Porezi kodirani kao standardizovan protokol za dugoročnu budžetsku stabilnost
LANG(jezik): Global (en-us) / Local (sr-latn)
CONTENT:
Pregovor | Progresivni | Tipovi poreza | Uprostiti | Pogovor
Pregovor
Porezi su uglavnom dosadni i obično nisu omiljeni (posebno od strane Amerikanaca), ali su i dalje veoma važni i relevantni, kako za pojedinca, tako i za širu zajednicu. Ne mogu se izbjeći, barem ne lako, zato bi trebalo da budete edukovani o tome i da imate informisano mišljenje.
Dalje treba napomenuti da porezi omogućavaju društvu da funkcioniše u cjelini, da se upravlja zajedničkim resursima i pokrivaju troškove. Neke stvari se ne mogu graditi i koristiti pojedinačno, to nije praktično niti efikasno, zbog obima i logistike. Ovo uključuje javnu infrastrukturu, kao što su putevi i gradske instalacije za vodu i struju, a u nekim slučajevima i bolnice i škole, pod pretpostavkom da postoje javne. Pored toga, postoje troškovi održavanja tih objekata i institucija.
Građansko društvo se organizuje kao zemlja građana ili nacionalna država. Uvijek zapamtite da je funkcija svih državnih službi da služe narodu i zajednici i nikada ne zaboravite da su političari vaši zaposleni (sluge), a ne gospodari.
Sljedeće važno pitanje je nivo poreza i njihova složenost, kao i način na koji se oni primjenjuju i kontrolišu/provode. Prvo, očigledno da ne može biti ni 0 ni 100%. Drugo, neki smatraju da je razumno imati poreske stope u rasponu između 10% i 50%. 10% ili 1/10 (jedna desetina) je često bila istorijska norma u prošlosti. Model 50% ili 50/50 je uobičajeni koncept pravednosti. Više od polovine bi moglo biti kontraproduktivno jer bi većina ljudi bila obeshrabrena da radi kada bi država uzimala previše njihove zarade (motivacija i podsticaji su bitni), a takođe postaje prepreka za ekonomski rast. Čak i dobra namjera, ako nije pravilno postavljena, može dovesti do negativnog ishoda (put do pakla je popločan dobrim namjerama). Mnoge socijalističke revolucije su se završavale ekonomskim kolapsom i spektakularno su propale. Etička razmatranja redistributivnog oporezivanja uključuju njegovo posmatranje kao moralno ispravnog u smanjenjenju ekstremne nejednakosti i pružanju sigurnosne mreže (Kantov kategorički imperativ i opravdanje).
Zaključno, mnogi konzervativni ekonomisti smatraju da je stopa do 50% fer i društveno optimalna za balansiranje rasta, pravičnosti i podsticaja (čak i marginalne tj granične poreske stope ne bi trebalo da prelaze 50%).
Centralniji stav bi bio da se oni drže u rasponu između 20% i 40% ili 42% kao odgovor na konačno pitanje poreza. Oko 20% ili 1/5 trebalo bi da pokrije 80% ljudi - u skladu sa Pareto principom 80/20. Različite zemlje, u zavisnosti od kulture i ekonomskog razvoja, mogu imati različite granice razreda, ili nivoe, da tako kažemo. Za određivanje stopa i nivoa ili ograničenja raspona trebalo bi pogledati javne statističke podatke. Možda bude potrebno nekoliko iteracija da se fino podese, samo uvijek krenite sa razmišljanjem iz prvih principa. Uvijek treba imati na umu da odnos budžeta prema ukupnoj javnoj potrošnji i BDP-u ne bi trebao biti veći od 30 do maksimalno 40%.
Još jedan problem sa previsokim porezima je taj što ljudi prestaju da ih plaćaju i počinju aktivno raditi na tome da ih izbjegnu. - Laferova kriva (optimalna poreska stopa koja maksimizira državne prihode). Neki čak misle da bi to moglo biti i do 70%, ali to bi bilo vrlo nepopularno i vjerovatno društveno neprihvatljivo, a takođe ima i neke negativne eksternalije s lošim posljedicama..
