Your point is that it is far more difficult for the fedgov to raise taxes on income? That’s debatable, but the appraisals would come from local authorities, even under my proposal, so coordinated, unaccountable, nationwide increases would not be easy to accomplish.
I think the national property tax would increase taxes on the poor slightly and increase taxes on the rich greatly while decreasing taxes on the middle class who shoulder most of the burden now. I think that is a positive factor. I also think that even the poor should be making some contribution to society. It’s good for self-esteem and good for society for everyone to participate to the extent they are capable. Don’t tell me that the working poor cannot contribute something.
I think one thing that’s being overlooked in the discussion (and maybe I just missed it) is that the current tax system could never be ‘replaced’ with any one sort of tax. The two reasons for this are one, as flex has just said, changing tax law changes behavior, and two, the total cost in taxes to citizens is so much higher than most will ever realize because they are taken from such a diverse range of sources.
Behaviors changing is evident in everything from widespread home ownership (interest payments non-taxable) to employer provided health care (non-taxed benefit for some) to the current spate of corporate malfeasance (stock options replacing direct payment for tax reasons). Each change in tax code directs investment and resources in another direction, because generally investing in government is not what people want to do. If you are proposing to tie all taxes paid to property tax, owning property will become passe, or enough loopholes will be written into it that people will flock to them. It would have the effect also of devaluing a lot of property that people have put quite a lot of investment into over their lives. It doesn’t matter if they are ‘rich’ or ‘poor’, the amount someone will be willing to pay for any property will decrease.
The second reason, the widespread sources of taxes, is related to the first reason. In efforts to reduce the amount of money that can be sheltered from taxes, new taxes have been levied on all sorts of things, giving us the myriad of government revenues including income, payroll, property, sales, service, capital gains, estate, etc. Along with that have come schemes like employer withholding that I believe hide the true cost to taxpayers (how much of a fit would people throw if they had to write a check for 30% of their monthly income to the government each month?). The total amount of revenue raised by the government is so high that any single source would be unable to collect enough to match it. Therefore, I believe any changes in tax collection cannot happen until there is a massive reduction in government spending, because current government cash flow cannot be met with a single revenue source.
I just don’t see it working that way. My guess is that if you were to arbitrarily raise property taxes you would not necessarily see an increase in rents as a reaction to it. What I do see happening is that property taxes are raised in the form of higher appraisals on rental properties as a result of landlords getting higher rents. Higher rents mean that the property has become more valuable, hence a higher appraisal. So while there may be a correlation between higher taxes and higher rents, I suspect that you have the causative factor reversed.
Again I think you have the cause and effect backwards. Increased property taxes in and of themselves have nothing to do with the take home pay of renters. What happens is that as the economy booms, everyone has more take home pay, more people flock to the centers of prosperity, the housing market gets tighter and rents go up. With higher rents come higher taxes.
One tax that would not change behaviour is a tax on unimproved property values. A land tax (or other resource rent tax) would be non-distorting if applied uniformly. However any annual land tax would be capitalised into current land prices and would represent a hugely inequitable tax from an intergenerational point of view - the burden would be borne almost entirely by current land owners. Residential rents would not change.
A general comment from an economist on tax mix change: there’s still no free lunch.
Actually, no. Think about it: You’re being taxed on the value of your land (an arbitrary number the government gets to decide, btw – yeah, that won’t be ripe with abuse). If you’ve got a piece of property, therefore, your goal would be to LOWER its value as much as possible to LOWER your tax burden.
So why keep that farm land in Kansas all nice, pristine and valuable, which would now read “expensive,” when you don’t actually use it for anything but a vacation spot, anyway. Better to just dump toxic waste on it, drop its value to nothing, pay next to nothing on taxes on it, and take the added cash and go to Bermuda.
**
**
They’d still have a mortgage, it would just be that much harder to meet because they’re being reemed by a regressive property tax, as well.
Actually, no, you don’t work for free. You instead pay a surcharge every year to pay for the services you, your dependents and your community recieve from the Federal Government. If you’re paying 25% of your actual earned income each year, that means you’re in the top tax bracket (people in the 25% tax bracket pay far less than 25%, cumulatively, due to the gradual nature of the tax system). I have little sympathy for the richest Americans whining about how “high” their taxes are, when they are absurdly low compared to any other developed country in the world.
Oh, so now you have a detailed proposal? Or are you just making up the “Well, that couldn’t happen” part you’re tacking on here?
And then let’s consider non-widespread appraisal alteration. Let’s consider political favoritism. John Doe gives a bazallion dollars to the Republican Party, including his Senators, Congressman, etc. What would stop the political movers and shakers from, in turn, making sure that Doe’s property isn’t appraised at a special “John Doe” rate, thus eliminating much of his tax burden?
With the payroll system, that sort of abuse is much, much harder.
The middle class does not shoulder most of the burden. The richest 1% of taxpayers, those making more than roughly $450,000 a year in taxable income, pay over 33% of all taxes. The poorest 50% pay less than 5% of the taxes. Of the remaining sixty percent of the burden, most of it is carried by the richest 10 to 15% of the population.
Unless you define people making upwards of $150,000 or so as “middle class,” it’d be hard to say that the middle class, as a whole, pays 51% or more of the income tax burden.
That’s just asinine. The whole point of our social welfare system is to redistribute resources to the poor to help them. What the hell would be the point of taking money from them just to turn around and give it right back?
Taxes and government services should be funded by those who can afford to fund them. The poor cannot do this. They can barely make ends meet. To take any money from them could have catastrophic effects on their ability to afford the necessities of life, to say nothing of being able to save or to be able to afford education for themselves or their children which would allow them to move upward on the economic ladder.
They contribute their labor, which is all they can afford to contribute.
When someone is already relying on government aid for food and housing, how can you expect to be able to take money from them, without rendering them even more dependent on the government?
Even if it’s true that “most” homeowners are in the 15-28% tax bracket, it doesn’t mean that they pay that much of their salary in taxes, because of exemptions, deductions, and the progressive
nature of tax brackets.
Also, what about the many people who DON’T make that much money? For example, my sister and her husband make a very modest income, but because of an inheritence they were able to buy a fairly large home. (The inheritence allowed them to afford a big down payment, so their debt ratios are actually very conservative.)
Highway- MAN!! You pay 30% of your income in FIT?!! Damn, Dude- you have a super high income with squat for deductions. Earning 50K, I paid about 7K, with just barely itemizing. That’s 14% for those without a calculator. Ah, maybe you’re adding in State taxes, Social Security ect- which does get closer. But this idea does not replace those- it replaces just the FIT. Let’s not change the subject and add in those taxes & stuff, OK?
And let’s face it- just about every (or every- depending on your definitions) “industrialized western nation” has a income tax similar to the USA’s. The system works. And, US taxpayers pay a smaller overall tax burden than those the poor dudes in just about every one of those other “industrialized western nations”. (OK, sure- in some countries they get a lot more, too. So?) Sure the FIT could be simplified- but every plan to replace it has problems just about as bad- and those are the ones we are sure of, and can predict. There are bound to be scores of new problems cropping up. Like the “National Sales tax” idea- can you imagine how easy it is to not comply with this? Ever been to a flea market, farmers market or swap meet? Seen dudes selling retail there? Do you think most of them pay sales tax? And that’s just with a paltry 8%. With 25% PLUS 8% (= some 32%) the non complaince would be staggering. And the “tax man” even more intrusive.
“Dastardly IRS”? Dude- somebody has to collect a tax. Taxpayers will hate the “Tax Man” whatever his name is. Try dealing with the CA FTB if you want to see “dastardly”- those dudes have the laugh, mustache & black cape even.
There’s little dispute on the value of income, whether it’s $10,000 or ten million. Property value isn’t objective. . .
Of course we already have taxes based upon property value, so the issue I have raised doesn’t necessarily nix this idea, but it would be a bigger problem on a national basis than what it is now, local.
Sorry, my Absurd Logic Sensor was going off. You’re saying that the fairness of the US tax system is determined by what other nations have? So if the global average income tax was 90%, then people have no right to complain about an 80% tax bracket? Sorry, but the income tax rates for the rich are too high, regardless of what our socialist allies choose to do to their wealthy.
No, Jeff, in your opinion, and only in your opinion, are income tax rates for the rich “too” high. Even based on historical American rates our highest bracket is extremely low.
Sorry, that’s just my “Absurb arrogance of Americans who refuse to believe that they can learn anything from other countries of the world” meter going off.
Uh, no. I thought we were debating the merits of an interesting concept I stumbled across recently. I really am not advocating this concept, just exploring it.
I don’t agree, why do you think the income tax code is a bazillion (substitute correct number here) pages long? Special interests and political favorites getting special treatment.
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t talking about the indigent, just the working poor. They work, they make money, they receive little support (maybe food stamps), and they should take part in the responsibility of society.
Well, I guess they might not want to pursue that course of action. Am I supposed to pity these people who have received a large inheritance? I suppose they could purchase a slightly smaller house and leave some of it to help pay the taxes. Isn’t that what people always do, make choices within their means?
Actually, taxable income isn’t all that objective either. Have you seen the size of the tax code, or seen that annual article in Money magazine where they have a dozen accountants do an average tax return and get a dozen answers?
Precisely one of my main points. The whole property appraisal thing is already being done by the local governments. I would expect to simply leverage off that. Most localities do a similar thing where a single property appraisal is used for school, county, and city taxes. I would just add federal.
Deth, that’s exactly the point I was making. Actually, my withholding is 41% and FIT withholding is around 24%. I am adding in State, SS, Medicare, County, etc, because they are all related, especially the Social Security, as it just goes into the general fund like FIT. If we are discussing the abolition of the FIT, then it seems silly to leave the others alone. The collection of those will necessarily change with any change to the FIT. But I thought we were also discussing replacement of income taxes with property taxes, and all of those are income taxes, maybe not by definition, but by action. It would seem rather pointless to get rid of one income tax but leave the rest.
I think the question of ‘fair’ taxation is a red herring, because the definition of ‘fair’ keeps getting moved around. But I’d agree with ElJeffe that tax rates are too high. Just because they are lower than other countries, or lower than they used to be, doesn’t exclude the possibility that they are STILL too high. Maybe I’m staking out a dangerous position for myself here, but I would much rather have the government smaller, and the only way to do that is to cut its spending.
The point is they made their choice according to the current taxation system, and you’re proposing to fundamentally change that system in the middle of the story. I didn’t see you say anything about a grandfather clause that would protect current homeowners.
