A few ideas regarding rebalancing the economy

[theVOID]

A few ideas that i've been mulling over, strategies that don't require projected growth or long term investment.

1. Eliminate GST, Raise Income tax.

Positive: A person spending most (if not all) of their income will see a reduction in the costs required to live and have more disposable income to spend or save, a person who earns $500 a week and spends it all on rent, groceries, fuel etc will find it easier to purchase what they need, the raise in income tax will have a heavier impact on people who are able to save much of their income.

Negative: Big earners who spend less of what they earn will have less money, it will be harder for them to accumulate savings as fast - This could have a negative impact on investment.

2. Raise wages proportionately to a business tax cut.

Positive: Workers earn more money, businesses take no losses.

Negative?: The government will earn less tax revenue and will have to make cuts (which to me is a positive anyway)

3. Cut funding for services that benefit only a small portion of the population, lower taxes proportionately.

Positive: People who are funding these niche services (for example here, Kiwirail, an SOE that services a half of a percent of the population and costs hundreds of millions to run in taxes.) The taxpayers won't be carrying the burden of the few.

Negative: People who use these services will have to pay more for them.

4. Change environment taxes, offer investment incentives to businesses

Positive: Rather than forcing businesses to pay an environment or carbon tax of some kind, give them the option of either paying the tax or reinvesting that same amount back into their business to lower their footprint, lowering the footprint will result in the subsequent years taxes being lower than the previous year, the next years smaller amount can also be reinvested or paid as tax.

Negative?: Government collects less revenue and will have to cut services (again a good thing as far as I'm concerned).

[Ashendant]

i assume this is only for USA problems correct?

I prefer carbon trading, it allows corporations to profit from not polluting, and forces the one that pollute to lose money.

[theVOID]

Firstly, I'm a kiwi.

Secondly, No, these are applicable to any system.

Carbon trading is a stupid system, we should be focusing on making it as easy as possible for these big emitters to lower the amount the emit, not letting them purchase someone else's reduced emissions to offset their sloppyness.

[Ashendant]

Firstly, I'm a kiwi.

Secondly, No, these are applicable to any system.

Carbon trading is a stupid system, we should be focusing on making it as easy as possible for these big emitters to lower the amount the emit, not letting them purchase someone else's reduced emissions to offset their sloppyness.

You're a fruit?

I'll check them better later

The point is that they have to pay for it and they're losing profit, and investors don't like reduced profit, it incentives good behaviour and rewards it, and punishes bad behaviour.

[Dotard]

Raise Income tax.

Positive: A person spending most (if not all) of their income will see a reduction in the costs required to live and have more disposable income to spend or save, a person who earns $500 a week and spends it all on rent, groceries, fuel etc will find it easier to purchase what they need,

Whut? Explain how that would work please. Take more out of my paycheck and somehow I see a reduced cost of living? I somehow have more disposable income by taking more out of my check?

OH! Get rid of sales tax you say? No. No no no.
People with lots of money have money to hire tax lawyers and find all the loop holes to get out of paying their fair share. Us poor folks can do nothing but pay what collector says we have to pay.
Get rid of income tax. Raise sales taxes. You don't tax food or basic shelter. Raise luxury taxes even higher. The rich will always be spending their money. Everyone will be a contributor now. Drug dealers, prostitutes, tax evaders can't evade the sales tax.
If the costs of goods and services goes up, for me, say about $2500 a year I would call fair trade if I got rid of my average $2500 a year income tax liability.

[theVOID]

It's the opposite, people who earn more money spend a lower percentage of it, the rest of it goes into savings - This money avoids the sales tax entirely. The person who has to spend everything they earn faces both the income tax and the sales tax.

If you eliminate sales tax and raise income taxes to the point where the government is collecting the same amount of revenue a higher proportion of the tax is coming from people who who spend less of their money than at present, the people who earn more.

There is also more efficiency when it comes to beneficiaries, the money they are given isn't re-taxed, you could give them less money and they would have the same purchasing power AND you would eliminate a layer of bureaucracy while you're at it.

You can still have 'other' taxes on top of this, for alcohol, fuel, smokes etc.

Good point about criminals though, I hadn't thought of that. Then again with drugs and prostitution legal (as they should be) you wouldn't have this problem to the same extent.

[Anomalocaris]

The point of carbon trading is not just to encourage reduction in overall carbon emission. It is more importantly to rationalize the allocation of carbon emission according to the magnitude of economic benefit associated with the emission. If by emitting CO2, even lots of it, an entity can bring greater benefit to the society than the CO2 it might emit would cost the society, then the society will renumerate the emitter for the benefit in excess of the cost of CO2, and the emitter is able to use the income to facilitate the benefit and it's associated emission. If on the other hand another entity brings less benefit to society than the co2 it emits might cost the society, then its remuneration would be inadequate to cover its CO2 emission, and it must reduce it's emission or shut down.

[fr0d0]

1. Your higher earners will all leave the country or invest outside the country unless you can implement your system globally.

2 + 4. Gov't get less > services suffer. Private services suck: proven

4. Encourages businesses with a higher carbon footprint. Counter productive for lower emissions.

[theVOID]

The point of carbon trading is not just to encourage reduction in overall carbon emission. It is more importantly to rationalize the allocation of carbon emission according to the magnitude of economic benefit associated with the emission. If by emitting CO2, even lots of it, an entity can bring greater benefit to the society than the CO2 it might emit would cost the society, then the society will renumerate the emitter for the benefit in excess of the cost of CO2, and the emitter is able to use the income to facilitate the benefit and it's associated emission. If on the other hand another entity brings less benefit to society than the co2 it emits might cost the society, then its remuneration would be inadequate to cover its CO2 emission, and it must reduce it's emission or shut down.

That's a very good point, mind changed

---

1. Your higher earners will all leave the country or invest outside the country unless you can implement your system globally.

The tax increase would be marginal but significant for the people earning lower wages, the tax would be redistributed as a percentage of their current tax rate, but it wouldn't be a great deal.

Not only that but now businesses can sell their product tax free, reducing the cost and making their exports cheaper, this could increase output and create jobs quite easily, make them more competitive even when the tax adjustment is taken into account.

2 + 4. Gov't get less > services suffer. Private services suck: proven

Too much government = More rules, more crimes (and subsequently more spending on prosecution) more inefficient cashflow etc = DEBT!

4. Encourages businesses with a higher carbon footprint. Counter productive for lower emissions.

Chuck changed my mind on that, it's a better system, though I don't see why you think it would be counter productive for low emitters, they are the ones who have an easier path to reducing their footprint because smaller changes will have a larger impact on the overall picture - Compare this to an Aluminium smelter, they would likely have to invest their own resources into completing projects because the emission costs new equipment that is more efficient are substantial.

[fr0d0]

The vast majority of taxpayers are lower earners. Increasing tax on the wealthy won't do much.

Well I don't agree with your reasoning to lower policing. Too much govenrment... maybe. Polititians getting involved in most things seems to be a waste.

You're effectively encouraging high waste/ highly resource innefficeint business. The opposite of the worlds current aim.