Progresivni model
Generalno, poreski model bi trebalo da bude progresivni (koliko je to dobro), sa višom stopom za veće prihode, ali i dalje sa maksimalnim ograničenjem koje je široko prihvatljivo (sa preciznim najvišim i najnižim granicama).
Moglo bi se pitati zašto baš takav model, iz nekoliko razloga:
-1. više filozofski argument sa naglaskom na humanost i solidarnost (napredak civilizacije),
-2. za bolju društvenu koheziju i solidarnost,
-3. omogućava produktivnije stanovništvo odnosno zdravi, dobro obrazovani i zadovoljni ljudi su plodniji u poslu, dok oni koji su pod stalnim stresom gube kreativnost i plaše se preuzimanja čak i malih rizika,
-4. zasnovano na principu ‘mogućnosti plaćanja’, što znači da se najteži teret nosi na najjačim plećima (pravedno oporezivanje među prihodnim grupama),
-5. granična korisnost novca opada što je veća količina;
Smanjenje nejednakosti takođe smanjuje društvene podjele i tenzije (manje grupnih trenja i sukoba) uz veću ekonomsku mobilnost zbog stvarne i efektivne jednakosti mogućnosti (gdje je svaka osoba odgovorna za ishod). To bi takođe dovelo do srećnijeg stanovništva, što bi djelimično moglo pomoći u rješavanju nekih od gorućih problema, poput stambene krize i niske stope nataliteta.
U političko-ekonomskom smislu, ovo bi bio standardni kapitalistički sistem sa umjerenim nivoom socijaldemokratije - istorija pokazuje da je najstabilniji na duži rok, i najmanje loš koji do sada poznajemo. Donekle slično nordijskom modelu, mješavina slobodnog tržišta sa manje regulacije. Ali sa jakom državom blagostanja i tržištem rada regulisanim pregovorima između sindikata radnika i sindikata poslodavaca, gdje je primjenljivo. Još jedna karakteristika ovog modela je „fleksisigurnost“, opušteni propisi o zapošljavanju i otpuštanju u kombinaciji sa snažnim mrežama socijalne sigurnosti putem državnih grantova i socijalnog osiguranja.
Ipak, ovaj model nije lako replikovati u drugim zemljama (teško kopirati socijalnu zaštitu), zbog drugačije kulture i unutrašnje solidarnosti, ali i činjenice da su ekonomski visoko razvijene nacije, imaju malu populaciju uz relativno visoka prosječna primanja. Ipak, moguće je biti inspirisan aspektima nordijskog modela i težiti u tom pravcu implementacijom nekih elemenata do određenog nivoa. Jedan dobar primjer bi bila univerzalna zdravstvena zaštita koju sponzoriše država, jer tržišni mehanizmi ovdje možda neće dovesti do efikasnosti, pošto bolesni ljudi i oni u nevolji ne mogu da procjene kvalitet medicinskih usluga, niti lako da uporede različite bolnice. U poređenju sa SAD-om, gdje je skuplji, ali manje efikasan model, uglavnom zbog privatnog profitnog sistema sa složenom strukturom osiguranja što dovodi do viših administrativnih troškova i cijena lijekova (danska zdravstvo bolja sa manje novca). Amerika je jedna od rijetkih razvijenih zemalja sa smanjenim očekivanim životnim vijekom u posljednjih nekoliko godina. Zanimljiv hibridni model predstavlja švajcarska struktura zdravstva kao decentralizovani, univerzalni sistem finansiran kombinacijom poreza, obaveznog privatnog zdravstvenog osiguranja od neprofitnih osiguravajućih društava i direktnih plaćanja. Švajcarci imaju visokokvalitetne medicinske usluge i naprednu tehnologiju.
