |
|
| |
Also, there is much more to gain if the player has a high income, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. |
|
| |
Rule 1: You must buy at least one ticket. Anyone not buying a ticket will be given one by HMRC and the cost of said ticket (plus a £10 administrative fee) will be added to their next tax bill. |
|
| |
Rule 2: Each ticket is valid only for the year of issue. You must buy a new ticket each year. |
|
| |
I think that 0% and 70% are arbitrary limits. Let the distribution of tickets be a Normal distribution centred on, say, 40%, depending on the national budget and economy. The standard deviation could be whatever you liked. I would prefer a larger s.d., meaning that some people might get a 700% tax bill, wiping out their life savings, while some lucky worker might get a -3000% tax bill, i.e. a windfall refund of their entire life’s earnings. |
|
| |
If the stated aim of the idea is //no more arguing about who gets taxed how much// how does this solve the problem? |
|
| |
You still have arguments, of course they are no longer based on the old tax system, since it has been replaced by the new one - but arguments they would still be. |
|
| |
Under what tax system would you effectively be able to stamp out all arguments? You can't please all the people all the time. |
|
| |
You could of course make the tickets non-
transferable*, which would solve the trading issue. |
|
| |
More interestingly though, I was thinking that you
could currently 'buy' someone's tax rate. If I earn a
dump
load of money, what is to stop me employing a
number of servants? This works out great for
them, but you are surely wondering how I would
ever get the money back. |
|
| |
Well, you could either do it below the minimum
tax-free non-relation transfer rate (which from
memory of about 10 years ago was something like
2,400 pounds per year, per person), or you could
open a company which sold them a service of
some kind. You would be subject to VAT in most
cases, but I think there are sectors, such as
(ironically) financial planning, which are exempt or
have reduced VAT. |
|
| |
*I thought of using the word non-anonymous... do
doo du do do. |
|
| |
Tax code lotteries are already is baked by HMRC |
|
| |
Well, sort of ... everyone loses. |
|
| |
If I had loads of income, a very low tax rate would be very valuable. Therefore I would buy ticket after ticket, amassing hundreds or thousands of tickets looking for the super low rate. |
|
| |
Or my friends and I would buy some Republican congressmen (what the hell - lets get the whole party. We're filthy rich!) so that they would hold the middle class hostage to ensure my very low tax rate and uninterrupted money bin wallowing. |
|
| |
Garcon! This money is not fresh. It is all wallowed out. Exchange it for some new! |
|
| |