Could taxation policy improve the country?

[marcus]

(a) Money/capital are now flowing a lot freer than labour.

(b) If government wants to prevent money flowing abroad, they should erect monetary control instead of slowing movement of people.

(c) If people wish to spend their hard earned money abroad, then it's their right to do so.

(d) There are many better ways for government to perform their wealth redistribution tasks.

(a) It was always like that . Every country wants foreign money to come , but foreign worker only if it is in benefit of the country .

(b) Can you explain with example ?

(c) I didn't say that they are prohibited to do that .

(d) If you know so many , please give us some examples .

[marcus]

If the local people in a developing country have no faith in their corrupt government ... , why would they be interested to pay more or different taxes.?? ... but levels of corruption in more developed countries is minuscule compared to asia , africa ,south america etc ...

In every country there are people not interested to pay taxes , but regardless of the government , we citizens should do our part and pressure the government for better governance .

[marcus]

(x) The fiscal didn't really affect the rich. It hurts the normal workers, maybe with a salary of 5-10m Rp, to whom an additional 2m on the cost .. could be a deal breaker,

(y) stopping them expanding their horizons and broadening their minds, which is certainly needed here.

(z) And I doubt whether the fiscal revenue ever made it to any poor people...

(x) By rich people I mean , the ones richer than the average (relatively rich) .

(y) I think there are many more cost effective ways to expand horizons/broadening minds . I traveled abroad many times (for work) and I don't think it is worth to do tourism abroad . By the way , I know that tourism is a very big business , and I feel sad about that . In my opinion , the world would be better if all the money spent in tourism was used in a more productive way and causing less pollution .

(z) We should have hope . And also , the other gain is that some will prefer to do tourism in the country instead , benefiting the country's economy and indirectly the poor people .

[columbo68]

I think if Indonesia started to move to a free market economy it would become a major economic power within a decade or less. Free market capitalism breeds economic success for a nation.

[marcus]

I think if Indonesia started to move to a free market economy it would become a major economic power within a decade or less ...

I don't think it is that simple . I don't know much , but lets see Mexico , for example . Mexico is part of NAFTA? (USA , Canada , Mexico , ..) for how many years ? I don't think Mexico did/will improve much so quickly .
My country is part of MERCOSUL , that , in my view , didn't change things much .

I suppose there is no easy way . A country needs to be governed like we do with our own life . What we need to do ? We need , at least , to graduate in college/university in order to be eligible for a good job , work hard , continue learning/improving , be honest , treat others well , be health , pay our taxes , save , plan the future , raise our children well , avoid taking unnecessary risks , ... Any of these that we don't do well can ruin our life , isn't it ?

[columbo68]

Most people believe NAFTA was all about "Free Trade" and it was all about Managed Trade and it had nothing to do with Free Market Capitalism. Here's an article about the NAFTA myth.
See https://mises.org/library/nafta-myth

[asunnusa]

(d) If you know so many , please give us some examples .

If you want to soak the rich, there are so many to choose from:
1. Inheritance tax.
2. Wealth tax.
3. Better tax regime to avoid use of multi nationals revenue shifts.
Particularly for Indonesia, simply move the entire underground economy into sunlight and tax the incomes. That should be a huge boon. If you need more, you can increase fuel tax, land transfer tax, property tax, etc.

[marcus]

... NAFTA ... had nothing to do with Free Market Capitalism ...

Supposing you agree with the author of that article , then you cannot suggest it because it is not possible , as the author admits : " ... In the present world, as a rule of thumb, it is best to oppose all treaties ..." . Countries , like people , are all different from each other : have different kind of policies , standards , national interests , ... so free trade cannot be 100% free .

[marcus]

If you want to soak the rich, there are so many to choose from:
1. Inheritance tax.
2. Wealth tax.
3. Better tax regime to avoid use of multi nationals revenue shifts.
Particularly for Indonesia, simply move the entire underground economy into sunlight and tax the incomes. That should be a huge boon. If you need more, you can increase fuel tax, land transfer tax, property tax, etc.

