Quote
ions - POLITICS
Perry's Flat Tax Plan Seeks Major Tax, Spending Overhaul
By Jim Angle
Published October 25, 2011
Texas Gov. Rick Perry's newly unveiled economic plan proposes far more than a flat tax. The Republican presidential hopeful would make sweeping changes in taxes and spending, including a goal of a balanced budget by 2020.
But the centerpiece is a flat tax of 20 percent for corporations and individuals.
Holding up a postcard Tuesday as he announced the details of his plan, Perry said "Each individual taxpayer will have a choice. You can continue to pay your taxes, as well as accountants, lawyers, under the current tax system we got or you can file your taxes on this postcard."
Perry's plan would preserve deductions for home mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.
It would also increase the $12,500 exemption per person. All that will make the tax less flat.
But for those who might be squeamish about leaping into an entirely new tax system, allowing people to choose which system to file under will be comforting.
"If you like the flat tax better, you can choose that," said Kevin Hassett, a tax expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "If you like the regular code better you can stay with that as well... The attraction really is that there's nobody anywhere in society that's made worse off by this plan."
That didn't stop the Obama campaign from launching an early attack, arguing that the Perry plan would "shift a greater share of taxes away from large corporations and the wealthiest onto the backs of the middle class."
But with all the deductions, a family of four would have to make substantially more than $50,000 to face any federal income taxes.
And one of the early proponents of a flat tax, Steve Forbes, said a family of four "would have to make a good sum of money before they get hit with the flat tax. So it's a tax cut for most people, not a tax increase."
But some analysts argue that offering a choice of how to file could also reduce revenues.
Joseph Rosenberg, a researcher of The Tax Policy Center said "the only way you would opt into the new system is if you'd pay lower taxes under that new system. So sort of by definition, this new hybrid system will result in less overall revenue."
And Hassett said, "Therein lies the problem, because if a lot of people flip to the flat tax, then since the rates are a lot lower, then you will lose a lot of revenue for high income people. And if high income people switch to the flat tax, but everyone else stays with the current code, then it might be that this raises a lot less revenue than you might think and then he's gonna have to raise the rates."
And that would certainly complicate Perry's pledge to forge a balanced budget at a time when Republicans are sharply focused on the nation's growing deficits.
Perry also tackles entitlements. Among other things, he would end taxation of Social Security income, a boon to seniors.
He would also allow young people to invest some of their taxes in private accounts if they wish.
Perry also pledged to work with Congress to raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare to match longer life spans. He proposed several changes in all entitlements aimed at fixing their unsustainable finances.
Perry was clearly swinging for the fences with Tuesday's proposal, which was intended to revive his efforts to win the
nomination.
And a flat tax, even one that isn't entirely flat, is a good way to appeal to Republicans because it is seen as a way to
ignite the economy and create jobs, the chief issue in the election.
That is why a flat tax is very appealing to Republicans.
"The flat tax is a much more efficient tax," Hassett said. "It should add a lot to economic growth, it should reduce unemployment."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/25/perrys-flat-tax-plan-seeks-major-tax-spending-overhaul/
Weren't we all concerned about the deficit and how a serious Republican was needed to save this nation from going broke? And now the Republican presidential candidates are proposing 9-9-9 and flat taxes?
That's cause Republicans aren't really concerned with debt. It's a useful club to hit Obama with, but beyond that, nothing. I feel sorry for the rank and file who really believe in balanced budgets.
I already posted a thread on this and it has 7 responses! :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 26, 2011, 12:25:01 AM
I already posted a thread on this and it has 7 responses! :mad:
Bitching about it in his thread is a good way to make it beat yours. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 26, 2011, 12:25:01 AM
I already posted a thread on this and it has 7 responses! :mad:
My thread is better because I started it.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 26, 2011, 06:40:50 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 26, 2011, 12:25:01 AM
I already posted a thread on this and it has 7 responses! :mad:
My thread is better because I started it.
No, your thread is better because Timmy didn't start it.
An argument for a flat tax is to simplify the system. Maintaining two separate, equally valid tax codes with all the bureaucracy that implies doesn't seem to sit with that. It also requires more work on the part of the individual taxpayer (or, for the well off, their accountant) to work out which system would be most advantageous.
This seems to have all the negatives of the current system and of a flat tax :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 26, 2011, 07:44:39 AM
An argument for a flat tax is to simplify the system. Maintaining two separate, equally valid tax codes with all the bureaucracy that implies doesn't seem to sit with that. It also requires more work on the part of the individual taxpayer (or, for the well off, their accountant) to work out which system would be most advantageous.
This seems to have all the negatives of the current system and of a flat tax :mellow:
Yes, but it is typical of Perry that he would offer to double the complexity of the existing tax system and brag that he is simplifying things. It says a lot about his supporters that they seem to think this wishy-washy lets-please-everyone-by-telling-them-what-they-want-to-hear proposal is even sane, let alone desirable.
I don't think this will be the nail in Perry's coffin, but I do think that it will bite him in the ass.
Rick Perry isn't a serious candidate anymore. Just the fact that he could propose something so apocalyptically stupid is evidence of that. I mean, I don't think that 9-9-9 is a good idea (although I haven't really studied it, I'm just not sure that it would produce enough revenue and I'm a bit kneejerk against sales taxes), but at least it is a legitimate policy. What Perry is proposing is going to increase costs over at the IRS, unless the Paulites take over Congress and legislate the IRS out of existence.
It's like he's trying to scoop the flat tax people without alienating moderates, neither of which are especially interested in Rick Perry. His base is people who think that Obama is the Antichrist and that the US needs a constitutional amendment to prevent anybody teaching anyone about evolution.
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2011, 08:43:06 AM
His base is people who think that Obama is the Antichrist and that the US needs a constitutional amendment to prevent anybody teaching anyone about evolution.
But also people who just don't like Romney.
I wonder how Romney is feeling. First Republicans are trying to replace him with Bachmann, then with Perry, then with Cain. Maybe in November Alan Keyes would be the leading candidate of the month.
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2011, 08:43:06 AM
His base is people who think that Obama is the Antichrist and that the US needs a constitutional amendment to prevent anybody teaching anyone about evolution.
Obama isn't the Antichrist.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly which Perry misstep is the fatal one for his credibility as a candidate. There was his opening salvo threatening violance against Ben Bernanke. His bumbling confusion in the debates. His flirtation with Donald Trump birtherism. And now his opt-in/opt-out flat tax.
He is out of his league to a Palinesque degree.
Pretty sure it was his performance in the debates. The Bernake thing wouldn't necessarily ruin him with GOP primary voters and he was finished way before his dissembling on birtherism and the flat tax.
Perry now says it was a mistake to participate in debates. No shit! :lol: Perry's best strategy would be to just put his name on the ballot, and not do anything else to draw attention to himself.
The complexity of the tax code isn't that it's tiered; it's that there are a myriad of potential deductions, each with their own requirements. You could have a progressive tax system and still figure out how much you owe on a postcard. Rick Perry makes Dubya look brainy.
The man does have a nice head of hair.
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2011, 10:10:31 AM
Perry now says it was a mistake to participate in debates. No shit! :lol: Perry's best strategy would be to just put his name on the ballot, and not do anything else to draw attention to himself.
This was always his strategy in Texas. Use the Republican machine to get the nomination and then just show up with (R) besides his name. Unfortunately the National Republican Party does not regard Perry as its unquestioned leader like the Texas one does so he actually had to come up with ideas and campaign...both of which he is horrible at.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 10:16:44 AM
The man does have a nice head of hair.
He is not called 'Governor Goodhair' for nothing.
His pose during the playing of National Anthem is pretty impressive too. He does have good qualities, let's not go overboard with mocking him.
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2011, 10:18:45 AM
His pose during the playing of National Anthem is pretty impressive too. He does have good qualities, let's not go overboard with mocking him.
:D
Another item which is hilarious about Perry's tax "plan", given all the lip service paid to the middle class - the wealthy will take their best option (20% flat), the poor will take their best option (the current system), and folks in the middle will probably need to do their taxes both ways in order to figure out which one gives them the better deal. Thanks a lot, Rick! Doing taxes twice is like dating the Doublemint twins!
Quote from: fahdiz on October 26, 2011, 10:39:36 AM
Another item which is hilarious about Perry's tax "plan", given all the lip service paid to the middle class - the wealthy will take their best option (20% flat), the poor will take their best option (the current system), and folks in the middle will probably need to do their taxes both ways in order to figure out which one gives them the better deal. Thanks a lot, Rick! Doing taxes twice is like dating the Doublemint twins!
I don't get why solid hard-working middle class Americans would have to do the calculaton but blood sucking millionaires would automatically know which is better.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 10:47:41 AM
I don't get why solid hard-working middle class Americans would have to do the calculaton but blood sucking millionaires would automatically know which is better.
Their drinking of blood gives them magical financial powers the hard working yeomanry lacks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 10:47:41 AM
I don't get why solid hard-working middle class Americans would have to do the calculaton but blood sucking millionaires would automatically know which is better.
You don't? Do you really not get it, or are you trying to make some kind of a point in a Yicratic way?
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2011, 10:49:43 AM
Their drinking of blood gives them magical financial powers the hard working yeomanry lacks.
I don't think that has been conclusively proved.
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2011, 10:53:06 AM
You don't? Do you really not get it, or are you trying to make some kind of a point in a Yicratic way?
There was all that hullaballoo in one of the Warren Buffet threads about him paying what, 18% on total income?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 10:47:41 AM
I don't get why solid hard-working middle class Americans would have to do the calculaton but blood sucking millionaires would automatically know which is better.
Firstly, I didn't say they were blood-sucking, and secondly, do you really think that 20% flat with no tax on investment income would *ever* work out worse than the current system (assuming no tax evasion) for a millionaire?
Thirdly, taking the flat option would remove a lot of the deductions on which the middle class currently depends. You'd just have to do the math to see if it came out as a wash.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 10:54:49 AM
There was all that hullaballoo in one of the Warren Buffet threads about him paying what, 18% on total income?
His total income is largely from investments, which are taxed at a low rate. Under Perry's plan, if I'm not mistaken, investment income would no longer be taxed at all.
EDIT: added "from", since it didn't seem to make it into my sentence like it was supposed to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 26, 2011, 10:54:49 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2011, 10:53:06 AM
You don't? Do you really not get it, or are you trying to make some kind of a point in a Yicratic way?
There was all that hullaballoo in one of the Warren Buffet threads about him paying what, 18% on total income?
Most of that 18% is from capital gains, which Perry wants to abolish as well. I don't think Warren will be taxed much at all. :P
Quote from: fahdiz on October 26, 2011, 11:00:48 AM
His total income is largely investments, which are taxed at a low rate. Under Perry's plan, if I'm not mistaken, investment income would no longer be taxed at all.
Point taken.
Rick Perry, the Texas fairy, is a disgrace as a man, a Texan, a governor, a Republican, a mount for the best hair on the planet, and as a homosexual.
Quote from: Scipio on October 28, 2011, 09:22:19 PM
Rick Perry, the Texas fairy, is a disgrace as a man, a Texan, a governor, a Republican, a mount for the best hair on the planet, and as a homosexual.
Well I don't know about that. He has really gotten around as a homosexual from what I have heard.
Quote from: DGuller on October 26, 2011, 09:51:43 AM
I wonder how Romney is feeling. First Republicans are trying to replace him with Bachmann, then with Perry, then with Cain. Maybe in November Alan Keyes would be the leading candidate of the month.
No kidding. Is Romney so disliked by the base because he is a Mormon?
Also he's flip flopped on abortion and health care, so they don't trust him as much.
Quote from: Martinus on October 29, 2011, 08:59:48 AMNo kidding. Is Romney so disliked by the base because he is a Mormon?
I think that's part of it, I also think that they just don't trust him. To use Huntsman's magnificent phrase Romney's a 'perfectly lubricated weathervane'.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2011, 09:02:23 AM
Also he's flip flopped on abortion and health care, so they don't trust him as much.
I think this is it. He's run a national campaign before, and so has needed to take sane positions. Now that he's back to running in the Kiddie's Kampaign, he has to pretend to be as deranged as the rest of the kiddies. Obviously, people don't like it when a candidate wavers between sanity and insanity, and cast about for a candidate that is reliably insane.
Bottom line is that Romney has revealed that he will say whatever it takes to get elected. The others haven't had to be honest yet (though I am starting to suspect that Cain may be exactly what he appears to be).
The rest of the Republicans didn't like him in the last primary either. They see him as a vicious opportunist.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2011, 09:56:45 AMThere was his opening salvo threatening violance against Ben Bernanke.
Indeed, Hank Paulson I can understand but not Uncle Ben.
Quote from: citizen k on October 29, 2011, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2011, 09:56:45 AMThere was his opening salvo threatening violance against Ben Bernanke.
Indeed, Hank Paulson I can understand but not Uncle Ben.
Nice Rice.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2011, 05:56:31 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 29, 2011, 04:58:48 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2011, 09:56:45 AMThere was his opening salvo threatening violance against Ben Bernanke.
Indeed, Hank Paulson I can understand but not Uncle Ben.
Nice Rice.
That's what Qadhaffi thought about Condaleeza.
Perry's idea's idiocy aside, I do not quite get why the flat tax is so maligned, as such.
Progressive tax does not really hurt the rich, especially the idly rich, since their main source of income is usually taxed with a flat rate, but the middle class that works "with its hands". And unless there is a system like in Poland (where there is a de facto flat tax for people running their own business), it really discriminates against people running their own business when competing with corporations that are taxed a flat rate.
I think most countries treat business income separately.
The goal of a progressive tax system isn't to hurt the rich but to offer greater protection to the poor and people on lower incomes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 07:03:07 AM
The goal of a progressive tax system isn't to hurt the rich but to offer greater protection to the poor and people on lower incomes.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 11:01:50 AMPlease elaborate.
Standard points about cost of living taking up a greater proportional share of lower incomes than higher ones.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 11:23:24 AM
Standard points about cost of living taking up a greater proportional share of lower incomes than higher ones.
That argument explains a low rate for very low incomes, but not for multiple, increasing rates above that subsistence level.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 11:23:24 AM
Standard points about cost of living taking up a greater proportional share of lower incomes than higher ones.
That argument explains a low rate for very low incomes, but not for multiple, increasing rates above that subsistence level.
From each according to his means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 11:26:51 AMThat argument explains a low rate for very low incomes, but not for multiple, increasing rates above that subsistence level.
Roughly what Neil says. Also the goal is protection of people on low incomes - that's far more than subsistence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 11:26:51 AMThat argument explains a low rate for very low incomes, but not for multiple, increasing rates above that subsistence level.
Roughly what Neil says. Also the goal is protection of people on low incomes - that's far more than subsistence.
I don't know if I'd call it 'protection', since the only thing they're being protected from is an unnecessarily large share of the tax burden.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Roughly what Neil says. Also the goal is protection of people on low incomes - that's far more than subsistence.
You can call it subsistence, you can call it living, you can call it whatever you want, but at some point in the income spectrum it fails to explain the motivation for tax progressivity.
And Neil's argument works great if you start from the premise that all productive activity is the property of the state, less so if you start from the premise that it is the property of the individual who engaged in the activity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 11:26:51 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 11:23:24 AM
Standard points about cost of living taking up a greater proportional share of lower incomes than higher ones.
That argument explains a low rate for very low incomes, but not for multiple, increasing rates above that subsistence level.
Because the govt needs money in order to provide essential services?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 12:48:55 PM
And Neil's argument works great if you start from the premise that all productive activity is the property of the state, less so if you start from the premise that it is the property of the individual who engaged in the activity.
Neil's argument works great because we've decided that any and all economic activities have a social component, and every citizen owes a debt to their tribe. Those who have more can contribute more to the common good. So long as man creates societies, people will always owe a debt to those societies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 12:48:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 12:13:31 PM
Roughly what Neil says. Also the goal is protection of people on low incomes - that's far more than subsistence.
You can call it subsistence, you can call it living, you can call it whatever you want, but at some point in the income spectrum it fails to explain the motivation for tax progressivity.
And Neil's argument works great if you start from the premise that all productive activity is the property of the state, less so if you start from the premise that it is the property of the individual who engaged in the activity.
I like the first premise. It gives everything I say a sound logical basis. :)
And it's to a certain degree true, since no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 12:58:54 PM
Those who have more can contribute more to the common good.
This is either a reformulation of Shelf's argument, in that poorer people are unable to contribute more, or a restatement of your own, that income belongs to the group and the burden of proof for justifying retention lies on the individual.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:06:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 12:58:54 PM
Those who have more can contribute more to the common good.
or a restatement of your own, that income belongs to the group and the burden of proof for justifying retention lies on the individual.
I think you're excluding the middle here.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:12:06 PM
I think you're excluding the middle here.
I don't follow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:19:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:12:06 PM
I think you're excluding the middle here.
I don't follow.
There's an area between all income belongs to the individual and all income belongs to the group.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 12:48:55 PMYou can call it subsistence, you can call it living, you can call it whatever you want, but at some point in the income spectrum it fails to explain the motivation for tax progressivity.
Well Perry's flat tax wouldn't really be flat, I'd argue it's a form of progressive taxation in its way. Albeit a remarkably stupid form.
Subsistence has a very specific connotation of providing a bare minimum. I don't think that's part of the argument for a progressive tax system anywhere. Though I think if you were to mark just a point then that would be somewhat arbitrary a progressive system tries to mitigate that.
QuoteAnd Neil's argument works great if you start from the premise that all productive activity is the property of the state, less so if you start from the premise that it is the property of the individual who engaged in the activity.
I think this is philosophising with little relevance to reality. How does one account for the state's role in 'productive activitiy'? What weight do you give to transport or communications infrastructure, or the education of the workforce and all the other things?
My starting premise would be that a society is a good thing, the state is an important part of that. It keeps the peace and should enable trade. So the state's provision of services is part of a functioning society necessary for productive activity. In addition I think tax is a positive good in that it binds the state to the people, I think there has to be some sort of dialogue between governed and government that doesn't need to happen if you've simply got petro-dollars or the like.
So the issue isn't some fundamentalist position on productive activity but which services does a society want and how do they pay for them. That's what motivates a flat tax system, or a progressive tax, or child tax credits. But I think Neil's point is basically from the view that it's simply fairer, which is a choice. It isn't, however, necessarily about punishing the rich. The 90%+ top tax rate that we had a few years ago was about punishing the rich - that was a choice made by that government. Normal tax rates aren't.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:26:48 PM
Well Perry's flat tax wouldn't really be flat, I'd argue it's a form of progressive taxation in its way. Albeit a remarkably stupid form.
Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:36:50 PM
Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.
That's worked over the past 30 years :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:26:48 PM
But I think Neil's point is basically from the view that it's simply fairer, which is a choice. It isn't, however, necessarily about punishing the rich. The 90%+ top tax rate that we had a few years ago was about punishing the rich - that was a choice made by that government. Normal tax rates aren't.
To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology. Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.
For the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:36:50 PM
Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.
That's worked over the past 30 years :lol:
Alberta is very good at that game.
That said, they probably won't cut services anyways, since the Republicans don't really want to cut the expensive services. They'll slash revenue with lower taxes, and then 'reduce' the deficit by cutting 'waste and mismanagement', which is code for 'nothing of consequence'.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:26:48 PM
But I think Neil's point is basically from the view that it's simply fairer, which is a choice. It isn't, however, necessarily about punishing the rich. The 90%+ top tax rate that we had a few years ago was about punishing the rich - that was a choice made by that government. Normal tax rates aren't.
To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology. Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.
War. The UN.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:41:56 PMTo fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology. Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.
Okay, it's perceived as fairer. As I say in my view it's about social choice. Most countries in the west have chosen, for whatever reason, that progressive taxation is better because, in part, they think it's fairer.
QuoteFor the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.
You're right Clinton level tax rates are entirely about punishing the rich.
I've said before that I think the American left's way of talking about tax is ridiculous and does make it sound like they want to raise taxes on the wealthy just because. That's an annoying tone, no doubt. But the policy isn't going to punish the rich. The motivation seems to me as honestly about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget as the right wing's desire for spending cuts or social reform.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:49:17 PM
Okay, it's perceived as fairer. As I say in my view it's about social choice. Most countries in the west have chosen, for whatever reason, that progressive taxation is better because, in part, they think it's fairer.
Much the way two wolves could agree that having sheep for dinner is fair.
QuoteI've said before that I think the American left's way of talking about tax is ridiculous and does make it sound like they want to raise taxes on the wealthy just because. That's an annoying tone, no doubt. But the policy isn't going to punish the rich. The motivation seems to me as honestly about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget as the right wing's desire for spending cuts or social reform.
Well no. Obama's most recent proposal is to tax the rich to pay for his job's bill. That's deficit neutral.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:49:17 PM
Okay, it's perceived as fairer. As I say in my view it's about social choice. Most countries in the west have chosen, for whatever reason, that progressive taxation is better because, in part, they think it's fairer.
But also and more importantly because their need for revenue is quite high.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
Much the way two wolves could agree that having sheep for dinner is fair.
Not quite. It's really much more of a compromise. Where the wolves and the sheep come into it is a non-progressive taxation system where the poor are taxed into poverty, and then the rich are eaten in a class war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology. Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.
To argue that you assume things "instinctively" smacks of bullshit rhetoric.
QuoteFor the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.
You have no monopoly on bullshit rhetoric, for sure.
The arguments for and against progressive taxation have been made elsewhere, by people who are far better informed than the denizens of this board, and who have thought about the topic a lot. Instead of raising more Yicratic faked ignorance, why not introduce some of those arguments and ask the board for responses?
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2011, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:41:56 PM
To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology. Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.
To argue that you assume things "instinctively" smacks of bullshit rhetoric.
QuoteFor the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.
You have no monopoly on bullshit rhetoric, for sure.
The arguments for and against progressive taxation have been made elsewhere, by people who are far better informed than the denizens of this board, and who have thought about the topic a lot. Instead of raising more Yicratic faked ignorance, why not introduce some of those arguments and ask the board for responses?
Damn good points, every one. In your long storied history of posting fucking awesome points, this collection has to be the most awesome.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 01:57:12 PMMuch the way two wolves could agree that having sheep for dinner is fair.
Not really. Being eaten's rather more permanent than being taxed.
QuoteWell no. Obama's most recent proposal is to tax the rich to pay for his job's bill. That's deficit neutral.
That's one specific example to pay for the jobs bill. The restoration of Clinton tax rates - with certain exceptions - is part of the Democrats' policy on deficit reduction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 11:01:50 AMPlease elaborate.
Standard points about cost of living taking up a greater proportional share of lower incomes than higher ones.
Wouldn't that be served by the tax-free base amount?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 02:11:43 PM
Not really. Being eaten's rather more permanent than being taxed.
Being taxed is forever. You don't get paid back after a while.
QuoteThat's one specific example to pay for the jobs bill. The restoration of Clinton tax rates - with certain exceptions - is part of the Democrats' policy on deficit reduction.
"With certain exceptions??" Obama tried to prolongue the Bush rates for everyone except those above $200 K. That's a hell of a lot of exceptions. And he tried to do that as part of a larger bill that added something like $400 billion to the defict.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 12:58:54 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 12:48:55 PM
And Neil's argument works great if you start from the premise that all productive activity is the property of the state, less so if you start from the premise that it is the property of the individual who engaged in the activity.
Neil's argument works great because we've decided that any and all economic activities have a social component, and every citizen owes a debt to their tribe. Those who have more can contribute more to the common good. So long as man creates societies, people will always owe a debt to those societies.
"Those who have more should contribute more" does not really work to differentiate between flat tax and progressive tax. It's a good argument against poll tax, but that's it.
And again, this is philosophy, not practicality. In practice, progressive taxes punish the middle class, not the rich. The thing is, people argue about progressive vs. flat tax from dogmatic, ideal positions. However, practicalities of economy force flat taxes e.g. on corporate income and on capital gains. With that taken into account, progressive tax becomes a burden that can be attacked not from neo-liberal but soc-liberal positions - it punishes the "salt of the earth" part of the society (i.e. the working middle class) compared to the rich who are in practice taxed at a flat rate.
To summarise: progressive tax does not work the way its proponents say it is supposed to work.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2011, 02:14:42 PMWouldn't that be served by the tax-free base amount?
Could do. It would really depend on the amount and the tax rate. As I said earlier it does also lead to an arbitrary cut-off point that would hurt people on lower incomes as opposed to just the poor or a pure 'subsistence' amount that I think would be in your idea.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:36:50 PM
Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.
That's worked over the past 30 years :lol:
Alberta is very good at that game.
Not really.
Alberta's dirty little secret (amongst right-wing circles) is that we have one of the largest public sectors of any province. It's just that our wealthy private sector masks it so well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 02:22:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2011, 02:14:42 PMWouldn't that be served by the tax-free base amount?
