Post #289,024
7/15/07 1:24:32 PM
|
Money is taxed many times
Every dollar I have has been taxed some time in the past in another transaction.
In many ways, wealth tax is more fair then sales tax. Sales taxes punish people and businesses that are involved in many step transactions, as the tax imposed at each step accumulates through the whole thing. That is why there are complex VAT taxes in Europe and business tax licenses in the US.
Jay
|
Post #289,035
7/15/07 4:29:38 PM
|
it wasnt your money then was it?
you take money away from people, money itself is an abstract. Taxing people because they have more than you is called stealing. Taxing the profits when the profit happens is called paying your fair share.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,039
7/15/07 5:33:52 PM
|
Bah.
Taxing people because they have more than you is called stealing. Mixing up terms doesn't help the discussion. Stealing is when someone takes something of yours without permission. Taxes are one of the ways we pay for common necessities. When you're dead, the stuff isn't yours any more. :-) Why should investment income or capital gains be taxed differently than wages? Why do some places tax property less when the owner is over 65? Why does marital status impact the taxes we pay? Why do churches not pay taxes? Why aren't we allowed to withhold a portion of our taxes for things we disagree with? Because our representatives have written the rules that way. There are fairness arguments on both sides. For me it comes down to the things I've discussed many times before. Our government requires money for the services we demand (or demanded in the past). Accumulation of vast sums of wealth based on inheritance is bad for society if it goes on too long. It makes more sense for the wealthy to pay more (a higher percentage) than the poor and lower middle class. It makes sense for estates to be taxed when they change hands when they are large enough. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #289,041
7/15/07 6:26:26 PM
|
couple of points
income is income, whether capital gains or wages
unless the elderly can stay in their house they will end up in a taxpayer funded nursing home
If I am dead its going with me, by my wishes not yours :-)
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,054
7/15/07 10:03:08 PM
|
Taxation affects economic development.
Notice that the trend in taxation in recent centuries has been away from taxing captial to taxing transactions. That is why people say the same dollar gets taxed multiple times - not so: most taxation has been event-based for a long time. That dollar gets taxed as it gets paid to you in earnings, then it gets taxed again when you spend it.
It would be interesting to find a proper article about how different taxation stimulates economies. If the tax base (could be) shifted to a wealth tax, rather than income/outoings tax, what would we see change? Prices and income would certainly change if they were untaxed, but then people may be reluctant to acquire capital, because that's taxed, now. Rather than people finding ways to minimise income tax, they'd find ways to minimize owning taxable goods. Would it spur more charitable giving? How do you decide what good are taxable? Would people spend more on service and less on goods?
Could be an interesting intellectual exercise.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
|
-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. | · my ·
· [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] ·
· [link|http://yceran.org/|website] · |
|
Post #289,171
7/16/07 10:20:42 PM
|
Easy
If the tax base (could be) shifted to a wealth tax, rather than income/outoings tax, what would we see change? Corporate execs would get crazy perks. Like free use of the jet, residences in every city they've got a major presence, etc. etc etc. Now this kind of wealth can't be handed down to your kids, and makes execs more likely to want to stick with a company for a while. Hmm, might not be such a bad idea after all. ===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #289,175
7/16/07 11:01:58 PM
|
Hmm.
Yabbut the corp would have to pay tax on such things. But I like the idea that it would encourage loyalty. Job recriuters might have to find new jobs...
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
|
-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. | · my ·
· [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] ·
· [link|http://yceran.org/|website] · |
|
Post #289,199
7/17/07 7:03:03 AM
|
I don't like that idea much.
It seems to me that company employees should get their compensation mostly in salary, with some profit-sharing thrown in as an incentive (in the form of stock or cash), and some small fraction in other benefits (a Thanksgiving turkey, deeply discounted merchandise or meals in the company cafeteria, etc.). Businesses shouldn't be providing lodging, entertainment, etc., etc. except in hardship cases (e.g. for branches in foreign lands, etc.).
(Heading off on a tangent...)
The tax system shouldn't be structured to prefer non-salary compensation because it introduces complications and makes things less transparent. What's the use of a corporate a Central Park West apartment decorated with Van Goghs worth? Why shouldn't the owners of the company and the employees benefit just as much from the company's success?
I don't buy the argument that corporate executives need to be paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in total annual compensation for a company to be successful. I think the objective evidence is that [link|http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4526.html|executive compensation has almost nothing to do with actual success of the company].
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #289,066
7/15/07 11:19:18 PM
|
No, but I'm the one paying
If Joe buys something that costs $10 and has a 10% sales tax on top of that, then he has to turn around and sell it for at least $11 when Jane buys it. Jane in turn pays $12.1, the $11 plus the $1.1 in tax she owes. Thus when I want to buy it I'm looking at $13.31 minimum. And that is before anybody makes any money. But more importantly, notice that I in effect paid $3.31 in tax even though the tax rate is 10%. That was what I was saying about sales tax adding up across transactions.
What you are talking about with profits is income tax. Income tax is less vulnerable to the problem above but it has a whole different set of problems that don't hit other forms. The problem with income tax is that people and corporations can do things that reduce or shift the apparent profit around buy manipulating the companies books. Companies often buy other companies simply because the second company has a big tax loss that the first company can use to offset it's profits.
All tax is taking money from somebody to pay for government. Every form has consequences for the economy, and effects people to a different degree.
Jay
|
Post #289,072
7/16/07 3:20:23 AM
|
Wasn't yours before you inherited it either, was it?
Taxes seem to be applied to "income", in a broad sense: When you get money, it gets taxed. Why should it not be taxed just because you got it from your dead great-uncle, just for being his great-nephew, in stead of getting it from your employer, just for showing up and looking dumb forty hours a week? In both cases, you're getting money that wasn't yours before; in both cases, you're asked to pay part of it in tax. Perfectly logical and sensible.
Fuck, the only thing more logical and sensible would be to lump it all together -- the wages of work, capital gains of all kinds, inheritance, everything -- and tax the whole shebang at the same rate. Income is income; why should some of it be taxed much less than other kinds? Especially since in most economies, it seems that the kinds of income the well-off are more likely to have -- capital gains and inheritances -- are taxed less than the kinds the less-well-off are more likely to have (wages / salaries, basically). By pure coincidence, I'm suuure...
As for your "stealing" gobbledygook... Well, the less said about that, the better -- for you. (Though it's good to know, if you ever were to become unemployed, you have excellent fallback opportunities: As a spokesdrone for the RIAA, the MPAA, or some other gang^H^H^H^Hassociation of that ilk.)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #289,081
7/16/07 9:12:02 AM
|
If you were willing to flat rate the tax Im with you
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,186
7/17/07 2:33:08 AM
|
Why should I? WTF does one have to do with the other???
|
Post #289,082
7/16/07 9:55:50 AM
|
Cap Gains tas is lower not by coincidence
Its done specifically to encourage people to invest in capital instead of in commodities or other non-productive resources.
And, of course, it is a "rich people" tax because, in general, those people that have the money to make those investments already have money. Shall we have them build big houses and never sell them, or shall we have them invest it in operating businesses to continue to drive the economy?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #289,085
7/16/07 10:42:12 AM
|
they are already building big houses they cant sell
they cant sit with the money under the mattress, its got to be on the street earning. Now a 5.5% savings account gets the cash to a bank that vigs it out at 10-29% and the economy rolls. Buying stocks is an alternative that will outstrip the banks but if it was taxed as straight income both the savings account and the stocks will still make money. As far as taking the cash out of circulation, the first thing a rich person learns is never touch principal, sitting on assets will dig into the primary pile.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,185
7/17/07 2:31:52 AM
|
Is this *also* a coincidience?
I point out how you ALWAYs come down on the side of Big Biz against Average Joe, you seem to try to say it ain't so and I'm somehow mistaken... Now it looks like you're coming down on the side of Buddy Rich against Average Joe, but I assume I'm only imagining this, too?
I mean, sheesh, man... WTF is it with you? Are you seriously trying to claim you're ALWAYS "just playing Devil's Advocate"? (It seems it hasn't occurred to you that ALWAYS being His advocate amounts to *actually* arraying yourself in His ranks.)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #289,210
7/17/07 8:40:00 AM
|
I'm not coming down on ANY side.
Thats simply the economic truth behind cap gains.
I didn't voice support for it, nor did I voice disdain.
It is what it is.
I already know WTF it is with you. Its been that way around here for years. Glad you could catch up. Have a pow-wow with Ashton for pointers.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
