The CLIPH-rate tax is the acronym I developed as a shorthand
way of describing my taxation proposals. It stands for Comprehensive Lifetime
Income Per Hour rate.
This can be split into two components; hourly averaging and
my proposal for a comprehensive acquired income tax base. The two proposals
complement each other very well and are linked by the Lifetime element of the
acronym.
The first component is my hourly averaging proposal. This is
described in the acronym as ‘per hour rate’ and it is explained in detail the
first two chapters of my book.
Hourly averaging allows taxes to be calculated not only on the amount that people earn but also the amount of time they
have spent working (or doing some suitable alternative activity). This means that those who work longer for less pay can be assisted while those who earn a lot for each hour they work can be taxed.
The second component is my proposal to take account of all
the economic gains that people receive during their life when determining their
tax rate. This is the “Comprehensive Lifetime Income” parts of the acronym. My
proposal can be understood as a hybrid which combines aspects of comprehensive
income with consumption taxation.
These two components, along with others that go with them,
are explained in more detail in my book, and I have said (and plan to continue
to say) more about them in this blog as well. In my next blog I will explain the
advantages of the CLIPH-rate tax in the briefest terms.
3 comments:
Why do you want to tax people's economic gains which they have earned through their own efforts? What principle is this notion based on?
I set out my principles here:
http://dougstaxappeal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/what-is-purpose-of-taxation.html
I would say that taking account of the amount of hours people have worked along with the amount they have earned is a much better measure of effort than any other available alternative.
I would argue that those who earn ten or a hundred times the amount per hour than the average don't put in that percentage more effort. The difference is much more likely to be down to good fortune.
You do not mention risk. Extreme high earners often take huge amounts of risk. Taxing capital and labour separately is a slippery slope and deep argument. Are you ascribing access to capital to luck in your measure of output to be taxed?
Post a Comment