Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
(1) Offhand, I'd say that harm would be the decrease in quality of living. I haven't given this deep thought, but that seems like a reasonable definition to me if we assume that basic needs are taken care of in any case.
(2) I don't have a formula for this. I'm not an economist. I guess I could make something up, but it would just be me throwing numbers together until it felt good.
(3) I realize that I'm kind of nebulous on this, but I think it would be a big mistake to say "I don't know what the ratio is so we'll just pretend there isn't any". Unless you're saying that you think I'm wrong that there IS any difference.
(4) The reason I don't favor that is that it would be disastrous for people with very little income who are living off their existing wealth, such as seniors. This is why I don't want to tax the wealth itself until the person dies. People with high incomes, on the other hand, are obviously able to compensate for the loss.
Plus I think that tax evasion would become a much bigger problem in a direct wealth-taxing system because the government would obviously have to go out and assess all of everyone's assets. It's bad enough with property taxes, and you can't hide a house or land like you can jewelry.
If it WAS practical, I would probably still favor a progressive wealth tax but not nearly as progressive as the income tax.
(5) I'm not sure what you're asking here. But the first amounts of income after paying for basic necessities improve the quality of life much more than an equal increase (even percentage increase) does for already very high income, unless I am GREATLY mistaken. Do you disagree with that statement?
(7) This is not a problem inherent to progressive taxation. I haven't studied that issue but I imagine arguments can be made on both sides. There are many special rates and exemptions, however, that should be removed from the tax code as it stands today. I think we can all agree on that.
(8) I can see the logic of your argument, but I don't think that it's plausible that government would react in the way you suggest. Anyway, wouldn't the government also want to improve the income level of lower classes as well? There are so many more people who make little money that cost-effective programs could cause the overall increase in tax receipts from them to outweigh the benefit of paying special attention to a small group of rich folks.
Anyway, are you really suggesting the government doesn't ALREADY do plenty of things that help the rich get richer? |
1) See "quality of living" is in of itself a tough thing to measure i'd say when your talking about a society where needs are met.
2&3) What i'm saying is... that unless someone actually comes up with a direct ration it's basically just something based on "thought" and even then i doubt any ratio would be possible to create. It's just a matter of opinion... not based by numbers. Basicly trying to prove god to an atheist.
4) That's why it doesn't make sense to use wealth as an indicator for this sort of thing however... which is my point. When you base off of wealth you are basically saying "Those who are good at saving are punished vs those who aren't.
In a wealth based system... my friend and I could make the same amount of money... and he would spend it all on beer. I would save my money. I would pay more taxes. I would be punished for this. Now this anyone would qualify as unfair.
Now, say I and my friend get paid the same amout of money. I save up my money, he spends it on beer... and I buy a property which I rent. Now I'm paying a higher percentage of my income because i was smart and I saved my money. Why isn't that unfair?
5) With all basic needs covered... people don't need to buy anything. The rich pay less compared to their wealth because food, shelter etc are needed purchases meaning that it's harder for the poor and middle class to save. If done correctly healthy food shelter etc could be provided by the government much cheaper via things like goverment restruants and foodbanks. (Big if i realize) meaning the poor have more money to spend... an no needs to spend it on. (Outside of transportation.) There will be nothing stopping those who want to save there money from saving it... unlike the problems currently that make this impossible.
7) How isn't it? How would you fix this in a progressive tax system? Two people could just decide to not get married and live together instead then they would reap all the benefits of a lower bracket. Tax it per household then people who room together because they're poor get blasted with higher taxes.
8) We currently have a progressive tax system... I think that is one reason Republicans and Democrats love to give gifts to big buisnesses. Not just the campaign financing. Because... tax raises get you out of office. While nobody notices the rich getting richer. (Or do and don't care as much.) |
(1) After a quick visit to Wikipedia I think it would be more accurate to say I meant "standard of living" or the physical half of quality of living. That is somewhat more measurable. Continued in (5).
(2&3) It may be opinion on what the ratio is exactly, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I am not knowledgeable enough to identify exactly what ratio to apply so that high-income individuals are not hurt more than low-income individuals, but I am nevertheless certain it is above "1:1 above bare survival level of income" If I could prove there was a god, but not if it was Jewish God or Christian God or Allah or Zeus or Odin, I would still know that there is a god.
(4) You make a good point. But I stand by my position that people with higher incomes are more able to pay a higher percentage with fewer ill effects.
I could make a few arguments to try to justify its "fairness". Your alcoholic friend is helping stimulate the economy by spending; when you buy property you are relying on more government services/protection than if you have none; etc. But to be honest, these are justifications. Life isn't fair. Most of the people who make less money than you probably aren't stupid or somehow lacking but just didn't get the breaks or opportunities you did. Most of the people making more money than you probably got a leg up for some reason. And besides, the people making less could use it more. (See (5).) And they WILL spend it, which helps the economy and the investors who are the great majority of high-wealth, high-income people.
But please remember that although the progressive income tax can accurately tax wealth in society on average, it doesn't ACTUALLY tax wealth.
By the way: in my state, schools get at least some of their money from special property taxes. I don't know if this is the norm throughout the U.S. People without kids aren't exempted. Unfair?
(5) OK, so basic necessities for survival are covered. That's a given. Now, which would you say is more valuable and helpful to a person: College education or a summer house? Which is more satisfying: a video game system or a second sailboat?
This is what I meant by "But the first amounts of income after paying for basic necessities improve the quality of life much more than an equal increase (even percentage increase) does for already high income". I asked you before if you would agree or disagree with this statement. It doesn't have to be a black or white answer, but please give one.
(7) Sorry -- I misread the original query. Why shouldn't they? If all they are is roommates, why shouldn't they be taxed like everyone else? If they're married, then there is a system in place to compensate for that. (And if the system is not sufficient, it could be made so. I'm not familiar with this.) If they WANT to get married but can't, that's not the fault of the tax.
(8) I just find it very implausible that moving AWAY from a progressive tax would result in LESS concentration of wealth. You have only given the conceptual argument in support of this thesis, which I find unconvincing. But I guess I didn't make too much sense in the bolded part, as it's correct that we do have the progressive tax you blame for the increasing concentration of wealth.
|
