> > Putin is talking about a gold-backed ruble now. We'll see if
> > that actually happens, which may set a good example, Gresham
> > notwithstanding.
> Careful what you wish for. I don't think you want a Putin. Flat tax,
> gold standard-- whatever, you don't want him or his American clone. I
> think we can agree that life in Putin's Russia can't match, say,
> Scandinavia. You know, that region next to Russia with progressive
> taxation, high top marginal tax rates, socialized medicine,
> comprehensive regulation, a public dole, and... a resulting high
> quality of life. As opposed to Russia the free market model state,
> with widening economic disparity, oligarchy, pervasive corruption, and
> declining life expectancy.
> There isn't nearly enough gold in the world to back a single economic
> superpower, let alone all of them.
> To me, it looks like oligarchs and corruption are a lot more expensive
> than Scandinavian-style income taxes.
All we need is a Scandanavian-style country -- no military and a
homogenous population about the size of New York City (Sweden).
Sweden, by the way, has been dropping its top marginal rates and some
welfare benefits, neither by a lot, but it is experimenting to attract
and retain capital.
> > > Putin is talking about a gold-backed ruble now. We'll see if
> > > that actually happens, which may set a good example, Gresham
> > > notwithstanding.
> > Careful what you wish for. I don't think you want a Putin. Flat tax,
> > gold standard-- whatever, you don't want him or his American clone. I
> > think we can agree that life in Putin's Russia can't match, say,
> > Scandinavia. You know, that region next to Russia with progressive
> > taxation, high top marginal tax rates, socialized medicine,
> > comprehensive regulation, a public dole, and... a resulting high
> > quality of life. As opposed to Russia the free market model state,
> > with widening economic disparity, oligarchy, pervasive corruption, and
> > declining life expectancy.
> > There isn't nearly enough gold in the world to back a single economic
> > superpower, let alone all of them.
> > To me, it looks like oligarchs and corruption are a lot more expensive
> > than Scandinavian-style income taxes.
> All we need is a Scandanavian-style country -- no military and a
> homogenous population about the size of New York City (Sweden).
> Sweden, by the way, has been dropping its top marginal rates and some
> welfare benefits, neither by a lot, but it is experimenting to attract
> and retain capital.
Haiti has a relatively homogeneous and smallish population, too, along
with the sort of economic policies favored by American political
conservatives. Just sayin'.
As for Sweden's changes in policy, it is a tendency of anything to
regress to the mean. If that's the way they insist on playing it, I
hope they like regressing to the mean in their quality of life too.
Today's capital is an abusive partner, which isn't historically
anomalous but does seem to be somewhat cyclical. These days he's
really on a bender. If Sweden wants to try tarting herself up a bit
in pursuit of a nicer house and car, she'd better get used to black
eyes too. And never getting to say "not tonight".
Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> writes:
> On May 15, 11:05 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> AMuzi wrote:
>> > Putin is talking about a gold-backed ruble now. We'll see if
>> > that actually happens, which may set a good example, Gresham
>> > notwithstanding.
>> Careful what you wish for. I don't think you want a Putin. Flat tax,
>> gold standard-- whatever, you don't want him or his American clone. I
>> think we can agree that life in Putin's Russia can't match, say,
>> Scandinavia. You know, that region next to Russia with progressive
>> taxation, high top marginal tax rates, socialized medicine,
>> comprehensive regulation, a public dole, and... a resulting high
>> quality of life. As opposed to Russia the free market model state,
>> with widening economic disparity, oligarchy, pervasive corruption, and
>> declining life expectancy.
>> There isn't nearly enough gold in the world to back a single economic
>> superpower, let alone all of them.
>> To me, it looks like oligarchs and corruption are a lot more expensive
>> than Scandinavian-style income taxes.
> All we need is a Scandanavian-style country -- no military and a
> homogenous population about the size of New York City (Sweden).
> Sweden, by the way, has been dropping its top marginal rates and some
> welfare benefits, neither by a lot, but it is experimenting to attract
> and retain capital.
