[licence2kill]

Viva the dumb rich:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11...dumb-rich.html

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

The fairtax has a small amount of progressivity at the very low end. It does not progress at all at the high end (which is the obvious point).

Does it need to have more on the "top end" ? The ammount collected will be greater.

Poor man won't buy a $million+ yacht, rich man won't buy a used john boat. Used john boats don't get taxed.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Does it need to have more on the "top end" ? The ammount collected will be greater.

All reputable studies have shown that the amount will be lower at the rates proposed, and the break-even rate would be I believe well over 30%. And that's just the break-even rate (i.e. the rate at which we have insufficient revenues and a huge deficit).

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Poor man won't buy a $million+ yacht, rich man won't buy a used john boat. Used john boats don't get taxed.

Depends on the state, some states tax private transactions like this.

[barrel roll]

Oh, I'm sorry. I remembered incorrectly. The Fair-tax would drastically down-size the IRS... or get rid of the need for it completely. I confused that with collecting more.

You're right, it will collect less.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

...

Depends on the state, some states tax private transactions like this.

I forgot to add the "federally, under the fair tax" part.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I forgot to add the "federally, under the fair tax" part.

Federally there is no tax on a $1m brand new yacht either, currently.

[barrel roll]

Right, but what I'm trying to say is the comment was made in "let's pretend" mode.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Right, but what I'm trying to say is the comment was made in "let's pretend" mode.

What was the point you were trying to make about the used boat vs the brand new expensive boat?

[barrel roll]

The fairtax would only be taxing purchases, right? New goods and some services (not sure exactly what services, would have to go look that up) get taxed.

The new boat, the new expensive boat purchased by Joe Millionaire, would be taxed at whatever rate Uncle Sam decides (kept hearing things about 23% and 30%, but not sure where they fit though).

The used john boat purchased by Joe Bob Bubba won't be taxed.

The new bass boat purchased by Michael Middleclass will be taxed.

Those that can afford new, PAY for it. Those without as much money, don't pay. The rich don't pay a higher percentage based on income. They pay a larger amount based on lifestyle. Progressive without increasing the rate.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The fairtax would only be taxing purchases, right? New goods and some services (not sure exactly what services, would have to go look that up) get taxed.

The new boat, the new expensive boat purchased by Joe Millionaire, would be taxed at whatever rate Uncle Sam decides (kept hearing things about 23% and 30%, but not sure where they fit though).

The used john boat purchased by Joe Bob Bubba won't be taxed.

The new bass boat purchased by Michael Middleclass will be taxed.

Those that can afford new, PAY for it. Those without as much money, don't pay. The rich don't pay a higher percentage based on income. They pay a larger amount based on lifestyle. Progressive without increasing the rate.

Problem with that is it doesn't work out that way. The Fairtax works out to be regressive on the top earners, and increases burden on the middle class.

That's because the middle and lower classes spend more of their income than the top classes do. So all of these taxation alternatives are really just ways the upper classes try to camouflage their highly unequal wealth and the effect it has on everyone else.

The only real solution is to tax wealth. The ultimate wealth tax is the estate tax, which should be confiscatory at the high end and difficult to dodge. People are free to be as successful as they can be in life, but no passing the fruits of that on to people who haven't earned it (i.e. inheritance). If you want to pass something to your kids, make a business and make them run it.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The fairtax would only be taxing purchases, right? New goods and some services (not sure exactly what services, would have to go look that up) get taxed.

The new boat, the new expensive boat purchased by Joe Millionaire, would be taxed at whatever rate Uncle Sam decides (kept hearing things about 23% and 30%, but not sure where they fit though).

The used john boat purchased by Joe Bob Bubba won't be taxed.

The new bass boat purchased by Michael Middleclass will be taxed.

Those that can afford new, PAY for it. Those without as much money, don't pay. The rich don't pay a higher percentage based on income. They pay a larger amount based on lifestyle. Progressive without increasing the rate.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Problem with that is it doesn't work out that way. The Fairtax works out to be regressive on the top earners, and increases burden on the middle class.

That's because the middle and lower classes spend more of their income than the top classes do. So all of these taxation alternatives are really just ways the upper classes try to camouflage their highly unequal wealth and the effect it has on everyone else.

The only real solution is to tax wealth. The ultimate wealth tax is the estate tax, which should be confiscatory at the high end and difficult to dodge. People are free to be as successful as they can be in life, but no passing the fruits of that on to people who haven't earned it (i.e. inheritance). If you want to pass something to your kids, make a business and make them run it.

The one thing that I despise about these is that they try to re-distribute wealth through taxation. Literally stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. If you want to re-distribute wealth that is one thing. Taxes are not the method (nor were they intended) to redistribute wealth. They are merely designed (theoretically at least) to run government and pay for expenses as the relate to the country as a whole.

If I work 60 hours a week for 10 years so I can afford a new yacht, why should I pay more for that? We live in a free society where if I want to bust my *** to buy nice things I can. If I don't want to then I don't have to. To penalize hard workers for buying things is stupid.

Specifically to Gonzo - Give me one good reason why I shouldn't be able to do what I want with my money (that I earned legally)? If I want to work hard so I can secure a certain standard of living to my posterity I should have every right to do so. I am not saying it shouldn't be taxed but to say that you should be able to pass money to your kids is the most asinine thing I have heard in a long time.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by benji25

The one thing that I despise about these is that they try to re-distribute wealth through taxation. Literally stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. If you want to re-distribute wealth that is one thing. Taxes are not the method (nor were they intended) to redistribute wealth. They are merely designed (theoretically at least) to run government and pay for expenses as the relate to the country as a whole.

What mechanism would you suggest?

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by benji25

The one thing that I despise about these is that they try to re-distribute wealth through taxation. Literally stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. If you want to re-distribute wealth that is one thing. Taxes are not the method (nor were they intended) to redistribute wealth. They are merely designed (theoretically at least) to run government and pay for expenses as the relate to the country as a whole.

Are you suggesting that the provision of social insurance is not a legitimate government function? Since the beginning of civilization, literally, governments have played a critical role in relieving inequities amongst its citizens. Whether it be disaster relief, public education, military protection, etc all are forms of wealth redistribution.

If I work 60 hours a week for 10 years so I can afford a new yacht, why should I pay more for that? We live in a free society where if I want to bust my *** to buy nice things I can. If I don't want to then I don't have to. To penalize hard workers for buying things is stupid.

The rationalization for a consumption tax is simple. When you consume something you are depriving society not only of scarce physical resources but of savings from which we draw upon to invest to increase our total wealth. Thats why economists prefer taxing consumption over income or capital gains to encourage work, saving, and investment.

[drgonzo]

It could be argued that distribution of wealth is part and parcel of society itself. The point of human society is to achieve more together than would be possible singly or in smaller groups, but in achieving these bigger things, we must necessarily figure out how to distribute the gains in such achievement. Due to the very nature of such achievements, they cannot be easily broken down among individuals.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

Are you suggesting that the provision of social insurance is not a legitimate government function? Since the beginning of civilization, literally, governments have played a critical role in relieving inequities amongst its citizens. Whether it be disaster relief, public education, military protection, etc all are forms of wealth redistribution.



The rationalization for a consumption tax is simple. When you consume something you are depriving society not only of scarce physical resources but of savings from which we draw upon to invest to increase our total wealth. Thats why economists prefer taxing consumption over income or capital gains to encourage work, saving, and investment.

Of course the government has expenses relating to public protection which applies to everyone. However, to tax the rich simply because they are rich and have more money to spend (progressively I mean) is taxing just to redistribute wealth. The same goes for "luxury" taxes in the yacht comparison. If I want to buy a BMW I should not pay more in taxes (as a percentage) than Joe Schmo buying a Honda Civic.
Military, disaster relief and public education are all benefits to the general population. To charge someone more for those than others is not a sound system in my opinion.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

It could be argued that distribution of wealth is part and parcel of society itself. The point of human society is to achieve more together than would be possible singly or in smaller groups, but in achieving these bigger things, we must necessarily figure out how to distribute the gains in such achievement. Due to the very nature of such achievements, they cannot be easily broken down among individuals.

Yeah the gains are distributed by those who contribute more. Researchers, CEO's, Doctor's etc. all get paid more because they contribute more than people attaching widget A to widget B on the assembly line.
Also you did not answer my question about why I shouldn't be able to do what I want with my money (i.e. give it to my kids when I die)

[barrel roll]

Well that's easy. The money isn't yours.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Well that's easy. The money isn't yours.

I assume you mean the money the kids receive as a gift. Who cares if it isn't there money? If someone wants to give me a gift I have every right to accept it assuming the gift is a legal item.

If you earn money it is your right to do with it what you want. It sure as hell isn't the governments money

[Iamamartianchurch]

In my mind the fundamental problem with the debate over wealth redistribution is a matter of competing and incompatible ethos.

The progressive distribution of wealth is inherently flawed because it sees division of class as being based on wealth. Even worse, it prizes success and wealth, seeing the life of the worker exactly the same as the capitalist. The proper path for the socialist ought to be a distinguishing of class along the lines of rank and duty. Abolish all notions of individual sovereignty against the sovereign state. This will never happen of course, because progressive ideology is rooted so firmly in individual sovereignty that it could never accept the communitarian ideology it claims it espouses.

[98Pro]

If less people tried to avoid taxes and more people got taxed what they should be taxed over time taxes would go down because we'd actually get things done and done right and they wouldn't have to re done and updated. Streets could be paved instead of patched, newer technology like police cars and lights and anything that uses a form of power could be replaced by newer longer lasting and more efficient thus costing less in the long run. So many things, little things could be done better if we had tax reform that was done right. If you are to live in this country and make money in this country you owe the dues that are required to make this a good country. End of story. Don't like it go find an island and create your own society and run it how you like.

[barrel roll]

Hahahaha, you're a kidder.

[98Pro]

I said if... Not like greed would escape Americans though...