Could do. It would really depend on the amount and the tax rate. As I said earlier it does also lead to an arbitrary cut-off point that would hurt people on lower incomes as opposed to just the poor or a pure 'subsistence' amount that I think would be in your idea.
How is that more arbitrary than a progressive tax rate? At least in the flat tax plus free amount, you only have one arbitrary point, not two or three, as is the case with progressive taxes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 02:16:38 PMBeing taxed is forever. You don't get paid back after a while.
But you can change the policy.
Quote"With certain exceptions??" Obama tried to prolongue the Bush rates for everyone except those above $200 K. That's a hell of a lot of exceptions. And he tried to do that as part of a larger bill that added something like $400 billion to the defict.
He first tried to do it before the mid-terms entirely separately as part of deficit cutting. In addition to the general spending cuts that have been agreed and are currently going through.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2011, 02:23:08 PMHow is that more arbitrary than a progressive tax rate? At least in the flat tax plus free amount, you only have one arbitrary point, not two or three, as is the case with progressive taxes.
Simplicity is one of the arguments for a flat tax, no doubt.
It's all arbitrary in terms of the points for tax free allowances or brackets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 02:24:52 PM
He first tried to do it before the mid-terms entirely separately as part of deficit cutting. In addition to the general spending cuts that have been agreed and are currently going through.
??? When was this?
Right after the midterms while the Democrats had a lame-duck majority in the House he proposed extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $200 K, along with extensions of unemployment insurance and I think an extension of reduced payroll taxes. By no stretch can you call that deficit reduction. Are you thinking of that or something different?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 02:30:36 PM
Right after the midterms while the Democrats had a lame-duck majority in the House he proposed extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $200 K, along with extensions of unemployment insurance and I think an extension of reduced payroll taxes. By no stretch can you call that deficit reduction. Are you thinking of that or something different?
No that's it. I believe that proposal was rated by the CBO as raising revenue, how does that not cut the deficit?
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
No that's it. I believe that proposal was rated by the CBO as raising revenue, how does that not cut the deficit?
I think you have your facts wrong. The Republicans filibustered for and got an extension of Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. There's no way that added revenue would have made the entire bill decrease the deficit.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2011, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 30, 2011, 01:37:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 01:36:50 PM
Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.
That's worked over the past 30 years :lol:
Alberta is very good at that game.
Not really.
Alberta's dirty little secret (amongst right-wing circles) is that we have one of the largest public sectors of any province. It's just that our wealthy private sector masks it so well.
I was thinking about the 90s, when we crushed the teachers and nurses unions. The resource boom has simply eliminated the need to be frugal since then.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.
I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.
I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
I realize that, but if she didn't look like such a lone voice on the subject they'd have had a harder time targeting her.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
Case in point. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
She helped create it - by Presidential request - but is a special advisor, not in charge. Why is she a nutbag (as opposed to simply someone with whose politics you disagree)?
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
Case in point. :)
:face:
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 05:54:02 PM
She helped create it - by Presidential request - but is a special advisor, not in charge. Why is she a nutbag (as opposed to simply someone with whose politics you disagree)?
Because she gives the impression that she has bought totally into the rhetoric of evil banks stealing innocent consumers blind. Because she is a prime example of what happens when you put a shakedown artist/community activist type in a regulatory postion. Because she seems to think that prices are set by politics and the cost of providing services is just another public relations stunt by overpaid financial industry lobbyists.
She reminds me of a union leader.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
The FCPB? Hey, I have an application in with them. I didn't notice the posting till it was nearly closed, so my cover letter was kind of hasty and involved the use of the term "predators in our midst." But if crazy leftoids run the place, this may be in my favor, and this may be my kind of agency. :)
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.
I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."
The problem with this argument is that, while it is nice to hear, it is blatantly untrue.
The kids of the rich usually stay rich and they usually choose to pay extra, out of their pockets, for superior quality of help - hence they really do not benefit that much from the society. The kids of the poor usually stay poor and they are the main beneficiaries of them help of others since they cannot afford to pay extra for the "non-public" option.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
The FCPB? Hey, I have an application in with them. I didn't notice the posting till it was nearly closed, so my cover letter was kind of hasty and involved the use of the term "predators in our midst." But if crazy leftoids run the place, this may be in my favor, and this may be my kind of agency. :)
Shouldn't someone working for a regulator have some knowledge of the industry they are regulating? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 01:00:09 PM
no one has ever done anything on their own, and even less so in a modern economy.
I think proponents of progressive taxes would do well to make this their central talking point when asked why progressive taxes are "fair". It makes it less about "you have more and so you should pay not just more money but a higher percentage of your money" (which may or may not be valid) and more about "you have more because lots of people of varying classes and backgrounds have helped you - directly or indirectly - along the way. You may never have met some of these people, but they were there, nonetheless. This is one of the ways those people get compensated for what they do for you."
The problem with this argument is that, while it is nice to hear, it is blatantly untrue.
The kids of the rich usually stay rich and they usually choose to pay extra, out of their pockets, for superior quality of help - hence they really do not benefit that much from the society. The kids of the poor usually stay poor and they are the main beneficiaries of them help of others since they cannot afford to pay extra for the "non-public" option.
I think you missed the point, my friend. There is not a product you use or a thing you do that was not made possible by dint of living in a wholly interconnected society. The fact of wealth is conceivable only within such a society. The progressive income tax is a retroactive payment for the opportunities living in a society permitted you.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2011, 06:14:59 PM
The problem with this argument is that, while it is nice to hear, it is blatantly untrue.
The kids of the rich usually stay rich and they usually choose to pay extra, out of their pockets, for superior quality of help - hence they really do not benefit that much from the society. The kids of the poor usually stay poor and they are the main beneficiaries of them help of others since they cannot afford to pay extra for the "non-public" option.
You have just articulated - unwittingly, apparently - why the argument I gave could be true, not why it would be untrue.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2011, 06:17:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 06:14:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 05:50:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2011, 05:47:05 PM
I agree with this, but that won't help. Elizabeth Warren presented just such an argument, and the frothing dogs of the right attacked her just the same.
Is that the nutbag who's in charge of the Financial Consumer Protection Agency?
The FCPB? Hey, I have an application in with them. I didn't notice the posting till it was nearly closed, so my cover letter was kind of hasty and involved the use of the term "predators in our midst." But if crazy leftoids run the place, this may be in my favor, and this may be my kind of agency. :)
Shouldn't someone working for a regulator have some knowledge of the industry they are regulating? :huh:
I agree, they should hire me.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 30, 2011, 06:18:22 PM
I think you missed the point, my friend. There is not a product you use or a thing you do that was not made possible by dint of living in a wholly interconnected society. The fact of wealth is conceivable only within such a society. The progressive income tax is a retroactive payment for the opportunities living in a society permitted you.
Bit of a logical leap in there.
We all benefit from living in a place that is not in a Hobbesian state of nature. How is it that an ordered society contributed proportionally more to one man's millionth dollar than to his neighbor's hundred thousandth dollar?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 06:38:12 PM
We all benefit from living in a place that is not in a Hobbesian state of nature. How is it that an ordered society contributed proportionally more to one man's millionth dollar than to his neighbor's hundred thousandth dollar?
Well, I presume he's not able to carry ten times the stuff on his person for one. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 06:00:16 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 05:54:02 PM
She helped create it - by Presidential request - but is a special advisor, not in charge. Why is she a nutbag (as opposed to simply someone with whose politics you disagree)?
Because she gives the impression that she has bought totally into the rhetoric of evil banks stealing innocent consumers blind. Because she is a prime example of what happens when you put a shakedown artist/community activist type in a regulatory postion. Because she seems to think that prices are set by politics and the cost of providing services is just another public relations stunt by overpaid financial industry lobbyists.
She reminds me of a union leader.
What is it you are buying into here?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2011, 06:55:36 PM
Well, I presume he's not able to carry ten times the stuff on his person for one. :hmm:
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2011, 06:57:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:11:22 PM
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?
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Why were BoA and Chase customers arrested for attempting to move their money to credit unions a few days ago, then?
My educated guess would be for the manner in which they did it.
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:11:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2011, 06:57:23 PM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2011, 06:57:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
What about the Union leader and community activist rant?
I don't follow.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 07:30:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:35:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 07:30:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:35:20 PM
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?
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 06:19:33 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 11:41:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 11:41:22 PMClosed-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.
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2011, 07:21:15 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on October 30, 2011, 07:14:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2011, 07:11:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Monoriu on October 31, 2011, 06:01:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2011, 09:29:04 AM
Really? From the posts here I'd always assumed there were still closed shop unions in the US.
Nope. Not since 1947.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2011, 12:26:48 PM
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.
Back then we also enacted stuff like Social Security. I don't think Social Security is going to be deemed socially acceptable either these days.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2011, 12:26:48 PM
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,
Seems a reasonable middle ground between those two.
Quote from: DGuller on October 31, 2011, 12:58:24 PM
Back then we also enacted stuff like Social Security. I don't think Social Security is going to be deemed socially acceptable either these days.
It's not that it's socially unacceptable; it's that it's headed for insolvency under the current structure.
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2011, 09:51:56 AM
Yeah that was a rather weak example, fahdiz.
*shrug*
1) Definitely unhappy;
2) Nonviolent;
3) Were not allowed to acquire similar goods and services at a different location.
It's also not the first time that banks, fearing a bank run, have prevented people from removing their money by temporarily suspending withdrawals. I'd also be willing to wager that some of those other bank runs have made far more of a scene.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2011, 01:29:41 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2011, 12:26:48 PM
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,
Seems a reasonable middle ground between those two.
Three, actually.
But would people tolerate a tax on wealth? Not just an estate or real estate tax, but on wealth proper? They do on business inventories, but how could they ever do it for personal possessions and bank accounts?
Quote from: fahdiz on October 31, 2011, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 31, 2011, 09:51:56 AM
Yeah that was a rather weak example, fahdiz.
*shrug*
1) Definitely unhappy;
2) Nonviolent;
3) Were not allowed to acquire similar goods and services at a different location.
It's also not the first time that banks, fearing a bank run, have prevented people from removing their money by temporarily suspending withdrawals. I'd also be willing to wager that some of those other bank runs have made far more of a scene.
The Dallas Group wasn't trying to close accounts but preventing people from entering the bank. The CitiBank individuals in New York may have been trying to close their accounts (although Citibank says only one individual asked to close their account so who knows) but per one of the protestors : "We entered the building chanting. Inside, a man began by announcing that we were there to have a short teach-in regarding our student loan experiences...were were asked to leave by management, but chose to keep on talking. We were not shouting or moving about at all — we were in a loosely formed circle in the center of the bank lobby."
Color me unconvinced that they were arrested for disruptive behavior while trying to close their accounts.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 04:40:47 PM
But would people tolerate a tax on wealth? Not just an estate or real estate tax, but on wealth proper? They do on business inventories, but how could they ever do it for personal possessions and bank accounts?
To me it seems fairer to tax consumption rather than wealth - but that's just sort of a first-blush reaction to such a proposal. And I'm not wealthy, either.
We tax cars and houses, I don't see why taxing a bank account would be particularly different (in fact, it'd be far superior, since taxing a bank account is taxing liquid assets, as opposed to potentially forcing the sale of a physical asset that generates wealth, like a car).
Yi, I didn't ignore you, I'm thinking about your question.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
Yi, I didn't ignore you, I'm thinking about your question.
What question?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2011, 05:50:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
Yi, I didn't ignore you, I'm thinking about your question.
What question?
The one about why high income individuals should pay a higher percentage as well as merely a greater absolute amount in income tax.
My first response is to suggest that a high income individual is likelier to use more government-provided infrastructure, from roads to the court system, than a poorer individual. Likewise, because they consume more, their needs must be serviced, on average, by more people than a poorer person. This is more tenuous, but it segues into my second point.
My second thought is that taxing individuals highly valued by the market due to high demand and low supply is a market corrective for the lower income earned by those whose skills are in higher supply, but are foundational and necessary to society, without which the higher valued individual could not function in his or her higher valued role. However, I suspect you wouldn't buy that, because I reckon you assume that the market valuation of any activity is its intrinsic value, whereas I assume that supply is an extrinsic factor to value that affects the market valuation of an activity but not its intrinsic value. If that makes sense.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
We tax cars and houses, I don't see why taxing a bank account would be particularly different (in fact, it'd be far superior, since taxing a bank account is taxing liquid assets, as opposed to potentially forcing the sale of a physical asset that generates wealth, like a car).
Houses and cars have market value. When I register a car or the deed to a house, the state tells me how much I have to pay in taxes. I don't see an equivalent enforcement mechanism for bank account balances, bonds, stocks, unincorporated partnerships, and the like.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but don't see how you are going to enforce it, and also agree that liquidity of wealth could be an issue. Is it practical to sell 15% of a farm or house?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:54:15 PM
My first response is to suggest that a high income individual is likelier to use more government-provided infrastructure, from roads to the court system, than a poorer individual. Likewise, because they consume more, their needs must be serviced, on average, by more people than a poorer person. This is more tenuous, but it segues into my second point.
I don't see how yo can sustain this one. There are a number of services and infrastructure whose provision has zero corelation to income. A poor person walks on a sidewalk just as much or more than a rich person. A middle class person drives across a bridge roughly as frequently as a rich person.
QuoteMy second thought is that taxing individuals highly valued by the market due to high demand and low supply is a market corrective for the lower income earned by those whose skills are in higher supply, but are foundational and necessary to society, without which the higher valued individual could not function in his or her higher valued role. However, I suspect you wouldn't buy that, because I reckon you assume that the market valuation of any activity is its intrinsic value, whereas I assume that supply is an extrinsic factor to value that affects the market valuation of an activity but not its intrinsic value. If that makes sense.
Sounds like your're trying to argue that some jobs generate positive externalities that the market doesn't account for. The first problem with that argument is that typically we try to account for jobs that generate externalities by making them public sector jobs. The second problem is to show that those extenalities rise at a faster rate than income. I.e. you and I only get 30 cents worth of police protection on our marginal dollar of income but Lemonjello and Marty get a full dollar on their marginal dollar.
If *that* makes any sense.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 06:00:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
We tax cars and houses, I don't see why taxing a bank account would be particularly different (in fact, it'd be far superior, since taxing a bank account is taxing liquid assets, as opposed to potentially forcing the sale of a physical asset that generates wealth, like a car).
Houses and cars have market value. When I register a car or the deed to a house, the state tells me how much I have to pay in taxes. I don't see an equivalent enforcement mechanism for bank account balances, bonds, stocks, unincorporated partnerships, and the like.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but don't see how you are going to enforce it, and also agree that liquidity of wealth could be an issue. Is it practical to sell 15% of a farm or house?
That's the thing, taxing an account obviates any need for valuation. It's worth exactly what it says. The only remaining problem would be tracking, which banks of course already must do for their own purposes.
I'm not really advocating it as such, though. I just said it seemed like a better idea than property taxes, which I don't really like very much at all.
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 06:00:55 PM
Houses and cars have market value. When I register a car or the deed to a house, the state tells me how much I have to pay in taxes. I don't see an equivalent enforcement mechanism for bank account balances, bonds, stocks, unincorporated partnerships, and the like.
I think houses and cars and things like art are included in the European 'solidarity' wealth taxes. I think Luxembourg, France and Switzerland have them - they're progressive which is somewhat curious when they're on net assets over, say, €1million. I believe there's been a fair few other wealth taxes introduced as part of the austerity measures in various Euro countries.
Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2011, 06:05:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:54:15 PM
My first response is to suggest that a high income individual is likelier to use more government-provided infrastructure, from roads to the court system, than a poorer individual. Likewise, because they consume more, their needs must be serviced, on average, by more people than a poorer person. This is more tenuous, but it segues into my second point.
I don't see how yo can sustain this one. There are a number of services and infrastructure whose provision has zero corelation to income. A poor person walks on a sidewalk just as much or more than a rich person. A middle class person drives across a bridge roughly as frequently as a rich person.
QuoteMy second thought is that taxing individuals highly valued by the market due to high demand and low supply is a market corrective for the lower income earned by those whose skills are in higher supply, but are foundational and necessary to society, without which the higher valued individual could not function in his or her higher valued role. However, I suspect you wouldn't buy that, because I reckon you assume that the market valuation of any activity is its intrinsic value, whereas I assume that supply is an extrinsic factor to value that affects the market valuation of an activity but not its intrinsic value. If that makes sense.
Sounds like your're trying to argue that some jobs generate positive externalities that the market doesn't account for. The first problem with that argument is that typically we try to account for jobs that generate externalities by making them public sector jobs. The second problem is to show that those extenalities rise at a faster rate than income. I.e. you and I only get 30 cents worth of police protection on our marginal dollar of income but Lemonjello and Marty get a full dollar on their marginal dollar.
If *that* makes any sense.
Well, yeah, that's sort of exactly what I mean--although I wouldn't use police protection as an example. But wealthy people's divorces, deaths, and disputed business transactions most certainly occupy more court resources than otherwise law-abiding people with fewer assets (indeed, there's a certain barrier amount below which civil disputes are unprofitable). Likewise--and you're cherrypicking pretty neutral examples--a rich person walks on sidewalks to the same extent, but a wealthier person is likelier to use far more electricity, gasoline, and transportation infrastructure in the delivery of their greater amount of goods, than a poor person. They are definitely responsible for more negative externalities. Specialized taxes, or specific laws and regulations, could reduce this, and may be fairer in many regards (not every rich person drives a nitro-burning funny car) but a progressive income tax is administratively simpler.
But even as far as "police protection" goes, to a certain degree that's true. It may be argued that the government provides significantly more to a wealthy person in terms of creating a stable environment than a poor person. Outside of the unpleasant argument that the poors would eat them if nothing stood in their way, certainly wealthy persons benefit more from an environment which provides them with the stability to engage in contracts where they tend to have greater bargaining power (usually through an organized collective intermediary, like a corporation--but who most benefits from shareholder status? probably not poor people). The stability government provides is vital to wealthy people's wealth, and arguably less so to poor people's poverty. That is, a person unemployed even within a stable environment loses comparatively little were government institutions to vanish, and may even stand to gain as without a court system or police power foreclosures and the like are somewhat more difficult to pull off; a wealthy person stands to lose everything if the government went away.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2011, 06:10:37 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2011, 06:00:55 PM
Houses and cars have market value. When I register a car or the deed to a house, the state tells me how much I have to pay in taxes. I don't see an equivalent enforcement mechanism for bank account balances, bonds, stocks, unincorporated partnerships, and the like.
