Debates
04 Jan 10
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWell, we are getting into "how to fix the tax code" now. How to do that is NOT just jack up rates on the rich.
When one person owns so much of the wealth, lots of money that could be circulating in commerce sits in a bank somewhere. A person making $50,000 per year is likely to spend the vast majority of his earnings, thus, keeping the economy going and benefiting everyone (including the rich). A person making $50,000,000 per year is likely to live a lavish ...[text shortened]... e class. What would that do to our economy and how would it affect the rich who got a tax cut?
Briefly, you have to treat people and businesses the same -- both have income, both have necessary expenses. So the goal is -- tax the part of income that is above necessary expenses. Also, income is income -- doesn't matter earned or unearned. Who cares?
So you put in place one simple system where people look at what the "got" and deduct what they "had to spend" to maintain themselves -- and you flat tax the rest. Same system applies almost universally, so the maintenance and compliance costs go way down.
I also like the negative income tax as a way of providing for the truly poor and indigent.
05 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358False.
you have to treat people and businesses the same -- both have income, both have necessary expenses.
Legal entities have the same attributes as the physical persons except
certain civil law acts (marriage, adoption, etc.) but they enjoy certain
features which make them privileged, e.g. shares for trade, immortality, and
most importantly, limited liability (unless the business is established as
a partnership, sole trader, etc.)
Hence, business and persons cannot be treated the same.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOr worthless speculation.
But to have a monopoly on frozen pizza, now that might be quite lucrative.
Why -- in your perspective -- is monopolisation wrong?
Monopolization tempts people into a kind of commercial warfare, and warfare is never productive. So one of the few government functions I support is ensuring fair competition.
A monopolist who tries to unfairly force his competition out of business is no better than a country trying to force another country give up territory. It should be strongly discouraged -- although I admit it is a delicate matter to sort out when it occurs.
05 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseOK, I know they are not the same. I meant strictly from the taxation standpoint, if you decide to tax income, it is "reasonable" to treat "entities" such as people and businesses similarly. I say this because I think the US is on an unhealthy trend w.r.t. taxing corporations at a higher rate.*
False.
Legal entities have the same attributes as the physical persons except
certain civil law acts (marriage, adoption, etc.) but they enjoy certain
features which make them privileged, e.g. shares for trade, immortality, and
most importantly, [b]limited liability (unless the business is established as
a partnership, sole trader, etc.)
Hence, business and persons cannot be treated the same.[/b]
We also give WAY too many tax breaks for real estate ownership. A third of storefronts in the US are empty -- and people are still building strip malls for the tax write-off.
(all together now)..."Government screwing around ALWAYS increases costs."
* I think because corporations are "rich" -- deep pockets, easy target, etc.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358I think you nailed it.
OK, I know they are not the same. I meant strictly from the taxation standpoint, if you decide to tax income, it is "reasonable" to treat "entities" such as people and businesses similarly. I say this because I think the US is on an unhealthy trend w.r.t. taxing corporations at a higher rate.*
We also give WAY too many tax breaks for real estate owne ...[text shortened]... costs."
* I think because corporations are "rich" -- deep pockets, easy target, etc.
If they are being taxed more just because they have deeper pockets,
it may be arguable of course. However, if they are being taxed more
because they have the privilege of limited liability, that makes sense
from the proportional treatment point of view... as long as the entity
is making taxable profit, of course.
It's like having a concession. It is a privilege not everybody has so
a different treatment in exchange is reasonable.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358You've pretty much nailed it. In more specific terms, the now very low tax rates on the upper middle class and rich mean that many factors of production are being wasted on things that generate little or no utility, while they could be used for things that benefit all including the upper middle class and rich.
So in your view is that higher taxes just consume a lot of excess money that was sitting around that nobody cared about anyway?
And that money can be put to use in highly productive social programs that will cause people to turn away from a life of crime, get an education, and start living right?
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by SeitseI don't consider the environment a 'who', the environment doesn't have an expense without a person or persons to assess a value. So we're back to 'whose expense' not 'whose and what'. Unless the 'what' is referring to an amount but again we need a 'who'.
I would agree with you... if you consider the environment a 'who' instead of a 'what'.
Limited liability is only a matter of contract, granting it or not should be taken out of the hands of gummint.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by spruce112358We can't possibly have a flat tax without having enormous tax increases for the poor and middle class. And these are the people that will actually take that money and put it back into the economy by spending it.
Well, we are getting into "how to fix the tax code" now. How to do that is NOT just jack up rates on the rich.
Briefly, you have to treat people and businesses the same -- both have income, both have necessary expenses. So the goal is -- tax the part of income that is above necessary expenses. Also, income is income -- doesn't matter earned or unearn ...[text shortened]... also like the negative income tax as a way of providing for the truly poor and indigent.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSure we can. Where did you get this fiction from?
We can't possibly have a flat tax without having enormous tax increases for the poor and middle class. And these are the people that will actually take that money and put it back into the economy by spending it.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by WajomaJust because clean air, trees, drinkable water, and flora and fauna diversity
I don't consider the environment a 'who', the environment doesn't have an expense without a person or persons to assess a value. So we're back to 'whose expense' not 'whose and what'. Unless the 'what' is referring to an amount but again we need a 'who'.
Limited liability is only a matter of contract, granting it or not should be taken out of the hands of gummint.
do not have a price tag attached, it doesn't mean they're not valuable. Moreover,
we all, persons (who), suffer when somebody profits in detriment of the
environment. There is also a value involved in cultural environments, by the way.
Regarding limited liability... it simply should not exist as a legal device.
The reason for companies is the reduction of transaction costs. Limited liability was
thought originally as a mean to pool capital in an easier way but it has been abused
beyond reason.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by SeitseTake it easy guy, I was just saying that a 'what' does not have an expense only a 'who' can. Didn't sat anything about drinkable water not having a value. Or any of that other stuff.
Just because clean air, trees, drinkable water, and flora and fauna diversity
do not have a price tag attached, it doesn't mean they're not valuable. Moreover,
we all, persons (who), suffer when somebody profits in detriment of the
environment. There is also a value involved in cultural environments, by the way.
Regarding limited liability... it simply ...[text shortened]... originally as a mean to pool capital in an easier way but it has been abused
beyond reason.
Limited liability: It should exist as a matter of contract between two consenting parties.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by WajomaIn most contracts, the two consenting parties are not the only ones affected. That's part of Seitse's first point.
Take it easy guy, I was just saying that a 'what' does not have an expense only a 'who' can. Didn't sat anything about drinkable water not having a value. Or any of that other stuff.
Limited liability: It should exist as a matter of contract between two consenting parties.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe fairest tax is a flat poll tax, plus pay for any services you use. Come election time you'd see some serious promises of guvamint scope reduction...niiiiiiiccceeeee.
We can't possibly have a flat tax without having enormous tax increases for the poor and middle class. And these are the people that will actually take that money and put it back into the economy by spending it.
You make the same mistake KN does, rich folk don't just fill their swimming pool with money and frolic around in it. They're always looking to invest and there are a few thousand people on the project I'm on grateful that there are people with the balls and the muli-million dollar resources to invest and risk and build something so big. If I believed in God I'd be on my knees thanking him that the wealth redistributionists didn't get their hands on it first.