Taxes, schmaxes who really cares.
-
Nishant S wrote: and I bet it'd be fun to live there too as long as you don't like roads, i bet it's great :)
Chris Losinger wrote: as long as you don't like roads, i bet it's great If a country is wealthy enough to afford zero tax, wouldn't there be enough money for roads and stuff? :confused: Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
Are there countries with zero tax??? I guess there must be, and I bet it'd be fun to live there too Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
I think there are. Some of the smaller mega-wealthy oil-producing countries (can't remember which, off-hand) have 0 tax, free university education, medical cover, etc. Just wait 'til the oil runs out, though... :-)
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: as long as you don't like roads, i bet it's great If a country is wealthy enough to afford zero tax, wouldn't there be enough money for roads and stuff? :confused: Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Nishant S wrote: If a country is wealthy enough to afford zero tax, wouldn't there be enough money for roads and stuff? where would the money come from? (assuming it's not a state full of slaves)
-
Nishant S wrote: If a country is wealthy enough to afford zero tax, wouldn't there be enough money for roads and stuff? where would the money come from? (assuming it's not a state full of slaves)
Chris Losinger wrote: where would the money come from? (assuming it's not a state full of slaves) Oil, I guess. I think some of the Gulf countries dont take tax. Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
I think there are. Some of the smaller mega-wealthy oil-producing countries (can't remember which, off-hand) have 0 tax, free university education, medical cover, etc. Just wait 'til the oil runs out, though... :-)
he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: Some of the smaller mega-wealthy oil-producing countries (can't remember which, off-hand) have 0 tax, free university education, medical cover, etc. Yup, thats what I think too. maybe Kuwait... Not very sure though Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
-
brianwelsch wrote: while those on the other end get rewarded well... there's really not much glamour at the low end of the tax scale - there's probably a lot of living check-to-check, visiting those "cash your check in advance" places and general borderline poverty. that "reward" of not paying 50% federal taxes is probably a lot more meaningful to someone making $20K/yr than it is to someone making $200K. it's just simple human decency to let people at the bottom end of the scale keep more of what they earn. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: it's just simple human decency to let people at the bottom end of the scale keep more of what they earn. I agree that it is a decent thing to do. But, I do think there is something inherently wrong with the graduated system. It is very discouraging to see your hard work being pissed away. Not to mention the loopholes. I know from personal experiance it's not too difficult to evade a large portion of your taxes through perfectly legal tax shelters. Chris Losinger wrote: well... there's really not much glamour at the low end of the tax scale There isn't much glamour in the middle either. In fact that is where people get screwed the most. God forbid if you are a married couple. I know it may not seem to others that it hurts much but, for a young couple trying to plan and save for the furture it is outright depressing. We realy need a comprimise, and something to simplify the tax laws and reduce the loopholes. A simple flat-tax may not be answer but the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
Taka Muraoka wrote: Some of the smaller mega-wealthy oil-producing countries (can't remember which, off-hand) have 0 tax, free university education, medical cover, etc. Yup, thats what I think too. maybe Kuwait... Not very sure though Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
Nishant S wrote: maybe Kuwait Probably. I was thinking Brunei.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: where would the money come from? (assuming it's not a state full of slaves) Oil, I guess. I think some of the Gulf countries dont take tax. Nish
Author of the romantic comedy Summer Love and Some more Cricket [New Win] Review by Shog9 Click here for review[NW]
hmm. yeah. that's a pretty special case, tho - and they don't have much of anything else going on there. it's oil and oil accessories. there's no way a normal country could do that and still build roads. -c
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's just simple human decency to let people at the bottom end of the scale keep more of what they earn. I agree that it is a decent thing to do. But, I do think there is something inherently wrong with the graduated system. It is very discouraging to see your hard work being pissed away. Not to mention the loopholes. I know from personal experiance it's not too difficult to evade a large portion of your taxes through perfectly legal tax shelters. Chris Losinger wrote: well... there's really not much glamour at the low end of the tax scale There isn't much glamour in the middle either. In fact that is where people get screwed the most. God forbid if you are a married couple. I know it may not seem to others that it hurts much but, for a young couple trying to plan and save for the furture it is outright depressing. We realy need a comprimise, and something to simplify the tax laws and reduce the loopholes. A simple flat-tax may not be answer but the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: A simple flat-tax may not be answer but the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. i agree. i don't think the problem is with the poor paying too little, though. there's really not much to be gained from taking more money from people who need every cent just to survive. i agree with the idea of 'reducing spending' that i hear the republicans talk so much about. now if they would just do that, we might be able to actually afford a tax cut or two. personally, i'd prefer if they started with defense-welfare programs like missile defense and GulfWar II : that's $200B+ right there. -c
