Maybe it makes more sense to tax land rather than income. That way we don't have to worry about where workers live at all. Whoever owns the ground pays the tax. If a worker wants to be mobile, that's fine, he indirectly pays taxes through the rent (or hotel bill) of wherever he chooses to take up residency.
Secondarily, consumption taxes are usually far easier to administer than income taxes. Identifying the "true residence" of a worker is a messy and arbitrary business. But in most cases any single good, service or product can usually be assigned a jurisdiction. The EU's been handling cross-border VAT taxes for decades with very few complications.
Economists have been telling us for centuries that Georgist land taxes and VAT taxes are far more economically efficient than income taxes. The only real advantage income tax has is that it's easier to satisfy our notions of fairness, in that rich people should pay higher rates than poor people.
That's harder to do when taxes are evaluated on a per-property or per-product basis rather than per-person. However a simple solution is probably just to create a UBI, handed out to every citizen no questions asked. Since a UBI is essentially a fixed "negative income tax", it makes the tax burden highly progressive, especially for the lowest income groups.
Whoa, I don’t know why, but I never thought of UBI as a negative tax, let alone a progressive one. But yes, if it’s a fixed rate, it would be progressive.
Have you heard any other critiques/opposition to what you proposed above?
Secondarily, consumption taxes are usually far easier to administer than income taxes. Identifying the "true residence" of a worker is a messy and arbitrary business. But in most cases any single good, service or product can usually be assigned a jurisdiction. The EU's been handling cross-border VAT taxes for decades with very few complications.
Economists have been telling us for centuries that Georgist land taxes and VAT taxes are far more economically efficient than income taxes. The only real advantage income tax has is that it's easier to satisfy our notions of fairness, in that rich people should pay higher rates than poor people.
That's harder to do when taxes are evaluated on a per-property or per-product basis rather than per-person. However a simple solution is probably just to create a UBI, handed out to every citizen no questions asked. Since a UBI is essentially a fixed "negative income tax", it makes the tax burden highly progressive, especially for the lowest income groups.