[Iamamartianchurch]

Here's something I'd be in favor of.

Taxes falling into three categories:
Primary Goods - Natural Resources
Secondary Goods - Product of Human Labor + Primary Goods
Tertiary Goods - Financial Goods that are the product of exchanges of money


Primary Goods:
The use of any natural resource ought to be subject to taxation. This includes the generation of waste since it has to go somewhere.

Secondary Goods:
No Taxation. Remove all taxes on earned income, sales or the like.

Tertiary Goods:
Heavily Tax Financial/Interest income. This includes stocks, bonds, derivatives etc etc.

The taxes on the primary goods will up the price of just about every secondary good no doubt. However, products that use recycled material or human labor over machinery can dodge most extraction taxes. Removing taxes on the exchange of secondary goods puts more money in your pocket to purchase as you see fit as well as encourage the creation/purchase of energy efficient and less waste generating products since Carbon Taxes will become a thing. The average person can dodge primary taxes rather easily.

The taxes on Tertiary goods are there to address income inequality and imbalances caused when the production of financial wealth vastly outsteps the production of real wealth. When the exchange of money has no negative feedback, it tends to form accumulations. Heavily taxing financial income means forces those accumulations back into the secondary economy.

I wrote this on my phone so there's probably some errors and "what the ****s?" In there.

I'll try to do a TL;DR

Trickle down is bull****.

OK done.

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Trickle down seems to be working for Obama. He's having no prob affording expensive vacas.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

The taxes on the primary goods will up the price of just about every secondary good no doubt. However, products that use recycled material or human labor over machinery can dodge most extraction taxes. Removing taxes on the exchange of secondary goods puts more money in your pocket to purchase as you see fit as well as encourage the creation/purchase of energy efficient and less waste generating products since Carbon Taxes will become a thing. The average person can dodge primary taxes rather easily.

How would you differentiate between a renewable (like trees) vs. a nonrenewable (like oil)?

And it gets worse than that - how do you differentiate between water extracted from an aquifer that can replenish itself in a few months vs. an aquifer that requires 10,000+ years to replenish (as they're tapping out west)?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Umami

How would you differentiate between a renewable (like trees) vs. a nonrenewable (like oil)?

And it gets worse than that - how do you differentiate between water extracted from an aquifer that can replenish itself in a few months vs. an aquifer that requires 10,000+ years to replenish (as they're tapping out west)?

Percentage based on timescale? I'm going back to an earlier function of government here. The government guarantees the commons of which include the land and resources of the nation. Through taxes and a bit of regulation on persons, you can ensure a "non renewable" aquifer can't be plundered. The ones out west were filled what, last ice age? Anyway you want to make sure such things aren't rapidly depleted. It's probably up to someone more intelligent than myself to figure out what rate is acceptable for renewable and non renewable resources.

I'm open to debate/alternatives. The goals here were to get a tax code/idea/philosophy that introduces negative feedback on the exchange of money and also to jive with finite resource availability.

[Snake13]

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

Trickle down seems to be working for Obama. He's having no prob affording expensive vacas.

Shut up

During his eight-year presidency, [George W.] Bush did take 879 days of vacation, including 77 trips to his Texas ranch. So far, Obama has taken about 150 days off.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...ype=blogs&_r=0

[Eric the Fish]

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

Trickle down seems to be working for Obama. He's having no prob affording expensive vacas.

Bush Vacation days taken, 977. He once took the whole month of August off. Obama so far around 140. No one cares so get over it.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Guys can we please ignore shakey?

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Originally Posted by Eric the Fish

Bush Vacation days taken, 977. He once took the whole month of August off. Obama so far around 140. No one cares so get over it.

As funny as it is to see conservatives hammer Obama in all honesty I could care less about where he spends his personal time. I was speaking in regards to the 1%. The dems blow a lot of smoke about class warfare and the rich not paying their share. But in the end it's just a ploy to garner votes and the rich just keep on gettin' richer. Sure it trickles a tiny bit more than the GOP but it's not enough to make any real difference. Don't let 'em hoodoo you into believing it too.

[benji25]

Do you have any idea what that would do to the capital markets? People will stop investing which will kill the expansion of the economy, reduce jobs and innovation. Keep in mind this is the market that keeps people's 401k's, pensions, IRAs and all the like afloat.

[BP0019]

Originally Posted by benji25

Do you have any idea what that would do to the capital markets? People will stop investing which will kill the expansion of the economy, reduce jobs and innovation. Keep in mind this is the market that keeps people's 401k's, pensions, IRAs and all the like afloat.

Agreed. People live in the now and don't think long term.

[BP0019]

I personally like a variation of the fair tax. Under no circumstances should our tax code consist of thousands of pages and millions of words.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by benji25

Do you have any idea what that would do to the capital markets? People will stop investing which will kill the expansion of the economy, reduce jobs and innovation. Keep in mind this is the market that keeps people's 401k's, pensions, IRAs and all the like afloat.

Yes that's the whole idea. Except you are dead wrong about investment. What this proposal does is make investment in financial income less profitable than investment in growing or starting up business. The reason is, earned income is no longer taxed. So a business owner looking to make more money is better off putting that money back into the secondary economy rather than putting it in interest incomes. Your average person is best off investing their savings not in 401Ks but in things like building a household economy, education, skill set development, property and other such wealth generators rather than spending their money on more paper.

