So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is one of those populist BS stuff that pisses me off. Those houses were bought from taxed incomes. So why should they be able to go around discriminating people for the kind of houses they bought?
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is the UK so I presume this means every home? :P
Quote from: Valmy on September 23, 2014, 12:05:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is the UK so I presume this means every home? :P
:D
Houses over 2 million pounds. In the area I live, that is 5 bedrooms.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
Those houses were bought from taxed incomes.
What does this have to do with anything? At the store you pay with taxed income, but you still have to pay a sales tax (or vatever the equivalent is). Your employer is paying you with taxed income. And your employer's customers paid your employer with their taxed income. Oh, the horror! :o
It's taxes all the way down.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
Those houses were bought from taxed incomes.
Not necessarily so.
Lots of expensive property in the UK is in the hands of wealthy foreigners and lots of our wealthy take part in various tax avoidance and overseas banking schemes.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2014, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
Those houses were bought from taxed incomes.
What does this have to do with anything? At the store you pay with taxed income, but you still have to pay a sales tax (or vatever the equivalent is). Your employer is paying you with taxed income. And your employer's customers paid your employer with their taxed income. Oh, the horror! :o
Exactly. I hate these circular tax arguments. We heard it with inheritance tax ad nauseum.
However, I do think it's populist nonsense to link NHS funding to a mansion tax. A mansion tax may well be a good thing, extra NHS funding may be a good thing. But why do the two have to be linked?
In any event I'd rather a heavy tax on homes left empty for more than 6 months. Sick of my city's precious housing stock being used as a vehicle for capital growth by furriners so well off they don't even want any income from it.
There are similar "mansion" taxes in both NY and NJ. It's a little silly as in Manhattan a very nice 1 BR apartment can cross the threshhold for a "mansion". In any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt the RE market too much.
Like Gups said, linking these one to one is a Populist hat-trick, but taxing Russian plutocrats with 16th Century Elizabethan mansions to pay for the healthcare of poor second-generation Jamaican Brits doesn't seem like completely terrible policy or an injustice.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is one of those populist BS stuff that pisses me off. Those houses were bought from taxed incomes. So why should they be able to go around discriminating people for the kind of houses they bought?
Because capitalism preys on the poor. The government is only doing it job of leveling the field.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 23, 2014, 12:27:00 PM
Like Gups said, linking these one to one is a Populist hat-trick, but taxing Russian plutocrats with 16th Century Elizabethan mansions to pay for the healthcare of poor second-generation Jamaican Brits doesn't seem like completely terrible policy or an injustice.
But the proposal doesn't differentiate between owners who are bad people and those who are nice.
Unless you want to go full Seedy and argue anyone with an expensive house is by definition a douchebag.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2014, 12:28:23 PM
Because capitalism preys on the poor.
Now that the Capitalists do not use the poor for labor anymore in the first world I am not sure what value the poor have as prey anymore. I mean I guess if you are running some sort of payday loan service or something.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 12:33:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 23, 2014, 12:27:00 PM
Like Gups said, linking these one to one is a Populist hat-trick, but taxing Russian plutocrats with 16th Century Elizabethan mansions to pay for the healthcare of poor second-generation Jamaican Brits doesn't seem like completely terrible policy or an injustice.
But the proposal doesn't differentiate between owners who are bad people and those who are nice.
Unless you want to go full Seedy and argue anyone with an expensive house is by definition a douchebag.
If they're not then they shouldn't have a problem with helping poor sick people :p
Funniest thing is that this would I believe affect a LOT of poor people, as I have seen many such 5+ bedroom houses divided into house share arrangements. Will the owners cough up the tax or raise the rent to pay for it, I wonder?
And "already taxed income" IS a valid argument. If you want to punish somebody for being legal and successful, tax him/her more income tax, which is already the case btw. If the wealth was accured illegally, bring him/her to justice.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
Funniest thing is that this would I believe affect a LOT of poor people, as I have seen many such 5+ bedroom houses divided into house share arrangements. Will the owners cough up the tax or raise the rent to pay for it, I wonder?
I doubt there are many poor people living in £2m houses. At conservative yield of 3%, the rent would be £60,000 pa. or £12K a bedroom.
5 bed houses for house share tend to be in zones 3 and outwards and won't reach the £2m mark. There are less than 100,000 houses of that value in the whole of the UK most of them owner-occupied. So very unlikely to affect a LOT of poor people
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
And "already taxed income" IS a valid argument.
If you say so.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
And "already taxed income" IS a valid argument.
If you say so.
Point is, it is a stupid popular shittie thing. They just had to figure out something envious people would approve, and use it as an excuse for what will pay for their election-promise spree-spending. Hence the thread title.
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:36:23 PM
If they're not then they shouldn't have a problem with helping poor sick people :p
At what income or wealth level does that logic no longer apply?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:36:23 PM
If they're not then they shouldn't have a problem with helping poor sick people :p
At what income or wealth level does that logic no longer apply?
Just above Tyr's
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 01:05:21 PM
Just above Tyr's
Probably couldn't assemble an electoral majority at that level.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:36:23 PM
If they're not then they shouldn't have a problem with helping poor sick people :p
At what income or wealth level does that logic no longer apply?
It doesn't.
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 01:08:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:36:23 PM
If they're not then they shouldn't have a problem with helping poor sick people :p
At what income or wealth level does that logic no longer apply?
It doesn't.
Yes.
It's reassuring in a way, that we have so few librarytarians over here, we have to import them. :cool:
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:54:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
And "already taxed income" IS a valid argument.
If you say so.
Point is, it is a stupid popular shittie thing. They just had to figure out something envious people would approve, and use it as an excuse for what will pay for their election-promise spree-spending. Hence the thread title.
