Free Lunch

[Dark Mind]

This is a strange comment...so I take it you are an anarchist, then?

 

Or was there a smilie missing somewhere? :)

 

No I'm not an anarchist (at least in the classical rebellious sense), and there wasn't a smilie missing. I just believe that mankind would function better or just as well without a government to control people. I also know that it may function worse, or not function at all.

 

Here's my version of of a "Perfect World": :)

 

You combine Fascism (A system of government aimed at "The greatest good for the greatest number of people". It is, however, a system of government ruled by a single dictator.), Communism (Everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.), Capitalism (An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.), and a touch of the Caste sysytem (A social structure in which classes are determined by heredity). Now I know that most of these contradict the others and that is why I would like to throw out some of the beliefs of these forms of government and keep the ones that would make the system work. I would use Fascism to promote general equality among, not between, the seperate castes. I would use the Caste System to create different classes among people based on their benefit to the society (also utilizing Fascism), for instance: I would make Doctors one of the highest classes followed closely by Medicine and science (like Physics and Pharmaceutical Technicians), the people working in these classes would enjoy a higher standard of life than some, say, working in a fast food restaraunt. Communism comes into play by creating equality within the classes and keeping people in Physics on the same comfort level of living as anyone else in Physics, just the same as every Librarian would enjoy the same comforts of living as any other Librarian. Capitalism would be used to promote the rising through the castes and abolishing the former principle of having to be born to a certain level of living standards; people would now be able to be "promoted" from something like the Entertainment business to something like Farming and would be able to continually rise up the social ladder and basically be able to choose what they did. And if there was an excess number of Doctors due to their raised standard of living and people wanting to have it the Poltical class could just spread them out over fields where there were too few operating in (like Plumbing or something), but at the same standard of living (they did make it to the Doctor level...). :xx:

 

Well, those are my sixteen year old mind's beliefs on government. ;)

 

(*There's* your smilies, Tormod :))

[Buffy]

Well, those are my sixteen year old mind's beliefs on government. :)

Dreamer! Wait 'til you get to be an old fogie (anyone over 30, right?) like the rest of us... :xx:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Dark Mind]

Dreamer! Wait 'til you get to be an old fogie (anyone over 30, right?) like the rest of us... :xx:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

Actually anyone over 45 falls into the "fogie" category, anyone over 35 falls under the "old" category. Anyone under 35 is just "older". :)

[Biochemist]

...This is why our public schools suck so badly here.

It is concievable that there are a couple of problems with schools other than funding. Also another thread.

Bush's number one goal... is to implement a flat tax.

Also another thread. If the purpose of taxation is to fund governmental expenditures, there are many tax structures that would raise more revenue and spawn more growth. If the purpose is to equilbrate incomes across the landscape, that is a different objective. Most flat tax proposals would probably increase revenue to the government. They might cause incremental income inequalty, but the proportion of taxes paid by the higher brackets would probably go up.

I actually like paying my taxes!

Most Americans (polls show) don't mind paying taxes. They hate the complicated and ever-changing filing process. I dislike the existing tax structure becasue it skews markets and slows GDP (compared to a simpler tax policy)

[Biochemist]

Oh yes, I was just responding to Robust's seeming complaint about taxing *producers* which VAT does and US state sales taxes do not.

VAT taxes work identically to sales taxes, except they are hidden from consumers. This is just a political ploy to pretend to tax" business" when it is really an indirect consumer tax.

[Biochemist]

Here's my version of of a "Perfect World": :)You combine Fascism...Communism...Capitalism...and a touch of the Caste sysytem...

Well, those are my sixteen year old mind's beliefs on government.

Should we take a vote to see how many folks like this model? Oops- I guess we couldn't vote, unless we were in the correct caste.

[Buffy]

It is concievable that there are a couple of problems with schools other than funding.

Yeah, but its interesting to note the huge disparities between rich and poor districts. Even the rich districts go begging for money and only provide superior teaching through non-district-funded programs. But go ahead and tell Fish that teachers suck! <ducks/>

If the purpose of taxation is to fund governmental expenditures, there are many tax structures that would raise more revenue and spawn more growth. If the purpose is to equilbrate incomes across the landscape, that is a different objective.

Its an old trick to set off class warfare by calling progressive tax rates "socialist conspiracy to equilibrate incomes," but it has everything to do with the fact that they rich usually do gain more from society, and should pay it back at a higher rate. Could go on for ages about this one, and we'd never agree on the premises...

Most flat tax proposals would probably increase revenue to the government. They might cause incremental income inequalty, but the proportion of taxes paid by the higher brackets would probably go up.

That depends on the rate thats set! Its going to be a very rocky leveling, because any new lower rate for the rich is already incorporated into all the obscure tax loopholes that we take advantage of already, but many who think this is going to save them big bucks will get a nasty surprise. Actually the flat tax's biggest problem politically is that to come up with a revenue neutral rate, you're going to really put the screws to both the high end and the low end, and because of the uncertainty of what will actually happen, the "revenue neutral" rate is going to undergo some major tweaking which will be very unpleasant: it really looks like political suicide once you really start hashing out the details. This one is going to be very fun to watch...

Most Americans (polls show) don't mind paying taxes. They hate the complicated and ever-changing filing process. I dislike the existing tax structure becasue it skews markets and slows GDP (compared to a simpler tax policy)

Being for progressive tax rates actually does not prohibit radical tax simplification. Keep the brackets, throw out all the exemptions except for the standard deduction that every one gets. Simple! Fair! Woot!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

.But go ahead and tell Fish that teachers suck!

The problem is not (usually) teachers either. Another thread.

Its an old trick to set off class warfare by calling progressive tax rates "socialist conspiracy to equilibrate incomes," but it has everything to do with the fact that they rich usually do gain more from society, and should pay it back at a higher rate. Could go on for ages about this one, and we'd never agree on the premises...

I don't recall bringing up class warfare. I do recall infering political manipulation. And why give up so soon on agreement?

That depends on the rate thats set!.....many who think this is going to save them big bucks will get a nasty surprise. ...Being for progressive tax rates actually does not prohibit radical tax simplification. Keep the brackets, throw out all the exemptions except for the standard deduction that every one gets. Simple! Fair! Woot!

Hmmmm. So you are actually advocating the Bush administration plan????? That is a shock.

[Buffy]

So you are actually advocating the Bush administration plan????? That is a shock.

Naw, the Bushies are pushing the pure flat tax, but I think they know its going to go no where but will satisfy the no-tax-is-fair-tax fiscal conservatives: "I'm fer tax simplification--but only a flat tax rate is really fair: why don't the democrats have anything constructive to say about this? Its all their fault that this isn't succeeeding. <declares victory/>"...

 

I don't know anyone who doesn't want tax simplification except for those who spend at least 5 figures on their tax accountants every year and manage to keep every penny of income....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

I don't know anyone who doesn't want tax simplification except for those who spend at least 5 figures on their tax accountants every year and manage to keep every penny of income....

Buff, Buff, Buff. The number of high income folks that can keep most of their income is pretty small. And they usually do it by investing in low return, low risk vehicles, like municipal bonds (a really poor investment). That is why the top 1% pay 10% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay 4%. I paid half of my income in taxes for a long time. Pretty hard to avoid it.

[Buffy]

Buff, Buff, Buff. The number of high income folks that can keep most of their income is pretty small.

Gee you need a better accountant! Remember what Leona Helsley said, "Only the little people pay taxes...." (yes she went to jail for it, but more for bad PR than anything else.. :xx: ) Actually I only argue that if you do have decent planning, you can get your effective tax rate well below your nominal tax bracket. It does take shelters and trusts and the like and certainly imposes some long term restrictions, but it can be done legally (I've done it!). Even at that low rate, you're right, it does add up to big bucks....

 

See the following post....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

A Conservative Economist's Guide to Who should Pay Taxes and Why

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Investment income should not be taxed: Investments in businesses make the economy grow. If you tax them, there will be less investment and the economy will be slowed compared to the rest of the world. Businesses already pay taxes, so this is double taxation.
  
• Property should not be taxed: Property is purchased with income that has already been taxed, and this is double taxation.
  
• Businesses should not pay taxes: it makes them less competitive on the world market and it just gets passed on to the consumer anyway.
  
• Estates should not be taxed: Estates of any size normally consist of investments, and taxes for death perturb the markets by forcing liquidation of assets in a manner that does not provide an optimal return (or "Martha and the kids will have to sell the family farm"). Estates also consist of income that has already been taxed and this is double taxation.
  
• Sales of luxury goods should not be taxed: This represents a tarriff for imported goods that invites retaliation from other countries, and for domestically produced items, it reduces demand for those items and provides downward pressure on jobs.
  
• Wages should be taxed: Wage earners have no alternate options as all jobs are taxed and there is not purturbation of the market caused by it.
  
• Standard goods should be taxed: Like wages, there are no alternatives and the market is not skewed and substitution of goods merely shifts to the most efficient manufacturing and delivery mechanisms.
  
• Usage fees are justifiable based on the sale of resources owned/controlled by the government, and they provide a market mechanism by which these hard to value resources can be priced to provide the most economic benefit (e.g. paying to use the carpool lane on the freeway with a single rider)
  

So, who should pay taxes?

 

Before you all flame me, read my signature line below very carefully! :xx:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[maddog]

Buff, Buff, Buff. The number of high income folks that can keep most of their income is pretty small. And they usually do it by investing in low return, low risk vehicles, like municipal bonds (a really poor investment). That is why the top 1% pay 10% of all taxes and the bottom 50% pay 4%. I paid half of my income in taxes for a long time. Pretty hard to avoid it.

I question your statement... I paid the 17% tax rate this last year. I have nearly a 6 figure income at

an aerospace firm. I don't own a home at the moment. I am single. Percentile wise, I am in the top 10%

of income earners in America. If you are paying half your income in taxes, you are either doing them

by yourself (BADLY) or you ought to FIRE that Accountant!

 

I remember hearing of a resteraunt owner who claimed his goal was to double the taxes he paid each

year ! Now he did not care who was in office. Whatever he was paying meant he had to make even

more !! It is what you put your attention on.... :xx:

 

maddog

[Biochemist]

...If you are paying half your income in taxes, you are either doing them

by yourself (BADLY) or you ought to FIRE that Accountant!...

It may surprie y'all to hear that I do understand taxes. I do understand that it is pretty easy to shelter the first 25-40% or so of your income taxes, and a great fraction of gains (by not recognizing them). But the marginal tax rate is still high. In Oregon, it is about 45% on income, (35% federal, 9.5% state). Property taxes average about 1.5% of real value (unavoiable tax) and payroll taxes are 7.5% of your first $90,000 or 15% if you are self employed.

 

This is not a question of bad accounting. It is undeniably true that the top 1% of the US pays 10% of the total taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 4%. These numbers include that fact that the top wage earners use all of the legal options at their disposal to minimize taxes. It is an assault on reason to suggest that the wealthy can avoid taxes, except for rare circumstances.