Regarding anything , I think we need to be fair/just too , otherwise we cannot have a good society . In my view , inheritance and wealth taxes , although used in many developed countries , are not fair/just because they are double taxation . And also , when a country's legislators start discussing this matter , many rich people find a way to avoid being taxed .

I am not sure what you mean exactly in [3. Better tax regime to avoid use of multi nationals revenue shifts.] . Maybe what many developed countries are trying to do with big companies like Google , Facebook , Apple , ..? If so , yes , I agree . Also agree with tax over fuel , land , property , ... that it was what I meant when I mentioned increase of : the annual house/apartment/land tax and fuel price in my first post (no.5) .

[columbo68]

Supposing you agree with the author of that article , then you cannot suggest it because it is not possible , as the author admits : " ... In the present world, as a rule of thumb, it is best to oppose all treaties ..." . Countries , like people , are all different from each other : have different kind of policies , standards , national interests , ... so free trade cannot be 100% free .

First, I do agree with the author as Murray Rothbard was one of premier free market economists in the world and help establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama. Furthermore, the quote you posted was out of context. Here's the paragraph that you quoted from. " In the present world, as a rule of thumb, it is best to oppose all treaties, absent the great Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, which could have passed Congress in the 1950s but was shot down by the Eisenhower administration. Unfortunately, under the Constitution, every treaty is considered “the supreme law of the land,” and the Bricker Amendment would have prevented any treaty from overriding any preexisting Constitutional rights. But if we must be wary of any treaty, we must be particularly hostile to a treaty that builds supranational structures, as does Nafta."

Furthermore, Mr. Rothbard wrote, "In the first place, genuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a “trade agreement”; Nafta is called a trade agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-“dumping” laws, and other American-imposed restrictions on trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is needed."

I encourage you to explore the www.mises.org as it's the premier website on free market economics.

[RaphaelP]

If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-“dumping” laws, and other American-imposed restrictions on trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is needed."

That's a bit like saying we will achieve world peace by destroying all our own nuclear weapons, and then *hoping* that the other countries do the same.

[columbo68]

Marcus, "We should learn , for example , how Singapore and South Korea quickly became rich countries."

Singapore adopted free market principles. Singapore was a city-state where GDP per capita increased from $500 in 1965 to over $55,000 today. Any nation that subscribes to free market principles (Austrian economics) will become prosperous. We know that socialism and communism does not work. Keynesian economics (Boom and Bust) will bust again and smart nations will turn away from that economic system.

[columbo68]

That's a bit like saying we will achieve world peace by destroying all our own nuclear weapons, and then *hoping* that the other countries do the same.

Huh? I don't think you understand the concept of free trade or free market principles (Austrian Economics). You have taken the "blue pill" and need to take the "red pill".

[marcus]

(I) ... the quote you posted was out of context ...

(II) I encourage you to explore the www.mises.org as it's the premier website on free market economics.

(III) ... Singapore adopted free market principles ...

(IV) ... socialism and communism ...

(I) My first comment seems still applicable , in my view .

(II) Thanks for the reference , but I am just an ordinary old person without any plan for a future .
When I said "we should learn ..." I mean , "human being leaders should learn ..." . I am interested only in simple discussions using common sense and simple rules .

(III) I don't believe a success country was based mainly in just one idea . It is an one thing overvaluation in relation to so many other things . Government leaders do need to learn about Singapore , but it doesn't mean that a specific successful idea in Singapore fit or will be automatically a success in other countries .

(IV) I personally don't like to discuss about certain "names" that somebody defined . For example , each person may have a different view of what "socialism" should be . Communism was/still is even considered a bad name and many people unjustly have died because of that . I lot of prejudice .
In my view there is no good or bad government political system , it all depend on the people involved .

[fastpitch17]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe if they enforced the taz laws and made more then a few actually pay tax that should there would be way less problems in receiving the tax. What happens to it after it reached the government is a far different story.