Kada je u pitanju porodiljsko odsustvo, SAD na primjer imaju vrlo loša prava sa samo 3 mjeseca odsustva, a čak ni to nije univerzalna garantovana pogodnost. Evropa je u tom pogledu mnogo bolja sa oko 12 mjeseci roditeljskog dodatka. Ipak, najbolje bi bilo produžiti plaćeno roditeljsko odsustvo na 18 mjeseci, pri čemu bi posljednjih 6 mjeseci bilo finansirano prosječnom platom. Period polovine druge godine trebao bi biti podjednako podijeljen između oba roditelja radi boljeg zbližavanja) s djetetom, bilo 3 i 3 mjeseca ili svako svih 6 mjeseci, sa radom od pola nedjelje ili pola dana, u zavisnosti od vrste posla. Nakon toga trebale bi postojati subvencije za vrtić u skladu s tržišnim cijenama do polaska u školu sa 6 godina. Naravno, na roditeljima bi bilo da ga pošalju u vrtić sa 18 mjeseci ili možda sačekaju do pune 2 godine naprimjer, a posljednjih 6 mjeseci uzmu neplaćeno odsustvo ili angažuju dadilju, možda čak i baku, pa dio troškova pokriju tim subvencijama za vrtić.
Za procjenu svih potencijalnih efekata, provjerite raspodjelu prihoda u vidu vrlo korisnog vizuelnog grafikona:
U SAD, prema ljetvici primanja, donjih 20% ljudi zarađuje do 24.000 dolara godišnje, dok gornjih 20% zarađuje preko 100.000 ili čak iznad 120.000 dolara godišnje od 2025. godine
Tipovi poreza
Vrste poreza koje su uglavnom na snazi: 1. Porez na dohodak, 2. Kapitalna dobit, 3. Porez na dobit preduzeća, 4. PDV, 5. Nasljedstvo, 6. Bogatstvo.
Fokus će biti na Porezu na dohodak građana i Porezu na kapitalnu dobit jer su direktni i najvažniji. Pojedinačni prihod od rada, ali i od dividendi - US_Div (obična ili kvalifikovana) i UK_Div sa stopama koje nisu baš iste kao stope na dohodak. Imajte na umu da je za dividende koje se isplaćuju akcionarima kompanija već morala da plati porez na dobit preduzeća za prijavljenu dobit.
Sve stvari vezane za poreze treba da budu što jednostavnije u skladu sa principom KISS.Takođe, trebalo bi da postoji minimalna razlika između poreza na dohodak i poreza na kapital, kako ne bi došlo do distorzije bilo kog segmenta. To u praksi može značiti da poreski nivoi u obje kategorije treba da budu slični, dok socijalno, penzijsko i zdravstveno osiguranje trebaju da imaju maksimalni limit na obavezni dio, a sve iznad toga da bude opcionalno.
Sa tehničke strane, poreska pravila treba da budu jednostavna, a procenti okrugli brojevi sa samo nekoliko inkrementalnih koraka poput +- 2% ili 5%. Trebalo bi da postoji nekoliko standardizovanih nivoa, za društva u različitim fazama razvoja, koja takođe mogu imati specifičnu kulturu i istoriju.
(1) Porez na dohodak Razredi sa koracima na pojednostavljenom primeru - radi boljeg razumevanja koncepta:
| № | Od iznosa | Do iznosa | Korak | Model XS | Model S | Model M | Model L | Model XL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 10 000 | 10 K | 0 % | 0 % | 0 % | 0 % | 0 % |
| 2 | 10 001 | 20 000 | 10 K | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % | 10 % |
| 3 | 20 001 | 50 000 | 30 K | 15 % | 15 % | 20 % | 20 % | 20 % |
| 4 | 50 001 | 100 000 | 50 K | 20 % | 25 % | 30 % | 30 % | 30 % |
| 5 | 100 001 | 500 000 | 400 K | 25 % | 30 % | 35 % | 40 % | 40 % |
| 6 | 500 001 | no limit | - | 30 % | 35 % | 40 % | 45 % | 50 % |
Poreski modeli: (X-Ekstra); S - (Small) Mali, M - (Medium) Srednji, L - (Large) Veliki (prvih 10.000 je oslobođeno poreza u svim kolonama; M kao Zlatna sredina)
Predstavljeno kao prosječna godišnja vrijednost u američkim dolarima, tako da bi trebalo da se i prilagodi svakoj zemlji i skalira odgovarajućoj valuti.