Probably, but that says nothing about the validity of the argument that taxing taxed money is an unspeakable evil.
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2014, 01:14:52 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:54:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2014, 12:52:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
And "already taxed income" IS a valid argument.
If you say so.
Point is, it is a stupid popular shittie thing. They just had to figure out something envious people would approve, and use it as an excuse for what will pay for their election-promise spree-spending. Hence the thread title.
Probably, but that says nothing about the validity of the argument that taxing taxed money is an unspeakable evil.
Its not. It is merely unethical.
Quote from: mongers on September 23, 2014, 01:14:05 PM
It's reassuring in a way, that we have so few librarytarians over here, we have to import them. :cool:
I bet people opposing the "bedroom tax" support this idea.
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
Those houses were bought from taxed incomes.
Not necessarily so.
Lots of expensive property in the UK is in the hands of wealthy foreigners and lots of our wealthy take part in various tax avoidance and overseas banking schemes.
Exactly what I thought, unless bribes to Putin and donations to Al Queda count as "tax".
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2014, 02:09:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
Those houses were bought from taxed incomes.
Not necessarily so.
Lots of expensive property in the UK is in the hands of wealthy foreigners and lots of our wealthy take part in various tax avoidance and overseas banking schemes.
Exactly what I thought, unless bribes to Putin and donations to Al Queda count as "tax".
If it is illegal, sue them. If there are loopholes, fix them. Everything else is bullshit excuse for dirty populism aimed to please the plebs.
Better populism that actually does propose to do a good thing than the standard brand of right wing "Foreigners are all benefits grubbing gypsies!" populism.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 02:23:10 PM
If it is illegal, sue them. If there are loopholes, fix them. Everything else is bullshit excuse for dirty populism aimed to please the plebs.
Is there anything about democracy you like? :P
I don't see the issue with this. We've got very low property taxes by international standards, especially when you compare London (which'll pay 90% of this tax) to, say, New York or Paris. Hopefully, though this is probably optimistic, it'll take a little air out of the bubble.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
I don't see the issue with this. We've got very low property taxes by international standards, especially when you compare London (which'll pay 90% of this tax) to, say, New York or Paris. Hopefully, though this is probably optimistic, it'll take a little air out of the bubble.
Then presumably taxes should be raised on everyone.
The current property taxes are regressive, I would prefer to see them replaced with a pro rata tax on the value of real estate. This would also raise far more money than the token "mansion tax" nonsense.
The residential property tax in the UK is known as the Council Tax. The highest band of house worth millions pays only 3x what someone living in a one-room hovel would pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#Current_bands
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 03:19:17 PM
Then presumably taxes should be raised on everyone.
I've no issue with that. Council tax is based on property values in 1993 which is mad. Though I think an important part of the bubble is investment purchases of these properties. In London less than half of the houses with this valuation are even occupied and foreign owners are responsible for over 50% of purchases (and, until next year, don't pay CGT if they're non-doms). Personally I'd want to deflate it at the top and build Surrey for the rest :)
Personally though I'd far rather see a land value tax.
What is the worst of the human emotions?
If only there were easily recognizable pillars of leftdom lying around somewhere.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 02:23:10 PM
If it is illegal, sue them. If there are loopholes, fix them. Everything else is bullshit excuse for dirty populism aimed to please the plebs.
Is there anything about democracy you like? :P
I don't see the issue with this. We've got very low property taxes by international standards, especially when you compare London (which'll pay 90% of this tax) to, say, New York or Paris. Hopefully, though this is probably optimistic, it'll take a little air out of the bubble.
I love little of democracy's marriage with the welfare state, yes, because I think it is a corrosive combination that is counterproductive. To solve this, I am not suggesting dropping democracy (although I would be very willing to accept some kind of solution which would limit influence on the budget to voters who actually contribute to it), I am suggesting cutting the welfare state.
Democracy adopting the welfare state saved it :blink:
Quote(although I would be very willing to accept some kind of solution which would limit influence on the budget to voters who actually contribute to it)
So the elderly who've contributed for 40 years? The disabled? Everyone pays VAT, or does that not count?
One beet, one vote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2014, 03:53:32 PM
Democracy adopting the welfare state saved it :blink:
Quote(although I would be very willing to accept some kind of solution which would limit influence on the budget to voters who actually contribute to it)
So the elderly who've contributed for 40 years? The disabled? Everyone pays VAT, or does that not count?
I think Tamas wants a return to the poor laws and the workhouse. :bowler:
I would be in favor of supermajority requirements for any fiscal legislation that is not strictly proportional; i.e. an increase in the progressivity of the existing income tax rates.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2014, 03:53:32 PM
Democracy adopting the welfare state saved it :blink:
Quote(although I would be very willing to accept some kind of solution which would limit influence on the budget to voters who actually contribute to it)
So the elderly who've contributed for 40 years? The disabled? Everyone pays VAT, or does that not count?
He's reaching the terminal stages of libertarianism. :( The limiting of democracy to destroy the evils of welfare.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 03:50:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 23, 2014, 03:14:25 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 02:23:10 PM
If it is illegal, sue them. If there are loopholes, fix them. Everything else is bullshit excuse for dirty populism aimed to please the plebs.
Is there anything about democracy you like? :P
I don't see the issue with this. We've got very low property taxes by international standards, especially when you compare London (which'll pay 90% of this tax) to, say, New York or Paris. Hopefully, though this is probably optimistic, it'll take a little air out of the bubble.
I love little of democracy's marriage with the welfare state, yes, because I think it is a corrosive combination that is counterproductive. To solve this, I am not suggesting dropping democracy (although I would be very willing to accept some kind of solution which would limit influence on the budget to voters who actually contribute to it), I am suggesting cutting the welfare state.
The welfare state is the only thing keeping you alive & out of trenches.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
The welfare state is the only thing keeping you alive & out of trenches.
Ooh, tough guy.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 04:04:36 PM
I would be in favor of supermajority requirements for any fiscal legislation that is not strictly proportional; i.e. an increase in the progressivity of the existing income tax rates.
:bleeding: I don't support them ever.
Also lots and lots of people don't vote in accordance with their economic self-interest. In fact I think if you were to weigh it up cultural values matter far, far more.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 04:04:36 PM
I would be in favor of supermajority requirements for any fiscal legislation that is not strictly proportional; i.e. an increase in the progressivity of the existing income tax rates.
Big surprise!
Quote from: Gups on September 23, 2014, 12:49:25 PM
I doubt there are many poor people living in £2m houses.
Depends. Is it a farm?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
The welfare state is the only thing keeping you alive & out of trenches.
What keeps us out of trenches, in fact, are nuclear weapons.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2014, 03:42:53 PM
What is the worst of the human emotions?
:moon:
Oh you said "emotions"...
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 05:46:41 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
The welfare state is the only thing keeping you alive & out of trenches.
What keeps us out of trenches, in fact, are nuclear weapons.
And tanks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 04:42:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2014, 04:38:22 PM
Big surprise!
So is this!
Heh. A year or so I suggested that Libertarians aren't really so keen on democracy. You called bullshit. I think this proves my point.
Sometimes democracy does in fact suck. Like when the southerners all voted for segregation. Popular opinion isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 23, 2014, 06:03:19 PM
Sometimes democracy does in fact suck. Like when the southerners all voted for segregation. Popular opinion isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I think the fact they used terror and disenfranchisement to create segregation sort of weakens the argument that it was flaw in Democracy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 23, 2014, 03:26:53 PM
The current property taxes are regressive, I would prefer to see them replaced with a pro rata tax on the value of real estate. This would also raise far more money than the token "mansion tax" nonsense.
The residential property tax in the UK is known as the Council Tax. The highest band of house worth millions pays only 3x what someone living in a one-room hovel would pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#Current_bands
What does the denominator represent in that table Tricky? I can't be fannied to read the whole freakin article.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is one of those populist BS stuff that pisses me off. Those houses were bought from taxed incomes. So why should they be able to go around discriminating people for the kind of houses they bought?
You're better off taxing property and sales than income.
Income tax can be dodged. Even some part of the sales tax can be avoided. But you buy a house with dirty money, they will always get you there, unless you decide to really live permantly in the Virgin Island of the Isle of Man. But then you'd have to pay sales tax on your hotel room for when you are in the UK...
Quote from: DGuller on September 23, 2014, 05:53:18 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 05:46:41 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 23, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
The welfare state is the only thing keeping you alive & out of trenches.
What keeps us out of trenches, in fact, are nuclear weapons.
And tanks.
airplanes, most likely.
There were trenches in WW2 :rolleyes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 23, 2014, 06:03:19 PM
Sometimes democracy does in fact suck. Like when the southerners all voted for segregation. Popular opinion isn't all it's cracked up to be.
That's why it is today assumed that when one is talking about democracy one in fact means the so-called liberal democracy, which guarantees certain protections to the rights of minorities. Otherwise, democracy is just a mob-rule and usually ends up simply legitimising tyranny.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2014, 11:27:15 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is one of those populist BS stuff that pisses me off. Those houses were bought from taxed incomes. So why should they be able to go around discriminating people for the kind of houses they bought?
You're better off taxing property and sales than income.
Income tax can be dodged. Even some part of the sales tax can be avoided. But you buy a house with dirty money, they will always get you there, unless you decide to really live permantly in the Virgin Island of the Isle of Man. But then you'd have to pay sales tax on your hotel room for when you are in the UK...
If anything Greece shows us that propertytax can be dodged too
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 23, 2014, 08:30:56 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 23, 2014, 03:26:53 PM
The current property taxes are regressive, I would prefer to see them replaced with a pro rata tax on the value of real estate. This would also raise far more money than the token "mansion tax" nonsense.
The residential property tax in the UK is known as the Council Tax. The highest band of house worth millions pays only 3x what someone living in a one-room hovel would pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax#Current_bands
What does the denominator represent in that table Tricky? I can't be fannied to read the whole freakin article.
It is just a made up number I think. The TLDR thing is to look at the England average council tax figures and then compare it with the property value band, remembering that the property values are those of 20 years ago, so most houses are worth at least twice what their council tax band says they are.
Quote from: viper37 on September 23, 2014, 11:27:15 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
So, the Labour Party wants to finance the NHS by putting extra tax on expensive homes.
This is one of those populist BS stuff that pisses me off. Those houses were bought from taxed incomes. So why should they be able to go around discriminating people for the kind of houses they bought?
You're better off taxing property and sales than income.
Income tax can be dodged. Even some part of the sales tax can be avoided. But you buy a house with dirty money, they will always get you there, unless you decide to really live permantly in the Virgin Island of the Isle of Man. But then you'd have to pay sales tax on your hotel room for when you are in the UK...
Yeah, I think I prefer VAT over the income tax for the reasons you outlined, although worth noting that it is quite possible to be "tricky" with VAT as well.
So I would probable be game for replacing income tax with a higher VAT and a property tax. But this Labour idea isn't a real property tax now, is it? It's a "single out a topic the masses envy and designate that as the target to punish in order to get a better society" populist bullshit.
Are property taxes levied on the value of the structure (ie the house) or the just the value of the land?
One reason I'm not terribly keen on property taxes is that they are not based on the ability to pay. Why aren't local income taxes more widely used?
Quote from: Tyr on September 23, 2014, 12:18:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 12:02:54 PM
Those houses were bought from taxed incomes.
Not necessarily so.
Lots of expensive property in the UK is in the hands of wealthy foreigners and lots of our wealthy take part in various tax avoidance and overseas banking schemes.
Lower the taxes so investing at home become more profitable than overseas.
Quote from: Warspite on September 24, 2014, 05:39:32 AM
Are property taxes levied on the value of the structure (ie the house) or the just the value of the land?
One reason I'm not terribly keen on property taxes is that they are not based on the ability to pay. Why aren't local income taxes more widely used?
I don't get that either. It doesn't do anybody any good for the government to seize some poor guy's house/farm/whatever due to inability to pay the tax bill. It just facilitates the transfer of property and assets from the poor to the rich.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2014, 12:26:30 PM
There are similar "mansion" taxes in both NY and NJ. It's a little silly as in Manhattan a very nice 1 BR apartment can cross the threshhold for a "mansion". In any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt the RE market too much.
Yeah, we have a similar tax here. Introduced decades ago it was thought to be a kind of "luxury tax" at the time but the threshold was never changed and so all property is now over the threshold by some amount. It has been a good source of revenue for the Provincial government.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2014, 03:50:23 PM
I love little of democracy's marriage with the welfare state, yes, because I think it is a corrosive combination that is counterproductive. To solve this, I am not suggesting dropping democracy (although I would be very willing to accept some kind of solution which would limit influence on the budget to voters who actually contribute to it), I am suggesting cutting the welfare state.
In what way is the welfare state counterproductive and for whom?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 24, 2014, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: Warspite on September 24, 2014, 05:39:32 AM
Are property taxes levied on the value of the structure (ie the house) or the just the value of the land?
One reason I'm not terribly keen on property taxes is that they are not based on the ability to pay. Why aren't local income taxes more widely used?
I don't get that either. It doesn't do anybody any good for the government to seize some poor guy's house/farm/whatever due to inability to pay the tax bill. It just facilitates the transfer of property and assets from the poor to the rich.
In Canada local governments cannot levy income taxes - and it would be a bit tricky to do so on the rich who would just declare their residency to be outside that jurisdiction. Property values are in part a function of the infrastructure built to accommodate that property. The argument that the property owner shouldn't pay for that benefit isnt very persuasive to me.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2014, 06:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2014, 12:26:30 PM
There are similar "mansion" taxes in both NY and NJ. It's a little silly as in Manhattan a very nice 1 BR apartment can cross the threshhold for a "mansion". In any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt the RE market too much.
Yeah, we have a similar tax here. Introduced decades ago it was thought to be a kind of "luxury tax" at the time but the threshold was never changed and so all property is now over the threshold by some amount. It has been a good source of revenue for the Provincial government.
It may be a needed revenue for that particular government, but "good source of revenue" in general terms is a horrible justification for a tax.
Quote from: Tamas on September 25, 2014, 06:16:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2014, 06:00:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 23, 2014, 12:26:30 PM
There are similar "mansion" taxes in both NY and NJ. It's a little silly as in Manhattan a very nice 1 BR apartment can cross the threshhold for a "mansion". In any case, it doesn't seem to have hurt the RE market too much.
Yeah, we have a similar tax here. Introduced decades ago it was thought to be a kind of "luxury tax" at the time but the threshold was never changed and so all property is now over the threshold by some amount. It has been a good source of revenue for the Provincial government.
It may be a needed revenue for that particular government, but "good source of revenue" in general terms is a horrible justification for a tax.
Are you suggesting that needed tax revenue should be raised from bad sources of revenue?
Quote from: Siege on September 24, 2014, 06:23:45 AM
Lower the taxes so investing at home become more profitable than overseas.
What we need to do is increase taxes overseas.
Quote from: Warspite on September 24, 2014, 05:39:32 AM
One reason I'm not terribly keen on property taxes is that they are not based on the ability to pay. Why aren't local income taxes more widely used?
Because then Texas can say 'we have no income taxes! Pay no attention to the giant property taxes behind the curtain'
Quote from: Queequeg on September 23, 2014, 12:27:00 PM
Like Gups said, linking these one to one is a Populist hat-trick, but taxing Russian plutocrats with 16th Century Elizabethan mansions to pay for the healthcare of poor second-generation Jamaican Brits doesn't seem like completely terrible policy or an injustice.
Mosley 2014.
P.S. I'm kidding.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2014, 06:08:33 PM
In Canada local governments cannot levy income taxes - and it would be a bit tricky to do so on the rich who would just declare their residency to be outside that jurisdiction. Property values are in part a function of the infrastructure built to accommodate that property. The argument that the property owner shouldn't pay for that benefit isnt very persuasive to me.
I think it is correct that property owners and residents should pay for the local services they consume and the infrastructure that benefits them.
But I'm just not sure it's appropriate to levy any tax unrelated to the ability to pay.
Quote from: Warspite on September 26, 2014, 05:29:52 AM
But I'm just not sure it's appropriate to levy any tax unrelated to the ability to pay.
Agreed but Tamas is making the opposite argument.
Btw to address your concern, under our system, and probably others, low income property owners (normally retired folks on fixed incomes) can apply for property tax exemptions or rebates.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2014, 08:40:39 PM
Agreed but Tamas is making the opposite argument.
Btw to address your concern, under our system, and probably others, low income property owners (normally retired folks on fixed incomes) can apply for property tax exemptions or rebates.
Wouldn't it be easier just to have a complete exemption for all property valued lower than X amount?
You'd still have to do something for farmers, but that would catch most poor people and require less work than shuffling an exemption for each one of them.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 26, 2014, 09:06:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 26, 2014, 08:40:39 PM
Agreed but Tamas is making the opposite argument.
Btw to address your concern, under our system, and probably others, low income property owners (normally retired folks on fixed incomes) can apply for property tax exemptions or rebates.
Wouldn't it be easier just to have a complete exemption for all property valued lower than X amount?
You'd still have to do something for farmers, but that would catch most poor people and require less work than shuffling an exemption for each one of them.
I dont think so. The ability to pay isnt dependant on the value of the property. For example a lot of retired people on fixed incomes are living in properties they bought decades ago when property prices were significantly lower. They could not afford to pay the taxes on their properties and their properties would definitely not be below the kind of cut off you are talking about.
Also, farmers here do have a special tax status.
A sensible solution would be to reduce the property tax for the first home (provided that if someone claims residence in Monaco, for example, that's where their first home is so they get no reduction for any home in the UK) and have the tax rise significantly for each subsequent home. There could also be some sort of size limit to qualify for the first home exemption (say, 200 square metres), above which you pay the full amount. That way you exempt old ladies still living in their Chelsea flats, but catch the rich (even if they find a way to show a low income by some trick).
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 02:43:03 AM
A sensible solution would be to reduce the property tax for the first home (provided that if someone claims residence in Monaco, for example, that's where their first home is so they get no reduction for any home in the UK) and have the tax rise significantly for each subsequent home. There could also be some sort of size limit to qualify for the first home exemption (say, 200 square metres), above which you pay the full amount. That way you exempt old ladies still living in their Chelsea flats, but catch the rich (even if they find a way to show a low income by some trick).
Yes catch the rich! It's not like they are supposed to have the same rights as others.
We need to spin the tax-and-welfare merry-go-round ever faster I think.
Quote from: Warspite on September 26, 2014, 05:29:52 AM
I think it is correct that property owners and residents should pay for the local services they consume and the infrastructure that benefits them.
That's why I like the idea of a land value tax where the tax is assessed on the plot of land not the building or any improvements made by the owners. The value of a piece of land is almost nothing to do with the property owner, but due to the society around them (see the increase in property prices near Crossrail stations to be).
And a lot of the increase in prices, especially in London, is in effect a type of freeloading.
QuoteYes catch the rich! It's not like they are supposed to have the same rights as others.
What right is at issue here?
QuoteA sensible solution would be to reduce the property tax for the first home (provided that if someone claims residence in Monaco, for example, that's where their first home is so they get no reduction for any home in the UK) and have the tax rise significantly for each subsequent home. There could also be some sort of size limit to qualify for the first home exemption (say, 200 square metres), above which you pay the full amount. That way you exempt old ladies still living in their Chelsea flats, but catch the rich (even if they find a way to show a low income by some trick).
Yep. Or exempt an owner-occupied property. Personally I'd like a prohibitive rate on the houses Gups mentioned which have been bought by oligarchs and sheikhs but are totally empty and not even rented.
The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.
Except that this would be unfair to lower income brackets who have to use a much larger percentage of their income for life necessities.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.
Yes, we should all be like Eastern Europe. All successful people want to live there for added encouragement.
Quote from: Syt on September 27, 2014, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.
Except that this would be unfair to lower income brackets who have to use a much larger percentage of their income for life necessities.
Well, they should work harder so that they wouldn't be lower income people.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.
Everyone does pay the same percentage of taxes. If a poor person suddenly starts earning over 100,000 then he too would be in a different tax band for that part of his earnings.
Plus the rich can only be rich because there is a base of poor people.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Especially to income taxes. And if this way there isn't enough income, well, decrease spending.
I'm not convinced the workarounds for the property tax are very good; they're still not addressing the ultimate problem with the tax in that it is complete divorced from the ability to pay. Sure, we have a suggestion for those on fixed incomes (the retired granny in the Chelsea flat scenario).
But what about people who bought a nice house in a nice part of town in good times, but have since had to take, or chosen to take a substantial drop in income? I'm not really in favour of kicking out the early-retired investment banker who's gone on to start a small publishing firm from his Notting Hill mews simply because he changed careers.
And some people just have highly variable incomes - my friends in the development community, for instance, don't earn a lot when they're based in London, but when they go abroad their gigs are very lucrative. So I'm not really sure it's just or equitable to forbid these kinds of people from having an expensive house simply because their income wouldn't be able to keep up with the kind of tax that property would attract.
The central government doesn't demand money like this - why should local government?
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 09:33:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Especially to income taxes. And if this way there isn't enough income, well, decrease spending.
Progressive taxation is more about fairness in income tax policy then it is about increasing revenues for government.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 09:33:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Especially to income taxes. And if this way there isn't enough income, well, decrease spending.
Progressive taxation is more about fairness in income tax policy then it is about increasing revenues for government.
It is not fair. Call it necessary to maintain spending levels and you have an argument. But it is not fair
Quote from: Warspite on September 27, 2014, 09:51:20 AM
I'm not convinced the workarounds for the property tax are very good; they're still not addressing the ultimate problem with the tax in that it is complete divorced from the ability to pay. Sure, we have a suggestion for those on fixed incomes (the retired granny in the Chelsea flat scenario).
But what about people who bought a nice house in a nice part of town in good times, but have since had to take, or chosen to take a substantial drop in income? I'm not really in favour of kicking out the early-retired investment banker who's gone on to start a small publishing firm from his Notting Hill mews simply because he changed careers.
And some people just have highly variable incomes - my friends in the development community, for instance, don't earn a lot when they're based in London, but when they go abroad their gigs are very lucrative. So I'm not really sure it's just or equitable to forbid these kinds of people from having an expensive house simply because their income wouldn't be able to keep up with the kind of tax that property would attract.
The central government doesn't demand money like this - why should local government?
Well, the first/only home reduction/exemption deals with that, provided that there is some home size cap (not based on value but usable area) so that people who live in huge mansions are not exploiting this.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 09:33:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Especially to income taxes. And if this way there isn't enough income, well, decrease spending.
Progressive taxation is more about fairness in income tax policy then it is about increasing revenues for government.
It is not fair. Call it necessary to maintain spending levels and you have an argument. But it is not fair
Actually, the middle bracket usually pays the most - if it was just about meeting the spending, you could completely exempt the rich. But as others said, it is about fairness.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 09:33:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Especially to income taxes. And if this way there isn't enough income, well, decrease spending.
Progressive taxation is more about fairness in income tax policy then it is about increasing revenues for government.
It is not fair. Call it necessary to maintain spending levels and you have an argument. But it is not fair
Actually, the middle bracket usually pays the most - if it was just about meeting the spending, you could completely exempt the rich. But as others said, it is about fairness.
That's horrible. Then lower taxes for the middle/lower brackets. Jesus.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 11:23:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:59:51 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 09:33:58 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 09:22:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes.
Would you take the same position if we were talking about income tax rates?
Especially to income taxes. And if this way there isn't enough income, well, decrease spending.
Progressive taxation is more about fairness in income tax policy then it is about increasing revenues for government.
It is not fair. Call it necessary to maintain spending levels and you have an argument. But it is not fair
Actually, the middle bracket usually pays the most - if it was just about meeting the spending, you could completely exempt the rich. But as others said, it is about fairness.
:yes:
I am not sure where Tamas has gotten the idea a progressive tax system is not fair but that a regressive tax system that imposes the same burden on rich and poor is fair.
The most fair is if everyone pays the same amount. Next most fair is if everyone pays the same proportion.
But I care less about what's fair than about what's good.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 08:03:34 AM
The issue is discrimination, basically. Everyone should pay the same percentage of taxes. That alone ensures that the rich contribute more. Success should be encouraged, not issued punitive taxes.
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 12:50:05 PM
I am not sure where Tamas has gotten the idea a progressive tax system is not fair but that a regressive tax system that imposes the same burden on rich and poor is fair.
He's not advocating a regressive tax, he's advocating a flat tax.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:02:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 12:50:05 PM
I am not sure where Tamas has gotten the idea a progressive tax system is not fair but that a regressive tax system that imposes the same burden on rich and poor is fair.
He's not advocating a regressive tax, he's advocating a flat tax.
A flat tax is regressive. It pays no attention to either overall tax burden or ability to pay.
I don't entirely oppose it, but I don't think it'd be workable universally.
I'd prefer a progressive tax, but one with few or no exemptions.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 02:07:02 PM
A flat tax is regressive. It pays no attention to either overall tax burden or ability to pay.
I don't entirely oppose it, but I don't think it'd be workable universally.
Are you thinking of a poll tax? A flat tax just imposes the same % on everyone, regardless of income. It's the very definition of non-regressive and non-progressive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:12:10 PM
Are you thinking of a poll tax? A flat tax just imposes the same % on everyone, regardless of income. It's the very definition of non-regressive and non-progressive.
Yes. It doesn't matter about ability to pay and doesn't take into account overall tax burden - indirect taxes, social security - all of which are likely to weigh heavier and take a larger proportion of income for someone with a lower income.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 02:18:39 PM
Yes. It doesn't matter about ability to pay and doesn't take into account overall tax burden - indirect taxes, social security - all of which are likely to weigh heavier and take a larger proportion of income for someone with a lower income.
None of which make a flat tax regressive.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:25:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 02:18:39 PM
Yes. It doesn't matter about ability to pay and doesn't take into account overall tax burden - indirect taxes, social security - all of which are likely to weigh heavier and take a larger proportion of income for someone with a lower income.
None of which make a flat tax regressive.
How not? The poor would pay more tax as a proportion of their income than the rich.
Edit: Incidentally I think the biggest shift to 'progressive taxation' in the UK has nothing to do with rates, but was the abolition of treating married couples as a single taxable unit or allowing a working spouse to receive a proportion of their spouse's personal allowance. That probably helped two people together on a low income, but would significantly increase the bill for a high paid person with a non-employed or low paid spouse.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 02:27:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:25:55 PM
None of which make a flat tax regressive.
How not? The poor would pay more tax as a proportion of their income than the rich.
You're not going to win that argument around here with these anti-tax douchebags.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 02:27:58 PM
How not? The poor would pay more tax as a proportion of their income than the rich.
The poor do and would pay a larger proportion of their income on sales tax, VAT, national lottery, and payroll taxes. Those taxes are regressive. That doesn't make a flat tax regressive.
Neither does Seedy's penetrating observation that you like the poor more than you like the rich. Increasing your hatred of the rich will not make a flat tax regressive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 02:18:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:12:10 PM
Are you thinking of a poll tax? A flat tax just imposes the same % on everyone, regardless of income. It's the very definition of non-regressive and non-progressive.
Yes. It doesn't matter about ability to pay and doesn't take into account overall tax burden - indirect taxes, social security - all of which are likely to weigh heavier and take a larger proportion of income for someone with a lower income.
All of those are valid concerns, but irrelevant as far as progressivity is concerned. Progressivity of taxation has a clear technical definition.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:39:24 PM
Neither does Seedy's penetrating observation that you like the poor more than you like the rich. Increasing your hatred of the rich will not make a flat tax regressive.
The only thing penetrating around here is the unlubed assfucking the wealthy are getting away with at the expense of the lower and middle classes with your bullshit economic philosophy.
By the way, I feel that I gotta come clean in that through tax structuring, I am paying a flat 19% income tax in Poland, while having earnings of app. 2000% of national average. But I am also a second class citizen in my own country and unable to formalise my long term relationship with my partner so fuck you, Poland.
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:02:29 PM
But I am also a second class citizen in my own country
In most real countries, lawyers aren't second-class.
Quoteand unable to formalise my long term relationship with my partner so fuck you, Poland.
LOL, "Wiktor"
Wiktor is so last decade.
That's not what I hear. :secret: :ph34r:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:02:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2014, 12:50:05 PM
I am not sure where Tamas has gotten the idea a progressive tax system is not fair but that a regressive tax system that imposes the same burden on rich and poor is fair.
He's not advocating a regressive tax, he's advocating a flat tax.
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2014, 03:07:14 PM
That's not what I hear. :secret: :ph34r:
:lol: I am actually in the same relationship (with the guy I wrote about some time ago in the TBR) since 2010. We had a rough start but now we found an equilibrium, thank you for asking. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:08:03 PM
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:08:03 PM
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
Not of flat income, but they pay a higher % of their disposable income.
Which ("disposable income" aka profit), incidentally, would be the amount on which a typical corporation would pay taxes on. So why should private individuals be treated differently.
They do pay a higher percent of money they would otherwise be free to spend however
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:13:26 PM
Not of flat income, but they pay a higher % of their disposable income.
Which ("disposable income" aka profit), incidentally, would be the amount on which a typical corporation would pay taxes on. So why should private individuals be treated differently.
A lovely argument, and one that most flat tax proposals I've seen acknowledge by incorporating a (substantial) tax free base.
Still doesn't make a pure flat tax regressive however. De facto or otherwise.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:18:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:13:26 PM
Not of flat income, but they pay a higher % of their disposable income.
Which ("disposable income" aka profit), incidentally, would be the amount on which a typical corporation would pay taxes on. So why should private individuals be treated differently.
A lovely argument, and one that most flat tax proposals I've seen acknowledge by incorporating a (substantial) tax free base.
Still doesn't make a pure flat tax regressive however. De facto or otherwise.
You can't have a flat tax with a tax free base - it then becomes a progressive tax, with two rates (one of which is 0%).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 02:39:24 PM
The poor do and would pay a larger proportion of their income on sales tax, VAT, national lottery, and payroll taxes. Those taxes are regressive. That doesn't make a flat tax regressive.
Okay. Unless you are operating a purely theoretical level, or you replace all other parts of a tax system with a single flat tax, then while it may be neutral it enormously aggravates the regressive effects of the system.
QuoteNeither does Seedy's penetrating observation that you like the poor more than you like the rich. Increasing your hatred of the rich will not make a flat tax regressive.
I'm intensely relaxed about people getting rich as long as they don't avoid their taxes.
Why tie a position to the mast of "flat tax is regressive"? Morans.
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
Why tie a position to the mast of "flat tax is regressive"? Morans.
In any case, there is a lot of misunderstanding in those debates, as most of the proponents of the "flat tax" really agree to the tax-free base, which means they are not really for a flat tax, but for a progressive tax with two rates. Once you accept that, I don't think it is such a stretch of imagination to recognise the usefulness of more rungs (if the tax free base is to address basic/biological needs, you put the second rate's cap at the level where non-biological needs, such as cultural or educational, reasonably are satisfied, above which you begin to tax the "luxury" spending).
I think the reason why so many Eastern Europeans are against progressive tax is because the rungs are set very low in this part of Europe, so anyone who is working abroad or for an international company very soon falls into the top rung (while, in practice, at the same level of income in the UK such person would probably be paying the lowest tax or be still in the tax free bracket). This attitude is then transplanted even when one effectively moves abroad (like Tamas). The reason why Tamases hate welfare state or social democracy is because it is so shitty in their own countries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:18:25 PM
A lovely argument, and one that most flat tax proposals I've seen acknowledge by incorporating a (substantial) tax free base.
At which point they become the advocates of the progressive tax proposals. :hmm:
But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:08:03 PM
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
This isn't math. It's politics.
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2014, 05:12:02 PM
This isn't math. It's politics.
This is the Seedy position.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:08:03 PM
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
Really? If one person has to spend their entire monthly income just to make ends meet, and another only spends 5% of their monthly income to make ends meet then it would seem to me that that the first person is spending a higher percentage of their income on a sales tax (which is a flat tax), then the second person.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 04:01:54 PM
But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around
As an actual socialist (I've made a little list of industries that should be nationalised) I resent being associated with these vanilla types :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 04:01:54 PM
But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around
As an actual socialist (I've made a little list of industries that should be nationalised) I resent being associated with these vanilla types :P
Which industries should be nationalized?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2014, 06:02:06 PM
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
Really? If one person has to spend their entire monthly income just to make ends meet, and another only spends 5% of their monthly income to make ends meet then it would seem to me that that the first person is spending a higher percentage of their income on a sales tax (which is a flat tax), then the second person.
[/quote]
None of these things mean lower income people pay a higher % of their income
under a flat tax. I thought the meaning was clear from context, but if it wasn't I apologize.
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Which industries should be nationalized?
Railways, utilities and we should make sure there's a significant state holding in BAE.
That's all. I'm 50-50 on telephone network and possibly fibreoptic network.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 06:30:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Which industries should be nationalized?
Railways, utilities and we should make sure there's a significant state holding in BAE.
That's all. I'm 50-50 on telephone network and possibly fibreoptic network.
Infrastructure and defence. The two absolute cornerstones of a state. Makes sense.
I approve of your plan.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 06:30:19 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2014, 06:08:40 PM
Which industries should be nationalized?
Railways, utilities and we should make sure there's a significant state holding in BAE.
That's all. I'm 50-50 on telephone network and possibly fibreoptic network.
I am not sure that qualifies you as a socialist... :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 27, 2014, 06:30:19 PM
That's all. I'm 50-50 on telephone network and possibly fibreoptic network.
When Comcast, AT & T and Verizon are the free market alternatives, I'll take Der Statfon.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2014, 06:02:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:08:03 PM
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
Really? If one person has to spend their entire monthly income just to make ends meet, and another only spends 5% of their monthly income to make ends meet then it would seem to me that that the first person is spending a higher percentage of their income on a sales tax (which is a flat tax), then the second person.
Sales tax is not considered flat. It is not an income tax at all, so it's neither flat nor progressive. That said, it is recognized fairly widely that it is rather regressive, unless a whole lot of basic necessities are excluded.
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 04:01:54 PM
But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around
No, of course not. I think 0% as a first bracket is rather too high. But, in any case, it shows that proponents of flat tax and progressive taxation aren't really subscribing to different sets of moral values, they're just negotiating over the degree of progressivity.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2014, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 27, 2014, 04:01:54 PM
But of course non of you socialist had the "0% and something else as two tier" in mind when mentioning progressive income tax, so don't try to turn this around
No, of course not. I think 0% as a first bracket is rather too high. But, in any case, it shows that proponents of flat tax and progressive taxation aren't really subscribing to different sets of moral values, they're just negotiating over the degree of progressivity.
:yes:
:mellow:
Different viewpoints on the optimal level of progressivity entail differing moral perspectives.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 08:04:37 PM
:mellow:
Different viewpoints on the optimal level of progressivity entail differing moral perspectives.
This is why the guy calling for 5% gets called a communist dictator and the guy calling for 3% gets called a heartless laissez-faire monster? Ah modern politics.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2014, 07:37:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2014, 06:02:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 03:12:31 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 27, 2014, 03:08:03 PM
Flat tax is de facto regressive as the basic cost of living is the same for everyone, and with pure flat tax there is no tax-free amount.
None of these things mean low income people pay a higher % of income.
This is basic math people.
Really? If one person has to spend their entire monthly income just to make ends meet, and another only spends 5% of their monthly income to make ends meet then it would seem to me that that the first person is spending a higher percentage of their income on a sales tax (which is a flat tax), then the second person.
Sales tax is not considered flat. It is not an income tax at all, so it's neither flat nor progressive. That said, it is recognized fairly widely that it is rather regressive, unless a whole lot of basic necessities are excluded.
I thought this was what Marty was getting at. A sales tax is a de facto flat tax though, since everyone pays the same. So under this system a person who must spend more of their money just to live is in fact paying a higher percent of their money on taxes, correct?
No Raz.
Going by definitions, sales tax is not a flat tax. The term "flat tax" is only applied to income. Sales tax is defacto a regressive tax, and is facto a consumption tax.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2014, 09:03:10 PM
Going by definitions, sales tax is not a flat tax. The term "flat tax" is only applied to income. Sales tax is defacto a regressive tax, and is facto a consumption tax.
I thought a flat tax was tax that applied to everyone equally and not graduated therefor "flat". Sales taxes function like that correct?
Perhaps Yi can walk me through how a person who spends all of their income does not pays a higher percentage of money on sales taxes then a person who spends only a quarter of their income.
It is flat tax rate.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2014, 10:31:00 PM
I thought a flat tax was tax that applied to everyone equally and not graduated therefor "flat". Sales taxes function like that correct?
Perhaps Yi can walk me through how a person who spends all of their income does not pays a higher percentage of money on sales taxes then a person who spends only a quarter of their income.
I get the very strong impression your being purposely obtuse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2014, 10:31:00 PM
I thought a flat tax was tax that applied to everyone equally and not graduated therefor "flat". Sales taxes function like that correct?
Perhaps Yi can walk me through how a person who spends all of their income does not pays a higher percentage of money on sales taxes then a person who spends only a quarter of their income.
I get the very strong impression your being purposely obtuse.
You told me "No". I would like to know why that is is incorrect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2014, 08:58:57 PM
No Raz.
No? :blink: How can the answer to this possibly be "no"? This is pretty basic math Yi. Maybe you do not understand the scenario? Somebody who spends all their money on shit will pay a larger percentage of their income on sales taxes then somebody who doesn't. Because...obvious things are obvious?
DGuller will be very happy to answer everyone's questions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2014, 12:04:22 AM
DGuller will be very happy to answer everyone's questions.
Well color me confused.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 27, 2014, 08:58:07 PM
I thought this was what Marty was getting at. A sales tax is a de facto flat tax though, since everyone pays the same. So under this system a person who must spend more of their money just to live is in fact paying a higher percent of their money on taxes, correct?
No, I was discussing income tax only. Not saying that you are wrong but my argument that the purely flat income tax is de facto regressive works even if you do not have any sales taxes or other taxes of a similar nature.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2014, 07:37:04 PM
Sales tax is not considered flat. It is not an income tax at all, so it's neither flat nor progressive. That said, it is recognized fairly widely that it is rather regressive, unless a whole lot of basic necessities are excluded.
There's zero-rate VAT on a lot of necessities here. I believe the ONS said that it's still, over a lifetime, regressive.