Tax discussion thread (U.S. focused)

[Kasz216]

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
[...]
I still don't think that what I MEANT to say the study would be about would assume a conclusion, but I concede that what I DID say had that fallacy.

Moving on: Are you truly suggesting that a person would have to have more income than he and all his heirs, for all time, could ever want to spend before he had "more than enough"?

AND that even past that point, there is no moral incentive to remove that excess (by every definition) money to give it to those less fortunate? (That, in fact, it is fundamentally wrong to take it away!)

P.S.  You didn't tell me what was wrong with my reasoning (in the last pre-postscript paragraph).

P.P.S.  I'm curious what you were going to say in (C) after it was cut off.

By your apparent expanded definition of "Practical use" it would.

Aside from that it  is indeed immoral to take from one unwillingly to give to another simply on the basis of the second having less when there is no threat to a persons well being.

The whole problem is you keep trying to expand these terms well past what they actually mean... to seemingly include luxuary items and frivelous things.

If this isn't your intent why wouldn't a flat tax with tax deductions for things that actually increase someones quality of life be better?

(1)  I presume you mean it "would... assume the conclusion"?  If so, how?  If not, what did you mean by this? 

(2)  If luxury items shouldn't be counted then wouldn't that make more income even LESS beneficial than what I suggest? 

(3)  Are you, then, an advocate of the dog in the manger?  Keep in mind that the money to be taken (or not) is specifically completely useless to the current owner.  But please also answer the first half of the question. 

(4)  (The postscript)  You still didn't tell me.

(5)  (The post-postscript)  I guess this one isn't a big deal. 

P.S.  I have to go do yard work now so go ahead and take your time.  I look forward to your full responses.

1) I mean, you are stretching the terms of practical use to include things that aren't practical use.  As such second generation practical use (and beyond) are actually more practical.

2) Less beneficial?  No it would make the cutoff extremely low though.  Which is the point.  In the tax system we are discussing most stuff that actually counts as "practical use" is provided.  Which instead of having  a progressive tax system it seems to make more sense to give tax credits for "pratical use" items.  This is more effective as it prevents abuse.  (People instead of buying a car spending their money on non practical use items like any rich person would.)

3)  In your opinion it is compeltely useless to the current owner.  The current owner may have a different opinion however.  After all why would he keep money around that is completly useless to him?   Look at Bill Gates for example.  Super wealthy... is his money really useless to him?  He gives a lot to charities... has his own charity fund.  Isn't this usefull to him?  That he can direct his money to the charities which he thinks are most important and most vital?  Even if someone dies rich... and leaves his money to his family.  Is that really a useless act?

The Dog in the Manger refrence is completly irrelvant as the entire point is the cattle starve and the dog staves.  In this case we've already established nobody would starve.  Furthermore.  Such a thing would seem to once again not even be related to income... but wealth.

4) If you mean by "what's next" I would say that more and more people have grown more happy with the idea of inacting wealth taxes.  If you look at other nations wealth taxes have been reapplied as they go more and more socialist.  (Reapplied since wealth taxes are an older inferior system of taxation.)