In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
Direct versus consumption taxation.
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
In that case, please stay off the roads and don't use any infrastructure.
In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
In that case, please stay off the roads and don't use any infrastructure.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
may not bring in the required revenues
Defining "required" is the real trick then.
Right, you don't live in a society.
Say what?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
may not bring in the required revenues
Defining "required" is the real trick then.
Right, you don't live in a society.
Say what?
Quote:
Wealthy people don't build businesses for any other reason than there is a demand for the service/product.
AND if they can make money. That is how they got rich in the first place.
There is plenty of demand for cheap transportation, but there is no profit in it. (Noting that every government run bus organization in the country looses money.)
Quote:
You, of all people, should realize that if $0.10 is all that can be squeezed from a product/service whatever...there is ALWAYS someone to capitalize on it.
Yes. What you are missing is that it takes venture capital...risk...to make NEW products and services that grow an economy.
If the payoff is reduced (as in higher taxes), then there is a lot less motivation for those NEW businesses to be created via investment. The risk/reward benefit is too great. Basic economics.
Quote:
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121659695380368965.html
EXPAND the tax base via economic activity and you actually increase tax revenue via lower taxes.
Wealthy people don't build businesses for any other reason than there is a demand for the service/product.
AND if they can make money. That is how they got rich in the first place.
There is plenty of demand for cheap transportation, but there is no profit in it. (Noting that every government run bus organization in the country looses money.)
Quote:
You, of all people, should realize that if $0.10 is all that can be squeezed from a product/service whatever...there is ALWAYS someone to capitalize on it.
Yes. What you are missing is that it takes venture capital...risk...to make NEW products and services that grow an economy.
If the payoff is reduced (as in higher taxes), then there is a lot less motivation for those NEW businesses to be created via investment. The risk/reward benefit is too great. Basic economics.
Quote:
Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.
We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.
The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.
This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121659695380368965.html
EXPAND the tax base via economic activity and you actually increase tax revenue via lower taxes.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
EXPAND the tax base via economic activity and you actually increase tax revenue via lower taxes.
Yes ..and it paid in spades over the last 8 years.
Most of the supply side types point to the Laufer Curve ..yet never seem to prove that it's actually achieved. So far, in contemporary history, it's only been used in the midst of massive debt.
So, unless you can show me how the national "net average" of all those "new" millionaires adds up in the plus side of the equation..exceeding the added debt that is borne by all ..then it's just a shifting of cash and the shifting of debt ..with debt being much larger than the gains.
A losing proposition to EVERYONE ..except those who got to scam the mechanism.
EXPAND the tax base via economic activity and you actually increase tax revenue via lower taxes.
Yes ..and it paid in spades over the last 8 years.
Most of the supply side types point to the Laufer Curve ..yet never seem to prove that it's actually achieved. So far, in contemporary history, it's only been used in the midst of massive debt.
So, unless you can show me how the national "net average" of all those "new" millionaires adds up in the plus side of the equation..exceeding the added debt that is borne by all ..then it's just a shifting of cash and the shifting of debt ..with debt being much larger than the gains.
A losing proposition to EVERYONE ..except those who got to scam the mechanism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118792144566207540.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep
Quote:
The preliminary 2005 data just released from the Treasury Department show more of the same. The amount of tax paid by those earning more than $1 million a year increased to $236 billion in 2005, up from $132 billion in 2003, the year of the tax cut. This was a 78% increase in taxes paid by millionaire households.
Another indication of the expanded tax base is that after the tax cuts there were more millionaires for Uncle Sam to tax. In 2003 about 182,000 Americans declared gross income of $1 million or more. In 2005 the number of millionaire households leapt to 300,000. The number of Americans with declared income of $10 million or more doubled to 13,000 from 6,000 in the years after the tax rate cuts.
The supply-side revenue effects on the rich are remarkable: Tax rates on higher incomes have been halved, but the federal tax share of the top 1% has nearly doubled. And the budget deficit has fallen. That's what happens when tax policy gets the incentives right.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Budget deficits? Government can always out spend it's income, regardless of how much it takes in.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I give up, my friend. According to your assertions ..all of us lower dwellers should be getting bigger pockets for all the cash that we're "given" at the expensive of those who make the most ..and they should be in soup lines.
The reality that is outside your window is in stark contrast to your beliefs.
You're right, wealth needs help. Without it ..they would fall into the bounty of mediocrity that we're all enjoying right now ..and in droves.
Have pity ..for they suffer so ..and we're sitting here with bills and expenses and all this joy to spread around ..and we horde it all to ourselves ..forever shutting out those of higher station.
