Sunset sound

[john12ax7]

Again, have a look at the facts in the link I provided.

The joke's on you if you think something as silly as facts will convince people in this crowd.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Interesting that you didn't answer the actual question.

A flat tax is a better solution. It is as fair as any other and has benefits like simplicity ( which leads to fewer loopholes and lower administrative overhead in public and private sector) and forcing skin in the game for everyone. Why is it fair to take a higher percentage from a minority of people (who are already funding most of government)?

You obviously do not understand this topic. So maybe stop accusing others of not understanding?

Right.

 

[living sounds]

Maybe work hard to make your own wealth instead of being jealous of, or offended by, that of others. Life simply isn't "fair" the way you think it should be. Wanting to control others (including what they do with their wealth) is a sure sign of authoritarianism.

Back with the ad hominems. And (incorrect) assumptions. And putting words in my mouth.

The rigged system is "controlling others". You just lack the capacity and/or will to realize it.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Back with the ad hominems.

Where? You seem overly sensitive to simple questioning. I guess you'll interpret that as an attack, too.

And (incorrect) assumptions. And putting words in my mouth.

Clarify by answering instead of whining.

The rigged system is "controlling others". You just lack the capacity and/or will to realize it.

No, I see that. Every system made and run by humans is flawed. The difference is the net effects (positive and negative) of these flaws. Some systems are better for prosperity and growth while others lead to waste and stagnation (or worse). Pragmatism > idealism.

 

[cyrano]

There is a simple solution to taxes. An American economist has done the math. Abolish all taxes on wages and on wealth. Increase VAT (sales tax). Those who live a simple life, pay just a little. Those who like to spend fortunes, pay a lot. No sales tax on food. High sales tax on luxury goods and goods that cost society a lot, like cars.

In fact, it's so simple a lot of people don't believe it. It should be complicated, no?

 

[ruffrecords]

There is a simple solution to taxes. An American economist has done the math. Abolish all taxes on wages and on wealth. Increase VAT (sales tax). Those who live a simple life, pay just a little. Those who like to spend fortunes, pay a lot. No sales tax on food. High sales tax on luxury goods and goods that cost society a lot, like cars.

In fact, it's so simple a lot of people don't believe it. It should be complicated, no?

Much too simple. There has to be exceptions beyond just food. What about healthcare, education. Surely anything that promotes the health, and skill of the work force should be free?

Cheers

Ian

 

[living sounds]

There is a simple solution to taxes. An American economist has done the math. Abolish all taxes on wages and on wealth. Increase VAT (sales tax). Those who live a simple life, pay just a little. Those who like to spend fortunes, pay a lot. No sales tax on food. High sales tax on luxury goods and goods that cost society a lot, like cars.

In fact, it's so simple a lot of people don't believe it. It should be complicated, no?

This is a regressive tax system. The poor have to spend all their income, so they pay a much higher rate of their income in tax than the wealthy, who only actually spend a small portion of it and can keep the rest in investments that grow in value. And they can spend it outside the system (other countries). And surely will find other ways around it.

There is no simple solution. And none with unintended consequences or massive invasions of privacy.

I don't want to live in a world of digital central bank currencies with total transparency of transactions. Some plans seem to point in that direction. But the way humans behave we sooner or later land in a situation like the current one, with massive inequality and escalating societal conflicts.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

In the US too much money is made from keeping things complicated. As I understand it, in a lot of countries many people don't need to file taxes, the government already has all the information so you just get a bill or check depending on what you owe or are due refund.

Obama tried to bring this to the US. It wouldn't even change the tax code, just unburden many from the time and expense of filing. It was of course shut down.

The last thing I want is that. Do you really trust the government with that kind of power? Who checks the IRS? And all the details about what you might be able to do to legally lower your tax burden are hidden because you didn't get to check with your iwn tax SW or accountant. And new laws get passed and hey, your income tax is higher. But don't worry, citizen. We at the IRS have figured it out for you. Trust us, the deductions are correct. Also, send us another $10k by April 15th or we'll take $12k from what ever of your accounts we choose.

Simplify the damned thing and reduce wasteful government spending.

 

[john12ax7]

Why is it fair to take a higher percentage from a minority of people

Why is it fair for the wealthiest to pay a lower percentage? Why is there so much outrage when poor people get a break, but not comparable outrage when the wealthiest get a break?

 

[Matador]

Why is it fair for the wealthiest to pay a lower percentage?

A progressive system is linear when you factor in the marginal utility of a dollar.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Why is it fair for the wealthiest to pay a lower percentage? Why is there so much outrage when poor people get a break, but not comparable outrage when the wealthiest get a break?

I'm not advocating for breaks. Flat tax. I asked why it's fair for the top 2-3% to pay the majority of taxes and no one has answered.

 

[john12ax7]

A progressive system is linear when you factor in the marginal utility of a dollar.

There is some truth to that and a legitimate debate to be had.

You could do something like a baseline cost of living at 0% and then a fixed % above that.

Or just have a continuous function that reaches an asymptotic limit (always thought multiple stepoed tax brackets were ridiculous.)

I would also eliminate all exemptions, credits, deductions, etc. All income is income. Take income, multiply by function, done.

 

[john12ax7]

I'm not advocating for breaks. Flat tax. I asked why it's fair for the top 2-3% to pay the majority of taxes and no one has answered.

It's a pointless discussion when everything continues to be lumped together. I have friends in the 1%, they get hammered when it comes to taxes.. Their bosses, who are 0.1%+, pay less. That to me is more outrageous than a poor person receiving help.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There is a simple solution to taxes. An American economist has done the math. Abolish all taxes on wages and on wealth. Increase VAT (sales tax). Those who live a simple life, pay just a little. Those who like to spend fortunes, pay a lot. No sales tax on food. High sales tax on luxury goods and goods that cost society a lot, like cars.

this is old news but sales taxes are regressive (opposite of progressive), hitting poor people harder than the rich. The poor spend a larger percentage of their income on routine sustenance spending.

In fact, it's so simple a lot of people don't believe it. It should be complicated, no?

nah
======
Taxation is the wrong tool to fix imagined societal inequities.

Taxation needs to raise only enough revenue to support the basic government functions, like border security..... not giving illegal immigrants debit cards.

Sadly taxation these days is only viewed as a mechanism to punish wealthy people for their success. Modern monetary theory suggests that government can just borrow/print all the money that they can imagine spending.

Of course opinions vary....

JR

 

[john12ax7]

Taxation needs to raise only enough revenue to support the basic government functions,

I agree, in principle.

Sadly taxation these days is only viewed as a mechanism to punish wealthy people for their success.

Is it though? It has been government itself that has caused so much inequality and wealth transfer. A lot of the "success" of wealthy people is due to government. Do we ignore this? Or do we attempt to reverse some of the ill gotten gains?

Person A make $100k and pays 20% and Person B makes $10 million and pays 20%, that might seem fair. But every so often, through crisis or otherwise Person A is gifted $1k while Person B is gifted $1 million through some government action. This is the reality of how things have worked for decades. So a flat 20% on both is actually degressive, you would need progressive taxation just to undue the damage and get back to even.

Modern monetary theory suggests that government can just borrow/print all the money that they can imagine spending.

MMT is one of the dumbest things I've heard.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It's a pointless discussion when everything continues to be lumped together. I have friends in the 1%, they get hammered when it comes to taxes.. Their bosses, who are 0.1%+, pay less. That to me is more outrageous than a poor person receiving help.

Honest question: by what specific mechanisms are the 0.1% legally avoiding taxation that impacts the 1%?

I am familiar with getting hammered as the last two years before I retired I was in the 1% and in CA where state income tax took another 10-12% (for which we received poor schools, poor roads, and crappy gov service at the DMV, etc.).

The problem with having only a minority of people paying the majority of taxes is that those paying less are not as upset about the lack of service/infrastructure as they would be if they saw their reasonably equal share being wssted. Too many are happy to keep taking and not contribute. They keep voting for the give-aways and the politicians who support it. The progressive tax system is a big part of the problem.

 

[Matador]

There is some truth to that and a legitimate debate to be had.

You could do something like a baseline cost of living at 0% and then a fixed % above that.

Or just have a continuous function that reaches an asymptotic limit (always thought multiple stepoed tax brackets were ridiculous.)

I would also eliminate all exemptions, credits, deductions, etc. All income is income. Take income, multiply by function, done.

100% agreed. In addition, cost of living is good to consider given it can span two or three orders of magnitude just crossing over a state border.

Person A make $100k and pays 20% and Person B makes $10 million and pays 20%, that might seem fair.

Except person A has $50K, and person B has 8 million.

 

[john12ax7]

Another aspect would be the more money you have, the less you need money, so the easier to hoard wealth and assets and not pay taxes. Put 1 million in the S&P 30 years ago, it's about 10 million today. Give it to your heir and the 9 million gain is tax free due to stepped up cost basis. The heir would also then collect qualified dividend income, about $150k a year, at lower tax rates than someone having a job. In a few decades this could then be passed on again.

So millions are made, all at an overall tax rate of a few % and dropping. (Notice the shift to share buybacks). Meanwhile how much has the guy doing roofing in July been paying? An order of magnitude higher for hard labor. It's beyond ridiculous when you delve into the details.

These are just non-esoteric things a layman can do. Haven't even touched on more complex things or the detrimental effects of something like fiat money.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Another aspect would be the more money you have, the less you need money, so the easier to hoard wealth and assets and not pay taxes. Put 1 million in the S&P 30 years ago, it's about 10 million today. Give it to your heir and the 9 million gain is tax free due to stepped up cost basis. The heir would also then collect qualified dividend income, about $150k a year, at lower tax rates than someone having a job. In a few decades this could then be passed on again.

So millions are made, all at an overall tax rate of a few % and dropping. (Notice the shift to share buybacks). Meanwhile how much has the guy doing roofing in July been paying? An order of magnitude higher for hard labor. It's beyond ridiculous when you delve into the details.

These are just non-esoteric things a layman can do. Haven't even touched on more complex things or the detrimental effects of something like fiat money.

That sounds easy.... I converted my IRA to Roth years ago and paid taxes on the full contributions at that time, so I would be tax free later. Wouldn't it be funny if they started taxing the asset value (wealth) not income.

I've found the easiest way to enjoy low tax rates is not make much income. For this to work you need to live in a modest low cost area. The last time I checked I couldn't find a cheaper place to live than right here in small town MS.

JR

 

[cyrano]

There are very few very wealthy people who got rich by hard work. It's basically "quantité négligeable".

And those who inherited their wealth, their forefathers didn't get rich by being honest and friendly.

Besides, some of the rich have asked to be taxed. A lot of them even told us they pay no taxes at all. So it's hardly unfair to make the wealthy pay a higher ratio as they can hire experts to avoid taxes.

And then there are the most wealthy: the big corporations. I really don't see why they wouldn't pay a lot more taxes, especially for the pollution they cause. All it takes is some worldwide cooperation. And it's just that that gets sabotaged time and time again by the US...

It's not about intelligence or even business smart if you want to get rich. It's about access to capital and belonging to the right family or group. Once you own a few billion, making money is easy.

There are exceptions to the rule, like the Johnson and Philips families, but there aren't many. In fact, the only reason why Bill Gates got to where he is now, is because he's a descendant of a family of bankers. He was able to take on IBM since he had his daddy backing up. IBM knew they couldn't sue him for what he did. If he would've been your average America country boy, they'd have sued him into oblivion.