-
brianwelsch wrote: while those on the other end get rewarded well... there's really not much glamour at the low end of the tax scale - there's probably a lot of living check-to-check, visiting those "cash your check in advance" places and general borderline poverty. that "reward" of not paying 50% federal taxes is probably a lot more meaningful to someone making $20K/yr than it is to someone making $200K. it's just simple human decency to let people at the bottom end of the scale keep more of what they earn. -c
It's not matter of who lives better at all, but rather whats fair. Does someone making 100K use more government services, than someone making 20K? With the exception of possibly using transportation routes more due to inheritly more consumption of goods, I would say 'No'. So why then should someone pay more in taxes, percentage-wise, simply because they make more money? I realize that people get on hard times, and some type limited government assistance is fine in those cases, but our current system is beyond rediculous. Reduced spending is also a means of flattening the scale. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
Intersting, IMHO: { I think you have made a leap from fiscal to monetary policy that is not normally allowed in macro economics. I can only think of two countries off hand who don't use "optimal taxation methedology." Their are so variables and paradoxes in economic modelling that it is impossible to predict much that is truly worthwhile. For instance a drop in interest rates of 1% could mean economic growth, but 2% could lead to a recession. Or underflation is considered to be more dangerous than inflation. (Although no one has experienced it properly) Lets say a govt using a mean 25% tax decided to increases taxes ny 8% but supply total health care, in effect they are just dollar swapping with the overall taxpaying public. Taxation policy is an important issue that is not understood by most politicians apparently. } Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Their are so variables and paradoxes in economic modelling that it is impossible to predict much that is truly worthwhile. True enough. Especially when considering an increasingly global market. It's still fun to contemplate how it really works, and propose "what ifs". Colin Davies wrote: Taxation policy is an important issue that is not understood by most politicians apparently. That is a flaw in democracy I suppose. Those that get elected do not have any required knowledge regarding economics, history, law, .... Yet, they make all policies. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
It's not matter of who lives better at all, but rather whats fair. Does someone making 100K use more government services, than someone making 20K? With the exception of possibly using transportation routes more due to inheritly more consumption of goods, I would say 'No'. So why then should someone pay more in taxes, percentage-wise, simply because they make more money? I realize that people get on hard times, and some type limited government assistance is fine in those cases, but our current system is beyond rediculous. Reduced spending is also a means of flattening the scale. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
brianwelsch wrote: So why then should someone pay more in taxes, percentage-wise, simply because they make more money? because the govt requires money (our precious 'way of life' doesn't come free), and you can't get money from the poor, the govt has to get the money where it can. brianwelsch wrote: Reduced spending is also a means of flattening the scale yep. too bad that will never happen. -c
-
I had a conversation today with a friend of mine about an economic theory we have. Basically, the idea is excluding the extremes of 0% and and 100%, the tax rate of a nation is irrelevant over time. The idea is that the market naturally progresses towards a price equilibrium, and the innate value of goods in relation to each other does not change in the short run. This means that the cost of living will find a way to be met within the confines of available cash flow of society. So if the overall tax rate went up to 80%, demand would initially decrease but eventually prices would find an equilibrium again via deflation, and you again have the same level of quality of life relative to others at different income levels. Likewise, if taxes dropped to 10% overall, the disposable income would eventually drive up demand, and logically prices, until an equilbrium was reached at a higher level. This is a very simple version of the concept, as it doesn't take much into consideration, for example what the taxes are used for. In any case, I thought it sounded interesting enough, and I was hoping to get some input before digging deeper. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