Zbog inflacije, rasponi Od-Do treba periodično da se ažuriraju, recimo svakih 5 godina.
Primjeri podataka i uporedna analiza modela - Tax Codex data sheet:
(asimptotski se približava najvišoj graničnoj poreskoj stopi na najvišim nivoima prihoda) može se kopirati na *Google Drive radi daljeg ispitivanja i prilagođavanja 
Na primer, sa bruto prihodom od 60 i 120 hiljada, ukupan godišnji porez i efektivna stopa u modelu M:
10K * 0 + 10K * 0.1 + 30K * 0.2 + 10K * 0.25 _ _ _ _ _ _ = 10,000 (eff.rate 16%, US i UK imaju 12% & 19%)
10K * 0 + 10K * 0.1 + 30K * 0.2 + 50K * 0.25 + 20K * 0.3 = 29,000 (eff.rate 24%, US i UK imaju 17% & 30%)
Druga kartica sadrži primjer progresivne skale iscrtane pomoću samih od ćelija: 
One rule of thumb, based on common sense, would be to have less developed countries start with models that have lower taxes, and then every decade to aim for a higher model until it comes to optimal range. Changes should be gradual, step-by-step movement, to have smooth transition. For example in Denmark the top tier is 56%, which is above our median line, but it still seems to work fine in their society, as they remain a country with high Happiness Score. So the remarkable thing is widespread acceptance of this very high burden and tax regime. Besides Denmark, several other countries could be taken into consideration for comparative analysis including: Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, UAE, Singapore.
Currently the US has federal income tax with a top marginal rate at 37 %, while in the UK it goes to 45%. As we can see both countries already have progressive tax system where most are paying their fair share when it comes to Income tax, but Capital tax remains somewhat problematic. Tax expenditures (deductions, exemptions, and preferential tax rates) are a major driver of inequality, due to bad tax policy. Changes post 1980s in the US regarding capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall wealth imbalance. Hyper-Financialization, referring to the increased dominance and complexity of the financial sector in the economy, has been a significant trend over the past several decades, particularly since the 1980s. Many argue that such excessive Financialization of the entire economy, with control of the financial sector over everything else, is a major driver of rising income and wealth disparity. On top of this, high inflation and ever growing debt are just making the problem even worse. Essentially, the stock market has become highly speculative with many bubbles, almost gambling alike. High inflation is forcing working people to invest almost all their savings and become traders, but they still lack the time and knowledge, and big market players are extra profiting by taking advantage of this information asymmetry. Even retirees are unknowingly funding those speculative waves, from which fund managers and banks are benefiting the most (small investors pay, banksters play - a Wall Street phrase).
(2) Capital gains - in order to promote prudent long term investments and ventures, the top tier here could be somewhat lower then top income tiers, probably up to 30% as opposed to 40% in model M, but this should be more analysed and requires further discussion. Currently in many jurisdictions long term (longer than 1 year) capital gains tax is mostly around 20% like in the US, while for example in France and UK goes up to 30% and 32%.
Relevant issue with gains tax is when a person never sold the shares and usually there were no dividends either, meaning no realised gains. Instead they just take large credits with stocks as collateral, so called ‘stock-as-collateral tax loophole’, also named ‘buy-borrow-die’ (YT: BBD - The Free Money Loophole and Mother of all loopholes) or ‘buy-borrow-hold’ strategy (BBD explained). Here the interest rate on loan is very low, more than market returns even, and significantly lower then tax rate. For such a situation, legislative consideration should be to have a tax event on realised gains when taking large credit that is secured by stocks and alike. Taxable events could be any time the asset is utilized to receive money from its value (closing the borrowing loophole). Of course it would only apply over a certain threshold and above any deduction. There were even suggestions to go straight to taxing unrealized gains, but it would not be a good nor fair solution and would not work properly so we will disregard it. Instead simply closing the previously mentioned borrowing loophole would be more than enough. This could reduce the recently established unusual practice of shares buybacks for tax advantages. Since this is still a somewhat unusual proposition, regulation could initially be for a limited period, say 10 years. After that the results would be evaluated, before making it permanent or for a longer period in line with concept law expiration, explained below in more detail.
When it comes to real estate, one main property where a person or family lives for more then 2 years ought not to have Capital gains tax (Private Residence Relief) up to some reasonable limit and size (married couple single property with higher limit like 3x). In a high inflation environment, it’s crucial to differentiate between nominal gains (price increases) and real gains (purchasing power increases). Taxes on nominal gains can sometimes distort investment decisions when they don’t reflect true wealth increases. Reason more why we should get rid of inflation as much as possible, making nominal and real gains almost the same.
(3) Corporate tax could also have maybe 3 middle tiers to give support to smaller companies in order to promote healthy competition. Say 2% for small Solo Proprietorship (SP), 12% for smaller firms like statups for first 2 or 4 years if they have revenue below some treshold, and 22% for large corporations (anti-monopoly measure). At the moment, US corporate tax rate is 21%, while EU average is almost the same 21.5% but in ranges from 10% to 30%, depending on the specific country. It should not be too high because when using profits to pays out dividend or even doing shares buyback which drives the stock price up, a taxable event would occur again.
(4) VAT - Value Added Tax on sales (consumption tax) is also quite important. Most EU countries have it from 18% to 25%, the Swiss having it at around 9%, while the US does Not have any on federal level and instead has Sales tax only in some states at 7 or 8 %. Even the UAE, known for low taxes, has 5% VAT. The US deficit (1.8T) could be cut in half with new 10% Federal VAT that would bring about 1 trillion revenue. Remaining deficit could be resolved with 400 billion from increased revenue of capital gains, while the remaining 400 could be solved with spending cuts, 200 from military budget and 200 from other non constructive areas.
In general, many consider the optimal level for VAT to be between 5% and 20%, either 10% (my preference) or 15%, maybe 12% as a middle ground. And it should be paid only on collected receivable with option for monthly or quarterly accounting. Having Differential rates, based on product category, is also beneficial, with a reduced rate of 5% for basic food, some medicaments and baby equipment, while 20% or 25% for luxury goods. Options could be: Op1_0/10/20; Op2_5/12/20; Op3_5/15/25 %. Average would still be around 10 or 12 % but it would have progressive effect. Exclusive items include special jewelry, expensive watches, high-end fashion, sports cars, but also spirit alcohol and tobacco with which there would be no need for additional excise tax and thus keeping it simple.
In the future this revenue might even enable some modest version of UBI - Universal Basic Income, or as some call it Freedom/Civic Dividend. Could be especially beneficial with all the technological progress and automatization including robotics and AI, but funding it to be only from regular taxes (‘trickle-up’ economy), not from debt nor money printing. Point is in using existing revenue and allocating it more directly and efficiently with lower administrative overhead. Another approach would be Friedman’s NIT - Negative Income Tax, to reduce complex social insurance schemes and unnecessary cost of bureaucracy while solving poverty. Furthermore, with NIT there is gradual transition of tax level as the ones income rises, instead of sharp benefits cut off that sometimes disincentivizes working.
Combined sum of Vat and Income tax should still in average stay under 50% for most people. To help with solving housing issues, the first house or apartment could be Vat tax-free up to a defined amount, and in addition to have loans subsidized for young couples buying their first home.
(5) Inheritance tax, exists only in several countries where it is levied only above a certain threshold with different percentages. In some places they are called Death taxes or referred to as Estate taxes.
One example for inheritance is Switzerland where it is not on federal level but cantonal, and applies only above 1 million CHF, and goes from 1 to 7%. On the other hand, the US (above 14 million) and UK (above 325 K) have a rate up to 40%. Personal stance here is that it would be appropriate to be 10% or 20% for values above 1 million $. When making a decision do note that not many countries have this type of tax, so it is not widely used. Having this tax too high could lead to frivolous and reckless behavior during life with wasteful spending on superficial things - bad version of extravagance.