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On May 15, 7:09 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>> on society than a guy making $50K, yet the former will pay a larger
>>> percentage of his income in taxes, particularly with the AMT (which
>>> phases out many of the deductions available to ordinary wage earners).
>>> The justification for this is 1) the wealthier guy can afford to pay
>>> more, and 2) the country needs the money. Hardly a spiritually moving
>>> justification for progressive taxation, but again, it is palatable to
>>> most.
>> Likewise, the desire of the wealthy to keep more money than any person
>> rationally needs is not spiritually moving. Quite the opposite,
>> according to many religious systems.
> > > Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
> > > greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
> > > of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
> > > computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
> > > implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
> > > transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
> > > for out of the collective pocket.
> > Not necessarily. You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
> > every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
> > utilizing more public facilities then you?
> By spending that 500 dollar.
Lou for the win.
Not every dollar that circulates does the same thing, but it does
average out to the same thing. "Carbon footprint" is one relevant
metric we're used to thinking about, but you could put it in terms of
an asphalt footprint or labor footprint or gun footprint too, which
still winds up proportional to income for most people most of the
time.
It does nobody any good to allow some individuals to exploit the same
amount of resources-- public, physical, whatever-- as a million normal
people. It doesn't even do the super rich person any good, but it
costs everybody, now and into the future.
>>> What happens when someone can't afford to pay the head tax?
>>> Disenfranchisement? Enslavement? Execution? The word "deadbeat"
>>> tattooed on the forehead?
>>> Obviously neither imprisonment nor fine is a practical punishment.
>> I have no idea. Haven't thought about tax enforcement much. Every
>> government on earth seems to manage enforcement one way or another with
>> varying success rates.
>> Putin's flat 13% rate gets exceptional compliance. People understand it
>> and the rate is not excessive. Contrast to, for example, USA or Italy
>> which have taken tax code complexity and obfuscation to high art with
>> spotty compliance.
> Progressive tax rates can be achieved without tax code complexity and
> obfuscation.
> As I understand it, those promoting a flat tax are saying "It doesn't
> matter how you earned it nor how much you earned, you pay a flat XX%."
> IOW, they're applying one simple math operation learned in the sixth
> grade: multiplication by a percentage, as in Tax = 0.XX * income
> We can be smarter than that. It takes only ninth grade math to come
> up with an equation almost as simple that yields a progressive tax
> structure.
Surely it's not that hard. tax = (income - poverty_line)*rate should
be comprehensible to a sixth grader.
The real question is how to make tax simplification politically
possible. You'll need a really catchy slogan for that, because every
loophole has its lobbyists. Pretending that the obscenely rich are the
main beneficiaries of tax loopholes is a big part of the problem. I
suggest we start with two big ones: pre-tax health insurance for
employees and the mortgage interest deduction.
Chalo wrote:
> AMuzi wrote:
>> Putin is talking about a gold-backed ruble now. We'll see if
>> that actually happens, which may set a good example, Gresham
>> notwithstanding.
> Careful what you wish for. I don't think you want a Putin. Flat tax,
> gold standard-- whatever, you don't want him or his American clone. I
> think we can agree that life in Putin's Russia can't match, say,
> Scandinavia. You know, that region next to Russia with progressive
> taxation, high top marginal tax rates, socialized medicine,
> comprehensive regulation, a public dole, and... a resulting high
> quality of life. As opposed to Russia the free market model state,
> with widening economic disparity, oligarchy, pervasive corruption, and
> declining life expectancy.
> There isn't nearly enough gold in the world to back a single economic
> superpower, let alone all of them.
> To me, it looks like oligarchs and corruption are a lot more expensive
> than Scandinavian-style income taxes.
> Chalo
The interesting aspect of Putin is that Russia has come through a devastating catharses (or is emerging anyway) and, without cant or dogma, has experimented on a system level more profoundly than anywhere else in recent memory. They have their successes and failures of course but they are at least no longer wedded to a dismally failed theory. That's progress.
No, I would not want to live under Putin but he is wildly popular in Russia because your average Russian's life is much better than ten years ago.
Lou Holtman wrote:
> Op woensdag 16 mei 2012 06:37:07 UTC+2 schreef Chalo het volgende:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> The winners should pay the cost of hosting the game. The losers don't
>>>> owe anything for getting kicked around. Progressive taxation is not
>>>> punishment! It's putting an in-kind price on realized, not
>>>> hypothetical, benefits of belonging to a system that allows you to
>>>> prosper.
>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>> on society than a guy making $50K,
>> Are you saying that a guy making $100k doesn't benefit more from the
>> system than a guy making $50k?
>> Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
>> greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
>> of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
>> computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
>> implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
>> transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
>> for out of the collective pocket.
>> Chalo
> Exactly! Someones environmental footprint is directly proportional
> Op woensdag 16 mei 2012 06:37:07 UTC+2 schreef Chalo het volgende:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>> The winners should pay the cost of hosting the game. The losers don't
>>>> owe anything for getting kicked around. Progressive taxation is not
>>>> punishment! It's putting an in-kind price on realized, not
>>>> hypothetical, benefits of belonging to a system that allows you to
>>>> prosper.
>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>> on society than a guy making $50K,
>> Are you saying that a guy making $100k doesn't benefit more from the
>> system than a guy making $50k?
>> Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
>> greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
>> of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
>> computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
>> implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
>> transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
>> for out of the collective pocket.
>> Chalo
> Exactly! For instance someones environmental footprint is directly proportional to someones income.
> Lou
Including coca farmers who earn nothing and dump a few dozen barrels of jet fuel to process their harvest?
> > > >> A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
> > > >> on society than a guy making $50K,
> > > > If it were just numbers switching around in a
> > > > computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
> > > > implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
> > > > transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
> > > > for out of the collective pocket.
> > > Not necessarily. You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
> > > every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
> > By spending that 500 dollar.
> How is that utilizing public facilities? Let's say the rich guy goes
> out and buys a better health insurance policy or puts his kid in
> private school. That reduces the burden on society and generates
> revenues for third-parties.
> Chalo's argument assumes that any additional dollar earned consumers
> additional public resources. That may be true in a manufacturing
> economy, and it was certainly true with the old, dirty industries. We
> in Portland are paying a high price to clean up the Willamette River
> (which will be passed through in our already astronomical water and
> sewer bills). On the individual level and in a service economy,
> however, I doubt that differences in earnings have much if any impact
> on the use of public resources.
A bigger house, a car (or a more expensive car that gets replaced more
often), more travel, more consumables, more services from others--
these things don't occur in a vacuum.
If you follow a dollar back into the works, you might find its value
can be expressed in watt-seconds of power, which in turn can be
expressed in gallons of water from the mighty Columbia River. Or in
minutes of someone else's life, which has its own overhead of
generalized costs. Or in tons of emitted CO2, or square inches of
pavement. Or in a corresponding amount of public debt to back the
currency that measures that dollar. You can cut it up just about any
way you like, but the principle stands. Rich people don't just get
more, they also cost more in about the same proportion.
Lou Holtman wrote:
> Op woensdag 16 mei 2012 13:08:10 UTC+2 schreef John B. het volgende:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:37:07 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
>> <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> The winners should pay the cost of hosting the game. The losers don't
>>>>> owe anything for getting kicked around. Progressive taxation is not
>>>>> punishment! It's putting an in-kind price on realized, not
>>>>> hypothetical, benefits of belonging to a system that allows you to
>>>>> prosper.
>>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>>> on society than a guy making $50K,
>>> Are you saying that a guy making $100k doesn't benefit more from the
>>> system than a guy making $50k?
>>> Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
>>> greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
>>> of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
>>> computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
>>> implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
>>> transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
>>> for out of the collective pocket.
>>> Chalo
>> Not necessarily. You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
>> every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
>> utilizing more public facilities then you?
>> -- >> John B.
> By spending that 500 dollar.
> Lou
He could have bought Greek bonds, sending that $500 through a black hole into another dimension.