A more significant issue might be taxation on consumption versus income. IMHO a consumption tax on all non vital (food, medicine, fuel/electricity, etc.) items is inherently fairer than any income tax (flat or graduated). Income taxation is fatally flawed for all the many reasons mentioned in the posts so far. It is intended by most states that use graduated income taxation to act in large part as a mechanism for redistributing wealth...at which it rarely succeeds. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
A more significant issue might be taxation on consumption versus income. IMHO a consumption tax on all non vital (food, medicine, fuel/electricity, etc.) items is inherently fairer than any income tax (flat or graduated). Income taxation is fatally flawed for all the many reasons mentioned in the posts so far. It is intended by most states that use graduated income taxation to act in large part as a mechanism for redistributing wealth...at which it rarely succeeds. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
i agree. sales tax is definitely the most fair. and there should be very clearly defined execptions and no loopholes or special cases for business vs personal. but, it'll never happen - not even the most strident republican would dare drop the income tax altogether. -c
-
i agree. sales tax is definitely the most fair. and there should be very clearly defined execptions and no loopholes or special cases for business vs personal. but, it'll never happen - not even the most strident republican would dare drop the income tax altogether. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: no loopholes or special cases for business vs personal. Definitely no loopholes... I work for a large company that leases everything in order to "maximize working capital", so I would add that leases should be taxed just like a "purchase" to close this loophole. Chris Losinger wrote: but, it'll never happen - not even the most strident republican would dare drop the income tax altogether. Maybe someday at least a flat income tax (0 loopholes, all income below some reasonable minimum exempt) coupled with a National consumption tax... Nah, you're right, no politician, regardless of flavor, would ever givve up all the leverage they get from the current mess of loopholes and inequities they've been able to build into the current system. Watever changes may come will be cosmetic and likely just increase the burden on the defenseless middle class.:) Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
I had a conversation today with a friend of mine about an economic theory we have. Basically, the idea is excluding the extremes of 0% and and 100%, the tax rate of a nation is irrelevant over time. The idea is that the market naturally progresses towards a price equilibrium, and the innate value of goods in relation to each other does not change in the short run. This means that the cost of living will find a way to be met within the confines of available cash flow of society. So if the overall tax rate went up to 80%, demand would initially decrease but eventually prices would find an equilibrium again via deflation, and you again have the same level of quality of life relative to others at different income levels. Likewise, if taxes dropped to 10% overall, the disposable income would eventually drive up demand, and logically prices, until an equilbrium was reached at a higher level. This is a very simple version of the concept, as it doesn't take much into consideration, for example what the taxes are used for. In any case, I thought it sounded interesting enough, and I was hoping to get some input before digging deeper. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
All taxes are ultimately regressive, and are never levied for the benefit of the taxed. Taxes drain resources from the capital markets, wherein all wealth is created, and transfers resources to the public sector, which produces no wealth and often inhibits its creation. Taxes on income are specifically evil, as they punish the productive for their efforts, and reward the worthless for being idle. All taxes above a minimal level necessary to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility result in a skewed system of values, in which otherwise productive effort is wasted on finding ways and means to avoid taxes rather than creating more wealth for the society. The higher the rate of taxation exacted from the efforts of the useful members of a society, the lower the overall standard of living for all members of that society. If taxes are inevitable, the damage they cause can be limited by taxing consumption, rather than production. Taxing the earnings on investments in the capital markets is always counterproductive, as this reduces the incentive to invest in new industries and markets. Taxing consumption creates an incentive to invest and save, rather than to squander limited resources on fads and foibles. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
All taxes are ultimately regressive, and are never levied for the benefit of the taxed. Taxes drain resources from the capital markets, wherein all wealth is created, and transfers resources to the public sector, which produces no wealth and often inhibits its creation. Taxes on income are specifically evil, as they punish the productive for their efforts, and reward the worthless for being idle. All taxes above a minimal level necessary to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility result in a skewed system of values, in which otherwise productive effort is wasted on finding ways and means to avoid taxes rather than creating more wealth for the society. The higher the rate of taxation exacted from the efforts of the useful members of a society, the lower the overall standard of living for all members of that society. If taxes are inevitable, the damage they cause can be limited by taxing consumption, rather than production. Taxing the earnings on investments in the capital markets is always counterproductive, as this reduces the incentive to invest in new industries and markets. Taxing consumption creates an incentive to invest and save, rather than to squander limited resources on fads and foibles. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
