[krschultz]

Expect as a libertarian too, you guys are the ones who sink our chances to ever enact any meaningful progress. There is no society that has ever existed without some form of taxation. If you want no taxes, than you want no government. Then you are anarchists, not libertarians. I have no problem with that, but don't lump us in with you. Small government is a lot different than no government.

[dougp]

Cayman Islands GDP per capita is the 12th highest in the world. And has no direct taxation on individuals or companies. The Caymanians enjoy one of the highest outputs per capita and one of the highest standards of living in the world. From CIA world fact book.

[Brushfire]

This is sort-of correct. There are taxes on real-estate changes, corporate taxes, and import taxes.

Real estate and import taxes are the two that could be considered 'direct' taxes. Paying 7.5% or 10% of the value of your home at sale time is DEFINITELY a direct tax, its just highly delayed. This tax is based on the idea that most valuable property in the caymans is not owned by locals or is owned by very wealthy people. But everyone pays it...

Corporate taxes are indirect, but if you arent living off your own personal wealth, you are paying for those taxes through the products you buy from those companies or the lower wages you receive from those companies if you work there.

Aside from all of that -- it is foolish to assume that this would work in other countries that are not very small, exotic, and dependent (at least in some part) upon tourism/foreigners. In some sense, you could say that the taxes are paid by foreigners more than locals. Thats all fine and good for Caymans, but again, that would never work in the US, Europe, etc where populations are large compared to the number of visitors/foreigners.

Find me a country with a population of 50 Million that does anything like this, and I'll move there. :)

[potatolicious]

Wealth in the Caymans is:

1 - Imported by wealthy residents who live there because of the exotic locale. 2 - Imported by tourism. 3 - Imported by the banking industry.

This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations, or a country that has actual, tangible, real industrial production.

[APLonDrugs]

"This would never work in a country "

Why?

[potatolicious]

The basic notion of a (usual, industrial) country is that it is self-sufficient and provides mostly for its own. The Caymans is the antithesis of this. Wealth is imported, and the richness of the country is therefore artificial - i.e. not the result of any distinct value that it has produced through goods and services.

Of course you can create a near utopia without taxation for your own people if you are able to import fabulously rich residents by the boatload and taxing them instead. This is obviously not an option that is sustainable on a large scale , nor do most countries have the exotic climate to support it.

In short, you need to tax somebody. In the Caymans these happen to be rich foreigners on holiday (or in some sort of semi-permanent residence)... in other countries clearly the taxes have to come from somebody else.

[APLonDrugs]

I guess focusing on the comment above, “and has no direct tax”. I have been told there was no direct tax in US till 1913, so how did it work then? we seem to get along just fine to that point? Assuming what you say is true, that it will never work….

“This would never work in a country that isn't a tax shelter from other nations,” but isn’t Manhattan N.Y. U.S. also a tax haven to foreigners, other then U.S. citizens? And doesn’t the Cayman Islands support competition among, within and between taxing districts of the world, for which they attract wealth? Maybe it’s the competition among governments that makes it work in Cayman, giving money owners a better deal then they get else where.

“Somebody”, yes… if direct then apportioned. Tax somebody with competition, perhaps maybe best.

[Brushfire]

"I have been told there was no direct tax in US till 1913, so how did it work then? "

This is not entirely true. There was an income tax that was put into place for a number of years around the civil war, but was later abolished. Im not certain on the exact years, though.

Either way, taxes still abounded back then, they just werent compulsory. But they were if you were alive, eating, and tried to move around society. In other words, if you lived in BFE and had a farm, you probably didnt pay anything -- but if you lived in the city, you almost had to when buying tea, other food items, paying for stamps, other imported items.

The debate about whether we should have income tax or not is somewhat moot outside of armed rebellion. Its here to stay. The point that is more important is that it should be uniform, easy to follow, and LOW. I should not pay 50% of my efforts to the government. 5%, ok, 10% maybe, but 50%? no. The amount is what makes the income tax so unbearable, not that it exists at all.

Brian

[jdavid]

i am all for the balance transfer tax of 0.3% its not game-able and its fair TO EVERYONE. i don't like tax policy that discriminates.