Nevertheless, the earnings from mine and yours investment portfolio typically end up being spent on things like groceries. They aren't a real problem since they capital gets thrown back into the secondary economy. Most of the income from the investment portfolio of the top earners does not go back into the secondary economy. I mean sure they buy luxury goods and groceries but those purchases make up such a small percentage of where that income is being spent. Most of it goes into making more financial income through speculation. If you think the rich are spending their money on growing business, you are dead wrong. I'm fact the current tax codes encourage the opposite since even hiring new employees is subject to some taxation.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Yes that's the whole idea. Except you are dead wrong about investment. What this proposal does is make investment in financial income less profitable than investment in growing or starting up business. The reason is, earned income is no longer taxed. So a business owner looking to make more money is better off putting that money back into the secondary economy rather than putting it in interest incomes. Your average person is best off investing their savings not in 401Ks but in things like building a household economy, education, skill set development, property and other such wealth generators rather than spending their money on more paper.

Nevertheless, the earnings from mine and yours investment portfolio typically end up being spent on things like groceries. They aren't a real problem since they capital gets thrown back into the secondary economy. Most of the income from the investment portfolio of the top earners does not go back into the secondary economy. I mean sure they buy luxury goods and groceries but those purchases make up such a small percentage of where that income is being spent. Most of it goes into making more financial income through speculation. If you think the rich are spending their money on growing business, you are dead wrong. I'm fact the current tax codes encourage the opposite since even hiring new employees is subject to some taxation.

Most people don't have time to invest in a business of their own. I work 50 hours a week. I don't want to run a business when I get home from work nor do I want a bunch of property. What I do want is retirement. I want to put money away now so I have it later. I don't want to work until I die.

And I don't spend my investment earnings. I re-invest. In fact, I can't spend them unless I want to take a 10% penalty which I don't.

Not to mention if you get everyone investing what they have saved into "businesses" and "household economies" a lot of people will lose their life savings than if they invested in investment grade securities.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by benji25

Most people don't have time to invest in business of their own. I work 50 a week. I don't want to run a business when I get home from work nor do I want a bunch of property. What I do want is retirement. I want to put money away now so I have it later. I don't want to work until I die.

I gave more options than just business and they are just jumping off points to cue you into the correct frame of mind when talking about investment. A household economy is as simple ad taking care of as many of your own needs as you can without reliance on an income. Investing in a garden to grow food for yourself and family, investing in a solar water heater and rainwater collector. Whatever you have time for. Worried about retirement? Build your savings, you'll be bringing home a hell of a lot more now that your income isn't taxed nor are you paying taxes when you buy things.

And I don't spend my investment earnings. I re-invest. In fact, I can't spend them unless I want to take a 10% penalty which I don't.

The point was when you are old enough to collect, you spend.

Not to mention if you get everyone investing what they have saved into "businesses" and "household economies" a lot of people will lose their life savings than if they invested in investment grade securities.

No one is stopping you or anyone from investing in securities or any other sort of financial speculation. The crucial change here is that you are taxed generously on it. That's the point. To encourage investment in things that actually grow the economy. Obviously, financial earnings do grow the economy, but only when they are put into buying goods and growing businesses. The high taxation is there to ensure that transfer.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Obviously, financial earnings do grow the economy, but only when they are put into buying goods and growing businesses. The high taxation is there to ensure that transfer.

I'm ... not sure I follow here. How do most financial products produce a return?

[benji25]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I gave more options than just business and they are just jumping off points to cue you into the correct frame of mind when talking about investment. A household economy is as simple ad taking care of as many of your own needs as you can without reliance on an income. Investing in a garden to grow food for yourself and family, investing in a solar water heater and rainwater collector. Whatever you have time for. Worried about retirement? Build your savings, you'll be bringing home a hell of a lot more now that your income isn't taxed nor are you paying taxes when you buy things.



The point was when you are old enough to collect, you spend.



No one is stopping you or anyone from investing in securities or any other sort of financial speculation. The crucial change here is that you are taxed generously on it. That's the point. To encourage investment in things that actually grow the economy. Obviously, financial earnings do grow the economy, but only when they are put into buying goods and growing businesses. The high taxation is there to ensure that transfer.

But how does a garden that I live off of help anything? If anything it hurts since I am not spending that money at a store to help them hire employees.

When I invest 10% of my paycheck in to small cap securities it helps that company finance a new factory or a new product line.

Sure I won't spend it until I get older, but they are spending it now. And theoretically it should cancel out. When all the baby boomers retire we will see a huge surge in spending, because that is what they are doing. Over time it should be steady - young people saving, retired people spending.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by Umami

I'm ... not sure I follow here. How do most financial products produce a return?

By investing in real things! I think iammartian is confused.

[barrel roll]

What is a real thing?

[barrel roll]

One thing that puzzled me - the concept of land ownership wasn't had by natives when the Europeans arrived on the north American continent (or so I'm led to believe), so what the hell were those glorious bastards fighting eachother over?

[benji25]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

One thing that puzzled me - the concept of land ownership wasn't had by natives when the Europeans arrived on the north American continent (or so I'm led to believe), so what the hell were those glorious bastards fighting eachother over?

Food supply. Only so many buffalo to go around.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

One thing that puzzled me - the concept of land ownership wasn't had by natives when the Europeans arrived on the north American continent (or so I'm led to believe), so what the hell were those glorious bastards fighting eachother over?

Food, gods, power, women... the usual, no doubt.