I'm just saying that having more money does not mean you benefit more from such things.
Usually (but not always), it means you are better at using those things to benefit others with your work.
A man who founds and builds and effectively manages, say, a shipping company brings a lot more benefit to the economy at large than any of his truck drivers do.
Via the exploitation of those workers and shared resources. Resources which he also happens to impart a much larger maintenance cost upon than those individuals under his employ.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited May 2009
I support government-funded services that ultimately provide a positive ROI and benefit everyone, or almost everyone.
Roads? Freeways? Postal Service? Social safety net? Education? Health care?
Publicly funding these endeavors benefits literally every last man, woman, and child in our nation. I don't care how fucking rich you are, you benefit from welfare programs. You benefit from public education.
Now that we've established which things, if publicly funded, would benefit literally everyone, we figure out the cost, and then divide that up in whatever way does the least harm to the economy and to society.
And before any of you chucklefucks pipe up with something like "Well, we should give free 50" plasma TVs to everyone, because that would benefit everybody, olol," no it wouldn't, and you damned well know it, so shut up.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
First, as has been brought up, to maintain tax burden across households comparable to today's, you'd need a combo income & consumption tax. In a way we do that implicitly, by virtue of the generous contribution limits to 401(k)s and IRAs. But an easily identifiable % on your receipt may be more effective in changing behavior.
Second, if you want to avoid massive cheating (and it's associated, black market problems), it needs to be a VAT. I don't understand how anyone could propose a 30% sales tax. Think of the incentives that creates.
This "benefiting others with your work" thing is somewhere between disingenuous and total bullshit. Bob the Truck Founding Company guy employs truck drivers because HE CANNOT DRIVE ALL THE FUCKING TRUCKS ON HIS OWN. He is not some noble soul graciously employing the masses just to perpetuate his incredible awesome-atude.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
One more thing: Considering the massive future expansion of government entitlement spending, I'm convinced we'll get a national VAT to pay for the boomers' retirement.
EDIT: Even if it'll never be phrased as being for such a purpose.
I'm just saying that having more money does not mean you benefit more from such things.
Usually (but not always), it means you are better at using those things to benefit others with your work.
A man who founds and builds and effectively manages, say, a shipping company brings a lot more benefit to the economy at large than any of his truck drivers do.
Doesn't this mean the man who founded and built a shipping company is getting a LOT more use of the transportation infrastructure than his truckers? They're actively using it, but he's requiring it for his entire business model.
This "benefiting others with your work" thing is somewhere between disingenuous and total bullshit. Bob the Truck Founding Company guy employs truck drivers because HE CANNOT DRIVE ALL THE FUCKING TRUCKS ON HIS OWN. He is not some noble soul graciously employing the masses just to perpetuate his incredible awesome-atude.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Companies do not operate out of altruism or a desire to give the best service possible. They operate out of a desire to make the most money they can for the least possible cost.
This isn't inherently a bad thing. A company isn't evil for wanting to make money. But assuming that in the world of business the cream always rises to the top is hopelessly naive, and it makes me wonder how involved in the business world some of the people saying this are.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
Using their free market produced roads and armies to defend their borders and police to keep people from breaking into their shit and the educations to provide them workers who aren't dangerous to themselves and others and to protect the air and water and food they consume and to ensure that medicine is progressing.
I support government-funded services that ultimately provide a positive ROI and benefit everyone, or almost everyone.
Roads? Freeways? Postal Service? Social safety net? Education? Health care?
Publicly funding these endeavors benefits literally every last man, woman, and child in our nation. I don't care how fucking rich you are, you benefit from welfare programs. You benefit from public education.
Now that we've established which things, if publicly funded, would benefit literally everyone, we figure out the cost, and then divide that up in whatever way does the least harm to the economy and to society.
And before any of you chucklefucks pipe up with something like "Well, we should give free 50" plasma TVs to everyone, because that would benefit everybody, olol," no it wouldn't, and you damned well know it, so shut up.
Which is far from saying that there aren't government programs that are stupid and which should get drawn and quartered. I consider myself to be under-taxed, but at the same time I hardly consider my tax dollars to be spent wisely. Fixing the latter would be awesome, and it might have some beneficial impact on reducing the former, but it's not as if the former precludes the latter as well. I want some kickass government services due to natural monopolies and the failure of the market to service certain industries competitively (thanks to the high cost of entry stifling entrepreneurship or what have you) and am willing to pay for it. The idea that we can get a free lunch from tax cuts and/or that tax cuts don't equate to deficit spending is bullshit and I wish somebody with some influence would get the balls to stand up and say as much.
