[OT] Sci-Fi Tax ?!

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

...and the same is for less tangible but not less costly "things" the government does for you, like economical maneuvers.

Yeah, like those "things". Uh-huh.

If the governement provides a service to an individual, the individual should pay. That is not the way it works.

As far as I know, every government in democratic countries taxes the high-producers more, and no party that I know of contests this.

Of course, because the majority will always consider it "fair" to screw the minority.

Taxing "everyone equally" in the sense that you propose would be deeply unfair to the poor and average people.

No it would not. No more than charging everyone the same for a gallon of milk or a movie ticket.

You said 10% of taxpayers, who produced 21.4% of the income, paid two third of the income taxes. If they paid 21.4% of the income taxes - the same proportion as their income - it would mean that the remaining 90% would have to pay the 78.6% of the taxes instead of the 33.5% they pay now. I really don't think that more than doubling income taxes for the 90% of the population would be a wise choice, especially since it's the "poorest" (well, least rich) 90%!

Not necessarily. Consumption taxes are voluntary, but will still result in the high producers paying a much larger share. User fees for goods and services that are provided directly to a specific group would also off-set the need for taxation.

Also, with 50% of the nation paying less than 5% of income taxes and many of those paying none at all (or even negative), a controlling block exists that has no concern regarding the tax structure and where the money goes. Creating a fair system where all indivduals have some accountability would establish political pressure to control spending.

Restraint is non-existant because the keys to the electorate are completely separated from it. Many people consider govenrment money to be from a magical bottomless bucket. Because from thier perspective, it is.

 

[Zappo]

AU, economy and politics are more complex than what you think. As long as you think that a government is just a megacorporation which sells goods and services to everyone, of course you won't understand why it makes different prices to different people. There is no invisible hand. The market left to itself eventually collapses. It has been proven over and over again. Controlling it, avoiding recessions, making the NASDAQ go up... all things which favor industries and high-wage individuals much, much more than the average or poor people. Do you think these things happen by magic? Or because millions of people who mostly don't even know each other somehow work in concert to better the economy? They happen because someone makes them happen. And it takes money to do it. A helluvalot of money.

Besides, that 90% of the population are the consumers... any money they give to the state is money which isn't being spent to buy a new modem to view the web designer's pages. A massive tax increase would probably cause a major recession in a matter of weeks.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

AU, economy and politics are more complex than what you think. As long as you think that a government is just a megacorporation which sells goods and services to everyone, of course you won't understand why it makes different prices to different people. There is no invisible hand. The market left to itself eventually collapses. It has been proven over and over again. Controlling it, avoiding recessions, making the NASDAQ go up... all things which favor industries and high-wage individuals much, much more than the average or poor people. Do you think these things happen by magic? Or because millions of people who mostly don't even know each other somehow work in concert to better the economy? They happen because someone makes them happen. And it takes money to do it. A helluvalot of money.

Besides, that 90% of the population are the consumers... any money they give to the state is money which isn't being spent to buy a new modem to view the web designer's pages. A massive tax increase would probably cause a major recession in a matter of weeks.

Zappo,

My uderstand of economy and politics is more complex than you think.

Mis-stating my position does not dispute it.

 

[PenguinKing]

My uderstand of economy and politics is more complex than you think.

Mis-stating my position does not dispute it.

Um, claiming that someone has misinterpretted you, then declining to point out the misapprehension, is generally considered dodging the issue.

- Sir Bob.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Um, claiming that someone has misinterpretted you, then declining to point out the misapprehension, is generally considered dodging the issue.

- Sir Bob.

First, pretty much the entire statement was a misrepresentation. (Hell, somehow he seems to think that I want tax INCREASES)

Second, being as he used an entire post of mis-representing me as a method of dodging everything I had stated in the prior post, I do not feel any concern.

 

[PenguinKing]

First, pretty much the entire statement was a misrepresentation. (Hell, somehow he seems to think that I want tax INCREASES)

In theory, yes - if you want flat taxation without falling too much short of the current level of tax revenue, you'd end up with people on the low end paying significantly more than they're paying now, as well as people on the high end paying significantly less.

- Sir Bob.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Seriously, the military and intelligence is important, but often the funds given to military are so overwhelmingly more than those given to research, that moving a 1% from military to research would mean a major boost for science.

First, economically a flat percentage tax is the best thing. Skewing it to tax the poor more is unfair. Skewing it to tax the rich more cuts consumption sharply since the rich buy so much. They did this in the eightys with a luxury tax and almost killed several industrys and increased unemployment when the rich stopped buying yahts, limos, furs, etc and just invested. The reality is that economics will always be trumped by politics and it is difficult to explain to Joe Voter why Bill Gates gets taxed the same percentage as he does. So they just tax the rich a little more.

The funds given to military pre-Bush were a pittance. Planes, tanks, ships, weapons of all sizes only last so many years, and their decommision dates are rapidly approaching. Since no recent presidents bothered to replace them, instead shuffling that tax money elsewhere, when they become unsafe for the military to use they will be gone. It takes years to build new ships. Better hope our air superiority is such that we don't need carriers for a while. Luckily little bush is working overtime to fix that.

 

[Zappo]

AU:

Enough running around, please.

I said you wanted to lower the taxes for the high-income class, and implied from that an INCREASE in the taxes for the average-to-low-income class. So yes, you are proposing a substantial tax increase for the vast majority of the population. Either that, or the money comes raining from the sky, I suppose. My support here is simple mathematics.

I have stated more than once that you seem to think of a government as a body whose only function is to provide services and goods, for a price. You have not denied this. I strongly disagree, and as a support I can point to the fact that all democratic governments have more functions than that. I don't think all democratic governments in the world are headed by screwballs who don't know what's good for them.

Your assertion that the minority tries to screw the majority can be viewed from the opposite way and makes just as much sense, which is zero. My support here is:
1) Historically, in economy and politics minorities have always been screwing majorities, not the other way round, and
2) the majority getting the best things is pretty much what democracy is all about. Democracy is an attempt to counter point 1 above.

You said that I underestimate your comprehension of economics and politics. I hope so! But from what you posted, I can't see how. I'm far from an expert on the subjects. If you think I have misunderstood you, please say where and how, instead of accusing me of misrepresenting you. Otherwise, you are misrepresenting you.

I'm getting rather tired, so unless you add something interesting to the discussion I think I'll get back to D&D.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

In theory, yes - if you want flat taxation without falling too much short of the current level of tax revenue, you'd end up with people on the low end paying significantly more than they're paying now, as well as people on the high end paying significantly less.

- Sir Bob.

Well historically nope. History has shown that everytime you lower taxes the government pulls in more money. Yeah sure there is a mark where you can't go below before you start making less, but they could cut taxes to a flat 15% keep the same standard deductions we have now, and they would likely pull in more money from taxes than they ever have.

 

[Zappo]

Roland: what the rich spend in luxury goods (luxury as in: yacht) is nothing, nothing compared to what the real consumer base, the average people, spend in luxury goods (luxury as in: a TV set). They are the engine of consumism, not the upper 2% or so that buy ships and expensive jewels. A crisis in the furs sector can never be anything more than a crisis in the furs sector. If the average person started spending considerably less for a long period of time, it would be a major recession the likes of which have rarely been seen. As for the military... well, I've heard many things about the USA military, but this is the first time I hear it's underfunded. Anyway, I don't really care about the USA military, fund it the way you see fit. I was just suggesting a possible source of funds for NASA, but the thing I'd really like is a worldwide space research agency funded by all rich nations. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly on the fact that NASA has a history of spending its money badly.