I think houses and cars and things like art are included in the European 'solidarity' wealth taxes. I think Luxembourg, France and Switzerland have them - they're progressive which is somewhat curious when they're on net assets over, say, €1million. I believe there's been a fair few other wealth taxes introduced as part of the austerity measures in various Euro countries.
You guys have your outrageous sales taxes, though. How can one enjoy solidarity when a pack of cigarettes costs $20?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 06:22:01 PM
<snip>
I concede the one about use of the courts, though itsn't it true that in civil cases and divorces and such the parties pay the court costs?
Electricity and gas "infrastructure" is paid for by electricity bills and gas bills. You could argue that Scrooge McDuck puts more of a stress on bridges, ports, etc. because he is consuming more goods, but you still need to argue that this use of infrastructure is *disproportionate* to his income. I.e. you and I spend $1 so we beat up the infrastructure a penny, why does the ratio go up when Marty spends $10,000? Shouldn't the same ratio of expenditure to infrastructure apply at both levels?
QuoteBut even as far as "police protection" goes, to a certain degree that's true. It may be argued that the government provides significantly more to a wealthy person in terms of creating a stable environment than a poor person. Outside of the unpleasant argument that the poors would eat them if nothing stood in their way, certainly wealthy persons benefit more from an environment which provides them with the stability to engage in contracts where they tend to have greater bargaining power (usually through an organized collective intermediary, like a corporation--but who most benefits from shareholder status? probably not poor people). The stability government provides is vital to wealthy people's wealth, and arguably less so to poor people's poverty. That is, a person unemployed even within a stable environment loses comparatively little were government institutions to vanish, and may even stand to gain as without a court system or police power foreclosures and the like are somewhat more difficult to pull off; a wealthy person stands to lose everything if the government went away.
Well this is an interesting line of argumentation.
By the wealthy, of the wealthy and for the wealthy?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 31, 2011, 06:13:51 PM
Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.
This is a big political issue in this country for the elderly.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 31, 2011, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 31, 2011, 06:13:51 PM
Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.
This is a big political issue in this country for the elderly.
It's been an issue for the elderly everywhere, although I don't think it's gained much traction here. It's commonly held that the elderly shouldn't live in Alberta, and that they'd be happier someplace else.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 31, 2011, 06:13:51 PM
Property taxes are like a tax on merely existing for poor people. That shit shouldn't exist. Or at least not on owner-occupied residences. Then again, if it's a rental, the income is taxed anyway.
Since schools are funded in large part by property taxes - at least in this state - where would you find the revenue to fund those schools when the property taxes go away? Additional income tax? A sales tax?
In Georgia, the proposed solution to eliminating property taxes was a 3% state-wide sales tax.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2011, 07:31:23 PM
In Georgia, the proposed solution to eliminating property taxes was a 3% state-wide sales tax.
Sounds good to me.
Actually, I always liked the reverse mortgage solution to property taxes for the elderly. They don't have to pay the taxes, but the unpaid liability becomes a lien on the house, to be paid off when sold or inherited. The interest rate for that type of arrangement could be quite low.
Quote from: fahdiz on October 31, 2011, 07:32:23 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 31, 2011, 07:31:23 PM
In Georgia, the proposed solution to eliminating property taxes was a 3% state-wide sales tax.
Sounds good to me.
Aren't you in Oregon too? That'll never happen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2011, 06:31:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 06:22:01 PM
<snip>
I concede the one about use of the courts, though itsn't it true that in civil cases and divorces and such the parties pay the court costs?
To a degree, that depends upon the jurisdiction. In most places, I don't think they're self-sustaining.
Quote
Well this is an interesting line of argumentation.
Oh, yeah, fahdiz reminded me, public education tends to favor the intelligent, which is correlated with wealth, and advanced classes for smarties would seem to require better teachers than dumbass classes for dumbasses. I don't know exactly how all this shakes out, though, so I'm presenting that simply as food for thought.
Quote from: sbr on October 31, 2011, 08:29:45 PM
Aren't you in Oregon too? That'll never happen.
I know. Sad.
I rather like grumbler's idea, on first read. I'll want to think about that more.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 01:12:28 AM
Quote from: sbr on October 31, 2011, 08:29:45 PM
Aren't you in Oregon too? That'll never happen.
I know. Sad.
I rather like grumbler's idea, on first read. I'll want to think about that more.
I really like the way the value of my house keeps going down, but the property taxes I owe keeps going up.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
We tax cars and houses, I don't see why taxing a bank account would be particularly different (in fact, it'd be far superior, since taxing a bank account is taxing liquid assets, as opposed to potentially forcing the sale of a physical asset that generates wealth, like a car).
Yi, I didn't ignore you, I'm thinking about your question.
Wouldn't you be encouraging people to never save money / not keep money in banks?
Yeah. If you tax łiquid assets, people will just always find ways of keeping the assets in a non-taxable form. It's funny how ideologues like Ideologue always seem to miss the basics of reality.
Quote from: sbr on November 01, 2011, 07:38:29 AM
I really like the way the value of my house keeps going down, but the property taxes I owe keeps going up.
Yeah, I'm fairly certain Oregon's tax assessor's office smokes crack.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 08:35:18 AM
Wouldn't you be encouraging people to never save money / not keep money in banks?
Yes, we'd see a heyday of offshore banking. That's some happy Swiss folks!
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 08:35:18 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 31, 2011, 05:47:42 PM
We tax cars and houses, I don't see why taxing a bank account would be particularly different (in fact, it'd be far superior, since taxing a bank account is taxing liquid assets, as opposed to potentially forcing the sale of a physical asset that generates wealth, like a car).
Yi, I didn't ignore you, I'm thinking about your question.
Wouldn't you be encouraging people to never save money / not keep money in banks?
Probably the case. Like I said, I was approaching it more from a moral/fairness point of view (with some consideration of administrative feasibility), but that's a pretty big practical objection.
I bury my money in the yard. Argh.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2011, 12:40:48 PM
Probably the case. Like I said, I was approaching it more from a moral/fairness point of view (with some consideration of administrative feasibility), but that's a pretty big practical objection.
Taxes shouldn't exist for moral reasons. Their sole purpose should be to generate needed revenue for government services. I think we forget that sometimes. Societies like ours which simultaneously demand government services and complain about the fact that someone has to pay for them seem to suffer from a collective multiple personality disorder.