A) what is our tax money going to that bothers people so much, exactly? Like, low taxes for vital services. Well... cut defense spending, and beyond that everything's pretty vital..
Why the hell do people have issues with taxing higher because someone can afford it? It's got a minimal impact on the taxed, it's got a major impact on total tax income, and it lets your biggest concern be what color should my new kitchen be, not "can the peasants afford pitchforks?"
This "benefiting others with your work" thing is somewhere between disingenuous and total bullshit. Bob the Truck Founding Company guy employs truck drivers because HE CANNOT DRIVE ALL THE FUCKING TRUCKS ON HIS OWN. He is not some noble soul graciously employing the masses just to perpetuate his incredible awesome-atude.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
Ok, so Bob the Transport company owner doesn't have to pay any tax.
Instead, he has to pay Rick the Road Builder for each and every route they use. He also has to pay Ernest the Enforcer to provide people to protect each and every truck, and to make sure that those deadbeat clients actually pay up. Then he has to pay Dave the Driving Instructor to assess the competency of anyone who wants to drive one of his trucks.
Since you seem to be advocating some kind of Randian Free-Market dystopia, do you really think all those collective expenses will work out to be less than what would be levied in tax?
It's a little much to expect that consumption taxes will replace all taxes, but they should be part of a balanced set of taxes, regressive warts and all. You correct for its shortcomings by giving poor people money.
Re progressive tax rates, there are several reasons for those, all good. One interesting effect of a progressive rate where higher earners pay more is that it can put a damper on inflation. As incomes rise (into higher brackets), the progressive tax takes money out of the economy, reducing inflation.
Plus, higher income earners will usually have lower marginal rates after other taxes and charges (including sales taxes - lower income earners are going to spend a larger percentage of their money on goods and services) are taken into account. Boosting the tax rate for higher brackets helps offset that.
This "benefiting others with your work" thing is somewhere between disingenuous and total bullshit. Bob the Truck Founding Company guy employs truck drivers because HE CANNOT DRIVE ALL THE FUCKING TRUCKS ON HIS OWN. He is not some noble soul graciously employing the masses just to perpetuate his incredible awesome-atude.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
I think you forgot the part where Bob was magically responsible for the entire economy and therefore shouldn't be forced to pay so much in taxes. I'm glad we are in agreement that people sometimes do stuff. I was worried we might disagree about that.
This "benefiting others with your work" thing is somewhere between disingenuous and total bullshit. Bob the Truck Founding Company guy employs truck drivers because HE CANNOT DRIVE ALL THE FUCKING TRUCKS ON HIS OWN. He is not some noble soul graciously employing the masses just to perpetuate his incredible awesome-atude.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
Right, employers are benefiting from the exploitation of their workers. And so are receiving more money as a result of those workers' capacity to be more productive thanks in no small part to governmental services. Things like universal education, roads, FDA, CDC, filtered (and communist flouridified) tap water, &c.
Mind explaining why those employers who are benefiting thusly shouldn't be charged more in order to provide those governmental services, again?
A) what is our tax money going to that bothers people so much, exactly? Like, low taxes for vital services. Well... cut defense spending, and beyond that everything's pretty vital..
Oh no, there's plenty of stupid shit that can get gutted. Though by the same token there's a hell of a lot of good shit that doesn't receive any funding at all. The contents of the Federal Budget is really just sort of tangential to the issue of tax burden and shouldn't be assessed under that rubric. Particularly given that we've been running deficits for the last 8 years, 6-7 of which had extremely strong growth.
I've always seen the problem is not that we have an income or a consumption tax. Rather, the problems almost always come in once the government tries to place incentives into the tax structure. If we were to go to a "simple progressive or otherwise income tax" things would be much simpler from a collections standpoint, as well; no consumption tax required.
Simply put, it is not the nature of how taxes are collected that is the problem. It is the nature of all of the extra rules that go along with it. This gets just as complicated once you try and factor in existing incentives during any weird sort of transition phase. (Mortgage insurance, as an example. How would it be treated during this change period?)
To be clear, I hate the way I have to pay taxes. Not because of the amount I have to pay, but because I almost have to bloody hire somebody just to make sure I didn't screw it up. Moving to a brand new "clean" system would fix that for a while, I'm sure. However, I'm guessing the first few iterations of the income tax didn't require higher education to get right. (Not saying I wouldn't love being able to keep all of money on my paycheck.... )
You cannot apply an extremely simple tax code to an extremely complex economy.
This is not to say that our current tax code cannot be improved or, more importantly, made more transparent and user-friendly. But that's essentially re-writing the shitty instruction manual. "Oh man we're gonna simplify the tax code and BAM NO MORE IRS!" does not work.
Taxes are complicated because our economy is complicated. How do you tax income offset by losses? How about income on income? How about business-to-business trading? Costs? What about mergers? Resales? Reimbursements? Bad debt writeoffs? Subsidiary purchases? Professional services? Professional reimbursements?
I've always seen the problem is not that we have an income or a consumption tax. Rather, the problems almost always come in once the government tries to place incentives into the tax structure. If we were to go to a "simple progressive or otherwise income tax" things would be much simpler from a collections standpoint, as well; no consumption tax required.
Simply put, it is not the nature of how taxes are collected that is the problem. It is the nature of all of the extra rules that go along with it. This gets just as complicated once you try and factor in existing incentives during any weird sort of transition phase. (Mortgage insurance, as an example. How would it be treated during this change period?)
To be clear, I hate the way I have to pay taxes. Not because of the amount I have to pay, but because I almost have to bloody hire somebody just to make sure I didn't screw it up. Moving to a brand new "clean" system would fix that for a while, I'm sure. However, I'm guessing the first few iterations of the income tax didn't require higher education to get right. (Not saying I wouldn't love being able to keep all of money on my paycheck.... )
Yeah, you'd just have the mother of all shitstorms descend upon Congress if you tried to remove all the deductions (minus charity) from the tax code even if it meant a comparable reduction in rates so as to be revenue neutral.
It'd be nice, though. That plus a 100% auctioned C&T bill which incentivizes sustainability would be pretty much great.
Mind explaining why those employers who are benefiting thusly shouldn't be charged more in order to provide those governmental services, again?
Well, with businesses it's not so simple as "these dudes make money, let's take a pound of flesh out of them".
A business is simply a system that attempts to generate a surplus from the balancing act between the revenues that come in on one side and the costs for labour and supplies that go out on the other side. The owners of the business are going to want their return regardless and instead of just shrugging and accepting a loss when taxes are high, they're going to readjust the balance, either through higher prices to increase the revenue side, or lower wages on the cost side.
That's not to say you can't tax businesses to some degree, but it's not wise to see them as a bottomless cash cow. There can be very real and negative consequences from taxing them too severely. The progressive tax mixes seen in Scandinavia are built on lower business taxes along with, to bring this back on topic, higher consumption taxes.
This "benefiting others with your work" thing is somewhere between disingenuous and total bullshit. Bob the Truck Founding Company guy employs truck drivers because HE CANNOT DRIVE ALL THE FUCKING TRUCKS ON HIS OWN. He is not some noble soul graciously employing the masses just to perpetuate his incredible awesome-atude.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
Again, it's not about who they provide benefits for and how much good they do unto others - your whole argument is irrelevant.
It is about two things:
1. Governments cost money to run, and those with money (surprise!) are most able to provide it.
2. A stable and well-run government and economy best benefits those who make the most money.
Mind explaining why those employers who are benefiting thusly shouldn't be charged more in order to provide those governmental services, again?
Well, with businesses it's not so simple as "these dudes make money, let's take a pound of flesh out of them".
A business is simply a system that attempts to generate a surplus from the balancing act between the revenues that come in on one side and the costs for labour and supplies that go out on the other side. The owners of the business are going to want their return regardless and instead of just shrugging and accepting a loss when taxes are high, they're going to readjust the balance, either through higher prices to increase the revenue side, or lower wages on the cost side.
That's not to say you can't tax businesses to some degree, but it's not wise to see them as a bottomless cash cow. There can be very real and negative consequences from taxing them too severely. The progressive tax mixes seen in Scandinavia are built on lower business taxes along with, to bring this back on topic, higher consumption taxes.
