Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Devising the best taxation
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 70 (439635)
12-09-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
12-09-2007 3:52 PM


Re: Fixing the system
There are no socialist nations.
Just to let you know, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are all proud socialist nations. Netherlands used to be until a few years ago.
NJ is correct that they have very high taxes. The difference is that while we are close to paying the same amount in the US, they actually get service for their taxes. They don't end up having to pay for health or education as we have to. This is something conservatives in the US never figure into the equation.
Socialism is cheaper in the end, so despite getting taxed heavily, it has no impact on their livelihood. They live exceedingly well.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 5:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 70 (439636)
12-09-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
12-09-2007 2:09 AM


"Fair Tax" is no such thing...
My preferred system of taxation would be a flat tax, or a very simply graded progressive tax, with no exemptions.
It would be solely individual (so no joint filing), start at an income level well beyond the minimum necessary to live a decent life, and be somewhat larger than current levels (to make up for losses in taxation at lower levels).
The fair tax is not a fair tax, and it is not even a practical system as currently proposed. By taxing purchases, the debt of the gov't is shifted most directly on the poorest. Even middle income brackets will pay a greater % of their salaries in taxes than the more affluent. That makes no sense at all.
I mean where does the name "fair" even come from, in that regard?
According to the current bill, and I guess recent proponents, a rebate will be given to those who are poor, to pay the increased taxation they will now be under.
This of course means we will still need an IRS. Some organization will have to collect and review INCOME in order to determine the amount or necessity of a rebate... and find those who are cheating on their reports.
Now this is the clever part. Right now people of low income do not have to file, and rich people do. This scheme makes it necessary for poor people to file, and lifts the obligation on rich people to do so.
The so-called "fair tax" is a system by rich people, for rich people. Pushing all obligations and debts on those without.
Edited by Silent H, : sub title

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2007 2:09 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 12-09-2007 5:17 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2007 9:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 70 (439646)
12-09-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
12-09-2007 5:17 PM


Re: "Fair Tax" is no such thing...
Heheheh... actually I hadn't thought much about the corporate implications. So small business corporations would likely have to file more tax papers and pay more taxes (% wise), and huge corporations can skip it and pay much less.
Or will big companies, because they need to buy so many things (assuming they stay inside the US), get rebates just like poor people? This would of course be similar to the corporate welfare system we already have. Would that be avoided in the new tax system? Bet not.
Anyway, seems to be getting fairer all the time.
The rich can continue to purchase whatever they want, but will simply purchase outside the US.
Well, I suppose that's where it will all be made soon anyway.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 12-09-2007 5:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 12-09-2007 5:51 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 70 (439650)
12-09-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
12-09-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Fixing the system
To be fair to your point, the definition of what counts as a socialist nation is blurred. And many conservatives love to take advantage of that, painting anything close to a socialist program, as an institution of Stalinist totalitarianism.
To be fair to NJ, I thought his context was clear, especially as he accurately described their tax rate. He appeared to be referring to the Scandinavian countries.
To be fair to me, people of those nations refer to themselves and their gov't as socialist. And indeed they do fulfill the definition you posted. Wealth and property are most certainly open to control by the community, and are adjusted for the purpose of increasing economic equality and cooperation.
Yes their citizens can and do work for, or own, private companies. That is not excluded by the definition of socialism. They have seemingly found that the gov't doesn't have to directly own or manage everything all the time in order to produce the results desired. But they certainly have greater ability to step in and effect businesses than we have here in the US. And if I remember right their markets are directly controlled by their gov'ts.
As far as property goes, ownership is an interesting question. Communities have greater control over how you use, or if you will continue to own, your property. In some cases your "property" isn't yours at all. For example in Sweden, people have the right to camp out on anyone's property without even having to ask permission.
I'm not sure if you've ever been there, but I highly recommend it. The differences are quite exciting.
Actually, if you rent the DVD of Sicko (which is a great movie), Moore provides a "special feature" of his trip to Norway. He explains that for those who thought France was something, they should check it out. Socialist concepts run straight throughout it, and effect how everything is treated.
Yet as NJ said, they get taxed quite a bit. So what? I ask.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 5:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 6:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 70 (439656)
12-09-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
12-09-2007 5:51 PM


Re: "Fair Tax" is no such thing...
Good gods... I missed that part. Or maybe my mind just wanted to block it out.
So it is a complete rape of the US citizen and about the biggest windfall ever seen by business.
Yes. And in the spirit of naming things accurately, perhaps this "fair" tax should be renamed.
Rape Tax sounds good to me. Those that are already getting screwed by the system, get taxed more for good measure.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 12-09-2007 5:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 12-09-2007 7:15 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 70 (439660)
12-09-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chiroptera
12-09-2007 6:03 PM


Re: Fixing the system
I'll quote the opening part of your cite as it helps break down any misunderstandings in terminology...
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the traditional sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to to replace it entirely; instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system. The term itself is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation.
I consider myself a socialist, and a product of the socialist movement. Clearly I would fit the bill of social democrat, though I actually have no hard ideological need for sticking with capitalism per se. I do think on a practical level capitalist elements are extremely useful for many day to day affairs... especially in maintaining/advancing individual rights... though I would admit not wholly necessary.
So I suppose I am not a "traditional" and definitely not a "Marxist" socialist. Does that make me not a socialist? I think its a bit of stretched semantics to say I am not. And it seems odd to claim that millions of people over many nations are confused about who they actually are. If they say they are socialist, but don't fill all of the traditional aspects, then aren't they just a form of it?
Kind of like all the different types of Xians, and Muslims, and Atheists, and feminists. They have similar goals, and some core beliefs, but some differentiation.
In any case, I think its safe for NJ to call them socialist in the context he was using it.
What do you feel is the largest difference between Scandinavian socialism and "true" socialism. Their intent and practices seem identical to crash's posted def... just not that it is all state owned all of the time. It is however, when necessary.
Edited by Silent H, : clarity on my position regarding capitalist elements within socialist models of gov't.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 6:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 7:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 70 (439665)
12-09-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
12-09-2007 6:17 PM


Re: If I Were President
I hope that you will see my initial post to you was in the fashion you had hoped. However, in addition to describing my preferred tax system, I did stick it to the Fair Tax... which is really a gross misnomer in my opinion. And I will address one of the issues right here...
Under the Fair Tax you wouldn't have to file anything ever again.
That is not true, and directly contradicted by your source. What is true is that the RICH will never have to file anything ever again. Anyone who will be effected by the increased daily taxation on simply living, will have to file as usual... and in some cases beyond the usual... to prove their income.
If it is going to be a fair tax, perhaps it should only be levied on luxury goods... purely entertainment... with prices above what those who are poor could reasonably afford. So no taxes on anything required to live, and up to say $10K on any luxury item.
That way the poor would not need rebates, and so would also not need to file their incomes.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2007 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 32 of 70 (439672)
12-09-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by crashfrog
12-09-2007 6:32 PM


Re: Fixing the system
There is absolutely no need to be angry. I was not calling you an idiot or downgrading you in any way.
Your reply to him was that no such thing as a socialist nation exists on this planet. Either you weren't aware... and many are not... that the Scandinavian nations are socialist, or you were making some semantic argument against NJ (that would have no bearing on what he was saying).
I assumed the former, but in either case, I simply laid out that they are considered such and that was what he was referring to. You might note that I started my reply by saying in fairness to you the definition of a socialist nation is not solid... which opens up the semantics thing, which Chiro just reinforced.
I have no understanding why you are getting upset, or attacking me personally. This is like one of the most non-emotional exchanges anyone should be having.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 6:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 6:53 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 70 (439682)
12-09-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
12-09-2007 6:53 PM


Re: Fixing the system
What is the problem? I am not, and have not insulted you. This is a very simple and non-emotionally charged subject.
We covered this. They're not socialist. They're social democracies. Socialism refers to public ownership of the "means of production", and in those countries private citizens own means of production.
No, we did not "cover" this. As was pointed out the term socialism has a variety of uses. To many millions of people it includes what might be termed social democracies. There is no right or wrong answer on this point.
It is very much like Protestants calling Catholics non-Xian... and vice-versa. Either can hold that view, but in a practical sense it is not accurate.
NJ was simply discussing rates of taxation. He compared 40% with the level paid in "socialist" nations, which is the term the people in those nations used. There is no reason to argue his statement was invalid, especially at this point. The only correction might be to say to him that some members of the socialist movement feel they are better termed social democrats.
Did it occur to you, at any point, that I was saying that those Scandinavian nations aren't actually socialist, particularly in the way conservatives mean,
Yes that did occur to me. That is why I said, and I just repeated, that to be fair to you the terminology is not fixed. If you cannot understand that that was a statement allowing for a semantic argument about "socialism", than I don't know what I can tell you.
I did not assume you were making that kind of argument, since it wouldn't have made sense given the context.
and that maybe you might address that instead of naked, erroneous assertions that Sweden, Norway, and the rest are "socialist" according to Holmes' private dictionary?
These are not erroneous assertions on my part. The wiki article Chiro linked to and I quoted (in response to his post) clearly showed that they can be called socialist. It is simply that some people who are more traditional or Marxist do not like that usage.
For God's sake. You really don't have any control over it, do you?
I am not being sarcastic, or mean spirited when I tell you that you really need to get some help. I have not done anything wrong here, and wasn't even trying to put you down.
If anything, assuming you hadn't known that they were socialist, I was happy to share that information. Not everyone does know that, and it isn't a crime. I like to talk about that with others.
If your political position is traditional socialist, or Marxist, and are having problems with the many millions of people who use the term socialist or "moderate socialist", then your problem is not with me. I am not making it up. And all you have to say is... I think that is not the most accurate term. Then we will say... we think it is. And then we can wrangle about the most practical terms.
If you want a debate on what would be most practical, and it seems like Chiro would be interested, I'm game. But that said, whatever we agree will not change the fact that millions of others will still refer to themselves as socialist and be right.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 6:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 7:55 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 70 (439688)
12-09-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
12-09-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Just trying to clarify.
I find most political theory too utopian to be very useful -- like Marx, I have a distaste for utopian thinking.
Heheheh. I'm a dystopian. I believe all systems will have flaws which is why no single, static system should be followed. Its really just an ongoing game, trying to find practical solutions. Grand economic theories seem like mental masturbation to me.
I like the personal freedom and flexibility of open markets... free trade. However, that has practical limits as wealth naturally shifts. That ends up breaking the market system (as well as causing suffering). This can be fixed by employing mechanisms to shift money back into the system (which also relieves suffering of those at the bottom). Finally there are limited resources, or common needs which can most efficiently be dealt with by communal ownership/investment. So why not do it that way, instead of reinventing it in a for profit system (which by definition would mean less efficient)?
This results in a system which many call socialist. Indeed the Scandinavian systems are very close to what I would call "the most" practical.
I realize that the term socialism has a broad array of meanings, and I'm glad you've entered into this to help clarify the situation.
The only criticism I might have with anything you've stated, is how distant you portray Scandinavian systems from the narrow definition.
Instead of land, factories, and distribution networks and the like being owned by individuals or investors, they are controlled by, say, cooperatives and communes or worker elected councils. With this meaning, Scandinavia is definitely not socialist.
As far as I know, the markets are directly controlled by their gov'ts, which also have a large say in limiting company activities. They may step in as required. This is also true with regard to land ownership. Wouldn't that essentially be the same thing as communal ownership? Its just not constantly micromanaged by the commune.
That said, I am not an expert on these gov'ts, and am open to more info on the subject. Maybe they are more open than I thought.
I will often use each of these different meanings depending on context while trying to be careful to avoid equivocation.
I agree. Would you agree that NJ was not committing some huge error in referring to the Scandinavian nations as socialist (for sake of reference)? And that it is a bit heavy handed to claim that no socialist nation actually exists on the planet in reply to such a reference?
Or in any case, would you please give crash an enema?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 7:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 9:51 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 39 of 70 (439692)
12-09-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
12-09-2007 7:55 PM


Re: Fixing the system
Why did you assume, instead, that I simply hadn't ever heard of Sweden, Norway, or Denmark?
I never said, nor implied you'd never heard of the countries. The most I ever assumed, was that you might not be aware that they are socialist.
Why would I be ignorant of conditions in Sweden, particularly, having spent 5 years at a predominantly-Swedish college? I've known a number of Swedes. I hope to visit that country some day. I'm obviously not an expert on conditions there but why would you assume I was completely ignorant?
Despite all of this "experience" you have just repeated that they are not socialist. All I can say is that if you treat them on this subject in the same way you are treating me, you might not have such a great time after all.
The one thing I constantly received when I lived there, and from Scandinavians I have met elsewhere, were discussions of their socialism and its success. They usually use that as a counterpoint to US conservative ideas that say socialism has failed. Now clearly I am not stating that every Scandinavian says this, nor that all Scandinavians like socialism. But that was a common experience, and it was not disputed by the wiki cite... nor Moore's Sicko DVD, if you choose to check it out.
In any case, we are done here, and for some time to come. I did not rate your accusations or hostility. You need help... seriously.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 7:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2007 8:42 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 45 of 70 (439708)
12-09-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
12-09-2007 9:11 PM


Re: "Fair Tax" is no such thing...
Heheheh... I was pretty mean on the fair tax. But I tells ya, I can't stands it. What's interesting is that it isn't a conservative/liberal issue. Liberals such as Gravel and if I remember right even Frank Zappa have argued that this was a good system. Despite being a non-partisan issue, I do believe it is a class issue. And it does shift the burden onto the poorer elements of society.
Instead of answering your points one by one, let me try and answer them in a clearer discussion of the tax and how it would work (from my perspective).
The amount of money used by the gov't currently comes from (or is supposed to come from) the wealthier citizens and companies. That is as wealth is removed from circulation by any entity, a portion of that is taken by the gov't to cover services necessary to ensure the continued functioning of our nation. We currently "take" more from entities as they earn more, and we cannot take more than a person makes... which I realize is not the same as how much someone saves.
Taxing sales, means that the debt has shifted from entities removing capital from the system, to anyone inserting money into the system. As such it now penalizes, shifts the debt to, those who spend a greater portion of their income than others. That is by all practical reality, the poor. And since we are shifting the debt away from income, current sales taxes must increase. For those who are poor, that means they will be hit with a larger tax increase (as % of income). Let me use a hypothetical example...
The basic cost of living may be assumed to be equal for all people. For example let us say it costs on average $10K/yr for a single person to stay alive and functioning in modern America. Let us also say for sake of argument that $1K of that is in taxes (under the new policy).
For a person making 10K they are paying 10% of their income in taxes. For a person making 100K they would only be paying 1%, and so on up. The tax burden gets less as one makes more. The argument is often made that people making more will buy more and so pay more, but the point is that it is completely under their control. They DON'T have to buy more things. Whereas the poor MUST buy that same necessary amount... they cannot choose to buy less to reduce their burden. The GREATEST tax burden will be felt by those making the least, which is the very thing rich people are complaining about right now.
Framers of the sales tax realized at least one error, in that people who do not make a certain amount will be taxed out of existence. Thus they include a necessary "rebate" for purchases. So for sake of our example people making less than 10K would get money to make up the difference. The first problem with this is that it is impossible to accurately estimate what a person will need in purchases, so I'm not sure how the forward rebates will work so as not to strand people who had to make unexpected purchases.
The second problem has to do with filing paperwork on income. In order to receive the rebate people will need to file their income just the same as they always have. This is mentioned within the wiki article. The only people who will no longer be accountable for their income are those making more.
So this results in a double hit to the poorest section. Those earning the least will not see a change except for an increased tax burden (% wise).
The great illusion seems to be that people are free to choose how much they make and how much they MUST spend. This is not the case. If that were true sales tax might be a great system. That it is not, means those without power are stuck paying the tab.
I might also add Jar's points. The wealthy could easily make purchases outside the nation to save money. They could also use corporate accounts, or supplies, which apparently will not be taxed.
Regarding welfare, well that is another issue. What I'm arguing about here is explicitly the working poor. These people are not necessarily having anyone wipe their butts for them, and often enough must wipe the butts of everyone else just to keep food on the table. The less you make while WORKING, the more you MUST pay in taxes. That is a huge switch in taxation methodology.
And I want to restate an important point. Taxing sales actually penalizes those who are keeping the engine of our nation running. Markets require people spending, not saving. This form of taxation penalizes people for spending, and rewards saving. The working poor, who may already not be able to save, will have even less ability to save. And from a business standpoint it also sucks. You cannot sell things based on a market value, but rather based on the needs of the gov't. Let us not forget, under this system prices will have to go up and down based on the govt's needs. Why should I (as a business owner) have to be working for the US gov't?
Make sure, I am not saying we should stick with the current system... or bureaucracy. It sucks. I'm not one of the people arguing against everything you said in the OP. Only I don't find sales tax as a solution. I think the flat income tax (which has had mainly conservative proponents recently) is the best system. Without exemptions, and placed on a single payer basis, the bureaucracy would be greatly reduced.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2007 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 10:45 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 51 of 70 (439803)
12-10-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chiroptera
12-09-2007 10:45 PM


