Bah.

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

by boxley

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

by static

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

by drewk

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

by static

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

by Another Scott

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!