I thought we were talking personal income tax, not corporate taxes. And it is technically impossible to tax a business as it is not a real person, only a legal person. The costs will be borne out somewhere and most likely at the bottom due to the 1st rule of plumbing.
Okay, so we're talking about replacing all federal taxes with a consumption tax. Everyone is kinda talking around the subject, but I don't think anyone has actually sat down and shown what this really means.
IRS Myth: "we can eliminate the IRS, and save tons of money!" First of all, there's no way we can eliminate the IRS. We will need an enforcement mechanism for the tax code, regardless of how simple it is. Second of all, the IRS is currently massively underfunded, so it's not even a sure thing that we'd be able to cut the IRS budget, let alone eliminate it. Finally, the budget for the IRS in 2009 is $12.1 billion. While Obama increased that considerably (which is fucking great), that's still a drop in the fucking bucket compared to the federal budget of four trillion dollars. It's basically zero.
Now, let's look at what we'll be eliminating:
Federal Estate Tax: Hmmm... a tax on people inheriting multi-million dollar assets from their parents that they have done nothing to earn. I really think we should change the name to the "private welfare queen tax." Affects zero poor people, and so-close-to-zero-it-might-as-well-be-zero middle class people.
Federal Income Tax: We all know this one. No more income taxes for people. Yaaaaayyyy, now there's no more disincentive to work! Except I don't think anyone has ever been able to illustrate a federal income tax in this country actually creating a disincentive to work, since under our current tax scheme, there's no way to make less money by making more money; you might make not-as-much-more money by making more money, but if I told you "I'm going to give you a thousand dollars, if you want it," and when you said "yes," I said "actually, I'm only going to give you $950," are you really going to say "oh, nevermind, then?" There's another issue with this when it comes to businesses, but I'm going to address that when I talk about corporate taxes.
Capital Gains/Dividend Taxes: I'm sure this is one of Yar's big arguments for the consumption tax boosting the economy, but here we have yet another tax which affects no poor people and very few middle class people, in favor of a tax which affects poor and middle class people. Yes, it does create more of an incentive to invest in other people's companies and homes, but that will likely be countered by lower returns on those investments (since you don't have to pay taxes on the returns). More on the dividend tax issue under corporate taxes.
Corporate Taxes: Here is where I think Yar's proposal completely falls apart. He can't even begin to tell you the ramifications of getting rid of corporate taxes. No one can. It completely restructures the current incentive system we have for corporations. Right now, our corporations pay a corporate tax rate on all profits. From there, they can either pay those profits out in dividends, or re-invest them into the company. In theory, it doesn't matter to the shareholders which of these two things they do. Say they made $1.25/share in profit. If they reinvest that money in the company, the company's share value should go up $1.25/share, meaning that if someone wants to take their money and run, they can just sell the shares. Or, they can pay out that $1.25 as a dividend, which means that the money is given straight to the shareholders, and the stock price holds steady. There are strategic reasons to do either, but dividends are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. This creates an incentives from the shareholders' perspective to want more money invested into the company, rather than paid out in dividends. You could argue that this is a good thing, since investment in companies is a good thing.
Furthermore, all of a sudden, a company has no incentive to invest in themselves. Why? Because investing in yourself is expensive. Normally, you spend money on improving the company, and that money is tax-deductible; subtracted from your profits at the end of the year, meaning you don't pay taxes on it. This goes for everything from employees to equipment. So, if you get a $2,000/year raise, really, it probably only costs your company $1,300/year, because they pay $700 less in taxes. Under a tax regime with no corporate taxes, this is no longer true. Also no longer true is the fact that buying new things for the company not only won't be tax-deductible, it will be 30% more expensive on top of that. By doing this, you've created a marginal cost increase on employee pay of 54% (i.e. paying an employee will cost a company half again as much under this tax plan), and a marginal cost increase of over 100% on any equipment or physical product cost for use or expansion. This assumes a corporation with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars, so the effect on smaller corporations won't be as bad, but will still be quite significant. This is a fucking huge disincentive for investment in improving a company, when they can just pay out a tax-free dividend to their shareholders. The shareholders have no reason to want the company to reinvest in itself, since that's just going to mean them getting hit with taxes.
You're welcome to check my numbers if you want Yar (or anyone else), but I think you'll find them quite accurate.
Thanatos on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Whatevz. As long as it's progressive, I don't care. If the economagicians think consumption tax would work better, I am more than happy to cede my will to their expertise.
The progressive ones don't. Look at the people who are pushing this plan, ask yourself cui bono, and the answers pretty much fall into place on their own.
Incenjuar, most of your examples are illegal or are just so generalized and unsupported that I can't think what exactly you mean: ex, "cheating their employees".
I guarantee that companies who regularly mistreat their employees will not retain talented workers and will not compete very well or make a lot of money, and this is all assuming they don't end up sued by workman's comp to begin with.
A) what is our tax money going to that bothers people so much, exactly? Like, low taxes for vital services. Well... cut defense spending, and beyond that everything's pretty vital..
Why the hell do people have issues with taxing higher because someone can afford it? It's got a minimal impact on the taxed, it's got a major impact on total tax income, and it lets your biggest concern be what color should my new kitchen be, not "can the peasants afford pitchforks?"
Re: A Social Security - I am throwing my money away on a program that I will never see any benefit from becaus it's theory is different from its execution in a severely flawed manner. The way it's being used, SS is a tax.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
A) what is our tax money going to that bothers people so much, exactly? Like, low taxes for vital services. Well... cut defense spending, and beyond that everything's pretty vital..
Why the hell do people have issues with taxing higher because someone can afford it? It's got a minimal impact on the taxed, it's got a major impact on total tax income, and it lets your biggest concern be what color should my new kitchen be, not "can the peasants afford pitchforks?"
Re: A Social Security - I am throwing my money away on a program that I will never see any benefit from becaus it's theory is different from its execution in a severely flawed manner. The way it's being used, SS is a tax.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
SS is the "fewer hobos on the streets" tax, yes. Trust me, you want it to be there, albeit not in its current form.
Federal Estate Tax is the "It's either this or we tax the fuck out of you in a different wayy at least this way your family can afford to keep the estate while the residents are alive" tax.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
What makes you think that?
Because I'm not better than he is and he's not better than I am. We both worked for our money, and we both deserve to hang on to it.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
What makes you think that?
Because I'm not better than he is and he's not better than I am. We both worked for our money, and we both deserve to hang on to it.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
Please explain to me why inheritance should be treated differently from every other kind of income. What is so magically special about it that, while any other income you make is taxed (whether worked for, gained through investment, or given to you), this particular income (which may as well have fucking fallen from the sky, as far as you're concerned) is so sacrosanct that the evil hand of government must never lay a finger upon it?
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
What makes you think that?
Because I'm not better than he is and he's not better than I am. We both worked for our money, and we both deserve to hang on to it.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
Please explain to me why inheritance should be treated differently from every other kind of income. What is so magically special about it that, while any other income you make is taxed (whether worked for, gained through investment, or given to you), this particular income (which may as well have fucking fallen from the sky, as far as you're concerned) is so sacrosanct that the evil hand of government must never lay a finger upon it?
Because TAXES TAXES SOCIALIST SOCIALIST
Alternative Answer: Because my dad is rich.
Extra round bonus answer: America needs more landed gentry.
A) what is our tax money going to that bothers people so much, exactly? Like, low taxes for vital services. Well... cut defense spending, and beyond that everything's pretty vital..
Why the hell do people have issues with taxing higher because someone can afford it? It's got a minimal impact on the taxed, it's got a major impact on total tax income, and it lets your biggest concern be what color should my new kitchen be, not "can the peasants afford pitchforks?"
Re: A Social Security - I am throwing my money away on a program that I will never see any benefit from becaus it's theory is different from its execution in a severely flawed manner. The way it's being used, SS is a tax.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
To be taxed $250k for an estate tax, you would have to be left over $4 million dollars.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
Please explain to me why inheritance should be treated differently from every other kind of income. What is so magically special about it that, while any other income you make is taxed (whether worked for, gained through investment, or given to you), this particular income (which may as well have fucking fallen from the sky, as far as you're concerned) is so sacrosanct that the evil hand of government must never lay a finger upon it?
Inheritance in general shouldn't be taxed. My parents already paid taxes on the money that bought it, and they pay their property tax every year. Why should I get taxed for it again just because they died?
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
What makes you think that?
Because I'm not better than he is and he's not better than I am. We both worked for our money, and we both deserve to hang on to it.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
Please explain to me why inheritance should be treated differently from every other kind of income. What is so magically special about it that, while any other income you make is taxed (whether worked for, gained through investment, or given to you), this particular income (which may as well have fucking fallen from the sky, as far as you're concerned) is so sacrosanct that the evil hand of government must never lay a finger upon it?
Inheritance in general shouldn't be taxed. My parents already paid taxes on the money that bought it, and they pay their property tax every year. Why should I get taxed for it again just because they died?
Posts
Via the exploitation of those workers and shared resources. Resources which he also happens to impart a much larger maintenance cost upon than those individuals under his employ.
Roads? Freeways? Postal Service? Social safety net? Education? Health care?
Publicly funding these endeavors benefits literally every last man, woman, and child in our nation. I don't care how fucking rich you are, you benefit from welfare programs. You benefit from public education.
Now that we've established which things, if publicly funded, would benefit literally everyone, we figure out the cost, and then divide that up in whatever way does the least harm to the economy and to society.
And before any of you chucklefucks pipe up with something like "Well, we should give free 50" plasma TVs to everyone, because that would benefit everybody, olol," no it wouldn't, and you damned well know it, so shut up.
Second, if you want to avoid massive cheating (and it's associated, black market problems), it needs to be a VAT. I don't understand how anyone could propose a 30% sales tax. Think of the incentives that creates.
Bob's Truck Co. would not exist without the myriad of truck drivers he employs. He benefits from their work. This is what employers do.
EDIT: Even if it'll never be phrased as being for such a purpose.
Doesn't this mean the man who founded and built a shipping company is getting a LOT more use of the transportation infrastructure than his truckers? They're actively using it, but he's requiring it for his entire business model.
Yes. Employers and employees benefit each other and the people they serve. It's an amazing thing, this free market where people enter into voluntary, mutually-beneficial contracts with each other.
This isn't inherently a bad thing. A company isn't evil for wanting to make money. But assuming that in the world of business the cream always rises to the top is hopelessly naive, and it makes me wonder how involved in the business world some of the people saying this are.
Using their free market produced roads and armies to defend their borders and police to keep people from breaking into their shit and the educations to provide them workers who aren't dangerous to themselves and others and to protect the air and water and food they consume and to ensure that medicine is progressing.
All without the help of the government.
Which is far from saying that there aren't government programs that are stupid and which should get drawn and quartered. I consider myself to be under-taxed, but at the same time I hardly consider my tax dollars to be spent wisely. Fixing the latter would be awesome, and it might have some beneficial impact on reducing the former, but it's not as if the former precludes the latter as well. I want some kickass government services due to natural monopolies and the failure of the market to service certain industries competitively (thanks to the high cost of entry stifling entrepreneurship or what have you) and am willing to pay for it. The idea that we can get a free lunch from tax cuts and/or that tax cuts don't equate to deficit spending is bullshit and I wish somebody with some influence would get the balls to stand up and say as much.
A) what is our tax money going to that bothers people so much, exactly? Like, low taxes for vital services. Well... cut defense spending, and beyond that everything's pretty vital..
Ok, so Bob the Transport company owner doesn't have to pay any tax.
Instead, he has to pay Rick the Road Builder for each and every route they use. He also has to pay Ernest the Enforcer to provide people to protect each and every truck, and to make sure that those deadbeat clients actually pay up. Then he has to pay Dave the Driving Instructor to assess the competency of anyone who wants to drive one of his trucks.
Since you seem to be advocating some kind of Randian Free-Market dystopia, do you really think all those collective expenses will work out to be less than what would be levied in tax?
Re progressive tax rates, there are several reasons for those, all good. One interesting effect of a progressive rate where higher earners pay more is that it can put a damper on inflation. As incomes rise (into higher brackets), the progressive tax takes money out of the economy, reducing inflation.
Plus, higher income earners will usually have lower marginal rates after other taxes and charges (including sales taxes - lower income earners are going to spend a larger percentage of their money on goods and services) are taken into account. Boosting the tax rate for higher brackets helps offset that.
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
I think you forgot the part where Bob was magically responsible for the entire economy and therefore shouldn't be forced to pay so much in taxes. I'm glad we are in agreement that people sometimes do stuff. I was worried we might disagree about that.
Right, employers are benefiting from the exploitation of their workers. And so are receiving more money as a result of those workers' capacity to be more productive thanks in no small part to governmental services. Things like universal education, roads, FDA, CDC, filtered (and communist flouridified) tap water, &c.
Mind explaining why those employers who are benefiting thusly shouldn't be charged more in order to provide those governmental services, again?
Oh no, there's plenty of stupid shit that can get gutted. Though by the same token there's a hell of a lot of good shit that doesn't receive any funding at all. The contents of the Federal Budget is really just sort of tangential to the issue of tax burden and shouldn't be assessed under that rubric. Particularly given that we've been running deficits for the last 8 years, 6-7 of which had extremely strong growth.
Simply put, it is not the nature of how taxes are collected that is the problem. It is the nature of all of the extra rules that go along with it. This gets just as complicated once you try and factor in existing incentives during any weird sort of transition phase. (Mortgage insurance, as an example. How would it be treated during this change period?)
To be clear, I hate the way I have to pay taxes. Not because of the amount I have to pay, but because I almost have to bloody hire somebody just to make sure I didn't screw it up. Moving to a brand new "clean" system would fix that for a while, I'm sure. However, I'm guessing the first few iterations of the income tax didn't require higher education to get right. (Not saying I wouldn't love being able to keep all of money on my paycheck....
This is not to say that our current tax code cannot be improved or, more importantly, made more transparent and user-friendly. But that's essentially re-writing the shitty instruction manual. "Oh man we're gonna simplify the tax code and BAM NO MORE IRS!" does not work.
Taxes are complicated because our economy is complicated. How do you tax income offset by losses? How about income on income? How about business-to-business trading? Costs? What about mergers? Resales? Reimbursements? Bad debt writeoffs? Subsidiary purchases? Professional services? Professional reimbursements?
Yeah, you'd just have the mother of all shitstorms descend upon Congress if you tried to remove all the deductions (minus charity) from the tax code even if it meant a comparable reduction in rates so as to be revenue neutral.
It'd be nice, though. That plus a 100% auctioned C&T bill which incentivizes sustainability would be pretty much great.
A business is simply a system that attempts to generate a surplus from the balancing act between the revenues that come in on one side and the costs for labour and supplies that go out on the other side. The owners of the business are going to want their return regardless and instead of just shrugging and accepting a loss when taxes are high, they're going to readjust the balance, either through higher prices to increase the revenue side, or lower wages on the cost side.
That's not to say you can't tax businesses to some degree, but it's not wise to see them as a bottomless cash cow. There can be very real and negative consequences from taxing them too severely. The progressive tax mixes seen in Scandinavia are built on lower business taxes along with, to bring this back on topic, higher consumption taxes.
Again, it's not about who they provide benefits for and how much good they do unto others - your whole argument is irrelevant.
It is about two things:
1. Governments cost money to run, and those with money (surprise!) are most able to provide it.
2. A stable and well-run government and economy best benefits those who make the most money.
I thought we were talking personal income tax, not corporate taxes. And it is technically impossible to tax a business as it is not a real person, only a legal person. The costs will be borne out somewhere and most likely at the bottom due to the 1st rule of plumbing.
IRS Myth: "we can eliminate the IRS, and save tons of money!" First of all, there's no way we can eliminate the IRS. We will need an enforcement mechanism for the tax code, regardless of how simple it is. Second of all, the IRS is currently massively underfunded, so it's not even a sure thing that we'd be able to cut the IRS budget, let alone eliminate it. Finally, the budget for the IRS in 2009 is $12.1 billion. While Obama increased that considerably (which is fucking great), that's still a drop in the fucking bucket compared to the federal budget of four trillion dollars. It's basically zero.
Now, let's look at what we'll be eliminating:
Federal Estate Tax: Hmmm... a tax on people inheriting multi-million dollar assets from their parents that they have done nothing to earn. I really think we should change the name to the "private welfare queen tax." Affects zero poor people, and so-close-to-zero-it-might-as-well-be-zero middle class people.
Federal Income Tax: We all know this one. No more income taxes for people. Yaaaaayyyy, now there's no more disincentive to work! Except I don't think anyone has ever been able to illustrate a federal income tax in this country actually creating a disincentive to work, since under our current tax scheme, there's no way to make less money by making more money; you might make not-as-much-more money by making more money, but if I told you "I'm going to give you a thousand dollars, if you want it," and when you said "yes," I said "actually, I'm only going to give you $950," are you really going to say "oh, nevermind, then?" There's another issue with this when it comes to businesses, but I'm going to address that when I talk about corporate taxes.
Capital Gains/Dividend Taxes: I'm sure this is one of Yar's big arguments for the consumption tax boosting the economy, but here we have yet another tax which affects no poor people and very few middle class people, in favor of a tax which affects poor and middle class people. Yes, it does create more of an incentive to invest in other people's companies and homes, but that will likely be countered by lower returns on those investments (since you don't have to pay taxes on the returns). More on the dividend tax issue under corporate taxes.
Corporate Taxes: Here is where I think Yar's proposal completely falls apart. He can't even begin to tell you the ramifications of getting rid of corporate taxes. No one can. It completely restructures the current incentive system we have for corporations. Right now, our corporations pay a corporate tax rate on all profits. From there, they can either pay those profits out in dividends, or re-invest them into the company. In theory, it doesn't matter to the shareholders which of these two things they do. Say they made $1.25/share in profit. If they reinvest that money in the company, the company's share value should go up $1.25/share, meaning that if someone wants to take their money and run, they can just sell the shares. Or, they can pay out that $1.25 as a dividend, which means that the money is given straight to the shareholders, and the stock price holds steady. There are strategic reasons to do either, but dividends are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains. This creates an incentives from the shareholders' perspective to want more money invested into the company, rather than paid out in dividends. You could argue that this is a good thing, since investment in companies is a good thing.
Furthermore, all of a sudden, a company has no incentive to invest in themselves. Why? Because investing in yourself is expensive. Normally, you spend money on improving the company, and that money is tax-deductible; subtracted from your profits at the end of the year, meaning you don't pay taxes on it. This goes for everything from employees to equipment. So, if you get a $2,000/year raise, really, it probably only costs your company $1,300/year, because they pay $700 less in taxes. Under a tax regime with no corporate taxes, this is no longer true. Also no longer true is the fact that buying new things for the company not only won't be tax-deductible, it will be 30% more expensive on top of that. By doing this, you've created a marginal cost increase on employee pay of 54% (i.e. paying an employee will cost a company half again as much under this tax plan), and a marginal cost increase of over 100% on any equipment or physical product cost for use or expansion. This assumes a corporation with revenues in the tens of millions of dollars, so the effect on smaller corporations won't be as bad, but will still be quite significant. This is a fucking huge disincentive for investment in improving a company, when they can just pay out a tax-free dividend to their shareholders. The shareholders have no reason to want the company to reinvest in itself, since that's just going to mean them getting hit with taxes.
You're welcome to check my numbers if you want Yar (or anyone else), but I think you'll find them quite accurate.
The progressive ones don't. Look at the people who are pushing this plan, ask yourself cui bono, and the answers pretty much fall into place on their own.
Wal*Mart.
CVS.
--
Daaaamn, Than.
Re: A Social Security - I am throwing my money away on a program that I will never see any benefit from becaus it's theory is different from its execution in a severely flawed manner. The way it's being used, SS is a tax.
Re: B I don't rightly care if the impact on me is minimal. I worked for my money and I have just as much right o hang on to it as the dude working at McDonald's. I didn't go to college to contribute more to society. I went to college to contribute more to my wallet.
Also, federal estate tax is fucking retarded. It's an inheritance - not a sale. "Oh, I'm so sorry your dad died, $250K plz." Fuck that.
What makes you think that?
SS is the "fewer hobos on the streets" tax, yes. Trust me, you want it to be there, albeit not in its current form.
Federal Estate Tax is the "It's either this or we tax the fuck out of you in a different wayy at least this way your family can afford to keep the estate while the residents are alive" tax.
Because I'm not better than he is and he's not better than I am. We both worked for our money, and we both deserve to hang on to it.
This is always an interesting statement.
Citation Needed.
Are you implying that I don't do anything for my money and didn't have to work to get where I am? Because if you are, sir, then you are mistaken.
Because TAXES TAXES SOCIALIST SOCIALIST
Alternative Answer: Because my dad is rich.
Extra round bonus answer: America needs more landed gentry.
To be taxed $250k for an estate tax, you would have to be left over $4 million dollars.
Inheritance in general shouldn't be taxed. My parents already paid taxes on the money that bought it, and they pay their property tax every year. Why should I get taxed for it again just because they died?
So who pays the government?
Man do you even know how taxes work?