Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why don't we tax people based on skin color?; Darker they are, the higher their taxes...
Topic Started: Jul 29 2011, 04:25 PM (401 Views)
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Makes as much sense as taxing by income levels.

If 10% is enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam. Let everybody pay the same rate...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
One of the arguments for an aggregated system is that if one enjoys a larger income, it is due in part to the benefits and opportunities provided by your country, and so it would be fair to repay it back in an amount that reflects this.

Not saying I agree with that necessarily, but the based on color thing all kinds of doesn't fly.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
The value of a unit of currency is not a fixed quantity but depends on the amount of currency an individual has.

In order to share the burden of social cost equally you need to decrease the tax rate for those who have less $$$. That is fairer as we would all pay the same net value cost. (I think pretty much all current systems fail to do this - the very poor still suffer a disproportionately higher cost to their standard of living than the very wealthy).
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
 
Darker they are, the higher their taxes...
Nice of you to kill the tanning industry. You have stakes in the sub block and parasol industries, don't you?

So much for not letting the govmint picking winners and losers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Moonbat
Jul 30 2011, 05:03 AM
The value of a unit of currency is not a fixed quantity but depends on the amount of currency an individual has.

In order share the burden of social cost equally you need to decrease the tax rate for those who have less $$$. That is fairer as we would all pay the same net value cost. (I think pretty much all current systems fail to do this - the very poor still suffer a disproportionately higher cost to their standard of living than the very wealthy).
10% is 10%.

You make ten grand you kick in a $1000. You make $100,000, you kick in $10,000. You make $5M, you kick in $500,000.

Seems fair to me.

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jul 30 2011, 05:28 AM
10% is 10%.

You make ten grand you kick in a $1000. You make $100,000, you kick in $10,000. You make $5M, you kick in $500,000.

Seems fair to me.

I am OK with flat tax as a principle (whether 10% is the right rate is for for debate), so long as you also get rid of all itemized deductions and tax credits and treat all income the same way (e.g., no preferential treatment for long term capital gains or qualified dividends).

Flat rate standard deduction, same amount for every one, is fine by me.

Tax returns would be a heck of a lot simpler. We can get rid of most tax accountants and tax lawyers and put them into more productive endeavors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

10% is 10%.

You make ten grand you kick in a $1000. You make $100,000, you kick in $10,000. You make $5M, you kick in $500,000.

Seems fair to me.


Could one not also say '$1000 is $1000

You make ten grand you kick in $1000. You a make $100,000 you kick in $1000.

Seems fair to me.'?

Surely the reason we considers absolute value taxation unfair is because the relative cost of $1000 is higher for someone who makes $10,000 than for someone who makes $100,000. But that same argument can be made against fixed percentages; the actual cost in quality of life of 10% taxation is higher for someone who makes $10,000 than for someone who makes $100,0000.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
My tax rate would fluctuate according to the season. Sunblock helps only so much.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Moonbat
Jul 30 2011, 07:27 AM
Quote:
 

10% is 10%.

You make ten grand you kick in a $1000. You make $100,000, you kick in $10,000. You make $5M, you kick in $500,000.

Seems fair to me.


Could one not also say '$1000 is $1000

You make ten grand you kick in $1000. You a make $100,000 you kick in $1000.

Seems fair to me.'?

Surely the reason we considers absolute value taxation unfair is because the relative cost of $1000 is higher for someone who makes $10,000 than for someone who makes $100,000. But that same argument can be made against fixed percentages; the actual cost in quality of life of 10% taxation is higher for someone who makes $10,000 than for someone who makes $100,0000.
People like to make that argument, but I don't see where deviating from a flat rate maintains "fairness" for anyone.

Besides, if we keep the rate constant, the more money you make, the more you keep. That's a powerful incentive.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

People like to make that argument, but I don't see where deviating from a flat rate maintains "fairness" for anyone.


You don't see where 'deviating from a flat rate' results in a system where we all make an equal sacrifice towards maintaining the society in which we live, or you don't see the notion of equal sacrifice as fair?

Quote:
 

Besides, if we keep the rate constant, the more money you make, the more you keep. That's a powerful incentive.


If we don't keep the rate constant, the more money you make, the more you keep. That is a powerful incentive and it remains one.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
If you vary from a flat rate, you no longer have equal sacrifice.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
My argument is that that isn't true.

Suppose someone asserts that if you vary from an absolute rate then you no longer have equal sacrifice. How do you answer them? You say "wait a second here even though the number might be the same the fact is that paying $1000 hurts the guy who makes $10,000 much more than the guy who makes $10,000,000. The change in the quality of life for the guy who makes 10 million is essentially zero whereas the change in the quality of life of the guy who makes 10 grand is big. So even though the number is the same the sacrifice is not the same."

So the same argument can be made to the flat rate. In the flat rate the percentage might be the same, but just like an absolute value this is just a number what we have to look at is the actual effect, the actual change to the people's quality of life. If we do that then just like in the case of an absolute flat tax we find that this policy hurts someone who earns less more than someone who earns more. (Though obviously to a less degree than with an absolute rate) Why does it hurt you more if you have less? Because the more money you have the less $1 affects your quality of life and vice versa.

If you are very poor then taking 10% of the little you have away hurts you loads. If you are very rich taking 10% of it away doesn't hurt you at all.

To demonstrate this point consider the extremes: if Bill Gates lost 10% of his wealth it would not affect the quality of his life at all, if a man who only just has enough to buy a meal loses 10% of his wealth he starves.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brenda
Member Avatar
..............
Pasty white Minnesoootans would like this, Jolly. :lol:
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.”
~A.A. Milne
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jul 30 2011, 09:07 AM
My argument is that that isn't true.

Suppose someone asserts that if you vary from an absolute rate then you no longer have equal sacrifice. How do you answer them? You say "wait a second here even though the number might be the same the fact is that paying $1000 hurts the guy who makes $10,000 much more than the guy who makes $10,000,000. The change in the quality of life for the guy who makes 10 million is essentially zero whereas the change in the quality of life of the guy who makes 10 grand is big. So even though the number is the same the sacrifice is not the same."

So the same argument can be made to the flat rate. In the flat rate the percentage might be the same, but just like an absolute value this is just a number what we have to look at is the actual effect, the actual change to the people's quality of life. If we do that then just like in the case of an absolute flat tax we find that this policy hurts someone who earns less more than someone who earns more. (Though obviously to a less degree than with an absolute rate) Why does it hurt you more if you have less? Because the more money you have the less $1 affects your quality of life and vice versa.

If you have very poor then taking 10% of the little you have away hurts you loads. If you are very rich taking 10% of it away doesn't hurt you at all.

To prove this point consider the extremes: if Bill Gates lost 10% of his wealth it would not affect the quality of his life at all, if a man who only just has enough to buy a meal loses 10% of his wealth he starves.
But the reality in developed western countries is that no one would be anywhere near starvation -- anyone at the level of poverty is already on public assistance -- so that line of reasoning is not particularly persuasive.

Also, quality of life cannot be quantified or put into economic terms -- lots of happy poor folk and lots of miserable rich people, and vice versa.

Also, people who value money over other things (lower stress levels, more enjoyable work, more time with family, etc) often acquire money largely for security and to keep life's uncertainities from affecting their lives -- so taking a higher percentage of their money because they have worked to achieve their vision of quality of life would directly attack their very basis of happiness in a way that would not be of concern to people who choose to not pursue money over other things. IOW, you cannot achieve equitable tax contribution on such subjective grounds (assuming you really want to be scientifically utilitarian about how you go about governing society).

That said, tax policy is purely a prudential matter and a lot of possible, essentially just and roughly equitable structures can work.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

But the reality in developed western countries is that no one would be anywhere near starvation -- anyone at the level of poverty is already on public assistance -- so that line of reasoning is not particularly persuasive.


The point about starving vs. Gates was just meant to illustrate the principle that the value of a unit of currency is dependent on how much currency you have. (I guess a first approximation it would tend to zero as one's wealth tends to infinity, and tend to some large value as your wealth tends to zero.)

Quote:
 

Also, quality of life cannot be quantified or put into economic terms -- lots of happy poor folk and lots of miserable rich people, and vice versa.


I'd accept it's difficult to quantity quality of life and as you say there are indeed happy poor folk and miserable rich folk, but I imagine one could come up with some kind of estimate of the average loss of expected value given X earnings and Y tax rate.

Quote:
 

Also, people who value money over other things (lower stress levels, more enjoyable work, more time with family, etc) often acquire money largely for security and to keep life's uncertainities from affecting their lives -- so taking a higher percentage of their money because they have worked to achieve their vision of quality of life would directly attack their very basis of happiness in a way that would not be of concern to people who choose to not pursue money over other things.


Oh it's certainly true that if you really took the idea as seriously as you could you'd have to have a different tax rate for every different person and constantly be gathering data about each person's life etc. etc. which would be completely unworkable. But then every policy involves approximation and innaccuracy. I think the basic idea works though and does indeed offer one justification (of many) for tiered tax rates versus flat ones.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jul 30 2011, 10:30 AM
Oh it's certainly true that if you really took the idea as seriously as you could you'd have to have a different tax rate for every different person and constantly be gathering data about each person's life etc. etc. which would be completely unworkable.
Don't give Ax any ideas. ;)
Quote:
 

But then every policy involves approximation and innaccuracy. I think the basic idea works though and does indeed offer one justification (of many) for tiered tax rates versus flat ones.
BTW, just to clarify, I have no problem with tiered tax rates -- the diff in the US from the UK is the insane and convoluted tax codes that provide all sorts of mechanism for tax reductions vs. the PAYE system -- credits and deductions and ways to write off or defer income -- which are targeted for special interests. Only the wealthy can generally take advantage of these, and only the wealthy can afford tax attorneys and accountants who can guide them through the tax code and situate their wealth in ways that reduce tax liabilities.

As I said, its a prudential matter, and prudence is not a strong suit among policy wonks.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 30 2011, 10:51 AM
Moonbat
Jul 30 2011, 10:30 AM
Oh it's certainly true that if you really took the idea as seriously as you could you'd have to have a different tax rate for every different person and constantly be gathering data about each person's life etc. etc. which would be completely unworkable.
Don't give Ax any ideas. ;)
Not "new" at all.

With all those "itemized deductions" and "tax credits," every one is effectively paying an individualized effective tax rate.

Moonbat, just in case you're not familiar with what we in the US call "itemized deductions," the concept is essentially that the US tax code carves out certain category of things the cost of which you can deduct from your gross income before calculating your taxes. As well, the US tax code carves out certain category of things the cost of which you can deduct from your taxes, and these are called "tax credits." Using any of these deductions or claiming any of these tax credits involve supplying data about your life (e.g., how much you pay in mortgage interest, how much you pay to replace your windows with new ones meeting certainly energy efficiency ratings, how much you set aside for certain special accounts to pay for certain medical costs not covered by insurance, how much you spend on certain things for higher education or continuing education, etc.).

So what you write about "have a different tax rate for every different person and constantly be gathering data about each person's life," we already have a version of it.

(As well, your claim that it "would be completely unworkable" is false since we already have a version of it working for so long. ;) )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I see. How intriguing. I stand corrected.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply