“This is a truly staggering fact: Wall Street bonuses totaled $27.5 billion last year, which is 3 times more than the combined annual earnings of *all* American workers employed full-time at the federal minimum wage.” — Robert Reich.
That is a sentence that needs to be read over several times, really slowly, to let the meaning sink in.
I have written how I would deal with banks.
It is tax time again. And yet again I make my pitch for an all-voluntary tax system.
Way back in June 2002, I proposed doing away with all non-voluntary taxation by replacing income and all other taxes with a consumption tax. This is what I wrote in 2002, and I still see little need to change the basic structure proposed:
The basic principles for a new tax scheme are that it should be essentially voluntary, and concerned with ensuring equal opportunities for all. Therefore, I would propose the elimination of all personal and corporate income taxes as they violate by their very nature the voluntary aspect of taxation. I propose to replace the revenue with an all-inclusive sales tax on goods and services with a few, well-defined exceptions (the figures below represent Vancouver costs of living and could be adjusted as required):
• all foods
• shelter (to $24,000/year rent or the first $700,000 of purchase)
• all non-cosmetic medical, dental and optical-health services
• all educational services
• financial services (bank charges etc) to $500/year
• legal services to $2,500/year
The sales tax should be a single percentage across all categories of goods and services in order to reduce accounting and bureaucratic requirements.
The use of the sales tax for the bulk of government revenues brings a great deal of volunteerism to the matter. The exceptions provide an important and necessary break for those goods and services which can be described as the necessities of life; above that, the more I choose to buy, the more taxes I choose to pay. Rampant consumerism therefore becomes a tax liability.
On the other side of the ledger, also to the good, the simplicity of the scheme allows for huge bureaucratic savings in administration and zero non-compliance. The tax would also be levied on all capital transfers outside the jurisdiction. It will oblige tens of thousands of “tax lawyers” to find genuine productive employment.
All government activity should be categorized into line items that can be shown to have a direct bearing on the level of the sales tax. In this way, the people are enabled to make decisions about what sections of government can be further cut to reduce the level of taxation. Conversely, any additional work to be performed by the government can be readily calculated as an addition to the sales tax.
In other words, the cost of a government service will be immediately and directly calculable — and the people can make their judgments on whether to go ahead with it on that basis. It is one thing to say that a government program costs $600 million — an abstraction at best; it is quite another to say that program x will cause a rise in the sales tax by 1%.
In a capitalist system where the government bureaucracy acts as a nanny on so many issues, taxation of some sort is inevitable, as will be resistance to such taxation. The sales tax that I propose will allow the taxation system to operate on a voluntary basis, thus achieving considerably greater support and compliance.
It might be claimed that rich folks will simply remove their money from Canada to avoid the sales tax. Possibly true, but in my scheme, the sales tax would apply to all such financial transfers from the moment the scheme is announced.
Finally, I believe that many political types concern themselves far too much with how much money people make. If we concentrate on the input (salaries, bonuses etc) there will always be those who can play fast and loose with the rules. However, if you apply taxation to outputs (purchases, transfers etc), the returns will always be progressive: the more they spend, the more they’ll pay.
Back in January, I reported on an Author’s Guild report that showed the average income for a full time writer in the US in 2017 was just $20,300. Of course, averages are a function of the highest and the lowest figures available.
Literary Hub has compiled a list of the high numbers over the last ten years. These are the estimated incomes of the top writers since 2008:
1. James Patterson : $836 million
2. J. K. Rowling : $546 million
3. Stephen King : $259 million
4. Danielle Steel : $231 million
5. John Grisham : $192 million
6. Jeff Kinney : $165 million
7. E. L. James (Tie) : $153 million
7. Janet Evanovich (Tie) : $153 million
9. Nora Roberts : $128 million
10. Suzanne Collins : $114 million
11. Dan Brown : $111 million
12. Dean Koontz : $101 million
13. Rick Riordan : $91.5 million
14. Stephenie Meyer : $75 million
15. Ken Follett : $68 million
16. George R. R. Martin : $60.5 million
17. Veronica Roth (Tie) : $52 million
18. Bill O’Reilly (Tie) : $52 million
19. Nicholas Sparks : $46 million
20. John Green : $45 million
21. Tom Clancy : $35 million
22. David Baldacci : $26 million
23. Paula Hawkins : $23 million
24. Gillian Flynn : $22 million
25. Michael Wolff : $13 million
Extraordinary numbers, I think. They prove the power of TV and movies to vastly expand the earning capacity of the novels, especially those in series.
And they show, as if we needed more evidence, that the inequality of rewards inherent in capitalism are just as prevalent in cultural industries as in any other.
As an anarchist, I am always interested in finding alternative (i.e. non-capitalist) ways of organising production and society. The idea of worker co-operatives has always appealed to me as a step toward both an economy and a decision-making process based on mutual aid rather than exploitation.
I came across this really interesting video that covers a lot of ground about setting up a co-op and thought it worth sharing:
It has to be remembered that all of the organization discussed here is setting up within a capitalist economy; establishing it within a mutual aid model would need some tweaks.
However, variations of the basic model works at any scale, as I have discussed previously in regard to the banking industry.
Until we manage to mature into a society that can depend on mutual aid and cooperatives, we have to mitigate the abysmal effects of today’s market capitalism and the supra-national power of corporations. Google, Amazon and many other international companies make billions of dollars in revenue from, say, sales in the UK, but manage to pay virtually no tax in the UK. They do this through foreign ownership — sometimes through multiple countries — and so-called management fees that the UK operation has to pay to the home corporation. It has become a regular scandal in the UK and threatens to do the same elsewhere.
Centre-right politicians have suggested that lowering corporate tax rates will encourage more companies to stay in- house as it were. That is just an excuse to make the rich richer. There is a simpler and much more efficient way.
I suggest that corporate income taxes be eliminated completely. They should be replaced by a “license to operate” fee equal to, say, 10% of revenues earned in the country no matter where the head office is based. Simple to understand, simple to manage, and, I suspect, very difficult to get around.
Country of ownership becomes immediately irrelevant, and transfers to an offshore HQ will be pointless for tax purposes. Indeed, they may well create a double taxation situation in which those transfers become taxable revenue in the home country. It also gives corporations the right to NOT operate in any particular country if they choose to forgo the revenues.
Finally, I would make this tax law bullet-proof by including a provision that, should some smart accountant or lawyer find a loophole, then that loophole is closed retroactively.