In my observations income taxation is also a tax on all but the wealthy. The wealthy can afford the accountants and lawyers so they can avoid the taxation. This leaves the burden on the middleclasses and poor to pay. As you suggest effort is wasted on learning how to avoid tax rather than increasing productivity. ( OT: Recently I was lucky enough to find a gigantic international taxation loophole. :-) } Equitable taxation is an imposibility that is without a realistic global solution. Consuption taxation must be universal in nature and must never be self defeating in its level. Example, 1. ) Couuntry X changes to a consumption tax, 2. )Residents of Country X start saving and investing to avoid the consumption tax. 3.) The consumption tax "take" is lowered as the residents are not spending enough. a) the consumption tax must be increased to compensate. b) 1st, 2nd, 3rd type industries sales decrease as consumers are spending less. 4.) repeat step 3. There are alternatives available other than consumption or income taxes, however vested interests would prefer we do not utilize them. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
A more significant issue might be taxation on consumption versus income. IMHO a consumption tax on all non vital (food, medicine, fuel/electricity, etc.) items is inherently fairer than any income tax (flat or graduated). Income taxation is fatally flawed for all the many reasons mentioned in the posts so far. It is intended by most states that use graduated income taxation to act in large part as a mechanism for redistributing wealth...at which it rarely succeeds. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
Abosultely. Consumptions taxes are the only fair way to go. I live in South Carolina, and one of the plans out new governor-elect proposed during campaigning was removal of our income tax. (over 18 yrs.!!! :wtf:) Even over such a long period, I'd still like to see it start happening. We will see soon enough if he was just BSing or if he will actually try to pass it. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
In my observations income taxation is also a tax on all but the wealthy. The wealthy can afford the accountants and lawyers so they can avoid the taxation. This leaves the burden on the middleclasses and poor to pay. As you suggest effort is wasted on learning how to avoid tax rather than increasing productivity. ( OT: Recently I was lucky enough to find a gigantic international taxation loophole. :-) } Equitable taxation is an imposibility that is without a realistic global solution. Consuption taxation must be universal in nature and must never be self defeating in its level. Example, 1. ) Couuntry X changes to a consumption tax, 2. )Residents of Country X start saving and investing to avoid the consumption tax. 3.) The consumption tax "take" is lowered as the residents are not spending enough. a) the consumption tax must be increased to compensate. b) 1st, 2nd, 3rd type industries sales decrease as consumers are spending less. 4.) repeat step 3. There are alternatives available other than consumption or income taxes, however vested interests would prefer we do not utilize them. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Example, 1. ) Couuntry X changes to a consumption tax, 2. )Residents of Country X start saving and investing to avoid the consumption tax...... Would these consumers actually spend less though? There may be a shift in spending habits due to the new method, but I believe overall spending would remain. Any possible reduction would be short-term, during the period of adjustment, as would any possible increase. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
Chris Austin wrote: A simple flat-tax may not be answer but the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. i agree. i don't think the problem is with the poor paying too little, though. there's really not much to be gained from taking more money from people who need every cent just to survive. i agree with the idea of 'reducing spending' that i hear the republicans talk so much about. now if they would just do that, we might be able to actually afford a tax cut or two. personally, i'd prefer if they started with defense-welfare programs like missile defense and GulfWar II : that's $200B+ right there. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: i'd prefer if they started with defense-welfare programs like missile defense and GulfWar II : Although, I do feel defense is the one thing government should actually be doing, I agree our current level of spending is fairly outrageous.1 $396B next year. That's $1414 per citizen. 130Million are actually working2, so they are paying over $3000 per year. I know I'd love to get about $1000 of that back. That would leave us at around $270B, or $70B over the combined spending of our Allies3 1http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Highlights-pr.cfm[^] 2http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=01000US.html[^] 3http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/[^] BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius