Home > Archive > Cobol > October 2007 > [OT] Iraq
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Robert 2007-10-03, 3:55 am |
| On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:53:44 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>What was your problem again with a flat tax rate?
It is impossible to define income in a way that permits "no exceptions".
1. PF, a potato farmer, grows one potato at a cost of .90 and sells it to Potato Chip
Manufacturer (PFM) for 1.00. How much is his tax on 'income' of 1.00?
2. PF signs a contract with PFM agreeing to plant their potato breed and grow it according
to their specs. His cost is 1.00 and he sells the potato for 1.20. How much is his tax?
3. PCM hires PF as a contractor, agrees to pay his 1.00 expenses plus a salary of .20. How
much of his 1.20 'income' is taxable?
4. PF outsources the farming to India, which delivers potatoes for .50. He still receives
1.00 for expenses plus .20 for salary. How much of that 1.20 is taxable?
5. PF spends the growing season in the Waldorf-Astoria of Mumbai, where the rent is .50.
How much of his 1.20 is taxable? If different from 4, explain why a flat rate tax should
subsidize the Waldorf of Mumbai.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-03, 3:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fdtsd6$j15$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <5mep12Fd4il5U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> All righty... given that the 'generally accepted concept' of 'an unjust
> situation' includes 'It is unjust for a government to tax citizens into
> poverty'...
>
> ... then consider the case of those who earn 10%-above-poverty wages.
>
Well, we won't argue your premise, 'It is unjust for a government to tax
citizens into poverty'... even though there may be valid exceptions to it...
let's run with it and see where it goes.
Hmmm...OK, I've considered it.
It seems to me the unjustness arises not from the tax rate, but from an
employer who pays such a wage. Given that a worker is working in such a job,
said worker is still contributing the same proportion of his/her income to
the general good, as everyone else. That is patently fair. The fact that
said worker may now be descending into poverty, might be an incentive for
said worker to withhold labour, or get another, better paying job from a
more enlightened employer. When the laws of supply and demand kick into the
labour market, employers requiring such labour can become enlightened
overnight...
I've been on a few picket lines in my time (usually in support of other
workers at the same place (computer people have rarely had problems getting
a decent living wage)). Almost invariably (certainly in the cases in which
I've been personally involved) the end result has been a satisfactory
increase in wages, and no noticeable pain to the organization.
I do not advocate strike as an immediate negotiation step, or as a "gun to
the head". Well run companies have good labour relations and pay a fair
wage.
<anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>
(The miners strike in Britain in 1978 (?) is an exception that springs
immediately to mind...
The miners were being paid something like 100 pounds a w (when most
people were earning less than half of that), and they wanted 135. I remember
thinking to myself, "Would I go down a coal mine and work 8 hours at the
coal face for 135 quid?" As the answer was an emphatic "No", I gave them my
support. This consisted of donating food to their families when you went to
the Supermarket. and various expressions of moral support to the pickets in
the streets. Eventually it was resolved and they got their increase.
However, it sowed the seeds for an inevitable Armageddon between Government
and Unions.
In 1984 the final showdown came.
They stopped providing coal for electricity generation, during a severe
winter and elderly people started dying from hypothermia.
Electricity in London was limited to a few hours a day.
I was living in an all electric flat in London at the time :-) It even had
electric underfloor heating. I remember having to get in the car and drive
around London to get warm during the hours when supply was off. It was a
pretty awful time for everyone.
The miners were amongst the highest paid workers in Britain at that time,
but it wasn't about pay, it was about politics. Does the Government run the
country, or do the Unions?
Initially they were pretty confident; no Government had ever failed to give
in and there was much public support.
This was the first time that the Miners Union had ever been seriously taken
on by Government. Some mining families had a terrible time, while Arthur
Scargill was flying around the Midlands by helicopter popping in here and
there to rally the troops. Initially, I supported their case, but I changed
my mind when I saw people dying and when Scargill showed no sign of
negotiating. (So did most of the population...)) The strike was illegal
anyway, because Scargill had refused to put it to a ballot, as required by
the Union rules. (Had he done so, there would have been no strike.)
They picked the wrong Prime Minister (Thatcher - Heath would have buckled))
and the wrong leader (Scargill, who sold them all out anyway in the end),
so, instead of making their point, they simply lost all public support and
that was the beginning of the end for the coal industry in GB - they could
import it from Poland for a fraction of what it cost to mine at home.
</anecdote - skip this if you don't like stories>
I don't believe the tax rate in your given scenario causes unjustness, Doc.
There is obvious injustice in an employer offering a derisory wage, and it
is up to the market place to correct that.
Pete
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-03, 3:55 am |
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d1r4g313o25k0glk1feu3agr6o4kkikurs@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:19:17 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> VAT would be fine if they dropped the Federal Income Tax on people and
> applied it to corporations only. Doubt it would ever happen unless
> Steve Forbes somehow gets elected.
Be careful what you wish for, Steve :-)
While most of us think that taxing an impersonal entity like a company is
much more acceptable than taxing Human Beings, the fact is that if life is
made too tough for the Company, it will move overseas and that has a serious
effect on the people employed by it.
We need a tax system that is fair to both Companies AND people.
(I agree that the current one isn't...)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-03, 3:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:11l4g314m1jotbq93ums45hu6pakimmnne@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:48:12 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> I just re-read the previous messages in the thread, and could not find
> any rights listed that exist without conflicting with rights of
> others. I am not convinced that such exist.
Good point. Made me think...
How about...
The right to reproduce?
The right to live in peace and security?
I agree that most of the others can impact other people's rights. You'd
think that something like the right to pursue happiness would be innocuous
enough, but it isn't if you happen to be a serial killer who gets happiness
by murdering people... It is complex :-)
Pete
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-03, 3:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fdusd4$nu7$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article < 1cSdnQdexsa8dZ_anZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> From the URL you cited above:
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low
> income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective
> tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to
> low income earners.
>
> --end quoted text
>
>
> See above, your own cite, and pay attention to 'consumption'.
>
>
> As noted earlier:
>
> Given: it is an act of injustice for a government to tax citizens into
> poverty.
>
> Given that there are citizens earning poverty-plus-(n)-per-cent.
>
> Given a flat tax rate - no exemptions, level playing field - greater than
> (n)%.
>
> THEN... paying that flat tax will result in citizens being taxed into
> poverty... which is, as per the first Given, an act of injustice.
>
> Rather simple to demonstrate, as stated previously.
Not so at all.
It is an act of injustice for a government to UNREASONABLY tax citizens into
poverty.
As you made up the premise yourself, you cannot object to my amending it so,
and I do.
If the said tax rate is reasonable (and a rate that is the same as everybody
else pays, is axiomatically fair AND reasonable), it is not the Government
that is causing the injustice.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-03, 3:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:ar26g3ttqo035734pr9005q7i5s2uulq5l@
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:53:44 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> It is impossible to define income in a way that permits "no exceptions".
Is it? I think that rather depends on your will to do so.
>
> 1. PF, a potato farmer, grows one potato at a cost of .90 and sells it to
> Potato Chip
> Manufacturer (PFM) for 1.00. How much is his tax on 'income' of 1.00?
15%
>
> 2. PF signs a contract with PFM agreeing to plant their potato breed and
> grow it according
> to their specs. His cost is 1.00 and he sells the potato for 1.20. How
> much is his tax?
15%
>
> 3. PCM hires PF as a contractor, agrees to pay his 1.00 expenses plus a
> salary of .20. How
> much of his 1.20 'income' is taxable?
15%
>
> 4. PF outsources the farming to India, which delivers potatoes for .50. He
> still receives
> 1.00 for expenses plus .20 for salary. How much of that 1.20 is taxable?
15%
>
> 5. PF spends the growing season in the Waldorf-Astoria of Mumbai, where
> the rent is .50.
> How much of his 1.20 is taxable? If different from 4, explain why a flat
> rate tax should
> subsidize the Waldorf of Mumbai.
>
15%
It is a very good example Robert and I have much sympathy with it. But I'm
still not persuaded.
The fact is that income can be misleading and people can have good and bad
years. :-) It is also a bit contrived to use a commercial example when we
are talking primarily about personal tax. I would see a flat tax rate on
PERSONAL INCOME
(earned and unearned) and a flat tax on CORPORATE PROFIT.
Nevertheless, your example highlights some of the problems. Even personal
income may not meet or exceed personal expenditure and there is an argument
for asking why people should be worse off than Companies. As individuals, we
are expected to curb our expenditure to meet our income (including paying
tax) or we must set up the necessary debt instruments.
As we are never going to see it in practice (and I am currently enjoying
being debt free :-)), I guess I can afford to be blase about it... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| In article <5mgj5jFcn9f7U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fdtsd6$j15$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
>Well, we won't argue your premise, 'It is unjust for a government to tax
>citizens into poverty'... even though there may be valid exceptions to it...
>let's run with it and see where it goes.
>
>Hmmm...OK, I've considered it.
>
>It seems to me the unjustness arises not from the tax rate, but from an
>employer who pays such a wage.
I did not offer to determine the source of the injustice, Mr Dashwood, but
merely to point out that it exists. This I believe I have done.
>Given that a worker is working in such a job,
>said worker is still contributing the same proportion of his/her income to
>the general good, as everyone else. That is patently fair.
Given that the same worker, by doing 'as everyone else', is being driven
into poverty, it is demonstrably unjust. Funny how things work out that
way, eh? Replace a tax-structure that allows for exemptions with one that
is 'fair' and an injustice results that requires an adjustment in wage
laws to compensate.
>The fact that
>said worker may now be descending into poverty, might be an incentive for
>said worker to withhold labour, or get another, better paying job from a
>more enlightened employer.
The fact that said worked would be taxed into poverty is an injustice...
so now one needs to find another employer or line of work in order to
avoid injustice. Curious system of government arising from that.
>When the laws of supply and demand kick into the
>labour market, employers requiring such labour can become enlightened
>overnight...
That they can... and raise the prevailing rate... or automate the jobs
right out of existence or offshore them to another country. It does not
change the fact that the flat-rate tax, in that it drives low-end workers
into poverty, is an act of injustice... which is what was required to be
proved.
>
>I've been on a few picket lines in my time (usually in support of other
>workers at the same place (computer people have rarely had problems getting
>a decent living wage)). Almost invariably (certainly in the cases in which
>I've been personally involved) the end result has been a satisfactory
>increase in wages, and no noticeable pain to the organization.
I am of two minds about strikes, in that the only strikes I've seen have
been the result of union actions. On the one hand there have been
marvelous gains made for the workforce made by such, despite the wails of
'but it'll drive us out of business!'... on the other hand, unions are
now, themselves, big businesses, with all associated benefits and vices.
[snip]
>I don't believe the tax rate in your given scenario causes unjustness, Doc.
>There is obvious injustice in an employer offering a derisory wage, and it
>is up to the market place to correct that.
How's this, Mr Dashwood? Paying a wage is a matter of both parties'
participating; one to offer, one to accept.
It is up to the employer to offer a wage as low as possible in order to
get as much work as possible, just as it is up to the employee to demand a
wage as high as possible in order to give as little work as possible. As
long as demands fall within the bounds of law the fact of an injustice -
not an illegality but an injustice - remains.
DD
| |
|
| In article <5mgl39Fddpe1U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fdusd4$nu7$1@reader1.panix.com...
[snip]
>
>Not so at all.
>
>It is an act of injustice for a government to UNREASONABLY tax citizens into
>poverty.
Ahhhhh... so if there are grounds for taxing citizens into poverty which
can be called REASONABLE (caps original) then it is permitted.
>
>As you made up the premise yourself, you cannot object to my amending it so,
>and I do.
>
>If the said tax rate is reasonable (and a rate that is the same as everybody
>else pays, is axiomatically fair AND reasonable), it is not the Government
>that is causing the injustice.
Leaving aside the trifling difficulty of 'the criteria for a reasonable
tax rate'... in law, Mr Dashwood, cause is determined by the action of an
agent, sometimes referred to as the 'but for' principle. In the case
above, a tax structure which does not collect from those earning less than
(rate) so as not to drive them into poverty is replaced by a flat tax,
which *does* drive them into poverty.
But for the levying of the new tax said persons would not be in poverty.
The government levies the tax, hence the government does the driving...
but all that aside, if you recall my original quotation, from
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...2c?dmode=source>
--begin quoted text:
So, Mr Summers... if it can be shown that a flat tax in the sense you
describe - level playing field and all that - is an act of injustice then
your argument disintergrates, correct? This is rather simple to
demonstrate, you know.
--end quoted text
.... you will notice that the agent of injustice is not specified, just
that it is caused.
DD
| |
| Michael Mattias 2007-10-03, 7:55 am |
| >> I don't want *people* to pay taxes. I want the companies that I buy[color=darkred]
You must have been taking lessons from our governor, Jim Doyle.
Doyle has proposed a tax on "big oil" ... a "per barrel" tax on sales in the
state in any form. He "assures" us it won't cost any of the consumers (that
would be the Good People of The Great State Of Wisconsin) a dime, because
his budget includes a change in the law to prevent oil sellers from passing
along this tax in the form of higher prices.
Damn, it's so nice to know we have a Nobel prize (economics) candidate
holding down the fort at the state capitol. (not to mention, a primo
consitutional scholar!).
Sheesh, and I thought our previous governor (Scott McCallum) was an ignorant
party hack. Oh, well, at least with McCallum some of the youth - not being
old enough to remember the USSR - had the chance to learn what "apparachik"
means.
MCM
PS: Doyle is a Democrat, McCallum a Republican. I wonder why two
gubernatorial elections ago the Libertarian candidate got about 20% of the
vote? (Yes, I did vote for the Libertarian).
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-03, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:12:34 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>It seems to me the unjustness arises not from the tax rate, but from an
>employer who pays such a wage. Given that a worker is working in such a job,
>said worker is still contributing the same proportion of his/her income to
>the general good, as everyone else. That is patently fair. The fact that
>said worker may now be descending into poverty, might be an incentive for
>said worker to withhold labour, or get another, better paying job from a
>more enlightened employer. When the laws of supply and demand kick into the
>labour market, employers requiring such labour can become enlightened
>overnight...
That is an interesting POV in the "fair tax" argument. And that is
to put "flat tax" on one side but to put "supply and demand" on the
other side.
The "supply and demand" side says "tax to the maximum revenue". If
you tax enough that too much wealth leaves the tax base, then you tax
too much. Lafler curve economics works.
And taxing can include mandating rules that make it expensive to hire
workers - or to make it expensive to work. For instance, a law
requiring day-care workers to have teaching degrees can make day-care
so expensive that parents decide that it's not worth staying in the
work space.
Socialists often want to mandate "fair" rent with rent controls. Maybe
that isn't so different from mandating "fair" taxes with tax controls.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-03, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:22:45 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>Good point. Made me think...
>
>How about...
>
>The right to reproduce?
There seems to be some disagreement on this with our crowded world. It
used to be that your right to not reproduce was objected to, back when
population of your peers improved your children's chances of survival
- but now people object if you don't stop your reproduction with a
small enough number of children. Your children use up our world.
>The right to live in peace and security?
Most wars nowadays are created by people who are Righteous. They
believe their Rights are important enough to override your right to
live in peace and security.
>I agree that most of the others can impact other people's rights. You'd
>think that something like the right to pursue happiness would be innocuous
>enough, but it isn't if you happen to be a serial killer who gets happiness
>by murdering people... It is complex :-)
>
>Pete
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-03, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:02:59 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>"I can be allowed to live without taking away the lives of others; I can
>hold my property without depriving others of holding theirs;
See below.
>I can
>decide where I go without restricting the mobility or freedom of others.
> Government provides law enforcement to preserve these rights,
And for other purposes.
>and
>defense to ensure that another sovereign nation does not come and take
>these rights away."
But more often that defense is used for other purposes.
>My living does not prevent you from living. My mobility does not
>restrict your mobility, save for the square footage of my body or
>vehicle - but that's basic science.
Your using up resources does effect what is available for me.
>My property holdings do not prevent you from holding your property.
This has been an issue - nomadic peoples have argued that land-owing
people have pushed them off of the lands that those people have been
using for centuries.
| |
| SkippyPB 2007-10-03, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:58:24 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:06:24 -0400, SkippyPB
><swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>So one hidden tax would be fine as long as there was another hidden
>tax. What we don't know won't hurt us.
How is VAT a hidden tax? It works just like Sales Tax. You know the
percentage going in.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Leaving sex to the feminists is like
letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
--Camille Paglia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-03, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:16:13 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>How is VAT a hidden tax? It works just like Sales Tax. You know the
>percentage going in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax
| |
| Robert 2007-10-03, 9:55 pm |
| On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:13:59 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>
>"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
> news:ar26g3ttqo035734pr9005q7i5s2uulq5l@
4ax.com...
>
>Is it? I think that rather depends on your will to do so.
>
>
>15%
>
>
>15%
>
>15%
>
>15%
>
>
>15%
>
>It is a very good example Robert and I have much sympathy with it. But I'm
>still not persuaded.
>
>The fact is that income can be misleading and people can have good and bad
>years. :-) It is also a bit contrived to use a commercial example when we
>are talking primarily about personal tax. I would see a flat tax rate on
>PERSONAL INCOME
> (earned and unearned) and a flat tax on CORPORATE PROFIT.
Income tax reform has an oversimplified premise: income = paycheck. When asked to deal
with income other than paychecks, all they can say is out of scope, tax it like a
business.
There is a HUGE difference between income and business tax. Income tax is on gross
receipts; business tax is on net profit. A typical employee might pay 15% of 60,000 =
9,000. If he were a business, he's pay 20% of 2,000 (increase in net worth) = 400.
If the reform passed, every worker with a three digit IQ would become a business, by
switching from employee to contractor.
Exempting non-employee income gives lie to the claim "no exceptions".
>Nevertheless, your example highlights some of the problems. Even personal
>income may not meet or exceed personal expenditure and there is an argument
>for asking why people should be worse off than Companies. As individuals, we
>are expected to curb our expenditure to meet our income (including paying
>tax) or we must set up the necessary debt instruments.
>
> As we are never going to see it in practice (and I am currently enjoying
>being debt free :-)), I guess I can afford to be blase about it... :-)
US contractors (who do it right) can legally receive $70K in tax-free expense
reimbursement -- no income tax, no FICA, no state tax, nada. The income they receive above
that puts us into a very low tax bracket.
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article < 1cSdnQdexsa8dZ_anZ2dnUVZ_tCrnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> From the URL you cited above:
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> A regressive tax system does not mean and likely would not result in low
> income earners paying more taxes than the wealthy, only that the effective
> tax rate relative to income or consumption would be a larger tax burden to
> low income earners.
>
> --end quoted text
>
>
> See above, your own cite, and pay attention to 'consumption'.
A gallon of milk at $4.29, a much higher burden to someone making $3/hr
vs. someone making $15/hr. Are you saying that grocery prices are
regressive too? *Anything* would fit the definition you're trying to
apply here. And, if anything fits, why not taxes? :)
>
> As noted earlier:
>
> Given: it is an act of injustice for a government to tax citizens into
> poverty.
I dispute that given, as an absolute statement. Government could
collect *no* taxes, and some citizens would still be in poverty.
I would also propose that "poverty" is quite a subjective term. What
qualifies as "poverty" in this country is far and away a higher standard
of living than what qualifies for "poverty" in other countries.
> Given that there are citizens earning poverty-plus-(n)-per-cent.
>
> Given a flat tax rate - no exemptions, level playing field - greater than
> (n)%.
>
> THEN... paying that flat tax will result in citizens being taxed into
> poverty... which is, as per the first Given, an act of injustice.
The flaw in the first "given" means that this conclusion is based on a
faulty premise. If poverty exists without taxes, adding them would
naturally change the margins. And, with the high standard of living of
America's "poverty" class, I do not see a flat tax rate as injust.
> Rather simple to demonstrate, as stated previously.
I don't think it's been demonstrated, simply or otherwise.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| Robert wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:53:44 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> It is impossible to define income in a way that permits "no exceptions".
>
> 1. PF, a potato farmer, grows one potato at a cost of .90 and sells it to Potato Chip
> Manufacturer (PFM) for 1.00. How much is his tax on 'income' of 1.00?
>
> 2. PF signs a contract with PFM agreeing to plant their potato breed and grow it according
> to their specs. His cost is 1.00 and he sells the potato for 1.20. How much is his tax?
>
> 3. PCM hires PF as a contractor, agrees to pay his 1.00 expenses plus a salary of .20. How
> much of his 1.20 'income' is taxable?
>
> 4. PF outsources the farming to India, which delivers potatoes for .50. He still receives
> 1.00 for expenses plus .20 for salary. How much of that 1.20 is taxable?
>
> 5. PF spends the growing season in the Waldorf-Astoria of Mumbai, where the rent is .50.
> How much of his 1.20 is taxable? If different from 4, explain why a flat rate tax should
> subsidize the Waldorf of Mumbai.
You're expanding the discussion to business - we were talking about
individuals (at least I thought we were). When you get into business,
taxes are typically assessed on profits, not gross income.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:02:59 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> See below.
>
>
> And for other purposes.
>
>
> But more often that defense is used for other purposes.
Using it for other purposes does not change the purpose for which it was
established.
>
> Your using up resources does effect what is available for me.
But does it matter? Of what resource is there a shortage because I'm
using it?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Robert 2007-10-04, 3:55 am |
| On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:36:52 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>You're expanding the discussion to business - we were talking about
>individuals (at least I thought we were). When you get into business,
>taxes are typically assessed on profits, not gross income.
I'd LOVE to be taxed on the change in my net worth rather than gross income. So would
everyone else. How do I become a business? On every contract they ask whether I want to be
paid W-2 or 1099. If I say 1099, is that all it takes?
| |
|
| In article <tb-dnbK1uvJux5nanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>A gallon of milk at $4.29, a much higher burden to someone making $3/hr
>vs. someone making $15/hr. Are you saying that grocery prices are
>regressive too? *Anything* would fit the definition you're trying to
>apply here. And, if anything fits, why not taxes? :)
Mr Summers, if you are saying that government-established taxes are to be
considered as identical to market-determined priced then you'd have no
objection to government setting prices... and I believe you've established
your support of market-forces rather than government fiat.
If you don't like the sources you supply then perhaps you might find
others.
>
>
>
>I dispute that given, as an absolute statement. Government could
>collect *no* taxes, and some citizens would still be in poverty.
Mr Summers, that is similar to being opposed to the death penalty because
people will die, anyhow... but if you disagree with:
'It is an act of injustice for a government to tax citizens into poverty'
.... then the most ready conclusion is that it is not an act of injustice
for this to happen. If it is not an act of injustice then it is either
neutral, and a matter of opinion, or it is an act of justice.
If it is an act of justice for a government to tax citizens into poverty
then supporting a flat tax, which you believe would *discourage* this from
happening, shows that you oppose a government acting justly. That being
the case, there is no wonder that we disagree.
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-04, 7:55 am |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:tb-dnbK1uvJux5nanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> A gallon of milk at $4.29, a much higher burden to someone making $3/hr
> vs. someone making $15/hr. Are you saying that grocery prices are
> regressive too? *Anything* would fit the definition you're trying to
> apply here. And, if anything fits, why not taxes? :)
>
>
>
> I dispute that given, as an absolute statement. Government could collect
> *no* taxes, and some citizens would still be in poverty.
>
> I would also propose that "poverty" is quite a subjective term. What
> qualifies as "poverty" in this country is far and away a higher standard
> of living than what qualifies for "poverty" in other countries.
>
>
> The flaw in the first "given" means that this conclusion is based on a
> faulty premise. If poverty exists without taxes, adding them would
> naturally change the margins. And, with the high standard of living of
> America's "poverty" class, I do not see a flat tax rate as injust.
>
>
> I don't think it's been demonstrated, simply or otherwise.
>
Neither do I :-)
But I appreciate that Doc posted in response to being asked.
As mentioned elsewhere, given that the probability of us ever seeing such a
system is akin to camels passing through needles eyes,
I can't afford more time on it. Still, it's nice to see disagreement in CLC
without heat... almost civilised... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-04, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe2boh$9on$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <tb-dnbK1uvJux5nanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>
> Mr Summers, that is similar to being opposed to the death penalty because
> people will die, anyhow... but if you disagree with:
Or in favour of it for the same reason... :-)
>
> 'It is an act of injustice for a government to tax citizens into poverty'
>
> ... then the most ready conclusion is that it is not an act of injustice
> for this to happen. If it is not an act of injustice then it is either
> neutral, and a matter of opinion, or it is an act of justice.
Or there are shades of grey, and it is sometimes unjust for the Government
to do this, which changes the conclusions remarkably. :-)
>
> If it is an act of justice for a government to tax citizens into poverty
> then supporting a flat tax, which you believe would *discourage* this from
> happening, shows that you oppose a government acting justly. That being
> the case, there is no wonder that we disagree.
>
A nice argument.
This will be my last on this because, although it is fun, it really isn't
going anywhere, and we won't be seeing it implemented until I rule the
world. (That is scheduled for about the same time that Hell freezes over...)
Thanks for the responses and clarification of earlier points, Doc.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2007-10-04, 7:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:jge8g358lihj87iv4q181fh289rh24g5k9@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:13:59 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
> Income tax reform has an oversimplified premise: income = paycheck. When
> asked to deal
> with income other than paychecks, all they can say is out of scope, tax it
> like a
> business.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between income and business tax. Income tax is
> on gross
> receipts; business tax is on net profit. A typical employee might pay 15%
> of 60,000 =
> 9,000. If he were a business, he's pay 20% of 2,000 (increase in net
> worth) = 400.
>
> If the reform passed, every worker with a three digit IQ would become a
> business, by
> switching from employee to contractor.
>
> Exempting non-employee income gives lie to the claim "no exceptions".
>
>
> US contractors (who do it right) can legally receive $70K in tax-free
> expense
> reimbursement -- no income tax, no FICA, no state tax, nada. The income
> they receive above
> that puts us into a very low tax bracket.
Hmmm... maybe I should have paid more attention to those Green Card raffles
you see on the Net :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| In article <5mjvkcFdsuduU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fe2boh$9on$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
>Or in favour of it for the same reason... :-)
Eh? I'm not sure of the logic you are using, Mr Dashwood; Mr Summers
assertion was of the form '(agency) could (not-act) and (result) would
exist'; are you using an Anglicised double-negative for '(not-act)'?
>
>Or there are shades of grey, and it is sometimes unjust for the Government
>to do this, which changes the conclusions remarkably. :-)
This seems to be a 'sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't' qualification,
sometimes called 'situational ethics' and other times called 'a violation
of the Kantian categorical imperative'... at any rate the levying of a
flat tax on all incomes, no exceptions, no exclusions is, by definition,
non-situational: money is earned, money is taxed at (rate).
>
>A nice argument.
Glad you enjoyed... wonderful stuff, this Logick.
>
>This will be my last on this because, although it is fun, it really isn't
>going anywhere, and we won't be seeing it implemented until I rule the
>world. (That is scheduled for about the same time that Hell freezes over...)
>
>Thanks for the responses and clarification of earlier points, Doc.
Not a problem; doing such (responding and clarifying) is, I believe,
incumbent upon participants in such situations.
DD
| |
| donald tees 2007-10-04, 7:55 am |
| LX-i wrote:
>
> "I can be allowed to live without taking away the lives of others; I can
> hold my property without depriving others of holding theirs; I can
> decide where I go without restricting the mobility or freedom of others.
> Government provides law enforcement to preserve these rights, and
> defense to ensure that another sovereign nation does not come and take
> these rights away."
>
> My living does not prevent you from living. My mobility does not
> restrict your mobility, save for the square footage of my body or
> vehicle - but that's basic science. My property holdings do not prevent
> you from holding your property.
>
> How do those conflict?
>
By the fact that it is a lie. The facts are that *you* ensure your
liberties by denying them to others.
*You* being anybody with United States citizenship and "others" being
anybody without.
Donald
| |
| HeyBub 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| Robert wrote:
>
> Income tax reform has an oversimplified premise: income = paycheck.
> When asked to deal with income other than paychecks, all they can say
> is out of scope, tax it like a business.
The fix is to ignore that which is not a paycheck.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between income and business tax. Income
> tax is on gross receipts; business tax is on net profit. A typical
> employee might pay 15% of 60,000 = 9,000. If he were a business, he's
> pay 20% of 2,000 (increase in net worth) = 400.
That's 400 too much. Business should not be taxed on created wealth.
>
> US contractors (who do it right) can legally receive $70K in tax-free
> expense reimbursement -- no income tax, no FICA, no state tax, nada.
> The income they receive above that puts us into a very low tax
> bracket.
Why tax them at all? The United States and the Phillipines are the only two
countries in the world that tax their citizens on income from abroad.
| |
| HeyBub 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| donald tees wrote:
>
> By the fact that it is a lie. The facts are that *you* ensure your
> liberties by denying them to others.
>
> *You* being anybody with United States citizenship and "others" being
> anybody without.
>
Sounds about right, especially if you're talking about the "others" being at
"liberty" to fly planes into my buildings.
| |
|
| In article <13g9p6ip8c3rn46@news.supernews.com>,
HeyBub <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
[snip]
>
>That's 400 too much. Business should not be taxed on created wealth.
Businesses benefit from public goods and to expect them to be given such
benefits free of charge is... an interesting position, to say the least.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:42:04 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>Using it for other purposes does not change the purpose for which it was
>established.
I'm not one who believes that the intent overrides the result.
For instance, some people are more willing to be lenient to a hot
blooded killer than to a cold blooded killer. But the guy who kills
his spouse for the insurance isn't nearly the risk to me than the guy
who kills with road rage.
Either way, the victims are dead.
If the state takes money from me at gun point for "my public defense",
and then uses that military to support Big Oil (or Burmese rulers or
Sunnis or whatever), then it doesn't matter what the excuse is.
>
>But does it matter? Of what resource is there a shortage because I'm
>using it?
My old climate. The Amazon jungle. The nature walk near my house.
| |
| donald tees 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| HeyBub wrote:
> donald tees wrote:
>
> Sounds about right, especially if you're talking about the "others" being at
> "liberty" to fly planes into my buildings.
>
>
I have no objection to anybody defending themselves. When it comes to
*attacking* people outside your own borders, however, it does concern
me, and I have at least as much right to that concern as you do to
attack. Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with buildings being flown
into. That was a simplistic excuse to get control of the oil, and to
justify Bush's personal bias.
The United States has been using the 7/11 attack to justify everything
from straight forward theft to outright murder, and against people that
had absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a lot closer to paranoiac
elitism than it is to justice, or to self-protection.
Donald
Donald
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:04:23 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>The fix is to ignore that which is not a paycheck.
So only people who are employed by others should pay taxes?
>
>That's 400 too much. Business should not be taxed on created wealth.
What is the amount that divides "too much" from "not too much"? What
criteria are you using? (I'd use the responses from the businesses -
if they leave the country or otherwise find ways to avoid paying the
taxes, then they are too much).
Why not? All taxes "punish" people for having money that can be
taken from them.
>
>Why tax them at all? The United States and the Phillipines are the only two
>countries in the world that tax their citizens on income from abroad.
To get money. So? Maybe it's too much work to audit foreigners
working abroad.
I remember an Arthur C. Clarke? story about the first people on the
moon. It was an international expedition, and some people needed to
stay behind (it was going to be a permanent thing - who would
anticipate going to the moon then abandoning it for half a century?).
Everybody figured that those returning first would be showered with
fame and money. The Brits volunteered to stay - to end up with over
half of their year outside of the UK - for tax reasons.
| |
| SkippyPB 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:04:23 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>The fix is to ignore that which is not a paycheck.
>
>
>That's 400 too much. Business should not be taxed on created wealth.
>
>
>Why tax them at all? The United States and the Phillipines are the only two
>countries in the world that tax their citizens on income from abroad.
>
Having worked as an expatriate for over 5 years some time ago, I have
experience in this area. Depending on the country you are living in
and what reciprocal tax agreements they have with the US, you can
still end up paying income tax albeit to your host country. And, at
least in the countries I lived in, their tax rate was higher than the
28% bracket I was in at the time.
There was the exclusion as noted but it was easy to have income above
that amount. This is because they count your paycheck and any
allowances you get for being an expat. In my case I got a travel
allowance, a goods and services allowance and my rent was paid. All
of that added to my income. But my foreign tax bill was an expense I
could deduct. All in all, I don't recall ever owing any income tax
while I was an expat but never got a refund either which was alright
since I didn't have and federal or state taxes being withheld.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Leaving sex to the feminists is like
letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
--Camille Paglia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| SkippyPB 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:35:21 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:16:13 -0400, SkippyPB
><swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax
Aah, not the way I understood VAT.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
"Leaving sex to the feminists is like
letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist."
--Camille Paglia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:17:36 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Having worked as an expatriate for over 5 years some time ago, I have
>experience in this area. Depending on the country you are living in
>and what reciprocal tax agreements they have with the US, you can
>still end up paying income tax albeit to your host country. And, at
>least in the countries I lived in, their tax rate was higher than the
>28% bracket I was in at the time.
There are some U.S. cities that have "earnings tax". I've worked in
two of them. This is a tax on money earned in that city. These
cities are surrounded by suburbs.
| |
| Robert 2007-10-04, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:04:23 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>
>The fix is to ignore that which is not a paycheck.
The workaround is to stop using paychecks. Reclassify employees as contractors and pay
them through accounts payable.
>
>That's 400 too much. Business should not be taxed on created wealth.
Money isn't wealth. Money is benefit created and not yet consumed. It's a temporary
repository. Wealth is tangible, like real property.
>
>Why tax them at all? The United States and the Phillipines are the only two
>countries in the world that tax their citizens on income from abroad.
But they give a credit for foreign tax paid. You pay the difference between US tax and the
other country's, if it's lower.
| |
|
| In article <js8ag39hg9dmrfj86qctipolma3hal0f7u@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
[snip]
>Money isn't wealth.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money
2 a: wealth reckoned in terms of money
5 b:a position of wealth <born into money>
.... and, just for laughs...
http://m-w.com/dictionary/wealth
4 a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
So... while the medium of exchange may not be a property... the two terms
seem rather closely related, as least by those folks who write
commonly-accepted sources.
DD
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <tb-dnbK1uvJux5nanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Mr Summers, if you are saying that government-established taxes are to be
> considered as identical to market-determined priced then you'd have no
> objection to government setting prices... and I believe you've established
> your support of market-forces rather than government fiat.
I'm not saying that the government should set prices; rather, that
*anything* can be considered "more of a burden" to those whose incomes
are in the lower percentiles.
If person A makes $100/wk, milk costs $5/gallon, and consumes 2 gallons
per w, 10% of his income goes toward milk. If person B makes $1,000
a w, should he pay $50/gallon for milk? Where's the incentive to
earn more money, if the benefits it brings are negated?
> If you don't like the sources you supply then perhaps you might find
> others.
My biggest problem is that people are all different - different choices,
different priorities, different desires. Instead of just *establishing*
a level playing field, and realize that as in any game, there will be
winners and losers, we're trying to slant the field so the *outcome* is
level. That's not the way life works in any other arena - why try to
apply it to something as critical as funding the government?
>
> Mr Summers, that is similar to being opposed to the death penalty because
> people will die, anyhow...
No - that's backwards. It's like *supporting* the death penalty because
people are going to die anyway.
> but if you disagree with:
>
> 'It is an act of injustice for a government to tax citizens into poverty'
>
> ... then the most ready conclusion is that it is not an act of injustice
> for this to happen.
I'm going to start calling you Darth Dwarf - only a Sith deals in
absolutes. :) Isn't it you who has repeated posted "Nothing is
absolute, including this statement"?
I believe it is the responsibility of *every* citizen to do their
equitable part to fund the government. Whether they are below, near the
margins, or well above some government-established poverty line does not
change that. The act of the government collecting this is completely just.
> If it is not an act of injustice then it is either
> neutral, and a matter of opinion, or it is an act of justice.
>
> If it is an act of justice for a government to tax citizens into poverty
> then supporting a flat tax, which you believe would *discourage* this from
> happening, shows that you oppose a government acting justly. That being
> the case, there is no wonder that we disagree.
Nice straw man...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| donald tees wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
> By the fact that it is a lie. The facts are that *you* ensure your
> liberties by denying them to others.
>
> *You* being anybody with United States citizenship and "others" being
> anybody without.
To what is this a reference? Immigration?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-08, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:24:18 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>I'm not saying that the government should set prices; rather, that
>*anything* can be considered "more of a burden" to those whose incomes
>are in the lower percentiles.
>
>If person A makes $100/wk, milk costs $5/gallon, and consumes 2 gallons
>per w, 10% of his income goes toward milk. If person B makes $1,000
>a w, should he pay $50/gallon for milk? Where's the incentive to
>earn more money, if the benefits it brings are negated?
If milk was the only thing controlled this way, the incentive is to
buy other stuff.
If taxes was the only thing controlled this way, the incentive is to
buy other stuff.
The proof is in the market. If the taxes get too onerous, people
find ways to avoid paying them, and the state loses. Are taxes that
onerous yet?
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:24:18 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> If milk was the only thing controlled this way, the incentive is to
> buy other stuff.
>
> If taxes was the only thing controlled this way, the incentive is to
> buy other stuff.
>
> The proof is in the market. If the taxes get too onerous, people
> find ways to avoid paying them, and the state loses. Are taxes that
> onerous yet?
I think so. I think it was you who hit on all the exemptions and
shelters - if you got rid of those, you could probably lower the top tax
bracket from 35% to 25% and still have the same income.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-08, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:59:39 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>I think so. I think it was you who hit on all the exemptions and
>shelters - if you got rid of those, you could probably lower the top tax
>bracket from 35% to 25% and still have the same income.
Same thing applies - if you change how you get the taxes from the
wealthy, will they move their income off-shore - or slow down
investing on-shore? If so, the state is losing.
Exemptions are a hard thing to get a handle on in a system that taxes
net income. Certainly taxing gross income is unfair, but there are
so many ways to define expenses. This is one reason I prefer a
national sales tax.
| |
|
| In article < QOmdnWIotKVrc5ranZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I'm not saying that the government should set prices; rather, that
>*anything* can be considered "more of a burden" to those whose incomes
>are in the lower percentiles.
I am not sure what to make of this, Mr Summers. Are you saying that there
is no such thing as a regressive tax, or that calling something makes it
that thing, or something else, entire?
DD
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article < QOmdnWIotKVrc5ranZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> I am not sure what to make of this, Mr Summers. Are you saying that there
> is no such thing as a regressive tax, or that calling something makes it
> that thing, or something else, entire?
I'm saying that the definition provided for "regressive" taxes can apply
to absolutely anything. "More of a burden" is also subjective. I've
already established that I do *not* believe a flat tax amount is fair,
while a fixed tax rate is. Who is to say that the $10,000-earner's
$1,500 is "more of a burden" than the $100,000-earner's $15,000? I do
*not* believe the government should be in the position to be trying to
make these sorts of judgment calls.
I furthermore believe that the labeling of graduated income tax as
"progressive", while labeling things like sales taxes as "regressive",
is deceptive. When people's earnings are reduced before they see them,
they don't realize what they're paying. When you pick something up off
the shelf and take it to the check-out counter, you see the jump between
the asking price and the amount of money you have to part with to take
it out of the store. (Of course, I shouldn't be surprised - the folks
who label themselves "progressives" don't want the general public to
know exactly what they're doing either.)
I'm not worried about poverty lines - a somewhat fixed percentage of the
American public will *always* be below that line, as it's moved when too
many people move out of it. Yet another deceptive practice that
politicians use to foment wealth envy, and let the two wolves and the
sheep vote on what's for dinner.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| In article < l6udnafkCcEPDo_anZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@comcast
.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I'm saying that the definition provided for "regressive" taxes can apply
>to absolutely anything.
Mr Summers, my memory is, admittedly, porous, and things might have gotten
lost in the snippings... but the definition provided for regressive tax was
the one that you supplied. If you find it to be so unsatisfactory then what
was your reason for citing it?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-16, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:08:41 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>I'm saying that the definition provided for "regressive" taxes can apply
>to absolutely anything. "More of a burden" is also subjective. I've
>already established that I do *not* believe a flat tax amount is fair,
>while a fixed tax rate is.
But you haven't defined "fair" so that we can determine whether we
agree with you.
Once we have such a definition, we can go to the next step and decide
whether it makes sense for the state to switch to that tax system - it
has other reasons to take our money from us at risk of going to
prison.
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article < l6udnafkCcEPDo_anZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Mr Summers, my memory is, admittedly, porous, and things might have gotten
> lost in the snippings... but the definition provided for regressive tax was
> the one that you supplied. If you find it to be so unsatisfactory then what
> was your reason for citing it?
I cited the page for other reasons.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:08:41 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> But you haven't defined "fair" so that we can determine whether we
> agree with you.
Fair is pretty easily defined...
free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice
Maybe synonyms would help...
impartial, disinterested, unprejudiced
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair
"Progressive" tax schemes are not impartial - they punish those who
achieve income.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| In article < Z6WdnVw60uyz8IjanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast
.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I cited the page for other reasons.
That may be, Mr Summers... but do you believe that you can choose a source to
support your argument and then disagree with the same source you cited, on
the same page you cited, calling that source inapplicable when it disagrees
with your argument... a sort of '*this* sentence is true, but the next utter
nonsense' approach?
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2007-10-17, 6:55 pm |
| On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:06:50 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Fair is pretty easily defined...
>
>free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice
>
>Maybe synonyms would help...
>
>impartial, disinterested, unprejudiced
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair
>
>"Progressive" tax schemes are not impartial - they punish those who
>achieve income.
EVERY tax punishes those that have something to be taxed. (And any
income tax "punishes" those who achieve income).
Impartial doesn't mean that the results are the same to everybody, it
means that the rules are known and followed without bias. Your
definition is like complaining that it isn't fair that association
football (soccer) goalies can use their hands and forwards can't.
Unfair taxes are those that give advantages to those with the best tax
lawyers or best lobbyists. Fair taxes are those that follow simple
rules that everybody knows about ahead of time and which are
implemented consistently.
Your definitions of "Fair" (which I agree with) do not support your
contention that progressive taxes are less fair than flat taxes.
Progressive tax schemes are as impartial as any other taxes.
| |
|
|
|
|
|