With minimal income tax. Although I also like the idea of Georgism where the the only tax is paid on land.

So you're suggesting that we abolish every single tax, but income tax? That will result in income tax very quickly becoming exceedingly non-minimal.

Reading your other posts, I thought it was income tax you were disagreeing with, what with it being the government stealing our hard-earned cash. So if that's not correct, which taxes are you objecting to?

I was under the impression (though I am probably wrong) that a large majority of tax revenue was from income tax. Though I may disagree with income tax, minimal income tax, though not perfect, would (in my opinion) be a major improvement; no one should complain that they are being taxed too much, as under an alternative regime they would be taxed a lot more.

In order to pay for all its services, the government needs to tax us, as a nation, X dollars. I don't know how much X is, but it's a frigging large number, of course. If they remove almost every tax, the one(s) that remain must increase accordingly so that they still bring in X dollars. As a nation, we'll be taxed by the same amount either way.

The many complicated taxes we have now are a process of sharing the tax burden around, so that hopefully everyone pays a fair amount. Thus we have income tax, in which people who earn more, pay more; sales tax, in which people who buy more, pay more; property tax, in which people who own more, pay more; etc.

I just dont think its fair that people who earn a lot must give MORE than half their income to the state, which is the case in DK.

Well, that's a problem with where to draw the line, rather than the concept of income tax overall.

Also, from what I've heard (and perhaps you can confirm this), you guys get a lot more services (and higher quality) than most other countries.

God I wish an empire seized some large part of europe or something.

Then things would get interesting!

Everyone should pay 40% as wealth is relative. I don't think it's fair that comparatively, a heart surgeon has more taken from him than a non skilled labourer.

EDIT: What would you have Strike Witch? Oceania?

http://i.imgur.com/FfoOj.jpg

Fuck yeah, Vampire Australia!

We get a lot more services... But I'm not so sure about the quality X_x I was told that some years ago, social services were SO much better. Now we keep hearing about how education is getting worse and worse, gtting cut more and more...

Also Medical care in some areas are really bad too. But it's fine i suppose... for some things.

Either way, i really think DK has gone to the extreme. The exact opposite direction than USA... I think if USA and DK met somewhere in the middle, we'd have the perfect system :p (not really).

Anyway, Out of everything, Im really mostly butthurt about the mandatory 'tv-license' payment we HAVE to pay, whether we use the channel or not. I think in UK its sort of the same too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_fallacy

And now you know.

They pay a higher numerical value, but it's the same proportion of their income.

I think that's fair, personally - why should the richer people of the world be able to keep a higher percentage of their income? A flat rate seems inherently biased to me.

EDIT: I just reread OddHunter's post and realised that I misunderstood it. I thought he was disagreeing with Scrabtrapman's terminology. I'm going to keep it here anyway because I think some people could do with an explanation of progressive tax rates.

Uhhh... I think you're confused. A flat percentage rate (as scrabtrapman is suggesting) would mean that everyone keeps the same proportion of their income. As far as I know, no major economic power does that.

Most countries have a progressive tax system. For instance, in Australia the current rates are as follows:

• For an income between 0 - $6,000 you pay no tax.
• For every dollar earned between $6,001 - $37,000, you pay 15c.
• For every dollar earned between $37,001 - $80,000, you pay 30c.
• For every dollar earned between $80,001 - $180,000, you pay 37c.
• For every dollar earned above $180,001, you pay 45c.

Bear in mind that those are progressive percentages, not overall. So if you earn $6,000, you pay no tax; if you earn $6,001, you pay a total of 15c tax. And if you earn $200,000, you still get the first $6,000 tax free, the next $31,000 at 15%, the next $43,000 at 30%, etc.

So do you think I'm right or wrong? O_o

Yea well fuck your wikipedia... Do note the '(not really)' at the end of my post....

Oh I knew you weren't serious, I was just making sure everyone knew that a center wing government is more likely to be the worst of both rather than the best.

I hate this country hate it when it became capitalism at 1990's im a communist and i hate this rule where the government can take whatever they want whenever they want and they dont care for people.when there was communism there werent homeless people and hungry people,everyone was equal no sir just comrade even the leader of the country was called comrade.

I call bullshit on just about everything in that post.

I think you're slightly confused.

If I'm not mistaken, you take any state in Eastern Europe. What it used to have was a soviet sponsored autocracy with a state capitalist economy masquerading as communism. What it now has is a capitalist sponsored autocracy with a state capitalist economy being honest about itself.

Many countries have veered away from "pure" capitalism to corporatism which also gives capitalism a bad name (though it wasn't much to start off with). Check their definitions for the differences.

I wasn't commenting on the validity of your opinions either way. I was just (mistakenly) correcting OddHunter for what I perceived as him correcting you incorrectly.

In theory, I like the concept of a flat tax rate. In practice, however, it would probably mean that the poorest people have their tax increased whilst the richest have it dropped. And I don't really approve of that.

I actually had some ideas for how I would reform the country...before going to sleep...so perhaps they weren't such good ideas.

One thing was to abolish all the taxes and replace them with more 'pride in your nation' names, por ejempo...

National Tax - The tax to keep the nation prosperous: income tax of 30% flat for all classes (bringing about more social equality I expect) to cover the cost of things such as road repair, public health funding etc.

Further more they need to drastically reduce the number of people claiming benefits so...no one may claim benefits for more than a year and then they may not claim again for five years. People with disabilities have to have it proved by their GP with all the correct papers.

TV licence is a bitch so reduce the price in that...oh and rename it, entertainment improvement tax. Perhaps in lowering it cap how much TV actors and staff can get paid.

Also there should always be a public sector company run by the government for things such as water, electricity and gas. They can therefore regulate prices and do not have to put a tax on these vital resources.

I had more but...in the dreary half awake world that comes about with sleep, they aren't worth explaining! XD

Just my two cents worth.

Jugoslavia wasnt a part of soviet union,they refused stalin and anything what was his and his ideas,Jugoslavia vas the 3rd world power holding 8 million elite soldiers as a military force.Tito declined stalin when he wanted to have jugoslavia inside the Varshav packt,so Tito started the movement of the unsorted,the countries of the third world.If i were the leader of the country i would return back communism.

But Titoism works very well, far better than standard Stalinist or Leninist Communism...bolshevism.

yeah,when tito was here there werent homeless people,hungry people and people without a job,you really had to be a dum dummy to lose a job in that time.

Also he allowed a small private sector and taxes were flat and fair. I could live under a Titoist regime quite happily.

The TV license is worth every penny for the BBC's science and nature documentaries alone. Doctor Who is just a bonus.

Yes but actors paid millions aren't worth it. Jeremy Clarkson, while being a pretty funny chap, doesn't deserve the millions he gets.

For you maybe... But consider the people who are NOT interested in what BBC has to offer. Why should they be forced to fund the TV station? If they wanna make it atax, then friggin make it a tax. That's what danish people have been crying about for so long.
I don't own a TV. But I have internet-access, thus I have to pay about £200 a year to DR(our state channel) even though, I never ever visit their website. It's friggin ridiculous and I feel robbed. They could make their website subscription based, but no... They have the law behind them to be able to freely steal money from people who do not want their service.
Honestly if it was just a general entertainment tax, it would have been better, because then the money we'd have to give would actually be proportional with what money we have.
I don't really have a lot of monies as it is <.<