| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SOCIAL_INS: Fwd: Re: OWNERSHIP: The Single Tax Proposal
--- Begin Message ---
Norm,
We should likely shift this discussion to the social insurance discussion, as
per Mr. Bell's request. Of course, as you and everyone else knows, he have had
this discussion before.
It is not that I disagree with Capital Homesteading entirely, although I am not
sure that the concept of adding debt will appeal to most of the target
beneficiaries, it is that it is a bigger leap from what is currently being
discussed than can be digested right now. My incremental, albeit top-down
approach is needed first to get unions and the policy community more behind
ESOPs as an alternative to social security. Once we get them to that point, we
can spring capital homesteading on them and see if they bite. By making an
enemy of the Federal Reserve, and forcing the banking system to serve a
population it systematically discriminates against, you have made your row even
harder to hoe. However, once the fiscal system starts going down the ESOP
road, it may get in for self preservation. Of course, as you know, I would
much rather just replace the entire banking and debt system with a finance
system whereby ESOPs provide home and consumer loans (and keep the tax benefit
as a VAT credit).
I also prefer the direct payment of profit to the employee portfolio, rather
than using that profit to first pay down debt and second provide for a
gauranteed income. The tax credit and VAT system I describe will also provide
that kind of income - and has the advantage over the appropriations process of
institutionalizing the practice of paying a living wage. Instead of having a
flat tax whereby everyone sends in the same percentage (after exemptions) and
the poor receive subsidies through entitlements and appropriations, I would
keep the money at the paycheck level and in effect get employers to pay a
living wage. It is my aim to have both the banking and welfare systems whither
away as ESOPs grow. I am confident that eventually ESOPs will pay a living
wage to larger families as this becomes the state of the art, as I am sure that
ESOPs will pay for the education and training of their employees and potential
employees - assuming the training risk that individuals now take.
In short, why have a public sector when you can motivate employers to
eventually do the right thing with regard to both the disadvantaged, the
customer, the young and the retired? Also, the approach I set out migrates to
other countries as multi-nationals adopt it. Yours must be enacted country by
country. I like the odds better of it spreading through globalization.
As I have said before, we want exactly the same outcome in terms of quality of
life for every worker. I would just prefer to gaurantee it in a way by which
both the banking and government sectors go away, except that my method is more
of a trojan horse than an all out assault, especially in regard to taxes.
While many in the radical center favor a flat tax, it is not a likely prospect
because of the tax, legal, lobbying and accounting industry in this town. If
you find a way to, at least in the interim, preserve some of the systems this
town fights for, resistence will be less. A VAT can do that. A consumption
tax or a flat tax won't. Tax reform has to pass to be any good to anyone.
Best wishes,
Mike
In a message dated Wed, 28 Aug 2002 1:29:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Norman
G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org> writes:
>Mike,
>
>I agree with you on the taxing of money transfers is not a good idea, for the
>reasons you mention and because greater liquidity is essential for
>democratizing access to capital credit and expanded capital ownership. In
>recent years I've shifted my thinking on whether credit democratization should
>come from the top-down (as through ESOPs and CICs) to making productive credit
>accessible directly to all citizens through Capital Homestead Accounts (CHAs)
>established at local banks. With the safeguards mentioned in my paper,
>"Saving Social Security," I am more than ever convinced that the bottom-up
>approach is the best way to minimize corporate and Wall Street corruption.
> The bottom-up approach would also force corporate executives in ESOP
>companies to try to persuade their workers to purchase newly-issued full
>dividend payout shares (with dividends totally deductible at the corporate
>level for all shareholders) whenever the company needs new capital, shifting
>the power over
>financing decisions from a non-accountable management elite to working people.
> A tax on money transfers would therefore raise a new barrier to bringing
>social justice and improved management accountability and transparency into
>the economic marketplace.
>
>For reasons explained in the paper, "Beyond ESOP: Steps Toward Tax Justice"
>(published as a two-part article in The Tax Executive in 1977), however, I
>think the VAT and other uses of the tax system to solve problems that are more
>appropriately solved through the appropriations process complicate what can be
>addressed by simplifying the system, treating all sources of consumption
>incomes equally, allowing capital accumulations for all Americans to
>accumulate tax-free below a "Capital Homestead Exemption", and begin to lift
>people out of today's "wage slave system." The VAT doesn't do that and it
>allows politicians to escape accountability for tokenistic wage-system
>palliatives. Compare that with the radically simple tax policies advocated in
>http://www.cesj.org/homestead/reforms/tax/taxjustice.html.
>
>Moreover the Capital Homestead reforms would remove the most regressive tax on
>poor people, the social security and medicare tax, while the VAT, which goes
>right into consumer prices, would shackle the poor and middle-class to a
>permanent status of dependency on the political and bureaucratic elite. The
>key issue, in my opinion, in evaluating any proposed reform is, does it bring
>more economic power directly to the people, and especially those at the bottom
>of the income and wealth ladder?
>
>On the inheritance of multi-million dollar estates, we would propose no taxes
>on estates below the Capital Homestead Exemption, but taxing recipients on
>their accumulations above the exemption ceiling after the inheritance at a
>single rate or even on a progressive rate. That way Bill Gates would have an
>incentive to spread out his wealth after he dies to many people (like all
>Microsoft workers or the poorest workers in East St. Louis, Bangladesh or
>Africa, if he so chooses), instead of depersonalizing economic power by
>handing his estate and incredible economic power to whatever elite runs his
>foundation.
>
>The problem with tax credits is that it is misusing what should be a simple
>system for raising government revenues into a pure tax subsidy. While I would
>support your objective, I think it is better to do it through the
>appropriations process for reasons given in the paper in The Tax Executive.
>
>Norm Kurland
>Center for Economic and Social Justice
>Web site: http://www.cesj.org
>
>
>
>
>
>Mbindnerdc@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I think it would be easier to have a VAT which taxes all revenue earned
>within these borders (including exports) and transfers the liability for
>reporting and paying taxes on labor from the employee to the employer (repeal
>the wage deduction on business income taxes). An advantage to such a scheme
>is that you could then include as a credit a distribution for each child, to
>be paid directly to the employee. Such a scheme would, in effect, gaurantee a
>living wage to anyone who works, no matter how humble the job.
>>
>> Taxing the movement of money in dollars will simply cause most finance to be
>denominated in Euro's, destroying our financial markets while making Brussells
>the financial capital of the world.
>>
>> I do however, believe in a single tax for most people. I just believe it
>should be a VAT paid by the employer. Now, as long as their is a national
>debt, I would still maintain inheritance and personal income taxes on all
>income and estate cash distributions over $100,000 per year (with graduated
>rates from 5% for $100K - $250K, 10% for $250K - $500K and 15% for $500K and
>up). I would still have the individual accountable for this, if only so that
>a wealthier individual need not inform all of his sources of income of the
>existence of the other income (my employer has no right to know the amount of
>money I make from inheritence or investment). Inheritence would only be taxed
>when it is liquidated (stocks or property sold) and only when the amount
>raises income over $100 K. In-kind distributions, such as food and travel
>paid by the estate but not converted to cash, would also be considered income
>subject to tax. Imputed rent on the estate's estate would not, however. R!
>ea!
>> l property would only be subject to tax when sold.
>>
>> Michael Bindner
>
--- End Message ---
|