reformation for modern taxation regimes

...let the seller pay the Mutation Tax.

A revolution is needed to strike at the heart of a speculators motives, which is profit; to raise the price of Housing as quickly as possible, or to induce such possibilities.

Indeed, with a Tax, such as that which is paid with the transfer of Ownership, it is relatively easy to assess any transaction based on Capitalisation over Time. In effect the owner who keeps a building well maintained and up to date, benefits by paying the least tax by keeping it longest. And, in affect, those who keep a property for short periods of time, where its rise in price is highest, pay the most.

As it is, it is the buyer which pays this tax. Whether their motives are speculative in nature or not in any case is difficult to evaluate. Having to do so, will only cause all Transfers of Property to take more time at greater expense.

The 'Welcome Tax', if it was the seller which paid it, gives to the buyer a reason to consider, from the tax paid, whether the property is an investment wisely placed or not, the 'quick sale' will surely have to be more closely considered, so too the idea of owning a property and doing nothing to it.

...while the buyer is not so easily judged, in this case, the seller is.

https://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/low-carbon-energy/renewables/2019/carbon-debate-lacks-honesty

.


...imagine a world where the consumer knows the cost of externalities inherent in the product's price.

...imagine two refrigerators standing beside each other with identical total prices, yet one indicates a high cost of externalities (already paid as an indirect tax by the manufacturer on the elements of the product), and the other quite the opposite. Which would the consumer choose? I imagine both would have a market, and in any case the consumer is paying for their desire more rationally, with a more realistic description of the price, in terms of the item's ''footprint'', (or the item's technology), environmentally (or socially) speaking.

...you get what you pay for, is a premise easy to understand. A tax on a thing's cost to society is not onerous, if it is clearly stated, equitable because it relates to the thing itself, and fair because all things are treated the same way.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus44898-40.html#p843196

.


...indeed, it is the complexity of life that has exploded. This, because of the complexity of our thinking. 

General System Theory is able in its application to define this world as it is, kind of a Catch-22, one does not exist without the other.

The manufacturer of a cell phone has a Bill of Material, two columns, to describe the monetary details of these items will be needed, rather than one; this is the difference to them. 
...and as for the Tax that they are obliged to impose additionally, many factors would be involved, but whatever they are, all manufacturers would face the same criteria; 
transparency will make evasion difficult, and avoidance only possible by reducing the externalities in the products they sell. 

...think about the myriad of Income Tax Law, you must remain informed about to pay this tax. A tax like this allows for evasion, and avoidance, because it can be seen as unfair; what is evaded, and avoided is allusive, with nothing specific that this tax is attributable to, but, General Funds. Income Tax Law that is simple, based on a Flat Tax (between 5 and 11 percent), will encourage productivity, especially if it strictly represents the cost of Good Government. Having few deductions and credits, may reduce its effectiveness as a behavioural tool. Retirement funds, and the like may be encouraged, however, with the Governments' offering of (long-term) Medical Care, and (better) Pension/Saving Funds, with each tax season. 

Eliminating the complexity of Income Tax will allow for the same government resources to be put toward a "GST" (Goods and Services Tax); with effects and affects that are measurable, and subject to change, with changing consuming habits. The Government can be seen as an "arm-length" broker, providing to consumers their actuarial skill, so that as informed consumers, they make their choices. Revenue, is offset by equal and identifiable Government Programs; their effectiveness will also be exposed, for the concerned Citizens' consideration. Improvements to them, the Programs, will be more likely, being compared to objectives that have been clearly stated as a tax rate.

Changing "Money", what it means is necessary; but as Ben Franklin once said, Death and Taxes are two things you can be sure of. 
Taxes are more easily changed, i think, because changing money would require an even greater revolution of confidence and thought. 
Whether money is 'Free' or not, Taxes should identify what 'it' costs, with the motive of getting 'it' done.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus44898-30.html#p843073

.


...an Income Tax can be a measure of the cost of Good Government. The principal of one man one vote can be directly related to it, if it, as a Tax, expresses what it costs to keep, a Foreign Office, an Army, a Judiciary, the cost of Elections, a Legislature, an Executive, and the Treasury; Income Tax, a Flat Rate: Good Government, its cost.

Programs, all the efforts the Government makes, so that we as a Government better our lives, is best derived from our consumption; you get what you pay, the Principal which a Tax can quantify.

Thus, if there was a Tax on Guns (in America), like any other good, that identified the Good's or Service's externalities and their costs, this Tax separately identified for the Consumer to see clearly at time of purchase, inherent in the Total Cost the Gun is sold for, would rise, after an incident like Orlando.

...money is a medium of exchange, i agree, it itself should have no value, since it does, a great deal of effort is put into "getting" more of it; bit coin comes to mind, the miners, and the block chains, a frontier approach to getting "more" of some thing which is a measure, or should be. "Money", having externalities, and consumptively, a Good or Service, in my world would be Taxed, accordingly.

...and accordingly, Taxpayers, having choices, by their own behaviour, when as Individuals, they collectively act in a more responsible manner, they can lower the Tax on products they use.

...manufacturers as i have demonstrated will act competitively, with product designs having a lower "Tax" content. While sold for the same price perhaps, more value as a good, by content.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/01/10/no-es-facil-threats-and-opportunities-in-u-s-cuba-relations/

.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus42847-20.html#p801980

.


General System Theory offers us, Humanity, a means to define taxation differently, and in effect isn't that what Government is all about? beyond the practice of taxing to raise general funds, it is evolving as a behavioural tool, to effect change in the taxpayer's habits as well. actually, Canada, for its acumen, Cuba, and China, because they have no real Tax Policy (Income Tax), represent the political systems most likely to realise new forms of thinking, what taxes can offer us, which will be emulated by the rest of the world. 

Externalities are now measurable, and they can be quantified, based on the principals: user pays, and, you get what you pay for, it is reasonable to expect that a product's 'social cost' would be included in its sale price. and if every good and service was identified by the externalities that are included in their realisation, a Government could finance the work of mitigating these costs. one hopes that the Income Tax in any one of these regimes can be made more easy to understand, a flat rate, based on the Principal of, one man one vote, a measure of the actual cost of Good Government, and not the policies in which these governments are involved; something like a Goods and Services Tax which is infinitely variable serves this purpose better.

in my mind a revolution has occurred, when it comes to tax reform. i see Canada at the Vanguard of changes to the way we pay taxes which better the world. small as my education may be, i know my thinking is well founded as a social-economist, i have not found a form of tax collecting more refined.

There are two things, as a consumer (and as a student), I have learned: you get what you pay for, taxes come with this exchange (you get nothing, for free). I ask, aside from what it buys, this tax collection, how useful is this act in defining a cost directly associated with the/an act of buying. Is this possible? indeed, ironically the solution is found in the GST, General System Theory, and the GST (preeminent among Tax Regimes); these provide Canadians the choice to reform the meanings and values of their tax system.

imagine, walking into the household appliance store, at the cash register a tax rate is posted, 4%, and you go in to compare refrigerators, two you like stand side by side, there you look at the sticker price where you see one with a tax of $125 and the other has a tax of $600 while both sell for the same total price. in Canada, (this could be possible,)it would mean that the one with the low tax is probably Canadian designed, most certainly free of the externalities that the present day refrigerator costs Society. You choose the one you want, your purchase adds another 4% to the tax collected total.

imagine, you can walk into a bar, the tax rate at the till is 39%, you will buy your licensed goods, like the refrigerators, each has a tax rate which is defined within a total cost at purchase: cigarettes (or a packet) at least 200%, alcohol as well will have a distinct tax rate which reflects its consumption and its cost to Society, (in the future some cigarettes will be edible, they won't start fires and kill people in other ways; that cigarette will have a Tax too, (a summation from the total costs and tax inherant of the goods which made that cigarette,) and as a luxury good, id`guess around 39%; and (lol) you will be smoking, in that bar, what licensed goods it is permitted to sell.

...imagine, people willfully treating alcohol respectfully toward lowering the Tax Rate associated to it. such a Tax (a GST) is useful.

one other thing i have learned in my life, and that is the Principal of One Man One Vote. only one Tax, it seems to me, can define this nature: it is the Income Tax. nothing seems less fair than the complex of laws we plod to every year, credits and deductions where it seems there is no way of knowing you made the best avoidance choices toward your payment. no deductions, few if any features other than a Flat Tax, or something close to it, no higher than 14% serves the need for Good Government. At the time of voting, each citizen is as a taxpayer equal.

...as taxpayers and consumers they are equals in choosing.

the solution to many problems
When it comes to tax reform, the Income Tax has to be at the top of the list, anywhere, around the world.
When we describe ourselves as a consumer society, we make two assumptions:
you get what you pay for, and that people will choose what is best for themselves.
One man one vote seems self evident yet nowhere in the tax code is this premise used, combined with the two preceding assumptions, to define for the taxpayer a reason for the tax's collection. Income Tax, as well as the GST are the means, primarily from which the government intends to gain its revenue toward expenses. What are they defining? Very little, frankly. Furthermore, the Income Tax is regressive as it is complex, subject to much avoidance, with its evasion a subject of much concern for the revenue authorities.
A fixed term of taxation on Income, that is relatively low, and difficult to change, certainly will give the taxpayer a clear representation of the cost of Good Governance in its strictest definition. In such a circumstance, the cost of the legislature, judiciary, executive and its bureaucracy can be defined as a percentage of Income collected as an Income Tax, with very few deductions having a flat rate... perhaps as a means to encourage saving, or for greater social security, premiums can be paid, more can be collected, where, avoidance, and evasion can be viewed as undemocratic, in that every citizens pays an equal share, and in paying more, gaining a further benefit.
It is the GST which Canadians can use to determine the value of the Goods and Services they consume, as they reflect on Social Programs, such as the Environment (our natural wealth), Health/ Safety, and our cultural heritage ( Education and Welfare). Using the General System Theory, we have the means to make this tax (the GST) variable, applied at all levels of production, so that the products, their externalities, are identifiable. Using such sophisticated mathematical models to actualise, and to factor these costs, will when described as a sum to the final consumer is a form of indirect taxation which is not onerous. It will allow, in their choice as consumers, acts which may have the same cost to them, when comparing products, choosing a content of technology which is more, but having a lower amount of tax inherent in the total cost,
Consider two examples:
1. The refrigerator manufacturer will sum up the list of parts that goes into their product to determine its cost, using two columns; one is the total cost of each item paid, and one is the tax inherent in each item's cost. On the total, a profit is included, and on that, the tax an additional sum is added. Imported products that are in competition will be expected to pay the same amount of tax, if their product uses a similar technology. Most likely, the content of tax would be high in a present day refrigerator, because it is not environmentally friendly(hazordous chemicals and many components without a recyclable value).The Canadian manufacturer (and the competitors) however, now have new variables, in their accounting process, the second column, to evaluate costs. It will be natural for new technology to be developed, which may have an equal total cost, but having a significantly lower tax content, because the machine is more efficient, and self sustaining; all its parts recyclable, without toxic waste.
2. A man walks into a Grocery store to buy a quart of milk, he is likely to pay a modest sum of tax on it. The same man walks into a Restaurant, and orders a glass of milk, he will likely pay something higher. And if he was to order his milk in a Bar it would be significantly higher, especially if it was licensed to allow smoking as well.
This manner of accounting for externalities is possible, ironically (on many levels) because of the GST (General System Theory), and how it has changed the lives of all Mankind, with the Advent of the Information Age. In Canada, it is possible because of the refined nature of our financial acumen in Government, in business, and in our daily lives; as well, because of our strong desire to represent the best of Humanity, what we have ignored through denial can be defined.
In China, as it is in Cuba these reforms, because they are Socialistic, are easy to embrace, they have Communist governments, in which, we may be of help to them, because they have a strong desire to reform their societies to include Taxes on Income, and Consumption। For the EU, this tax system is vital as well. Most importantly, it is possible to put a cost to the policies of the Nation, toward the betterment of our condition, and in a manner where the individual can commit to acts that lower these costs, by paying less tax.

http://policy.liberal.ca/en/forums/t/402.aspx?PageIndex=1

A Flat Tax is always inviting, but it begs the question, what is it for? An Income Tax which defines the cost to the taxpayer of having Good Governance is very easy to accept if the tax rate varies between 5%-9%, and it goes directly toward paying for the system of government, rather than the policies which it promotes.

A variable tax, which is by definition indirect, gives the Federal Government power to effect externalities from our free choice as a Consumer Society, and if it is identified as a sum seperate to the Total Price, when products and services are sold, it will not be onerous because it allows for our choices on the good's total cost, as a measure of value to society as a whole.

Comprehensive Tax Reform is necessary if we wish to acheive greater security, against the problems we face, such as Global Warming, and better Universal Health Care.

http://forum.liberal.ca/en/forums/p/402/1038.aspx#1038

When it comes to tax reform, the Income Tax has to be at the top of the list, anywhere, around the world. When we describe ourselves as a consumer society, we make two assumptions: you get what you pay for, and that people will choose what is best for themselves. One man one vote seems self evident yet nowhere in the tax code is this premise used, combined with the two preceding, to define a means for tax collecting.

Income Tax, as well as the GST are the means, primarily from which the government intends to gain its revenue toward expenses. What are they defining? Very little, frankly. Furthermore, the Income Tax is regressive as it is complex, subject to much avoidance, with its evasion a subject of much concern for the revenue authorities.

A fixed term of taxation, that is relatively low, and difficult to change, certainly will give the taxpayer a clear representation of the cost of Good Governance in its strictest definition. In such a circumstance, the cost of the legislature, judiciary, executive and its bureaucracy can be defined as a percentage of Income collected as an Income Tax, with very few deductions having a flat rate, perhaps a means to encourage saving and premiums, more can be collected, where, avoidance, and evasion can be viewed as undemocratic, in that every citizens pays an equal share, and in paying more, gaining a further benefit.

It is the GST which Canadians can use to determine the value of the Goods and Services they consume, as they reflect on Social Programs, such as the Environment (our natural wealth), Health/ Safety, and our cultural heritage ( Education and Welfare). Using the General System Theory, we have the means to make this tax (the GST) variable, applied at all levels of production, so that the products, their externalities, are identifiable. Using such sophisticated mathematical models to actualise, and to factor these costs, will when described as a sum to the final consumer, will allow, in their choice, acts which may have the same cost to them, when comparing products, choosing a content of technology which is more, but having a lower amount of tax inherent in the total cost,

Consider two examples:

1. The refrigerator manufacturer will sum up the list of parts that goes into the product to determine its cost using two columns; one is the total costof each item, and one is the tax inherent in each item's cost. On the total, a profit is included, and on the tax an additional sum is added. Imported products that are in competition will be expected to pay the same amount of tax, if their product uses a similar technology. Most likely, the content of tax would be high in a present day refrigerator, because it is not environmentally friendly.The Canadian manufacturer (and the competitors) however, now have new variables, in their accounting, the second column, to evaluate costs. It will be natural for new technology to be developed, which may have an equal total cost, but having a significantly lower tax content, because the machine is more efficient, and self sustaining; all its parts recyclable, without toxic waste.

2. A man walks into a Grocery store to buy a quart of milk, he is likely to pay a modest sum of tax on it.
The same man walks into a Restaurant, and orders a glass of milk, he will likely pay something higher. And if he was to order his milk in a Bar it would be significantly higher, especially if it was licensed to allow smoking as well.

This manner of accounting for externalities is possible. In Canada, it is possible because of the refined nature of our financial acumen in Government, in business, and in our daily lives; as well as our strong desire to represent the best of Humanity. In China, as it is in Cuba entirely possible because they have Communist governments, in which, we may be of help to them, because they have a strong desire to reform their societies to include Taxes on Income, and Consumption. For the EU, this tax system is vital as well.

Most importantly, it is possible to put a cost to the policies of the Nation, toward the betterment of our condition, and in a manner where the individual can commit to acts that lower these costs, by paying less tax.

December 30/ 2005, at Montreal

____________________________________________________________________________________ With the advent of real problems on this planet, Political Economists will propose to governments, new thinking, a means to engineer fiscal and monetary reforms, hopefully simple to understand, seen to be fair, and useful to taxpayers because in its value is a measure of their social behaviour as citizens.

Interestingly, in Canada and in Cuba, there is an opportunity for a government of strong will to make changes to the way we identify with present forms of taxation, which these countries need politically to reform disparities, for different reasons, for their well being and for the credibility it promotes worldwide.

Canada has, with its GST a tax which if applied indirectly would not be onerous to taxpayers if, as a means, at payment, citizens see the cost of their precise consumptive act. Because Canada has absolutely one of the best Departments of Finance and Revenue globally, it is possible for them to undertake the costly and complex analysis which would be required to provide a model which can tax different levels of production, distribution, raw materials and service differently, while accounting for their particular contributions due, toward the remediation of the externalities affecting this country's safety, well being, and/or environment, as two components to the final buyer: a total price, the tax inherant, as a sum in that total price. The consumer therefore, will weigh products of equal total cost most likely by the tax inherant, promoting technical innovation amongst competitors, toward goods which may cost more to make, but which in their consumption are less harmful, and by fair exchange for others, older products would continue to be sold profitably in sufficient quantities of demand, even if they continue to be of more harm.

Cuba too has a population prepared to be taxed in entirely differant ways. The people of both countries are highly educated and motivated toward equitable social-exchange. Therefore, with an effective tax model toward their policy, as a people who consume, the Income Tax becomes available to be a means for these taxpayers to identify the contribution they make in favour of Good Government. With few deductions, and calculated by a percentage of total income, it will not require to be changed often, and more than likely lower than 12%. Other programs related to income, promoting saving/financial goals, whether charged as a premium, or by term, have a venue in this model. Most importantly, as a system of taxation, it promotes pride, and a conviction toward nationhood, being stable, of low cost, and equal, easily associated with the principal, one man one vote, it is unlikely to be evaded.

Combined, these two models, configuired in this way, provides a set of tools for national governance that can factor and effect for its population: an aim to live better, their need for a rule of law. The challenges involved make all governments everywhere wary of change from rules which work, long established and accepted by them, to a taxation system which depends on government to provide accurate guidance in the performance of their actuarial skills. Needless to say, panic and contraversy would envelope a society which retroactively sells products like cigarettes and gasoline, with externalities of extraordinary cost, at their real value. However, but by having calculated their value, a debate will open with the opportunity to acheive these goals through consensus, and in the long term, these issues have a much greater chance for mitigation, and a greater chance to be resolved.


With the Canadian election slated to be a fierce competition for social reform this January, it is unlikely to result in debate on ideas as progressive as this one, but "New", like Kyoto will not change the world, neither will Mr. Harper's anticts to lower the GST, and in so doing, making the tax easily changed. Perhaps with a minority government for Paul Martin, and a loyal opposition led by Jack Layton, there would be enough statesmanship in their Parliament to deliver effectively, to the Family of Man, and to the Canadian people, the genesis of an idea of such historical importance, either way, I must be dreaming far away, ther'll be nothing more than tinkering, I say.


Your comments are greatly enjoyed, thank-you. c.'05, Basil Vasiliou, Ville Emard, editorial credit due, all rights reserved strictly.