Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 How on Earth would everybody paying the same exact rate be unfair to somebody? I'd appreciate an explanation because I really suck at economics. And fwiw I make less than 100k and consider myself rich. Probably because I grew up moving from one imminently condemned pile of bricks to another. Like all things in life, it's a matter of perspective. That's why whenever I type the word "rich" I use the quotation marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 So now the "bare necessities" is rich? And why are we moving "around the world"? Because somehow you can equate $100K in the Bay Area to $100K in Laos? Nothing like continuing to show the weakness of your argument by trying to use emotion rather than fact. You let me know when you and your partner are making $100K a year with a kid in college and one in high school. I can guarantee that you won't feel anywhere near "rich". And using EII as a gauge ain't the greatest source... Except this thread isn't about YOUR perception of rich. It's about taxation and the amount of screwing the average middle class guy is going to take when another socialist hits the White House. So you try and see that as a "state of mind" while the rest of us live in reality. I might NOT be a great source... But, everybody else must be living in a screwed up market. Here I am, under 20 miles from Chicago and I am not nearly getting "ripped off" in the housing maket as others. I would say it is just like BFLO here, except better... There is an economy. The midwest does seem the best with this regards... I move my house even to your neck of the woods and I would get double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 And why are you for it? You want to punish the "rich" for being successful? If so you need to remove the quotations around socialist> In all reality if you so call "punish the rich"... Do you think they are going to stop working or "trying hard"... Hardly, they will just try harder. That is what made them rich in the first place, right? So all and all, isn't this the best kinda of "punishment"... Everybody wins! I just don't see 'em laying down to quit... On the contrary, it will make them work harder! Let's see what happens first... Let's see if "they take their ball and go home pouting", the "rich" that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 How on Earth would everybody paying the same exact rate be unfair to somebody? I'd appreciate an explanation because I really suck at economics. And fwiw I make less than 100k and consider myself rich. Probably because I grew up moving from one imminently condemned pile of bricks to another. Like all things in life, it's a matter of perspective. Ok just for simple example, lets say that you have a person making $10,000/yr and another making $1,000,000/yr. Now the gov't makes everyone pay 10% of their yearly income. So, this means that the $10,000/yr guy is paying $1,000 and is left with $9,000. This also means that the $1,000,000/yr guy is paying $100,000 and has $900,000 leftover. That $1000 means much more to the $10,000/ yr guy compared to the $100,000 does to the $1,000,000/yr guy. Chances are that the gov't will be assisting the $10,000/yr guy as it is. Now if the $10,000/yr guy has a lower tax rate, then it means that he will require less assistance and cuts out some of the money being traded back and forth between the citizen and gov't. Since the gov't needs to get back to the average 10% of everyone's income and the $1,000,000/yr guy has more income to take from, the gov't should and will tax this man at a higher rate than 10%. With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Ok just for simple example, lets say that you have a person making $10,000/yr and another making $1,000,000/yr. Now the gov't makes everyone pay 10% of their yearly income. So, this means that the $10,000/yr guy is paying $1,000 and is left with $9,000. This also means that the $1,000,000/yr guy is paying $100,000 and has $900,000 leftover. That $1000 means much more to the $10,000/ yr guy compared to the $100,000 does to the $1,000,000/yr guy. Chances are that the gov't will be assisting the $10,000/yr guy as it is. Now if the $10,000/yr guy has a lower tax rate, then it means that he will require less assistance and cuts out some of the money being traded back and forth between the citizen and gov't. Since the gov't needs to get back to the average 10% of everyone's income and the $1,000,000/yr guy has more income to take from, the gov't should and will tax this man at a higher rate than 10%. With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society. If you really want to learn something and discuss a "fair" tax, then we can discuss the 2% wealth tax idea. The basic premise is to eliminate ALL governmental taxes and fees (State, Federal, Local etc.), and levy a 2% tax on "wealth" on every person, no deductions. Of course, wealth can be a slightly subjective measure, but taxing you on the value of the insurance policies you hold could even the playing field (e.g., you may hide a Picasso painting in your house, but you sure as hell will insure it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 My favorite tax is a consumption tax (a national sales tax). Don't tax food, clothing, and a few other essentials. Tax everything else. People (including the poor) can thus avoid tax by avoiding purchasing non-essentials. It would have problems to enact because it would discourage spending but to me, it's the fairest tax there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If you really want to learn something and discuss a "fair" tax, then we can discuss the 2% wealth tax idea. The basic premise is to eliminate ALL governmental taxes and fees (State, Federal, Local etc.), and levy a 2% tax on "wealth" on every person, no deductions. Of course, wealth can be a slightly subjective measure, but taxing you on the value of the insurance policies you hold could even the playing field (e.g., you may hide a Picasso painting in your house, but you sure as hell will insure it). I don't know about that. Something rubs me the wrong way that hypothetically, the government will own your net worth in 50 years. Talk about encouraging bad behavior with that policy too. I'm assuming wealth is net worth, thus encouraging people to load up with debt and spend all their disposable income to avert wealth accumulation. So far, I haven't seen a fairer tax than a simple 18%-20% flat tax on all income, no deductions. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't know about that. Something rubs me the wrong way that hypothetically, the government will own your net worth in 50 years. Talk about encouraging bad behavior with that policy too. I'm assuming wealth is net worth, thus encouraging people to load up with debt and spend all their disposable income to avert wealth accumulation. So far, I haven't seen a fairer tax than a simple 18%-20% flat tax on all income, no deductions. Period. It is net worth. Problem is defining "income" with your flat tax. Take the painting example, when do you realize "income" ? At the sale? What if you don't sell? Under the wealth tax idea, the government realizes revenues annually from the value of the underlying insurance policy. The wealth tax idea may not be perfect, but it would be plenty enough to fund the government and then some. It would alos accelerate the economy into overdrive...pretty much indefinately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 It is net worth. Problem is defining "income" with your flat tax. Take the painting example, when do you realize "income" ? At the sale? What if you don't sell? Under the wealth tax idea, the government realizes revenues annually from the value of the underlying insurance policy. The wealth tax idea may not be perfect, but it would be plenty enough to fund the government and then some. It would alos accelerate the economy into overdrive...pretty much indefinately. Definition of income is the same as today. For the painting, no recognition until a capital event happens. The biggest problem that I see with taxing net worth is that you'll introduce a significant incentive to engage in highly risky behavior that runs counter to long term financial stability - ie wealth accumulation vs rampant consumption. Tax the income once, and let people accumulate the wealth. If they want to live off the fat of their net worth, so be it, they earned it. But eventually, they'll need to replenish the asset base with more income, and that will be taxed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 That $1000 means much more to the $10,000/ yr guy compared to the $100,000 does to the $1,000,000/yr guy. I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. If you're somehow living on 10,000/year, you essentially have nothing. Making 1000 less means you still have nothing. There's really no more appreciable lifestyle difference for either the poor guy or the rich guy. With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society. I'm all for noblesse oblige but when the act moves from voluntary to compulsory, you quickly begin moving away from the area of democracy. And this still is the United States. At least for now anyways........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society. I agree but don't see why it's right to enforce that platitude at gunpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 That $1000 means much more to the $10,000/ yr guy compared to the $100,000 does to the $1,000,000/yr guy. How do you know? Have you been in both of those situations or done a study that measures such impact? Chances are that the gov't will be assisting the $10,000/yr guy as it is. Yes, which means that on a net contribution basis, the $1MM guy is already contributing a larger %. Now if the $10,000/yr guy has a lower tax rate, then it means that he will require less assistance and cuts out some of the money being traded back and forth between the citizen and gov't. Except your "I hate anyone more successful than me" crowd doesn't want to reduce the hand outs, just increase the taxes, without understanding what happens when you put an increasing burden on a decrease minority of the population. With great amounts of wealth comes the responsibility to share the wealth and to cover for the poor in society. What??? Says who? Anymore pathetic platitudes you'd like to share in lieu of an actual argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 If you really want to learn something and discuss a "fair" tax, then we can discuss the 2% wealth tax idea. The basic premise is to eliminate ALL governmental taxes and fees (State, Federal, Local etc.), and levy a 2% tax on "wealth" on every person, no deductions. Of course, wealth can be a slightly subjective measure, but taxing you on the value of the insurance policies you hold could even the playing field (e.g., you may hide a Picasso painting in your house, but you sure as hell will insure it). I find much more value in a picasso pizza than a picasso painting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 How do you know? Have you been in both of those situations or done a study that measures such impact? Yes, which means that on a net contribution basis, the $1MM guy is already contributing a larger %. Except your "I hate anyone more successful than me" crowd doesn't want to reduce the hand outs, just increase the taxes, without understanding what happens when you put an increasing burden on a decrease minority of the population. What??? Says who? Anymore pathetic platitudes you'd like to share in lieu of an actual argument? Doesn't take much to realize that $1,000 means more to the person earning $10k as compared to someone making $100k. And I believe he's right, with great wealth one SHOULD try to help out when they can. Not saying that they have to, just makes to help out in some way. And really the wealthy person can donate money to a charity, help out someone less fortunate, and then have that extra tax deduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 And really the wealthy person can donate money to a charity, help out someone less fortunate, and then have that extra tax deduction. That's a brilliant idea. Because as we all know the affluent have no charitable intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Doesn't take much to realize that $1,000 means more to the person earning $10k as compared to someone making $100k. And I believe he's right, with great wealth one SHOULD try to help out when they can. Not saying that they have to, just makes to help out in some way. And really the wealthy person can donate money to a charity, help out someone less fortunate, and then have that extra tax deduction. You're not saying they have to--the government just takes the money regardless. Imagine a world where people actually chose the charities they gave to instead of being forced to give at gunpoint. I bet you'd see a lot more efficient charities than you do now (look at how much better the private charities operate than the govt programs already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Doesn't take much to realize that $1,000 means more to the person earning $10k as compared to someone making $100k. Nope, just a slanted POV. And I believe he's right, with great wealth one SHOULD try to help out when they can. Not saying that they have to, just makes to help out in some way. Sure, as an option. But that's not what he is proposing. And I believe he's right, with great And really the wealthy person can donate money to a charity, help out someone less fortunate, and then have that extra tax deduction. Yes they can, and usually do. So why not just eliminate the inefficient middle man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Nope, just a slanted POV. Sure, as an option. But that's not what he is proposing. Yes they can, and usually do. So why not just eliminate the inefficient middle man? How is it a slanted POV? If I was only making $10k per year I would fight for/hold on to that $1k toe and nail. Whereas some people making $100k are more likely to spend $1k on frivolous items. Getting rid of the middle-am cuts out the wealthy gaining something in return for their kindness (deduction)... and it makes the "handout" statement that much louder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 How is it a slanted POV? If I was only making $10k per year I would fight for/hold on to that $1k toe and nail. Whereas some people making $100k are more likely to spend $1k on frivolous items. Getting rid of the middle-am cuts out the wealthy gaining something in return for their kindness (deduction)... and it makes the "handout" statement that much louder. A little loopy today? Dude, you're way, way off base with that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 A little loopy today? Dude, you're way, way off base with that statement. I'm actually spending less on frivolous stuff and ramping up my savings. He'll learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts