1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Rich Getting Richer, ever wonder why?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Aceventura, Sep 7, 2011.

  1. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    The wealth disparity of Zimbabwe is of little concern to the wealth disparity of Canada. I'm talking about national (and even regional) societies, not global ones.

    What do you mean by "winners"? What do you mean by picking them? For some kind of team?

    Well, I know what you mean; I just can't see it having enough of an impact.

    I suppose you've got to start somewhere. It's going to be a long haul.

    Yes, I have. The likely effect of such a plan would be to shift the tax burden further onto the lower and middle classes while alleviating it from the upper classes. It would increase taxes on the majority of Americans—the wrong Americans. I think that would be disastrous. If only Herman "I have no idea [how my tax plan would work]" Cain would see that.

    It's interesting that you support such a tax plan in a thread entitled "Rich Getting Richer, ever wonder why?"
     
  2. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Wealth disparity is wealth disparity in my view. Are you suggesting that with boarders wealth disparity is not relevant? Are you suggesting that if all the "rich" people formed their own country on some island somewhere, everything becomes o.k.?

    Neutral means wealth flows freely. Picking winners is redistribution ( government uses the threat of force - i.e. jail for income tax enforcement as opposed to voluntary tax payments through ways like consumption taxation or user fees). For example, the government says if you work for GM or if you are an investor in GM you get favored treatment. Although GM failed, the government say it is o.k. Who pays for that? I do. You do. Consumers do. Other businesses do. GM's competitors do.

    I just did some searching. Canada has a form of a national sales tax. it looks like through both liberal and conservatives in government Canada has been functioning with it for almost 20 years. To say Cain's plan is ridiculous doesn't make any sense to me, coming from a person in Canada. I am going to try to understand the Canadian system better - it may prove enlightening.

    Our current tax code is broken. It favors the rich. There are far to many disincentives in our tax code for those going from being poor to better economic status. I prefer a system that is neutral, I think taxing work, savings and investment is the absolute wrong thing to do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    No, you don't understand. The Canadian government doesn't have jurisdiction in the Zimbabwean government, nor the Zimbabwean economy. Nor do Canadians intermingle with Zimbabweans on a regular basis in their day-to-day lives.

    Canadian domestic policy has no direct impact on Zimbabweans.

    Are you suggesting Canada's poor should buck up because they aren't as bad off as Zimbabweans? Do you have any idea how far $436 goes in a Canadian city?

    So "picking winners" is a silly (and somewhat confusing if not misleading) analogy. I know you are a free-marketer, but I also know that's a fantasy.

    As reluctant as I am to use your terminology, you should know that the Canadian government picks and has picked far more winners, relatively speaking, than the American government could ever aspire to. Yet, you yourself admit that we're doing fine. Does this mean you aren't against picking winners per se? That you are instead against picking the wrong winners? Or not picking enough winners if you're going to pick winners at all?

    The GST? I already brought that up. It shifted the tax burden from the manufacturing sector to consumers (both personal and business). The Conservatives introduced it, while the Liberals rabidly opposed it and threatened to repeal it. More recently, the Conservatives have scaled the rate back.

    It's not the same thing as the 9-9-9 plan, which is a 9% tax on all consumer purchases, a 9% “business” tax, and a 9% income tax. Have you looked at Canadian tax rates? The GST is currently only 5% (but both this and the 9% from 9-9-9 are national taxes: add to that the provincial/state sales taxes).

    Also consider that 30 million Americans pay no income tax at all because their income is so low: 9-9-9 would boost that by 9%. How would you feel about a sudden 9% income tax increase? Now consider how it would feel if that increase amounted to a full month or two of rent. Isn't that a pleasant prospect for a low-income earner who also now has to pay 9% more in sales tax (including on both food and housing, which are normally exempt)?

    Income under $10,822 in Canada is not taxed.

    Now look into our system more and tell me how Canada's system makes Cain's idea any less ridiculous.

    You think the system favours the rich one one hand, but don't want savings and investments taxed on the other. I'm confused. Could you elaborate? I know you favour a flat tax system, but that's demonstrably a regressive system of taxation that puts more burden on the poor.
     
  4. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I understand. It seems to me that you set the rules to fit your point of view. The only reason the IRS has jurisdiction over me is because people I didn't vote for made a law, that is now enforced with the threat of jail and the police power of government. In terms of "fairness" Bill Gates is as independent of me as Canada is independent of Zimbabwe. If I had the power, I could make up a law to force Bill Gates to share his wealth with me.

    It is very possible for a wealthy person to have no direct impact on a poor person, yet you would support some form of economic "fairness". Our points of view, the way we look at the question is very different.

    No. I think the people of Zimbabwe need to address their own issues. I have not looked into their issues but I am guessing they may have had a history of being exploited, first by perhaps western European countries and secondly by corrupt political leaders. In both cases people who do not support free market capitalism are at the root of the problem. If the people of Zimbabwe could freely participate in the world economy, I bet living standards would improve significantly.

    Our government picked GM. We recently let ethanol subsidies expire, this helped corn farmers. Currently we give large tax credits to electric vehicles, benefiting the few rich people who can afford them and the alternative needs for real transportation. Homeowners get big tax incentives for having big mortgages. There are countless examples of government in the US picking winners at the expense of others, like the ones listed. I do not support tax policy for social engineering. Taxes should be a reflection of actual social costs in my view. Government should be neutral.

    To understand my point of view, look at healthcare. I think we should have a true single payer system or a true free market type system. It is the unworkable compromises that cause the problems. If Canada and the people of Canada decide to do something, that is their business, and if people support the final decision - no doubt it will be workable. I believe socialism, communism, and other isms can be workable. I simply prefer capitalism and I believe that in the long-run it is the most efficient system.

    You say sift. Corporate cost are always built into prices in time. You can do what you want with corporate taxes eventually the consumer pays them. When you have corporate tax rates and other cost materially different across boarders, all other things being equal you will see capital or corporations/business/etc. flow to lowest cost areas. The question is how long will it take. For example a US company like Caterpillar has been shifting it presence to lower cost areas during my lifetime. My father retired from the company after 30 years as a UAW member, I have lived through the ups and downs. Peoria, Il. is the corporate headquarters, they have let it be know that they may leave the city and state - and there is no real reason they have to stay in the US, most of their sales are international.

    No system is perfect. Cain's plan is not that different from what is going on in Canada based on what you describe and what I understand at this point. Cain emphasized "999" as a marketing slogan the details in his plan never got debated. If it had been adjustments could have been discussed to make the plan more acceptable to more people. It is unfortunate that the real debate never occurred. Perhaps it show the US is not read to really solve our economic problems.

    There are many examples in this thread that clarifies my point of view. Warren Buffet is generally not going to be impacted by superficial changes in tax policy, he has options. Options, I don't have. Options working people and poor people do not have. Our tax policy hurts those trying to improve their economic status. Our tax policy hurts people who create real wealth. Warren Buffet, generally speaking, does not and has never created real wealth. His path to wealth was through his ability to exploit disparities in our economic system. I have no problem with that because what he did took great skill and a lot of work. i just want him and everyone else to play by the same rules.
     
  5. pan6467

    pan6467 a triangle in a circular world.

    We have ANWAR, we have coal and we have a great amount of natural gas that we cannot drill or mine for because of "environmental concerns". I agree that we cannot just destroy entire ecosystems, but the drilling and mining today are far less intrusive. If we continue to import and not use our own supplies or invest in solar and wind and alternative fuels, we will continue this slide downhill. I am far more worried about the trade deficit than I am the government's. The trade deficit will continue increasing as long as we keep importing and relying on other countries to source us our energy.

    Every time a company sends jobs overseas that is fewer taxes being paid and more people needing social programs (unemployment, food stamps, healthcare, etc.). It's not a matter of being competitive because you can't sell anything if people don't have the money. Companies (at least here in Ohio) tend to fight their employees they fired instead of paying unemployment. Some, very few, will actually pay for some type of re education programs, finding those can be cheaper than fighting not to pay unemployment and after 3 appeals (they hope many find work or give up) end up paying the unemployment anyway). What hobbles competitiveness is not paying fair wages BUT shipping jobs overseas when there are no other jobs available. You cannot sale higher end items, like computers, cars, etc if there is no base to buy those products. HOWEVER, when you keep jobs here and pay livable wages, smaller businesses in the area will grow and prosper, cities will find an influx of revenue as would states and federal. You may not have as much profit but at least the country prospers and the tax bases are able to rebuild. More decent paying jobs = fewer people needing governmental social services and more tax revenue. It's not that difficult to figure out.

    This is where again, you need those companies here or retraining and restructuring their businesses so as not to kill jobs. Where again, you are losing serious buying power from the largest consumer nation that ever existed. If people in the US can only afford the essentials going overseas isn't helping business, especially when again the tax base becomes narrowed and narrowed until you truly have a system that is totally unfair to the people who run small businesses and don't have the luxury of being able to move to another country or ship their wares to other markets. It's a catch 22. You just have to decide what is more important, squeezing all you can get out of the system and killing it, or end the greed and share the wealth.

    In some ways but not as capitalistically driven as the bigger companies here are. They also are surpassing us in education, quality of life and crime rates. Because they have far more regulations and better tax bases.

    What exactly is a "reasonable wealth disparity" to you. To me it's not seeing 1/3 or 1/2 of the country living below poverty levels. It is not having .1% owning more wealth than the 99.9% combined. If that is capitalism then it is nothing more than greed and again breeds contempt and civil unrest, not to mention destroying the consumer base and political turmoil.

    It's not corruption or the wealthy owning government that is truly the biggest problem, it is a lack of the 2 party system agreeing on doing what is best for the country as a whole and the promotion of domestic tranquility. Which again, when you have the extreme wealth disparity as we do and it is growing and there are people on both sides blaming the other to the point NOTHING truly gets done, then you have a political system ready to implode and self destruct.
     
  6. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    But they're not my rules. I don't know what you're getting at. It's confusing. The effect of the economic disparity amongst Canadians has little or no bearing on the effect of economic disparity amongst Zimbabweans. When discussing the economic disparity amongst Canadians, it makes no sense to cry out, "But what about Zimbabwe?!" Nor does it make sense to compare it to the economic disparity between Hollywood and little Jimmy down the street who's been making films on his iPhone to share with his friends on YouTube.

    This is beside the point. With my original point I implied that economic disparity is factor in the stability of a society Do you know what nations have the lowest ratios regarding economic disparity? Places like Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany. The highest? Sierra Leone, Haiti, Bolivia, and Honduras. Now tell me whether each of these groups share any similar characteristics.

    The U.S. features somewhere in the middle, not much different from Zimbabwe, actually. Canada is closer to the bottom, ranking amongst places such as France, South Korea, and Pakistan.

    I'm not going to say that economic disparity is the be-all and end-all of anything, but it is a huge factor in terms of social, economic, and political stability. It's quite simple.

    Remember though: there is a distinction between a poor nation and a nation with a high ratio of income disparity.

    This is a bit of a can of worms. All I will tell you is that Canada "picks winners" all the time and we're doing pretty well. Many other well-off nations do as well. Maybe the U.S. needs to get better at it.

    I've told you several times that mixed economies are the best way to go. However, that's a general statement, considering that that makes up the vast majority of world economies. There are successful systems out there. We should be learning from the most stable ones.

    The GST (like many value-added taxes) can be paid multiple times, rather than as a single remittance. It's not the same.

    You are quite wrong on this. Cain's plan is very different from what's going on in Canada. We have a progressive tax system and a federal value-added tax. We have corporate tax rate that is considered low at 25%. Most provinces have either their own sales tax (ranging between 5 and 10%) or a tax harmonized with the GST amounting to 13 to 15% in most places. Combined, Canadians pay sales taxes ranging from 5% (mostly in low-population areas) to 15.5%. Canadians pay both federal and provincial income tax. Again: tell me how that's similar to Cain's silly plan.

    You have conflicting points here. You talk about tax policy that hurts those who don't have wealth, yet you support a tax plan that would put more burden on them. You say the tax policy hurts those who create real wealth, yet you consider investors incapable of playing a role in generating wealth. I don't know what to say to help you with your confusion.

    pan6467: All I can say in response is that you seem to overlook the many standard features of this global economy. Nations import and export to one another. Labour has been globalized. You have to deal with that. Job creation in the U.S. isn't something you can force by penalizing multinationals who seek to compete with other multinationals. No matter what the U.S. does, other multis will keep doing what they're doing, which is compete based on whatever parameters they can—labour cost is just one of them. China and India is successful economically right now because they've really opened up to the capitalist ideal and flexed their strengths. China is now the factory of the world, and India is the business services provider of the world. There is little the U.S. can do to compete directly with that. What did the U.K. do when it saw the U.S. rise to a superpower post-WWII? There was little they could do for obvious reasons.

    If you disagree, then please tell me how it would play out. American policymakers aren't about to look at all those Chinese factories and how they operate and think, "Hmm. How can we put them out of business?" Or are they? How would they put them out of business? Eliminate minimum wage law and many of the labour laws that protect the rights of workers? Set up the factories themselves and have the government run them rather expensively at the cost of taxpayers? What?

    The U.S. needs to focus on what the world is demanding that they can provide based on domestic labour. Any idea requiring a fundamental shift in wages or the cost to taxpayers is probably a poor one.

    Where are the growth opportunities? Natural gas is one. Look into it. It's not as restrictive as you may think.

    American exports have climbed over the past few years, partly due to the weakened dollar. What are Americans exporting? Where are they exporting to?
     
  7. Levite

    Levite Levitical Yet Funky

    Location:
    The Windy City
    I am going to jump in the fame a little late here, so forgive me, but here goes:

    Taxes are have two functions. They are the price we pay for a well-functioning social infrastructure-- and I use the term both in the general, literal sense of roads and power grids and whatnot, and also in the sense of social services, which help our society function better, and for the opportunities provided to us by living in a free society. And they are how we, collectively, raise a pool of funds with which to fulfill social responsibilities. Part of establishing a civil society that is truly civil-- something more than merely the powerful banding together the weak in order to prey upon them-- is that we increase the safety, the education, the opportunities of all members of society. That we make the best attempt that we can to alleviate the suffering of those who suffer among us, and in its place, provide healing and renewed hope. That is not merely good ethics, that is self-serving as well: a better-educated, healthier, happier populace is a more productive and competitive populace.

    We are privileged to live in a country where (in theory) our rights are respected and considered of utmost priorty, and every person is entitled to participate in the governing of society (either by serving in office, or by working for the government, or by contacting one's representatives and offering advice, ideas, or criticism, or simply by voting). Many societies are not founded on such principled ways. In theory, America is supposed to offer opportunity for those who would otherwise have none, and a better life than in other places. What we expect in return for these things is productivity, innovation, and good citizenship.

    We owe it to our society as a whole to chip in and keep it running smoothly, because of what it is (or at least is supposed to be) doing for us.

    Now, I have no problem with certain people, whose contributions are above and beyond the norm, being exempt from taxes. Serving military personnel, serving police and fire officers, and providers of emergency medical services, for example, are all people I would consider either making tax exempt or severely reducing their tax burden. But for everyone else, they should pay as much as is fair to ask.

    And the more successful someone is, thanks to the privileges of living in this free society, the more they should chip in. Which means a progressive tax system that places the lion's share of the burden on the richest people.

    Generally speaking, I think that the first $20,000 or so of income should be tax free. People making from $20,000 to $40,000 should pay around 10%; $40,000 to $70,000 should pay around 15%; $70,000 to $100,000 should pay around 18%; $100,000 to $200,000 should pay around 25%; $200,000 to $300,000 should pay around 33%; $350,000 to $500,000 around 38%; $500,000 to $750,000 should pay around 42%; $750,000 to $1Million around 45%; $1M to $2M around 50%; $2M to $10M around 60%; $10M to $100M around 75%; $100M to $500M around 90%; and everything above $500M around 95%. And this should be with no loopholes for the rich to evade taxation, and firm collection policies.

    I also believe that there should be comparatively few allowed deductions for individuals making over $1M, and none (except for charity) for individuals making over $50M. Likewise, I believe that the inheritance or estate tax should be progressive: the larger the inheritance, the larger the tax burden. I believe some educated soul above quoted de Tocqueville on the motivations for this issue, who was, IMO, entirely correct.

    I favor similar taxes for corporations: the more profitable, the higher the tax rate-- and no loopholes to squirrel away money behind shell corporations or in overseas accounts. Although I also favor giving substantial tax credits to corporations for well-documented good corporate citizenship, by which I mean treating all their employees fairly (everyone gets living wages and full benefits, no discrimination, etc.), keeping jobs in the US, environmental cleanliness, etc.