> On May 16, 4:26 am, Lou Holtman<lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Op woensdag 16 mei 2012 13:08:10 UTC+2 schreef John B. het volgende:
>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:37:07 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
>>> <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>>> The winners should pay the cost of hosting the game. The losers don't
>>>>>> owe anything for getting kicked around. Progressive taxation is not
>>>>>> punishment! It's putting an in-kind price on realized, not
>>>>>> hypothetical, benefits of belonging to a system that allows you to
>>>>>> prosper.
>>>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>>>> on society than a guy making $50K,
>>>> Are you saying that a guy making $100k doesn't benefit more from the
>>>> system than a guy making $50k?
>>>> Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
>>>> greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
>>>> of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
>>>> computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
>>>> implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
>>>> transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
>>>> for out of the collective pocket.
>>>> Chalo
>>> Not necessarily. You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
>>> every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
>>> utilizing more public facilities then you?
>>> --
>>> John B.
>> By spending that 500 dollar.
> How is that utilizing public facilities? Let's say the rich guy goes
> out and buys a better health insurance policy or puts his kid in
> private school. That reduces the burden on society and generates
> revenues for third-parties.
Buying stupid and unnecessary stuff. Personal trainer, nanny, privat jet to go shopping on the other end of the world every week, Flying to a skiresort for a afternoon skiing. That sort of stuff.
An interesting question at birthday party's is 'what would you do if you won the lottery, say an amount of 20 million dollar/euro? Then you get really stupid answers.
> Chalo's argument assumes that any additional dollar earned consumers
> additional public resources. That may be true in a manufacturing
> economy, and it was certainly true with the old, dirty industries. We
> in Portland are paying a high price to clean up the Willamette River
> (which will be passed through in our already astronomical water and
> sewer bills). On the individual level and in a service economy,
> however, I doubt that differences in earnings have much if any impact
> on the use of public resources.
We have excellent quality drinking water which come right out of any tap in any house. That quit a process to achieve that. People with lots of money water their fucking garden with it every day in summer.
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> AMuzi wrote:
>> Radey Shouman wrote:
>>> What happens when someone can't afford to pay the head tax?
>>> Disenfranchisement? Enslavement? Execution? The word "deadbeat"
>>> tattooed on the forehead?
>>> Obviously neither imprisonment nor fine is a practical punishment.
>> I have no idea. Haven't thought about tax enforcement much. Every
>> government on earth seems to manage enforcement one way or another with
>> varying success rates.
>> Putin's flat 13% rate gets exceptional compliance. People understand it
>> and the rate is not excessive. Contrast to, for example, USA or Italy
>> which have taken tax code complexity and obfuscation to high art with
>> spotty compliance.
> Progressive tax rates can be achieved without tax code complexity and > obfuscation.
> As I understand it, those promoting a flat tax are saying "It doesn't > matter how you earned it nor how much you earned, you pay a flat XX%." > IOW, they're applying one simple math operation learned in the sixth > grade: multiplication by a percentage, as in Tax = 0.XX * income
> We can be smarter than that. It takes only ninth grade math to come up > with an equation almost as simple that yields a progressive tax structure.
I see your point but remember that clarity simplicity and equality end up being more efficient because people comply rather than evade. Examples abound. Once you target a class or industry for punishment, a subclass of them buy a couple of legislators and get a carve out. Which is where we find ourselves today, a system no one, even the authors, will defend.
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>> Op woensdag 16 mei 2012 06:37:07 UTC+2 schreef Chalo het volgende:
>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> The winners should pay the cost of hosting the game. The losers don't
>>>>> owe anything for getting kicked around. Progressive taxation is not
>>>>> punishment! It's putting an in-kind price on realized, not
>>>>> hypothetical, benefits of belonging to a system that allows you to
>>>>> prosper.
>>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>>> on society than a guy making $50K,
>>> Are you saying that a guy making $100k doesn't benefit more from the
>>> system than a guy making $50k?
>>> Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
>>> greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
>>> of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
>>> computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
>>> implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
>>> transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
>>> for out of the collective pocket.
>>> Chalo
>> Exactly! Someones environmental footprint is directly proportional
>> Op woensdag 16 mei 2012 06:37:07 UTC+2 schreef Chalo het volgende:
>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> The winners should pay the cost of hosting the game. The losers don't
>>>>> owe anything for getting kicked around. Progressive taxation is not
>>>>> punishment! It's putting an in-kind price on realized, not
>>>>> hypothetical, benefits of belonging to a system that allows you to
>>>>> prosper.
>>>> Progressive taxation is palatable to most and generates revenues
>>>> necessary to run the country, but it hardly represent a quid pro quo,
>>>> i.e. an additional payment by the wealthy for benefits received or
>>>> burdens imposed. A guy making $100K does not impose any greater burden
>>>> on society than a guy making $50K,
>>> Are you saying that a guy making $100k doesn't benefit more from the
>>> system than a guy making $50k?
>>> Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
>>> greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
>>> of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
>>> computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
>>> implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
>>> transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
>>> for out of the collective pocket.
>>> Chalo
>> Exactly! For instance someones environmental footprint is directly
>> proportional to someones income.
>> Lou
> Including coca farmers who earn nothing and dump a few dozen barrels of
> jet fuel to process their harvest?
If they had an alternative to make a decent living maybe they would not do that. For where comes the demand of that coke? Same goes for the chopping of the rainforrest etc.
Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>> Progressive tax rates can be achieved without tax code complexity and
>> obfuscation.
>> As I understand it, those promoting a flat tax are saying "It doesn't
>> matter how you earned it nor how much you earned, you pay a flat XX%."
>> IOW, they're applying one simple math operation learned in the sixth
>> grade: multiplication by a percentage, as in Tax = 0.XX * income
>> We can be smarter than that. It takes only ninth grade math to come
>> up with an equation almost as simple that yields a progressive tax
>> structure.
> Surely it's not that hard. tax = (income - poverty_line)*rate should
> be comprehensible to a sixth grader.
Well, to _some_ sixth graders, anyway.
> The real question is how to make tax simplification politically
> possible. You'll need a really catchy slogan for that, because every
> loophole has its lobbyists. Pretending that the obscenely rich are the
> main beneficiaries of tax loopholes is a big part of the problem. I
> suggest we start with two big ones: pre-tax health insurance for
> employees and the mortgage interest deduction.
I'd favor starting with deductions used by the obscenely rich, including hugely profitable corporations. There should be enough non-super-rich voters to make that politically possible.
Granted, some of the non-super-rich vote against their own interests. A student in one of my friend's classes said "I'm poor but I intend to be rich someday, so I always vote for the party that favors the rich."
>>>> What happens when someone can't afford to pay the head tax?
>>>> Disenfranchisement? Enslavement? Execution? The word "deadbeat"
>>>> tattooed on the forehead?
>>>> Obviously neither imprisonment nor fine is a practical punishment.
>>> I have no idea. Haven't thought about tax enforcement much. Every
>>> government on earth seems to manage enforcement one way or another with
>>> varying success rates.
>>> Putin's flat 13% rate gets exceptional compliance. People understand it
>>> and the rate is not excessive. Contrast to, for example, USA or Italy
>>> which have taken tax code complexity and obfuscation to high art with
>>> spotty compliance.
>> Progressive tax rates can be achieved without tax code complexity and
>> obfuscation.
>> As I understand it, those promoting a flat tax are saying "It doesn't
>> matter how you earned it nor how much you earned, you pay a flat XX%."
>> IOW, they're applying one simple math operation learned in the sixth
>> grade: multiplication by a percentage, as in Tax = 0.XX * income
>> We can be smarter than that. It takes only ninth grade math to come up
>> with an equation almost as simple that yields a progressive tax
>> structure.
> I see your point but remember that clarity simplicity and equality end
> up being more efficient because people comply rather than evade.
> Examples abound. Once you target a class or industry for punishment, a
> subclass of them buy a couple of legislators and get a carve out. Which
> is where we find ourselves today, a system no one, even the authors,
> will defend.
