> Different types of wealth have different Zakat values, and not all wealth is subject to Zakat (e.g. the value of your home does not count towards Zakat).
Of course. I did not want to get into such complications. This was more of a Fermi estimate to compare the amount a Zakat would raise in the US.
> It's strictly superior to have a system based on Zakat than the insane income taxes that we have today.
Maybe - remember that the US government pays for more besides bare welfare for the needy. Also the Islamic Zakat pays for more than welfare - also administration of Zakat (reasonable, but should be kept as low as possible) and Islamic missionary efforts (I don't think the US should redirect its welfare to "spreading liberty and democracy").
Even in Islam, there were more taxes than Zakat[1] - at the very least, a tax on harvests (corporate income or business reciepts tax) and a land tax - because Islamic governments also have other responsibilities besides charity. It would stand to reason that the federal and state governments would also continue to collect other taxes to support other government responsibilities. Also remember that inflation (certainly that intentionally engineered by the central bank) is effectively a wealth tax.
Which missionary efforts? If you mean paying Zakat to those whose hearts are inclined toward Islam that's something different.
> a tax on harvests
I mentioned this in my previous post. Livestock and produce have different Zakat calculations than the 2.5% of money held for a year.
If you're referring to Ushr, that's imposed on non-Muslim nations that taxed Muslims, so a tit-for-tat treatment, and it's not part of Islam per-se, but a socio-political decision.
> certainly that intentionally engineered by the central bank
Exactly what we don't want. We don't want a select few people to determine the tax rate for the entire population, affecting mainly people at the lower socioeconomic levels in society.
Of course. I did not want to get into such complications. This was more of a Fermi estimate to compare the amount a Zakat would raise in the US.
> It's strictly superior to have a system based on Zakat than the insane income taxes that we have today.
Maybe - remember that the US government pays for more besides bare welfare for the needy. Also the Islamic Zakat pays for more than welfare - also administration of Zakat (reasonable, but should be kept as low as possible) and Islamic missionary efforts (I don't think the US should redirect its welfare to "spreading liberty and democracy").
Even in Islam, there were more taxes than Zakat[1] - at the very least, a tax on harvests (corporate income or business reciepts tax) and a land tax - because Islamic governments also have other responsibilities besides charity. It would stand to reason that the federal and state governments would also continue to collect other taxes to support other government responsibilities. Also remember that inflation (certainly that intentionally engineered by the central bank) is effectively a wealth tax.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_taxes