Re: "Fair Tax" is no such thing...
Well, the same thing could be said for a progressive tax structure.
Actually in my first post I made a nod toward progressive tax structures. I don't have anything against them ideologically, I just don't think they are necessary.
Perhaps I could put a better finger on my issue. It seems to me that progressive taxes are a way to spread the debt downward, whereas I figure it doesn't need to be. Find a limit above which we should take revenue, because it does not effect the person being taken from in any practical sense (i.e. its pure profit), and then set a tax rate.
So I won't fight a progressive tax structure, and I suppose there are some valid (i.e. appealing to me) arguments for at least a simple progressive tax structure. That is hit everything that is profit with a certain tax, and then extraordinary profit at another, and then obscene profits at yet another. The current progressive tax structure doesn't quite do that, instead trying to get as many as possible to pay, regardless of their profit margin.
I agree that its the deductions and exemptions that are the main contribution to complexity. And if these are not strongly stamped out, and held back, a flat tax system will become as bad as the old system.
All that said, I actually liked that negative tax scheme you proposed. There might need to be some work done to calculate the best amount, but it sort of makes sense.
One possible criticism would be that a person working full time (and not making 50K) will end up receiving a boost to the same level as a person working part time or not at all. This could be a "disincentive" to work... unless paid 50K or more.
Not saying that argument would do me in, just saying that is a possible angle for criticism.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 10:45 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 4:26 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 70 (439864)
12-10-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Chiroptera
12-10-2007 4:26 PM


Re: negative income tax
I think we are in almost complete agreement on this topic.
And thanks for spanking me on the math. If I hadn't been so lazy and actually tried using real numbers, instead of haphazardly running %'s through the creaky function machine in my head, I wouldn't have advanced the obviously incorrect criticism I did. Very dumb on my part.
That system is really looking good to me. Indeed I'd love to see what others might think.
Maybe someone should chuck it over to Obama or Kucinich and see if they'd run with it.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 4:26 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 6:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 70 (439873)
12-10-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Chiroptera
12-10-2007 6:01 PM


Re: negative income tax
In retrospect, I may not have been very clear, either.
No, you were clear. Even with the negatives (I did get that part). I was just an idiot and guesstimated the math. The spanking was necessary.
On the other hand, you did say you get paid for "that". You weren't very clear regarding what that was... spanking, math, both? Are you a dominatrix mathematician? Perhaps your salary would be the best clue. Heheheh.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 6:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024