I hope you serve a wealthy person well ..and they grant you a living.
The reality that is outside your window is in stark contrast to your beliefs.
You're right, wealth needs help. Without it ..they would fall into the bounty of mediocrity that we're all enjoying right now ..and in droves.
Have pity ..for they suffer so ..and we're sitting here with bills and expenses and all this joy to spread around ..and we horde it all to ourselves ..forever shutting out those of higher station.
I hope you serve a wealthy person well ..and they grant you a living.
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
In that case, please stay off the roads and don't use any infrastructure.
Roads are paid for by tolls and/or user fees included in the price of gas.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
In that case, please stay off the roads and don't use any infrastructure.
Roads are paid for by tolls and/or user fees included in the price of gas.
Well they should be.
Down here, Tolls largely go to private companies, who have to build some of the road (well at least the toll collection part, and a few kilometers either side...Govt tenders for them to bid for the toll road, they pay the Govt, and then collect tolls...Govt further enables the private company by closing down non toll roads to "encourage" toll road use).
Remainder of roads are paid out of "consolidated revenue".
Down here, Tolls largely go to private companies, who have to build some of the road (well at least the toll collection part, and a few kilometers either side...Govt tenders for them to bid for the toll road, they pay the Govt, and then collect tolls...Govt further enables the private company by closing down non toll roads to "encourage" toll road use).
Remainder of roads are paid out of "consolidated revenue".
Quote:
You're right, wealth needs help.
So you consider allowing people to keep more of what they earn "help"? Interesting.
Quote:
Govt further enables the private company by closing down non toll roads to "encourage" toll road use.
Now that is Bull pucky. I smell kickbacks.
You're right, wealth needs help.
So you consider allowing people to keep more of what they earn "help"? Interesting.
Quote:
Govt further enables the private company by closing down non toll roads to "encourage" toll road use.
Now that is Bull pucky. I smell kickbacks.
They get the kickback at tender time.
The company is tendering for how much money they will give the Govt to allow them to toll the road (like privatising the state lottery, give the Govt the money up front, and collect the revenue forever (OK, 99 years))
The company is tendering for how much money they will give the Govt to allow them to toll the road (like privatising the state lottery, give the Govt the money up front, and collect the revenue forever (OK, 99 years))
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
Quote:
You're right, wealth needs help.
So you consider allowing people to keep more of what they earn "help"? Interesting.
Tempest, you play both sides of the argument. This is in the same realty that had tremendous public debt that was driving the economy that allowed the wealth accumulation. Add to that the lack of real revenue returned to the states and the local taxes ..water bills ..school taxes ..and all the things that aren't there due to "tax cuts" and "borrow and spending" ..send the bills to those who are now paying more than they would have without all of those neat "giving them their due" helps provided.
You can't have it all run your way ..as much as you try. We're poorer as a nation. None of those people created any net wealth ..at least in America. They surely made some Chinese or other 3rd world people expand their horizons ..but I could care less about their prosperity if it's at my expense.
So ..what did these new millionaires do for America ..besides getting wealthy? Just what's in it for me to support in a "social theory"?
Quote:
You're right, wealth needs help.
So you consider allowing people to keep more of what they earn "help"? Interesting.
Tempest, you play both sides of the argument. This is in the same realty that had tremendous public debt that was driving the economy that allowed the wealth accumulation. Add to that the lack of real revenue returned to the states and the local taxes ..water bills ..school taxes ..and all the things that aren't there due to "tax cuts" and "borrow and spending" ..send the bills to those who are now paying more than they would have without all of those neat "giving them their due" helps provided.
You can't have it all run your way ..as much as you try. We're poorer as a nation. None of those people created any net wealth ..at least in America. They surely made some Chinese or other 3rd world people expand their horizons ..but I could care less about their prosperity if it's at my expense.
So ..what did these new millionaires do for America ..besides getting wealthy? Just what's in it for me to support in a "social theory"?
The point being, that "user pays" is fine.
However increasingly down here, useage taxes are being privatised with one off windfalls for the Govt, long term revenues for private industry, and the appearance of "reduction of Government" by divesting themselves of profit centres (voluntary taxation ?)
The state lotteries sale price is three year's worth of profit...why hand that over to private industry ?
However increasingly down here, useage taxes are being privatised with one off windfalls for the Govt, long term revenues for private industry, and the appearance of "reduction of Government" by divesting themselves of profit centres (voluntary taxation ?)
The state lotteries sale price is three year's worth of profit...why hand that over to private industry ?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
In that case, please stay off the roads and don't use any infrastructure.
Roads are paid for by tolls and/or user fees included in the price of gas.
If the gas and the tolls that I pay provide the tax money required to keep CA's roads in shape, then why am I on driving on roads that much too often resemble the roads in less developed nations?
Not everybody buys gas. Not all roads command a toll. So you would be taxing shoes and bicycles then, I suppose? Maybe feet, too.
You think a taxless system can work? Would it be run by and for selfless philanthropists like Tempest or maybe yourself?
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
In a free country, you are free to not partake in society.
In that case, please stay off the roads and don't use any infrastructure.
Roads are paid for by tolls and/or user fees included in the price of gas.
If the gas and the tolls that I pay provide the tax money required to keep CA's roads in shape, then why am I on driving on roads that much too often resemble the roads in less developed nations?
Not everybody buys gas. Not all roads command a toll. So you would be taxing shoes and bicycles then, I suppose? Maybe feet, too.
You think a taxless system can work? Would it be run by and for selfless philanthropists like Tempest or maybe yourself?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Well, paying for the right to enslave is nothing new, Shannow. Been done before
Now how you do it can vary. You could do the outright sell out like they do in Oz and divest themselves of responsibility ..divesting themselves of the whole thing. ....or they could just bankrupt the government ..and leave it at that
You're living THE CONTRACT ON OZ.
You're living THE CONTRACT ON OZ.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Well, paying for the right to enslave is nothing new, Shannow. Been done before
.
.
.
You're living THE CONTRACT ON OZ.
LOL
Trying to privatise the power industry, while maintaining a promise to not sell the generators had them in a flap recently.
They were going to lease the generators, but sell the business. i.e. retain the material assets under a lease scheme, but sell the employees.
Failed.
So now the model is sell the retail business (profit), while retaining both the asset and the employees, allowing the profit arm to dictate staffing levels and maintenance spending/direction.
Well, paying for the right to enslave is nothing new, Shannow. Been done before
.
.
.
You're living THE CONTRACT ON OZ.
LOL
Trying to privatise the power industry, while maintaining a promise to not sell the generators had them in a flap recently.
They were going to lease the generators, but sell the business. i.e. retain the material assets under a lease scheme, but sell the employees.
Failed.
So now the model is sell the retail business (profit), while retaining both the asset and the employees, allowing the profit arm to dictate staffing levels and maintenance spending/direction.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
There's always an angle that screws someone at someone's benefit in either material gain or avoided losses.
Here they attempted what they called a Contract for America where they would send money to the states in what they called "block grants". That is, all the stuff the government was on the hook for now ..would be booted down to the state level. Now this was money that came from the states from income taxes to begin with. If they had pulled it off ..all they had to do is keep spending money and then they would reduce what they sent back to the states. You then get to blame the state government ..and the big boys would get to say "not my fault. complain to your state government if you think it's too expensive to live there ..or move."
They managed it anyway ..but it took a bit longer and required taking it out a whole new door.
Here they attempted what they called a Contract for America where they would send money to the states in what they called "block grants". That is, all the stuff the government was on the hook for now ..would be booted down to the state level. Now this was money that came from the states from income taxes to begin with. If they had pulled it off ..all they had to do is keep spending money and then they would reduce what they sent back to the states. You then get to blame the state government ..and the big boys would get to say "not my fault. complain to your state government if you think it's too expensive to live there ..or move."
They managed it anyway ..but it took a bit longer and required taking it out a whole new door.
If the money collected in gas tax is being used for other purposes, then you should hold accountable those responsible for spending it. As for taxing feet, I walk on the sidewalk, not the road, and that is paid for out of property taxes. It's very cheap, since feet don't do much damage to concrete.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
If the money collected in gas tax is being used for other purposes, then you should hold accountable those responsible for spending it.
Doing that is not in my field of expertise and it's hardly a practical suggestion.
Quote:
As for taxing feet, I walk on the sidewalk, not the road, and that is paid for out of property taxes. It's very cheap, since feet don't do much damage to concrete.
Now you are just being difficult by focusing on one thing while blatantly ignoring the premise.
PS: Since you are Canadian, don't you have some things to fix locally?
If the money collected in gas tax is being used for other purposes, then you should hold accountable those responsible for spending it.
Doing that is not in my field of expertise and it's hardly a practical suggestion.
Quote:
As for taxing feet, I walk on the sidewalk, not the road, and that is paid for out of property taxes. It's very cheap, since feet don't do much damage to concrete.
Now you are just being difficult by focusing on one thing while blatantly ignoring the premise.
PS: Since you are Canadian, don't you have some things to fix locally?
- Status
Similar threads