(6) Wealth tax is hard to enforce and could push people to move and migrate into other countries or states, and is not worth it (Super-rich leaving Norway or moving from California to Texas). Also, since it was previously accumulated, on which tax was already paid so there is no justification to tax it again every year, just like there is no excuse for taxing money savings with inflation every few months. Especially, since wealth or money will be used/spent in the future, at which point there it will again be probably taxed via VAT. Some countries, Denmark included, even have a small LVT - Land Value Tax (version of Georgism), from which income goes to local authorities. Similarly, some countries have small real estate tax on value of additional property above some threshold and size on primary residence, ranging from 0.1% to 1%. This revenue usually goes to the municipality, and it could somewhat incentivise productive use of land and buildings.
| № - Code | Tax type | Threshold | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - INMC | Income | 6 tiers | S | M | L | select and apply |
| 2 - CPTL | Capital gains | similar | 0/10/20 % | 0/15/25 % | 0/15/30 % | work out further |
| 3 - CRPR | Corporate | 100K / 1M | 0/10/20 % | 2/12/22 % | 5/15/30 % | elaborate |
| 4 - VAT | Vat | per categ. | 0/10/20 % | 0/10/20 % | 5/15/25 % | choose rate |
| 5 - INHR | Inheritance | 1 Million | 5 % | 10 % | 20 % | to consider |
| 6 - WLTH | Wealth | None | - | - | - |
Uprostiti pravila
A simpler tax code means simplification of taxes for everyone. Redact 6000 pages tax code to less then 100 where besides main models additionally keeping only an effective set of deductions, with basic short edition in 10 pages (less chance for a bug aka hole). Also, one good technical facilitation would be to use digitalization and advanced software by tax authorities to create and prepare pre-filled tax forms ready for submission with just email confirmation.
Emphasys should be on sustainability and stability, with balanced budget and long-term planning. That is why this would be considered as a Protocol, with standardized rules (an engineering approach to problem-solving). This would make filling digitized reports for the Tax Authority much easier (using API), both for firms and also for accountants. And tax payments could be made automatically using standing orders (tax pay on autopilot). With all that, even ERP systems could then become more Protocol-like (work in progress) and would have most settings parameterized. This would enable them to be easily configured for any country or any tax type. Combination of Smart Money, Smart Taxes and Smart Business.
Still in the long term, all countries should aim towards more unified ranges, as human values should be universal. It could also make civilisation more stable, with less issues for tax avoidance using offshore heavens, also called secrecy jurisdiction. In the meantime more global coordination would be needed (global minimum tax of at least 15%), and special inspection of trust funds. Trusts have high legal expenses (lawyer and paperworks) and practically are only available to persons with very high net worth, privilege of the rich or unfair advantage (how trusts avoid taxes). For closing the loopholes it would be best to call upon experts in accounting, finance, and lawyers that have actually worked on creating these schemes, and use their experience to fix it permanently. Also to have a reward if someone finds a hole that could be exploited, similar to how IT systems often has prizes for white hat ethical hackers that discover bugs or security issues and help with patching it (tax holes bounty).
One thing to have in mind, for future sake, is that if we ever reform the monetary systems to permanently low money inflation (like k-percent rule, say 2%), then currency itself would not rapidly lose value as today. In such an environment monetary premium of non productive assets like real estate would reduce greatly, hence capital gain taxes on those would not be significant, instead income from labour and direct capital like dividends, would be more important, as well as revenue from Vat. This would be good as it would make taxation less complicated and easier to implement.
Zaključak
Tax marginal rate limits (e.g. min 10%, max 45%) should be set with constitutional law so that it needs a supermajority (2/3) of parliament for change - using existing legal framework. While in that range different models could be changed with simple majority but this should not become regular practices, only if not absolutely needed. Any change should be publicly discussed and debated, also planned in advance with any effects calculated into a model, so that everybody is prepared and knows what to expect ahead of time. Similar to how Linux, open source operating system, has regular yearly version updates in the same month, an ultimate predictability.
Another interesting idea is to have this Law, but also other laws and regulation to be on Github, an excellent collaboration platform, that has great visibility, transparent procedure for update, and detailed history of changes - audit info and track record. This was tried in Washington DC with authoritative digital source laws, sort of like The Legal Repository (Git for policymaking and Version control for law). Of course, a solicitor or legal professional could consult IT experts or tech-savvy individuals for advice using such a tool. To add that such systems need to have data backup with local copies regularly on daily bases to 2 separate safe locations (high redundancy). On top of that to have paper copies as well in a secure archive (document vault), with number and version in the header, where each sheet would be one segment so that only those with changes would need replacement.
In addition, laws themself could have conditional expiration, say 50 years (with exception to constitutional laws), after which they should be reviewed, and discarded if obsolete or renewed(confirmed) with optional amendments. This would help to keep regulation smaller and effective, and at the same time gives each generation a direct chance to express their stance and opinion about matters in question.
Lastly, government spending is important as well. The ideas that have been spreading lately about how fiscal responsibility is absolutely irrelevant are complete nonsense, MMT included. Real economy, as well as resources and production, have natural limits and so does the state budget. Also taxes need to be public and have broad support from citizens. Last few decades we all have witnessed ever growing deficits, with debt ballooning and money printing overuse. Even with all that, there are smaller investments in public infrastructure, and growing wealth gaps over the past few decades. This is due to lower taxes, and higher inflation that acts as a regressive tax because fiat currency has no constraints. Any credit should have such incentives to be used for new investment, and less on everyday expenditures (reduce the consumerism and its bad effects). This statement holds equally true for individuals, companies, and countries. Denmark again, even here, stands as a positive example with very little or no deficit accrual, so Danes live better with less, compared to US citizens. Switzerland is another role model, with s decentralized but efficient government that has historically maintained a low deficit, They have a “debt brake”, a constitutional rule that limits government spending to the expected revenue over the course of a normal economic cycle. This rule helps to ensure fiscal stability and prevent excessive debt accumulation. Overall, at least about 10% of the budget should be allocated for development and investments including new infrastructure projects, not all going to basic consumption.
As always, one should approach the issues with caution, as public companies over a long time are prone to corruption. So either to have multiple strong checks and balances that are independent and separated with mechanisms to ensure they stay as such. Or to have more private sector and contractors, while keeping transparency in public procurement with fair tenders, equal for all participants. Finding and maintaining a delicate balance in such dynamics requires dedication and constant work, as optimal equilibrium is often fragile. Otherwise, it can easily turn into populism in the political domain and crony capitalism on the economic side. If there is too much corruption, and if money from the budget is wasted on unproductive things or misallocated, then people would not see the point in paying their “fair share” to society, and would lose trust in institutions.
I would be very cautious with advocating these changes immediately in very corrupt places, first people would need to curtail it to a bearable level, and only then implement tax changes. Start first with the top income tier as they usually have political connections in those locations. Otherwise it would just be misused. Also too much expenditure on the military is not seen as great utility. While if the system is efficient, where for example all children have good schools with more egalitarian chance for success, then not many would oppose a slightly higher taxes. Still, not too high, that most would pay it willingly, a sensible thing to do. They would know it has a good purpose with noble cause, and will benefit them as well (most people have kids, and they go to school). Young generations deserve a level playing field, especially in education. Lastely, one positive way to look at it is that high earners and those with large income are succesful in their profession and are also biggest benefactor to society, so philanthropy by default or to phrase it as taxative altruism (legacy through taxation - public display of list with largest contributors).
Most ideas and concepts laid previously are not new, just gathered together into one compact model, with few new features for modern age. They are collected from history and by examining the best practices from around the world.
Finally, how could these changes be made? Learn as much about the problem and about potential solutions. Everybody can send notes to their political leaders asking them to incorporate this agenda as an active issue that should be worked on. Then in future elections vote for the party or more specifically for individual representatives that align the most with these proposals and support the objectives. This would not be an easy task and could take a longer time, but one should start now and think about future generations. In the end, the majority can vote out what is in their best interest (although often vote against), but also must look after the entire population and to keep the economic wheel working smoothly. The broader consensus is reached for the selected model, the better. Finding a sweet spot amid diverse political ideologies and opposing views. In the end, implementation of this plan and initiative depends mostly on civic awareness of people and political will of elected officials.
Leave a message: IP comment Form (comments list)
List of all referenced Links
Infopedia blog subscription Form