What you're saying is, if taxes are progressive, [some of?] the wealthy will find a way to change the rules and/or cheat.
Of course, taxes in the U.S. were once much more progressive. The country ran quite well. But (most of?) the wealthy did find ways to do just what you claim. That gave us our current system of ridiculousness. It doesn't mean we should keep the system.
To me, what we have now seems roughly analogous to Mafia rule. Years ago, one might have said "If we try to stop the Mob, they're going to take over the city government." But the pacifist approach, _letting_ them control the city government, is hardly a solution.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> writes:
> Radey Shouman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> writes:
>>> Progressive tax rates can be achieved without tax code complexity and
>>> obfuscation.
>>> As I understand it, those promoting a flat tax are saying "It doesn't
>>> matter how you earned it nor how much you earned, you pay a flat XX%."
>>> IOW, they're applying one simple math operation learned in the sixth
>>> grade: multiplication by a percentage, as in Tax = 0.XX * income
>>> We can be smarter than that. It takes only ninth grade math to come
>>> up with an equation almost as simple that yields a progressive tax
>>> structure.
>> Surely it's not that hard. tax = (income - poverty_line)*rate should
>> be comprehensible to a sixth grader.
> Well, to _some_ sixth graders, anyway.
>> The real question is how to make tax simplification politically
>> possible. You'll need a really catchy slogan for that, because every
>> loophole has its lobbyists. Pretending that the obscenely rich are the
>> main beneficiaries of tax loopholes is a big part of the problem. I
>> suggest we start with two big ones: pre-tax health insurance for
>> employees and the mortgage interest deduction.
> I'd favor starting with deductions used by the obscenely rich,
> including hugely profitable corporations. There should be enough
> non-super-rich voters to make that politically possible.
> Granted, some of the non-super-rich vote against their own interests.
> A student in one of my friend's classes said "I'm poor but I intend to
> be rich someday, so I always vote for the party that favors the rich."
> :-/
The budget cannot be balanced even by (just) taxing the obscenely rich at
100%. The sooner the voting public understands that, the better.
> > > > Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
> > > > greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
> > > > of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
> > > > computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
> > > > implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
> > > > transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
> > > > for out of the collective pocket.
> > > Not necessarily. You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
> > > every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
> > > utilizing more public facilities then you?
> > By spending that 500 dollar.
> Lou for the win.
> Not every dollar that circulates does the same thing, but it does
> average out to the same thing. "Carbon footprint" is one relevant
> metric we're used to thinking about, but you could put it in terms of
> an asphalt footprint or labor footprint or gun footprint too, which
> still winds up proportional to income for most people most of the
> time.
> It does nobody any good to allow some individuals to exploit the same
> amount of resources-- public, physical, whatever-- as a million normal
> people. It doesn't even do the super rich person any good, but it
> costs everybody, now and into the future.
I would like to see the science on this. There must be some study
showing the cost of the wealthy to society -- as contrasted to the
benefit to society in terms of tax payments, employment, etc.
Speculating on spending habits and life style doesn't cut it for me,
particularly since I see a lot of Joe Trailerparks using far more
public resources than me, e.g., more kids in school, more use of
police/fire, more environmental polution. More consumption of
resources, usually in the form of gas.
> >>> What happens when someone can't afford to pay the head tax?
> >>> Disenfranchisement? Enslavement? Execution? The word "deadbeat"
> >>> tattooed on the forehead?
> >>> Obviously neither imprisonment nor fine is a practical punishment.
> >> I have no idea. Haven't thought about tax enforcement much. Every
> >> government on earth seems to manage enforcement one way or another with
> >> varying success rates.
> >> Putin's flat 13% rate gets exceptional compliance. People understand it
> >> and the rate is not excessive. Contrast to, for example, USA or Italy
> >> which have taken tax code complexity and obfuscation to high art with
> >> spotty compliance.
> >Progressive tax rates can be achieved without tax code complexity and
> >obfuscation.
> >As I understand it, those promoting a flat tax are saying "It doesn't
> >matter how you earned it nor how much you earned, you pay a flat XX%."
> >IOW, they're applying one simple math operation learned in the sixth
> >grade: multiplication by a percentage, as in Tax = 0.XX * income
> >We can be smarter than that. It takes only ninth grade math to come up
> >with an equation almost as simple that yields a progressive tax structure.
> But what is the logic of effective penalizing those who may well have
> been smarter, or worked harder, then the huddled masses?
First, "may have" is far different than "did." There's little doubt
that offspring of the wealthy have tremendous advantages over
offspring of the poor. What with tutors, special camps, special
schools, legacy admissions to colleges, contacts through country
clubs, opportunities through Dad's business, a wealthy kid is
infinitely more likely than a poor kid to be very prosperous. Look at
George W. Bush, for example.
But more important, you can't seriously expect the poor and the rich
to pay the same amount in taxes. Someone earning (say) $15,000 per
year can't possibly pay $15,000 per year in taxes; but to someone
taking in $250,000 a mere $15,000 is almost pocket money. They might
give that as a graduation gift to their babysitter.
Similarly, if we talk a fixed rate of taxation (rather than a fixed
amount) the person earning only $15,000 will be giving his taxes out
of his family's food and shelter budget. The person earning $250,000
will be giving it out of his golf ball budget.
As we've mentioned before, America did very well indeed when
Eisenhower was president. Taxation was very strongly progressive
then, and it worked. Most of todays prosperous countries have
progressive taxation now. The countries that don't, and have flat tax
rates, tend to be comparatively desperate places. I don't see a
reason to emulate them.
On May 16, 9:08 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Scandinavian countries are held up as shining examples of modern
> governance but 30 years ago I played golf with an executive for SAS
> who told me that the pilot's union no longer asked for increases in
> salary because of the punitive tax burden in their tax bracket, but
> instead negotiated for more annual leave.
I just watched a video of a lecture that touched on that topic.
According to the person giving the lecture, Europeans in general (or
on average) have chosen to work shorter hours than Americans in
exchange for more free time. Americans have about the smallest amount
of vacation time among the wealthy nations. It's a choice, and a
sensible one.
I may have related this story before, but: Some friends of mine had a
small (American) company that caught the interest of a larger British
firm. The Brits entered negotiations to buy the company and keep the
Americans on as employees of the British firm.
The three Americans decided to negotiate hard for vacation time. They
demanded three weeks vacation, instead of the more typical two weeks
in America.
The Brits conceded, the contracts were signed - and later, the
Americans learned that everyone else at the British company got either
five or six weeks vacation standard. No wonder the Brits conceded on
the three week demand!
> > Not every dollar that circulates does the same thing, but it does
> > average out to the same thing. "Carbon footprint" is one relevant
> > metric we're used to thinking about, but you could put it in terms of
> > an asphalt footprint or labor footprint or gun footprint too, which
> > still winds up proportional to income for most people most of the
> > time.
> > It does nobody any good to allow some individuals to exploit the same
> > amount of resources-- public, physical, whatever-- as a million normal
> > people. It doesn't even do the super rich person any good, but it
> > costs everybody, now and into the future.
> Of course, that rich person may well own a company that provides
> employment for 3,000 poor people and pay more taxes then the bulk of
> them combined. and yes you may say that he uses more resources then
> others, certainly his company does, but if his company didn't exist
> those 3,000 people wouldn't have a job and the money that they pump
> back into the economy wouldn't get spent, nor would the taxes that
> they pay get paid.
> And, I might add, would you have a job as poor people don't buy
> bicycles from what is essentially a specialty shop.
You have no clue about the nature of my business or my customers. My
customers range from homeless beggars on up. There are a lot of
service industry people. Most of my customers, from what I can tell,
ride bikes because they don't have cars. Take a moment to digest that
if you need to. They own reliable bikes because they need reliable
bikes. If you could buy a reliable bike more cheaply at a big box
store, most of my customers probably would. But you can't. And a big
box store wouldn't help you keep a decent bike running, even if you
could buy one there. There aren't any such stores conveniently close
by, anyway.
Most of what my shop does isn't selling bikes or accessories; it's
repairing and refitting bikes. Even bikes that your kind of shop
wouldn't bother with. Primarily those, probably.
I don't know where you reside in the greater economy, but I belong to
my village. A village inside a town inside a city inside a metro
area, the vast majority of which is completely oblivious to the big
problems and completely useless in helping with solutions. But not my
village, or my shop. We're on it.
> >> You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
> >> every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
> >> utilizing more public facilities then you?
> > By spending that 500 dollar.
> But my mate, being a thrifty sort, keeps just enough money in his
> pocket to eat and invests the rest.
Not a glutton, but a usurer. Sucking the juice from other people
directly instead of indirectly. Swell, then.
> > > > > Furthermore, I suggest that $100k worth of economic activity makes
> > > > > greater demands of public systems and infrastructure than $50k worth
> > > > > of economic activity. If it were just numbers switching around in a
> > > > > computer, your contention would make sense, but twice as much money
> > > > > implies about twice as much stuff happening in connection with that--
> > > > > transportation, security, and all sorts of other things that we pay
> > > > > for out of the collective pocket.
> > > > Not necessarily. You go to work every day, a mate of mine goes to work
> > > > every day. You earn $100 a day, he earns $500 a day. How is he
> > > > utilizing more public facilities then you?
> > > By spending that 500 dollar.
> > Lou for the win.
> > Not every dollar that circulates does the same thing, but it does
> > average out to the same thing. "Carbon footprint" is one relevant
> > metric we're used to thinking about, but you could put it in terms of
> > an asphalt footprint or labor footprint or gun footprint too, which
> > still winds up proportional to income for most people most of the
> > time.
> > It does nobody any good to allow some individuals to exploit the same
> > amount of resources-- public, physical, whatever-- as a million normal
> > people. It doesn't even do the super rich person any good, but it
> > costs everybody, now and into the future.
> I would like to see the science on this. There must be some study
> showing the cost of the wealthy to society -- as contrasted to the
> benefit to society in terms of tax payments, employment, etc.
> Speculating on spending habits and life style doesn't cut it for me,
> particularly since I see a lot of Joe Trailerparks using far more
> public resources than me, e.g., more kids in school, more use of
> police/fire, more environmental polution. More consumption of
> resources, usually in the form of gas.
The so-called benefit to society of rich people employing others to
buff their nails and such is not a counterpoise to their demands on
public resources-- it _is_ them making demands on public resources.
The more Mr. Trailerparks are working doing something at your behest,
the bigger your impact. So even if you are rich and self-righteous,
vegan, and have an electric car recharged by your own wind turbine and
a chlorine-free rock filtered pool, the loads imposed by your vegan
chef, wind turbine mechanic and chlorine-free pool boy come into the
equation. Same goes for the manufacturers of your wind turbine and
battery-powered car, builders and maintainers of your giant LEED-
certified house, and so forth.
Anyway, the fact that there may be occasional outliers doesn't change
the basic facts. To the closest approximation, the demand you place
upon public facilities and physical resources is proportional to the
amount of money you push through your possession.
> Certainly, but what is the rational that the poor folks pay 10% of
> their salary and the rich folks pay 60%; other then of course the
> Highway man's excuse - "your money or your life".
Solidarity. Strongest shoulders bear the greatest burden. It is a virtue. It should make you feel good. Sending a poor man's kid to college is more rewarding than a second Porsche don't you think.
> I think that you miss probably the most important aspect of the whole
> tax subject - what do they do with the money? Do we really need that
> large a tax burden?
That is another question. As far as I'm concerned they can get rid of the military first. The Netherlands don't need no f*cking JSF.
John B. wrote:
> ... He may well live
> in a gated community and thus require fewer police to ensure the
> safety of his residence; he very likely sends his kids to private
> schools and thus decreases the load on the public school system.
Around here, if he sends his kid to a private school system, he always does it by using a school voucher. That is money removed from the public school system's budget. It has the effect of making the public schools poorer, especially the inner city ones. Which, BTW, appears to be an objective of the wealthy class.
