Perry Proposes a Flat Tax

[Razgovory]

What is it you are buying into here?

I'm buying into the proposition that businesses provide goods and services to consumers in exchange for money.  And that if people are unhappy with the prices offered they are free to take their business elsewhere or to forego that good or service.

What about the Union leader and community activist rant?

[Neil]

What is it you are buying into here?

I'm buying into the proposition that businesses provide goods and services to consumers in exchange for money.  And that if people are unhappy with the prices offered they are free to take their business elsewhere or to forego that good or service.

What about the Union leader and community activist rant?

A good point.  A free marketeer should have no problem with union leaders.

[Admiral Yi]

What about the Union leader and community activist rant?

I don't follow.

[Admiral Yi]

A good point.  A free marketeer should have no problem with union leaders.

I have no problem with union leaders who are not backed up by the power of the state to close the shop.

[Neil]

A good point.  A free marketeer should have no problem with union leaders.

I have no problem with union leaders who are not backed up by the power of the state to close the shop.

Wouldn't you say that's a good compromise though?  After all, the other option is the October Revolution.

[Razgovory]

What about the Union leader and community activist rant?

I don't follow.

You never do.

[fhdz]

I have no problem with union leaders who are not backed up by the power of the state to close the shop.

Closed-shop unions are illegal in the US since Taft-Hartley. Do you mean something else? Like shops that aren't technically closed but are de facto closed?

[grumbler]

You have just articulated - unwittingly, apparently - why the argument I gave could be true, not why it would be untrue.

If it was articulate, and from Marti, it was unwitting. 

[grumbler]

Closed-shop unions are illegal in the US since Taft-Hartley. Do you mean something else? Like shops that aren't technically closed but are de facto closed?

Those wouldn't be backed by the power of the state, would they?

The problem with unions isn't unions, it is the beggar-they-neighbor mentality that labor leaders and corporate officers (or public officials, in the case of public unions) seem to adopt so often when unions are formed.  You'd seldom guess from their rhetoric that the purpose of both unions and corporations/government is to maximize the benefits received by their stakeholders.

[Monoriu]

Actually, HK does offer an option similar to what the opening post describes.  Either a tiered system with deductions, or a flat 15% tax with no deductions at all.  But here, there are only a few deduction items anyway.  Also, the tax department will automatically apply the tax rate that is most advantageous to you. 

[Sheilbh]

Closed-shop unions are illegal in the US since Taft-Hartley. Do you mean something else? Like shops that aren't technically closed but are de facto closed?/quote]
Really?  From the posts here I'd always assumed there were still closed shop unions in the US.

[garbon]

I'm buying into the proposition that businesses provide goods and services to consumers in exchange for money.  And that if people are unhappy with the prices offered they are free to take their business elsewhere or to forego that good or service.

Why were BoA and Chase customers arrested for attempting to move their money to credit unions a few days ago, then?

Because they were trying to block the entrance of the bank and cause mischief.  If they hadn't been trying to cause a scene for the press, they would have been able to go about their business.

They were members of the Occupy movement, and thus enemies of all mankind.

Yeah that was a rather weak example, fahdiz.

[The Brain]

Actually, HK does offer an option similar to what the opening post describes.  Either a tiered system with deductions, or a flat 15% tax with no deductions at all.  But here, there are only a few deduction items anyway.  Also, the tax department will automatically apply the tax rate that is most advantageous to you.

Great, but I don't think Communism is the answer.

[fhdz]

Really?  From the posts here I'd always assumed there were still closed shop unions in the US.

Nope. Not since 1947.

[The Minsky Moment]

Talking about philosophy and fairness with respect to calibrating tax rates on income strata is IMO a fool's errand.  For one thing it begs the question why income is the appropriate category to be taxing in the first place - as opposed to say wealth or consumption, or "social contribution" however measured.  Where I do think "fairness" comes into play is when the decision is made to tax income, but then different kinds of income streams are treated fundamentally differently, whether out of some misguided policy rationale ("boost savings") or because the privileged stream has a strong lobby behind it.  This is a big part of Buffet's critique of the code's treatment of cap gains, "carried interest" and the like.

With respect to the progressive rate structure specifically, it is interesting note that during the two world wars, the marginal rates on the top brackets hit very high levels, which I suppose indicates that when the chips are down, placing heavy tax burdens on the more wealthy strata is deemed an acceptable social outcome.  Whether that should apply to more permanent peacetime situation is another question, IMO historically the progessivity of the rate structure in the US is pretty flat right now and it doesn't seem unreasonable to steepen it out a little.