    I would be inclined to eventually expect higher taxes from people in the middle class if we actually provided truly high-quality social services, universal health care, and took good care of our physical infrastructure, the way that many Western European countries do. I know in the Scandinavian countries, the middle class pays like 50% or so, which in the US currently would be absolutely ruinous. But there, where you get universal health care, great social services, excellent physical infrastructure, high quality free education (sometimes all the way through college or grad school), and so forth, it is not unreasonable to tax at such a rate. You get what you pay for-- the principle is just as applicable to societies as it is to products-- and we in the US need to begin moving more in that direction.

    This crazy model where the rich pay as close to nothing as possible and the government tries to run the country on loans, because they can't squeeze enough bloody money out of the poor and the middle class to offset the negligence of the rich is clearly not working, and frankly, I would've thought that we wouldn't have had to try it out to know it would fail.

    Granted, there are also other factors involved. Military spending is out of control, both figuratively and literally. There is a dire need for strict and well-attended regulation of financial institutions, including the stock market and other financial markets. The War on Drugs needs to be ended, not only because it is an enormous waste of money, and actually promotes the growth of international criminal cartels, but also because it fuels our insanely bloated prison system, and vastly overtaxed justice system, the both of which are a raging hemorrhage of money and a drastic loss of human resources to society. And we also need to give massive tax incentives to the creation of alternative energy, since oil and natural gas are not only bad for the environment, but they are devastatingly expensive, prone to spills and leaks that cost huge amounts of money to deal with, and the resources themselves are usually located in countries with unpleasant political problems that seem inevitably to either lead us to massive bribery of foreign leadership with "aid packages" and whatnot, or to get involved in idiotic, wasteful, and expensive wars to protect our interests.

    But the tax issue is actually the crux of the failure of the social contract in America. The rich are getting richer because they are paying less and less of their fair share, and the country is starving for money because they are trying to get it from the people who don't have any. And in large part as a result, the government is failing miserably in its obligations to provide us with quality infrastructure, decent education, social services-- let alone actually give us real health care, which would benefit the economy hugely in the long run, since the crushing amounts of money that most of us non-rich people are forced to spend on purchasing health care could then be invested, used as disposable income for purchasing things, and so forth.

    Well, I could go on, but that's the short version (God help us)....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Why don't you think a better way to tax is for the tax payer to - opt in. Opt-in through a voluntary system of taxation as opposed to a forced system of taxation. Our government taxes the fruits of a persons labor, and if they don't pay freedom is taken. An opt-in system would be taxation based on social transactions, i.e. consumption. If you want roads you pay some form of use tax or a gas tax. Pay a property tax for police and fire protection. Pay a general sales tax for schools, national defense, EPA, FDA or the other **A's we want as a society. At a very fundamental level, I think our system of taxation robs us of our freedom. and now the trend is (Obamacare as an example), you exist therefore you pay taxes - so much for the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I voluntarily enter into a transaction with society or another member of society and there is a tax component then is is my free choice.
     
  9. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Greece.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Greece along with the US and many other countries have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.
     
  11. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Really, is that so?

    I can get on the spending-problem train as well, given that the US did not go for a balanced cycle of budget surplus during booms and increase in public spending/budget deficit during recessionary periods. Greece's spending is a much worse train-wreck than the US's and I won't even go there.

    However, talking about voluntary taxation... it is a deeply flawed approach towards a humanity that embraces greed and selfishness. The more individualistic the culture, the higher the amount of those two.

    Greece's government hardly pursued tax evaders, thus made it easy for the Greek population to do so, and as a consequence the vast majority of it did. This, in a country with a centrist-leaning-to-individualism cultural base.

    Imagine an extremely individualistic country such as the United States. There will be some sensible people there who will agree to paying their "fair share" of taxes, but I somehow doubt the revenue the government will collect from those individuals will be anywhere near enough to run the country with.
     
  12. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Surely you believe 3 to 4% of GDP's worth of tax evasion is a problem, that a deficit's worth of tax evasion is a problem.
     
  13. Levite

    Levite Levitical Yet Funky

    Location:
    The Windy City
    Because of unremitting greed. The rich are expert at getting around taxes, and refusing to pay their fair share (especially true of those so-called "people," corporations). And because, again, tax revenues are best able to be generated from those who have money, and not those who don't, and so they should proportionally pay a larger share.

    And because taxation does not interfere with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Taxation doesn't take away liberty, it merely reflects a social responsibility, the same as compliance with traffic laws or labor laws or the right of others to their privacy: to live in a civil society, one is compelled to participate in the foundations of making it function-- nothing else is fair. Taxation doesn't obliterate quality of life or obstruct the pursuit of happiness, it merely assures that everyone has some chance at quality of life and the opportunity to pursue happiness: in effect, it is an assurance that my right to pursue happiness and enjoy a quality life does not come at the expense of your ability to do so.
     
  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Furthermore, the rich also have the luxury of far more flexibility in terms of how they approach taxation on their income and assets, whereas those with low to moderate incomes have few options. I'm speaking of the legitimate tax planning based on asset types and investment options, not the exploitation of loopholes or borders.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ah, the consumption tax argument, where the proponents forget that the lower classes spend every penny that they make, thus would be taxed on 100% of their income via sales taxes, while the rich spend a much smaller % of their income, and are thus taxed at a far lower rate.

    In other words, the most regressive tax ever
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Hektore

    Hektore Slightly Tilted

    I don't think Pennsylvania's sales tax is so bad. Food (except prepared food) and clothing aren't taxed. It would be easy enough to make exceptions for things like a first (or only) home or vehicle purchase or any home/vehicle/rent under a certain amount. By only taxing 'luxury' items folks with a lower income will pay a much lower percentage in taxes, because much more of their income goes to 'necessities'. The rest of the 'consumption taxes' we all already pay (Mostly, I understand some places don't have property taxes).
     
  17. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    there are real social costs that can not be factored into normal market pricing (free market type capitalist systems are imperfect). Tax policy should account for these costs and they should be reflected in prices. for example if there is a $1 hidden social cost in a gallon of gasoline, the tax should be $1 on a gallon of gasoline. otherwise the consumers of gasoline are either getting special treatment through a subsidy or they are subsidizing other government programs. It has nothing to do with greed and selfishness, it has everything to do with fairness. I do not think tax policy should be used for back door social engineering. If we want services from government we should pay for them.
    --- merged: Jan 11, 2012 4:46 PM ---
    Tax evasion is a function of poorly written tax policy or poor/ineffective tax collection systems. Easily fixed - assuming there is the will to fix it.
    --- merged: Jan 11, 2012 4:53 PM ---
    I don't forget that. I understand it. There are answers to the problem, i.e. give poor people a tax rebate. What the other-side fails to get is that taxes are built into prices. We can pretend that a 0% tax rate on the poor but for example a 50% tax rate on those who own and employ capital does not affect the poor, but it does. A tax is a cost of doing business. Businesses cover their costs and have a equilibrium profit margin. In time there will always be a reversion back to the equilibrium profit margin. If the other-side ever addressed this point then we would have something to discuss.
     
  18. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    So, basically you're arguing for a compulsory tax, only really diverging from the current state by defining its applications to direct consumption of goods and services - with tax revenue raised to be ultimately used by the federal and state governments for implementation of their "back door social engineering". Thanks for the elaboration on the purpose of taxes, though.

    Where in your above description do you purport "voluntary" or "opt-in" taxation of the citizens?

    We don't need to be talking about greed and selfishness of the citizens, and how it would affect tax evasion and low sign-up to taxes under a voluntary scheme, when you're talking about compulsory top-down tax implementation anyway.
     
  19. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    If my legal actions impose a cost on you, I should bear the burden of that cost. If my legal actions impose a cost to society, I should bear the burden of that cost. In some instances those costs my be hidden or may not be able to be accounted for through any other means than some form of taxation. My legal actions are voluntary. If I engage in a legal action that imposes a cost on others that is my choice, illegal actions follow different conditions in my opinion . For example if there are social costs in food production, shipping, sales, regulations, if I opt to engage in market transactions involving food, food should be taxed to reflect any social costs. If I opt to grow my own food for my own consumption and there is no social costs, I should not be taxed for the food I grow.

    I see the condition of using force to have some subsidize the actions of others a problem. I assume the concept of greed, in the context of voluntary interactions with others, and therefore I can account for it and manage it.
     
  20. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm having a difficult time accepting your premise of procuring food as voluntary action. It's such an odd way to put it. Is procuring and maintaining housing voluntary as well?

    Taxing food and housing would severely burden the poor. Are they exempt? Where do you draw the line?
     
    • Like Like x 1