Humanities desk
< August 22	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 23

Is there any (current or historical) society that implemented tax based currency?

Something like, the state would create some tax that almost everyone would need to pay, the tax would cost X coins, where X is not a percentage of anything, but an specific value. So with X coins you will be ALWAYS be able to pay this specific tax.177.177.210.166 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, the value of the currency would be the 1/X of the tax? Poll tax has example of a fixed amount tax, but it didn't define the currency

I cannot think of a sensible reason to do that. Gem fr (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some societies have established currencies which were claimed to be backed by state-owned assets (other than precious metals), probably starting with the French revolutionary assignat. However, most of them haven't held up too long... AnonMoos (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German Rentenmark worked this way (sort of: backing assets were not state-owned, but owners were engaged in a mortgage; see the article) and was a success Gem fr (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)But isn't it what most currencies are today? Most currencies are not backed by a real asset, they are just backed by "trust that the state will be able to continue to function and continue receive income (=tax) in the future". --Lgriot (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See fiat currency. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking about. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some taxes, like vehicle registration, may be fixed amounts (as opposed to based on vehicle weight, value, age, etc.). But for most taxes this approach doesn't make sense, because it would make low-priced items prohibitively expensive, and also provide little tax income for expensive items. It would have the effect of being much worse on poor people, who buy inexpensive items in low quantity, than the rich, who can buy expensive items in bulk, or bundled together. Thus, it would be a regressive tax. The Stamp Act of 1765 was one instance of such a silly tax, with the result that every card in a deck of cards had a separate tax on it. This tax was so unpopular, it was one cause of the American Revolution. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, excise taxes and capitations (poll taxes) can be set at a specific amount per whole unit rather than based on value or wealth. In California, the excise on distilled spirits is $3.30 per gallon (this is double on liquors over 100 proof). But generally speaking there’s always a unit attached: per gallon or per person or (in the stamp act example cited above) per playing card. Often things that might be called fees could also be described as taxes (the vehicle registration fee example cited above). Anyway I think what OP is asking about is capitation/poll taxes, which are expressly permitted in the U.S. Constitution, but to my knowledge aren’t levied anymore because income taxation is far more effective for revenue purposes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am talking about flat tax, Poll tax...., by being a specific amount X, this means that if you have X dollars now you will be able to pay for it, and if you have X dollars at the year 2050 you will be able to pay for it too. The part where alot of people have to pay, is to make sure the state that would be the answer to this question can't just at the future accept the loss they will have by inflating the currency and so are forced to not inflate currency or they will lose money since this tax would be a good chunk of the money they get from taxes.177.177.210.166 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxes that can't go up to adjust for inflation ? That wouldn't work because external factors affect inflation, like the global price of oil, which in turn depend on supply and demand. Price controls are an effort to stop inflation, which can work for a while, but eventually something breaks: [1]. The Code of Hammurabi was partly about price controls.

Alternatively, the government might try to restrict the money supply, to cause deflation, making the tax rate effectively higher. That also would have dire consequences. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Debt: The First 5000 Years, when the French took over Madagascar they instituted a tax whose purpose was to rope the natives into the cash economy. Is that close to what you have in mind? —Tamfang (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To draw a prallel in a non-tax context, are you thinking something like a UK first class stamp, which will always hold its value in terms of being able to pay for a letter to be sent first class, regardless of the actual value of such a service in pound terms?

Unfortunately revenue stamps are as far as I know always denominated in "normal" currency terms. If there was a revenue stamp denominated by number of transactions to be stamped (for example) that might fit your bill.

A tenuously similar concept exists in Australian criminal law. Fines are typically defined in multiples of penalty units, and these definitions remain largely fixed. However a penalty unit will be varied from time to time by the government, thereby increasing (or decreasing) all fines. However, as far as I know it is not possible to buy a coin or stamp denominated in penalty units! --49.255.185.235 (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In England it's called (for example) "Level 5 on the standard scale". 2A00:23C5:E111:C500:1D23:9F4B:7F07:8938 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a flat rate would be an unmetered water rate, which is dependent on the notional rental value of the property (the valuations haven't been changed since the introduction of the poll tax c. 1990). Thus the charge is the same however much water is consumed. This is in contrast to an ad valorem tax. 2A00:23C5:E111:C500:1D23:9F4B:7F07:8938 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One fictional example of the idea, is the movie in time, where the amount of time you have remaining to live is your money. Each second, 1 second is removed from everyone. A flat value, that alot of people (everyone) has to pay and that the state wont change it and you will NEVER get more than 1 extra second of life, by having one extra second of time money. But the movie dont follow the logical conclusions of all this, because the rich guys are neo-malthusians and do all kinds of messing with economy to make sure people die.177.177.211.226 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unequal treatment of persons involved in sex crimes

Hi,

I am looking for a Slate document (dated <=2010) about "prosecutorial discretion where either the older partner or the male partner [...] gets charged" (mentioned in a comment by Ricardo under this post at The Volokh Conspiracy).

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could be this one. There are more sources linked from there. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]