quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Eh? You never heard of income tax or savings tax?!

There are financial transactions involved. You get paid, you pay taxes. You earn interest, you pay taxes. Why is death a taxable event? This is a very different issue and one that it appears you're struggling to get your hands around. The death tax is a scam. Basically the government says, "OK, you're dead, you won't be needing this anymore so I'll take it. What are you gonna do? Zombie me?" And regardless, nobody has made a rational argument as to why any of the money should go to the government. Especially since, as I said earlier, that money has already likely been taxed at least once already.

Last edited by Shakka on Feb-21-2008 at 22:02

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's like when Hillary Clinton was preaching about oil companies' profits. She said (paraphrasing): "when I am president I want to take those profits and mash them around in my pussy until it feels good." At least the first half of the sentence is a direct quote. And she couldn't be any more wrong. That mentality is dangerous and simply has no place in this country (though maybe it would be good in Venezuela).

My granmother's relative use to work for oil companies before oil was nationailized here in Mexico. He was becoming extremely wealthy and then all of a sudden the government nationalized oil and he lost his job. Really if a company is ethical with it's oil there should be no reason for nationalized oil. It is a big mistake.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt This is what your entire argument is based on George...and it is a terribly flawed statement. Capitalism is nothing more than a lack of coercion...a lack of force. It requires nothing...and doesn't force anybody to do anything. In any free economy, there is going to be a bell curve as Shakka says. Not everyone can become a millionaire, and the majority of people are going to end up on the middle and lower end of the spectrum. It isn't because they were "held down" or required to stay there by evil/rich/greedy corporations. It is because this is the natural order of things in any free society.

Heh you've just argued EXACTLY the same point as me!

I haven't said "evil corporations keep people down", I have simply said that a capitalist society requires a set amount of people "at the bottom". Or, as you would say, that is "the natural order of things in any free society" - where "free society" = "liberal democracy" = "market economy" = "capitalist society" - we are making the same point with different terminology, that's all

quote:

As far as taxes go...I would argue that a flat tax with an exclusion for poverty-level wages is the most fair way to make people "give back" to society. A flat tax of 20% for all income above say $15k is both fair and progressive. Someone making $15k pays 0% in taxes. Someone making 20k pays 5%. Someone making $30k pays 10%. $40k = 12%, etc. A person making a million will pay $197k+ to the government...$2 million = $399,000+, etc. The more you make, the closer you end up to the 20% rate. Taxing people proportionally based on their income is the only truly "fair" method of taxation. This idea of constantly raising rates and confiscating a larger percentage as people become more successful completely warps the incentive system. It becomes a system of punishment and social engineering, rather than simple revenue collection. This is what we find objectionable..not the idea of taxation itself.

I'm not sure what you're describing there is a "flat tax". Isn't a flat tax when everybody (above whatever cut off point you want to choose) pays the same level of tax? So everybody above your (ridiculously low) $15k pay 20%? Haven't you just described a progressive tax with a cap of 20%

Either way, the problem essentially with altering the tax system is that, in this case at least, it is designed to favour the richer earners. Otherwise the system simply would not be proposed. If richer people are paying less then you leave yourself with a huge deficit in the national budget. Do you know what your preferred tax system would equate into budgetary terms? What public services would you cut back on? And lets be honest, there would have to be HUGE cut backs

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I believe that in George's eyes, there is essentially a pot of wealth of fixed size that should be controlled by the government. Everybody will take something out of this pot over the course of their lifetimes, some taking far more than others. Therefore, those that take out more should have some sort of moral imperative to put back into the pot because they've taken more than their "fair" share.

I don't think a government should control all the wealth of a country, as you are trying to suggest. What I do believe however is that a government, as the "administrator of society" (which I think is what you said earlier) has a responsibility to provide certain services for all members of society in order to provide security and stability (otherwise your rich people would not be able to get rich in the first place). I think that society as a whole should pay for those services (run by the government) and that those who can afford to pay more should do, because they are the ones that benefit the most from society

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka There are financial transactions involved. You get paid, you pay taxes. You earn interest, you pay taxes. Why is death a taxable event? This is a very different issue and one that it appears you're struggling to get your hands around. The death tax is a scam. Basically the government says, "OK, you're dead, you won't be needing this anymore so I'll take it. What are you gonna do? Zombie me?" And regardless, nobody has made a rational argument as to why any of the money should go to the government. Especially since, as I said earlier, that money has already likely been taxed at least once already.

I guess it is classed as an "income" to whoever is receiving the estate (after all, the dead person is not being taxed are they? Their heirs are)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why? Would it help if I said anyone who qualifies can use them? You don't have to make a ton of money to qualify for many, if not most, of the deductions that many people, rich and average, utilize to lower their taxable income.

its like saying starving children in africa have the same rights to eat that i do.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its like saying starving children in africa have the same rights to eat that i do.

wtf? I'm not even sure how that's a relevant comparison or that there is even such a concept as a "right to eat."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka wtf? I'm not even sure how that's a relevant comparison or that there is even such a concept as a "right to eat."

might've been rawls (i forget) that talked about the relative "freedoms" and how a freedom to buy a loaf of bread isn't really a free choice if you don't have the money.

what i am saying is there are far more options for wealthier people to minimise their tax than poorer people, so to say that "everyone can do it" isnt really accurate.

___________________

george what I described is a flat tax. The poverty line in America is around $13k today, so I gave it a little bump and said $15k is the starting point where people should have to pay income taxes. So if you earn $20k, you only pay taxes on $5000. $5000 x 20% = $1k, making an effective tax rate of 5%. The more you make, the higher your effective tax rate is...maxing out at 20%.

See?...Flat AND progressive. Can't we compromise?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Can't we compromise?

that would depend upon whether your proposed tax system can provide adequate funding for government. can it, without privatising every man and his dog?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt george what I described is a flat tax. The poverty line in America is around $13k today, so I gave it a little bump and said $15k is the starting point where people should have to pay income taxes. So if you earn $20k, you only pay taxes on $5000. $5000 x 20% = $1k, making an effective tax rate of 5%. The more you make, the higher your effective tax rate is...maxing out at 20%. See?...Flat AND progressive. Can't we compromise?

The problem is, for me anyway, is not the tax system we use. If you could convince me that whatever tax system would provide adequite revenues to pay for public resources then fine. However, when tax systems are introduced to favour rich people, that is only going to lead to an overall decrease in the amount of revenue collected by government. Therefore, you'd have to make huge cut backs in public spending, which I would be against anyway, but assuming you don't care much for public spending, you CANNOT propose less taxes unless that goes in tandem with an explanation of which public services you will cut back on (and even then you need to make sure your figures tally up)