User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Economics is Fun, Part 10: Taxation

  1. #21
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As you climb tax rates, only your income over the trigger is taxed at the higher rate, so it wouldn't be wise to forgo a raise simply to avoid a higher tax bracket.

  2. #22
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It's still a disincentive. Government should protect pursuit of happiness.

  3. #23
    Points: 11,578, Level: 25
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Stoney's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    152
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Traveling
    Posts
    565
    Points
    11,578
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    55
    Thanked 135x in 104 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like the Fair Tax. If its fair for people with higher incomes to pay more taxes then the best way to accomplish that is through spending. Otherwise we're always arguing about some subjective numbers.
    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

    "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable."

    H. L. Mencken

  4. #24
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoney View Post
    I like the Fair Tax. If its fair for people with higher incomes to pay more taxes then the best way to accomplish that is through spending. Otherwise we're always arguing about some subjective numbers.
    Agreed. And poor people can avoid the tax by buying used.

  5. #25
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    And there's a rebate for basics.

  6. #26
    Points: 69,181, Level: 64
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,769
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Mainecoons's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19769
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    16,741
    Points
    69,181
    Level
    64
    Thanks Given
    10,256
    Thanked 6,437x in 4,426 Posts
    Mentioned
    260 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here you go again, debating taxation when the problem is SPENDING. If government were cut back to the 20 percent of GNP that all of it consumed in 1960, taxation wouldn't mean crap.

  7. #27
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496570
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,580x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoons View Post
    Here you go again, debating taxation when the problem is SPENDING. If government were cut back to the 20 percent of GNP that all of it consumed in 1960, taxation wouldn't mean crap.
    The federal government need to be cut much more than that.

  8. #28
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433315
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,904x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Agree, cutting taxes just forces government to borrow more. Getting government to stop spending doesn't seem to be working very well. All they do is fuss about reducing the rate of spending increases.

    It's a question of when the government bubble will burst.

  9. #29
    Points: 11,578, Level: 25
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Stoney's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    152
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Traveling
    Posts
    565
    Points
    11,578
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    55
    Thanked 135x in 104 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When I got in the thread was about taxes.
    "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

    "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable."

    H. L. Mencken

  10. #30
    Points: 12,573, Level: 26
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points
    RollingWave's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    3456
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    981
    Points
    12,573
    Level
    26
    Thanks Given
    105
    Thanked 367x in 292 Posts
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Conley View Post
    I say just close the loopholes. Everyone making over a certain amount of money pays a flat tax. Problem solved.
    The general issue is that what is flat? or rather what exactly are we taxing the tax rates on? we'd agree that disposable income for a guy making close to minimal wage is nowhere the same as a wealthy person as a purpotion to his income, so a poor guy's 10 % might really impair his ability to survive but a rich guys' 10% may make almost no difference to him (marginal utility issues), so that makes the whole issue so much more complicated. and as long as we have some sort of deductable in there (like a minimum threshhold where you don't need to pay) then it's still not flat at all when it comes out, only a arbitrary flat rate.

    And besides the point, if we're going to really go by the "fair" logic, the good ole medieval head tax (where everyone literrally pays the exactly same #) would be the most ... fair... right? afterall why should Bill Gates pay a million bucks just because he makes a billion.. he's still one man just like you. of course with this tax system you basically have to remove about 99% of government spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    And better would be a consumption tax like the Fair Tax, imo.
    And again we come to the more basic matter of the guys closer to the bottom would end up paying much more % of their income on basic consumptions, thus in effect imposing a regressive tax instead.

    This is a complicated issue to be sure... at the end of the day the progressive tax rate is generally justified by the logic that the wealthier you are, the purportion of desposable income is going to be higher too.

    One would need to give a thought here though, even after taking out the defense spending factor, the US in general is still spending a higher purportion of their GDP on the budget while it's social net system is not exactly European level either. so why? why is the budget in the US seem to be getting a dime for the dollar these days? yeah government is never going to be the most efficent thing ever, but there's still definately a (gigantic) difference between say.. the government efficency of Singapore then say... Greece.

    And even defense budget wise, yes the US have the largest presence, but supposedly it should also have the advantage in production of scale, for example it is insanely unpractical for Taiwan here to build our own Submarines, since we would at best need about a dozen and more realistically more like 6-8 AND have no hope of selling them to anyone else. meanwhile the US have a standing fleet of 70+ subs and is planing on quiet a few more.

    There must be some sort of streamlining potential in the US public sector that can retain most of it's use while cutting down the cost.
    Last edited by RollingWave; 03-07-2012 at 03:09 AM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts