We don't need no stinking taxes

[gavinfielder]

Most everyone in this forum knows by now that taxes don't really fund the government (hey, something changed!)

And most everyone knows that taxes don't really incent growth. It'd be silly to think they ever could.

We especially don't need taxes in a demand-depressed economy.

Let's remove them. All of them. Over a period of 4 to 6 years (unless this still doesn't fix the economy by then), scrap the entire tax code. At the same time, end the Fed and turn monetary sovereignty over to the people so no one continues whining about some imaginary public debt problem.

Will this cause inflation? I hope so. First of all, it'd be great, because for demand-pull inflation to even be possible everyone must be able to have a job. As a liberal, I'd much rather fight inflation than fight unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and even (should Paul Ryan get his way) starvation. But when it does cause inflation, there's plenty of ways to fight it. Raise the reserve requirement. Keep raising it, until we completely eliminate fractional reserve banking--why not?

Meanwhile, by benefit of zero-tax policy, businesses and jobs flow into the US, we'll turn around our trade deficit, and we'll no longer even have a need for deficit spending in the first place. If the economy is great, there'd be much less need for welfare, and since I'm dreaming of monetary reform anyway, let's distribute it regionally so average people have more lobbying power since monetary policy would lie with public organizations closer to home--that way, if welfare is truly needed, the people will say so and we wouldn't have this traction and disconnect from the Ivory Tower in Washington from real economic problems at home.

 

[PeteEU]

Most everyone in this forum knows by now that taxes don't really fund the government (hey, something changed!)

And most everyone knows that taxes don't really incent growth. It'd be silly to think they ever could.

We especially don't need taxes in a demand-depressed economy.

Let's remove them. All of them. Over a period of 4 to 6 years (unless this still doesn't fix the economy by then), scrap the entire tax code. At the same time, end the Fed and turn monetary sovereignty over to the people so no one continues whining about some imaginary public debt problem.

Will this cause inflation? I hope so. First of all, it'd be great, because for demand-pull inflation to even be possible everyone must be able to have a job. As a liberal, I'd much rather fight inflation than fight unemployment, poverty, homelessness, and even (should Paul Ryan get his way) starvation. But when it does cause inflation, there's plenty of ways to fight it. Raise the reserve requirement. Keep raising it, until we completely eliminate fractional reserve banking--why not?

Meanwhile, by benefit of zero-tax policy, businesses and jobs flow into the US, we'll turn around our trade deficit, and we'll no longer even have a need for deficit spending in the first place. If the economy is great, there'd be much less need for welfare, and since I'm dreaming of monetary reform anyway, let's distribute it regionally so average people have more lobbying power since monetary policy would lie with public organizations closer to home--that way, if welfare is truly needed, the people will say so and we wouldn't have this traction and disconnect from the Ivory Tower in Washington from real economic problems at home.

So is it Mexican or Jamaican pot you are smoking?

 

[gavinfielder]

So is it Mexican or Jamaican pot you are smoking?

Why not? Monetary reform is long overdue in this country.

 

[a351]

Few questions. What would "turning over monetary sovereignty to the people" entail? How would we avoid the need for deficit spending as you've claimed given the fact that you've proposed stripping revenue to the bone? Would social assistance and the military cease to exist as well in this scenario? Also, your claim that Ryan's budget would result in unemployment, poverty and starvation is comical given the fact you also claimed lower tax burdens (a staple of the plan) would result in lowering each of the three.

 

[PeteEU]

Why not? Monetary reform is long overdue in this country.

Because it would take the US back to the freaking stoneage and take most of the world with it. It would be better to just nuke the planet... probably get a better result in the long run.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Some men just want to watch the world burn....

You seem to VASTLY underestimate the damage of hyperinflation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We don't need no stinking budget either. The current trend of our congress critters is to collect some taxes but to simply borrow and spend whatever additional funds it takes to assure their re-election.

 

[TNAR]

Meanwhile, by benefit of zero-tax policy, businesses and jobs flow into the US...

Completely ignoring everything else you said for a moment, why would a zero-tax policy imply a "flow" of businesses and jobs into the U.S.? Yes, U.S. corporate taxes are the highest in the world so their elimination would be superb, but what about all of the other regulatory requirements? Or do you imply that all of these should be repealed as well?

 

[Fisher]

We don't need income taxes. We can phase half of them out by just putting sin taxes on rolling paper, wraps, and crack pipes they sell at convenience stores.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Some men just want to watch the world burn....

You seem to VASTLY underestimate the damage of hyperinflation.

Hyperinflation is an incredibly rare event that happens when countries lose larges amount of production. Removing taxation would increase production. Inflation would be very small and it would be the type of inflation that is good for an economy.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Completely ignoring everything else you said for a moment, why would a zero-tax policy imply a "flow" of businesses and jobs into the U.S.? Yes, U.S. corporate taxes are the highest in the world so their elimination would be superb, but what about all of the other regulatory requirements? Or do you imply that all of these should be repealed as well?

Really? You think people would care about regulations knowing that zero taxation exists?

 

[PeteEU]

So... who would pay for the police and military and all the other key things that taxes pay for?

 

[gavinfielder]

So... who would pay for the police and military and all the other key things that taxes pay for?

The government, in some form or another. We're a monetarily sovereign nation, and entirely capable of spending without taxing.

 

[gavinfielder]

Few questions. What would "turning over monetary sovereignty to the people" entail? How would we avoid the need for deficit spending as you've claimed given the fact that you've proposed stripping revenue to the bone?

A monetarily sovereign nation isn't revenue constrained in the first place--that's the first fallacy that anyone getting into economics runs into. It seems you're one of the few who have yet to realize this.

It would entail giving another entity the right to issue currency. I'm not sure this should be congress, as their performance lately has been dismal, but it shouldn't be the Fed, which has no power to spend and can do nothing for the economy at this point.

I think that ideally, we should completely restructure our nation's central banking so as to have decentralized monetary sovereignty--perhaps giving states limited authority to issue the US dollar, or perhaps forming another entity entirely that has separate offices and elections than existing government structures.

Also, your claim that Ryan's budget would result in unemployment, poverty and starvation is comical given the fact you also claimed lower tax burdens (a staple of the plan) would result in lowering each of the three.

I was only referring to his amoral and economically ignorant campaign against food stamps--his latest amendments to the farm bill include cutting the car exemption on food stamps--just because mom owns the car the family sleep in, the kids don't need food. Paul Ryan needs to ****ing die.

Fix the economy first, and make sure welfare isn't being abused. Cutting welfare indiscriminately with a still stagnant economy is just idiotic.

 

[gavinfielder]

Completely ignoring everything else you said for a moment, why would a zero-tax policy imply a "flow" of businesses and jobs into the U.S.? Yes, U.S. corporate taxes are the highest in the world so their elimination would be superb, but what about all of the other regulatory requirements? Or do you imply that all of these should be repealed as well?

Regulation in this country isn't restrictive to those with enough capital to invest overseas. Now, for small business, and first time business owners, yes, we should absolutely cut regulation.

 

[PeteEU]

The government, in some form or another.

Eh what? And how is the government going to get income to pay for these things?

We're a monetarily sovereign nation, and entirely capable of spending without taxing.

LOL what? Where are you going to get the money to spend for?

 

[gavinfielder]

Eh what? And how is the government going to get income to pay for these things?

LOL what? Where are you going to get the money to spend for?

Out of thin air. That's what monetary sovereignty in a fiat currency means. What do you think money is, anyway?

 

[PeteEU]

Out of thin air. That's what monetary sovereignty in a fiat currency means. What do you think money is, anyway?

Ahh I see... this whole thread is sarcastic then... nice one!

 

[gavinfielder]

Ahh I see... this whole thread is sarcastic then... nice one!

No, you just obviously have no idea what we're talking about.

We already create money out of thin air. The only reason it's created as debt is because we have far-outdated laws that make it so.

 

[PeteEU]

No, you just obviously have no idea what we're talking about.

We already create money out of thin air. The only reason it's created as debt is because we have far-outdated laws that make it so.

Oh I know exactly what you are talking about and it is still beyond lunacy.

 

[Lakryte]

Creating money out of thin air will solve all of our problems! Ignore the realities of scarcity of resources and the dimension of time! Ignore how the supply and demand of money effects an economy! Just keep creating money, and that will solve all of our problems!! :roll:

But I'll bite with a more serious question. Lets assume we have the situation you propose. 100% reserve banking, no Fed, and no taxes. Government funds its programs by creating money, as you say. My question is what programs would still be in existence? How much smaller are you assuming the budget would be?

 

[specklebang]

I'm not sure how serious I am but I've pondered this no tax approach with the USG creating money as needed. Terribly unlikely but a case could be made. Certainly, we would need a much smaller government and without the USG funding the states, you'll probably see state taxes fill in the savings.

But its fun to think about.

 

[Republic Now!]

Hyperinflation is an incredibly rare event that happens when countries lose larges amount of production. Removing taxation would increase production. Inflation would be very small and it would be the type of inflation that is good for an economy.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the outcome of printing and giving every American a billion dollars would be?

Really? You think people would care about regulations knowing that zero taxation exists?

If the regulations are more costly than taxes would be, yes.

 

[gavinfielder]

But I'll bite with a more serious question. Lets assume we have the situation you propose. 100% reserve banking, no Fed, and no taxes. Government funds its programs by creating money, as you say. My question is what programs would still be in existence? How much smaller are you assuming the budget would be?

This is also a long-term solution--the budget can be expanded and contracted as needed.

In short, I have no idea, and it depends on the situation. But it's certain that with a strong economy, we'd need less welfare, have more opportunity, and can handle even sizeable interest rates.

 

[a351]

A monetarily sovereign nation isn't revenue constrained in the first place--that's the first fallacy that anyone getting into economics runs into. It seems you're one of the few who have yet to realize this.

I'm well aware of the fact that we could, in theory, simply print in order to meet our obligations. That doesn't account for your claim that we would lack the need for deficit spending all while gutting revenue to the bone as you've proposed.