[OT] Sci-Fi Tax ?!

[Shard O'Glase]

AU:

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.

Of course you could try being polite at the same time. Snide comments like the above don't add to any conversation. AU has shown a perfectly fine grasp of economics and politics, just one that differs from yours. You do realize that there is more than one economic theory running around on the planet right now don't you?

Ooops a snide comment.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

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.

Well, history disagrees with you. The upper 2% create a lot of consumption and create a lot of jobs.

My father is a rather high officer in the Navy so i get alot of insider knowledge. I'm in military circles alot. As well most of my friends in HS have gone on to military careers.

No time for more specifics, game in 5 minuites

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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.

Nope. As I stated, it is the concept of income tax that I am disputing. A consumption tax could be placed in effect that would still result in the high producers pay significantly more taxes.

We have gone afield, but my point at the start was that arbitrary taxation of a group already exists, so, if one accepts that, it is hard to complain about a new arbitrary taxation.

And I also DO think we should reduce government spending. (And NO I would not flip a switch today if I could. It needs to be a process, of course)

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

AU:

Enough running around, please.

Does that mean you are goign to stop?

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.

Wrong.

See above.

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.

You have stated, but I have not.

Though you constantly fail to enumerate these "functions".

I strongly believe that government has a duty to assure that individuals are protected from the use of force or fraud by other individuals or groups. This function however, provides equal benefit to all.

In terms of economic policy, free individuals can do this as well as governments can. But then it gets called "unfair trade practice".

Does your "screwballs" comment somehow imply soemthing about my thinking?

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.

It is certainly human nature that one group will try to screw other groups.
A just government will ATTEMPT to minimze that. Changing which group screws who, even if done democratically, does not create justice.

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.

please, you have put many false statements in my mouth. That is you misrepresentign me.

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

ok

 

[hong]

And the large trucking company pays much higher amounts of gasoline and tag taxes, which go for paying for the roads. User fees such as this for tangible consumption are completely appropriate. A web designer who produces more than the trucker still must pay more taxes.

You are assuming

1) petrol levies and similar taxes are specifically earmarked for purposes of maintaining roads. AFAIK, this isn't the case in most countries; all taxes go into the general revenue pool, and the pool is divvied up in whichever way is deemed most beneficial.

2) the pattern by which the tax is levied matches the pattern of wear on the roads. Again, AFAIK, this isn't the case. Road wear and tear is dependent not just on than just distance travelled, but also vehicle tonnage. In particular, a large truck will cause a lot more damage to a road than a passenger car, other things being equal.

3) the amount of tax collected via petrol levies and whatnot is sufficient to meet road maintenance purposes. This is clearly not the case; if it were, there would be no need for tolls, for example.

4) the only purpose of government (as it applies to this particular subject) is to maintain the road network. This isn't so; especially with expanding vehicle use, the question of building new roads and encouraging alternative means of transport is an important one.


In general, infrastructure spending is one of the key ways in which the benefits of government accrue more to wealthier people than poorer ones. Sometimes, a way can be found to match taxation exactly with these benefits. Often, such a way cannot be found, or implementing it would be impractical. Until we live in a perfect world where everything can be accounted for and externalities don't exist, it's perfectly reasonable to have a progressive tax system to reflect such realities.

Furthermore, even if we lived in such a perfect world, it might still be reasonable to use a progressive tax system. One of the recognised functions of government (although a rather unfashionable one, in some circles) is wealth redistribution: to minimise the disparity between the rich and the poor. Collecting more tax from the rich is one way of achieving this. This is not intrinsically good or bad; it all depends on your political leanings.

 

[PenguinKing]

Nope. As I stated, it is the concept of income tax that I am disputing. A consumption tax could be placed in effect that would still result in the high producers pay significantly more taxes.

So you're in favor of the GST?

(Sorry, Canadian referrence. )

We have gone afield, but my point at the start was that arbitrary taxation of a group already exists, so, if one accepts that, it is hard to complain about a new arbitrary taxation.

There are more sides to the issue than just that - like the point I raised earlier that taxation based on the content of literature could amount to censorship, depending on the nature and extent of said taxation.

- Sir Bob.

 

[hong]

In addition NASA appears completely out of touch with what the american people want them to do with their tax money. NASA has voted to spend it's only projected long-term budget right now on a mission to Pluto, rather than a mission to Europa. Never mind the fact that there is good evidence that there might be life on Europa (no, not little green men, just some potential sea life), never mind the fact that all of the polls of the american people were to explore Eurpoa next, no, NASA is sending a probe on a decade long mission to a ball of ice that they know, with some confidence, really is just a big ball of ice. Nice. And let's not even talk about their anti-space-tourism policy.

One of the slogans often trotted out in the long-running creation/evolution flamewars is just as relevant here:

"Science is not a democracy"

From the point of view of scientific research, whether or not lots of Americans think going to Europa would be a cool idea is neither here nor there. Now it's quite possible that NASA's research committee is populated by second-grade administrators or political hacks, but I think that's just being needlessly cynical.

Furthermore, the Pluto mission _does_ have a significant research purpose, even if it's not one that lends itself easily to evocative headlines. Here's a recent Scientific American article on this subject:

http://www.sciam.com/2002/0502issue/0502stern.html

 

[hong]

There are more sides to the issue than just that - like the point I raised earlier that taxation based on the content of literature could amount to censorship, depending on the nature and extent of said taxation.

- Sir Bob.

Given the libertarian tendencies of many SF authors (*cough* Baen *cough*), the idea of levying a special tax on them is immensely ironic, not to mention appealing.

 

[PenguinKing]

That may be, but it sets a precedent. What if a "sci-fi tax" is passed, and next week someone proposes a "sexually-oriented material tax"? Or a "depictions of violence tax"? Or an "advocacy of non-Christian values tax"?

- Sir Bob.

 

[hong]

That may be, but it sets a precedent. What if a "sci-fi tax" is passed, and next week someone proposes a "sexually-oriented material tax"? Or a "depictions of violence tax"? Or an "advocacy of non-Christian values tax"?

Oh, I'm not saying the proposal is necessarily a good idea, it's just very funny.