Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Such problems already have manifested.
Such as Property tax. Which is a wealth tax.
You support Estate taxes. Isn't that a wealth tax?
Even sales taxes, sin taxes and luxuary taxes are quasi-wealth taxes. |
The property tax is a wealth tax, yes. Sales taxes (including "sin" and "luxury" taxes) are not actually wealth taxes because you can't be taxed just for HAVING cigarettes, you are taxed when you BUY them. [edit2: I think I see what you mean: the sales tax is a wealth tax because it taxes you turning your money into goods or services. Still, sales taxes are no more "quasi-wealth" taxes than income taxes are, just in an opposite way. So I guess your point is that EVERY tax is really a wealth tax?]
Also, [edit2: please note] that property taxes and sales taxes are not relevant to the specific topic of progressive vs. flat income tax. [edit2: Sorry for forgetting what your post was in response to.] If you want to talk about that also then fine, but let's keep the discussions distinct. (I would be interested in how you believe the property tax is an ideological consequence of the progressive income tax. Especially since property taxes predate the income tax by FAR.)
[edit2: I don't think that you actually answered my question of why you would rhetorically ask "what's next" in reference to the consequences of a century-old taxation scheme, but I also think that it really ought to be dropped unless there's something really remarkable that you fear will yet come to pass as a result of it.]
And I thought that I had made VERY clear, REPEATEDLY, my reasoning for why I don't support a wealth-based tax system and why the estate tax does not present the same problems. Including in the very post you're responding to!
[edit: I may, however, have mischaracterized the estate tax as a direct wealth tax when it's apparently instead an indirect one based on taxing the transfer of wealth upon the person's death (to its heirs). The distinction may be a fine one, but there you go. Source]
|
[...]
Even as an indirect wealth tax it is still a wealth tax... it doesn't apply to everyone and that's a bit confusing since the reason the poor are usually exempt from paying taxes are moot. (The person is dead, therefore has zero cost of living.)
Just an indirect one... and yeah, basically I meant that sales taxes and in general things sales taxes are wealth taxes because they do target the wealthy more since sales taxes do not apply to everything. (Though with the current system as it is, that isn't a problem.)
Also i would argue such taxes are relevent since I would think that all taxes should be through a straight income tax.
More and more it seems the support for wealth taxes grow. We haven't had any yet. But progressive taxes and wealth taxes both set out to do the same thing. Take money from the rich because people believe the rich have too much money. |
(1) It's true that the estate tax is specifically aimed at relatively wealthy estates. Partly this can be viewed as a check on entrenched plutocracy. Another way to view it is as simple practicality: wealth taxes are difficult to assess (easier to hide) and it's just not worth it for small estates.
(2) While it's true that many "basic needs" items are sales-tax-exempt, it's also true that poorer people spend much higher proportions on their income on consumption. What is your evidence that sales taxes fall more heavily on the wealthy?
(3) But they're NOT relevant to the specific discussion of "progressive vs. flat income tax" unless you want to account for the effects of those other tax burdens on people when deciding. If we are discussing the income tax as the ONLY tax which would be imposed, then those other taxes are totally irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said in the quoted text. You can start a new discussion about that, but I consider our plate relatively full already.
(4) I'm not convinced this is true, as I said in my other post. Anyway, your flat tax idea would exempt the "basic needs" income (or have the gov't provide those basic needs); isn't is reasonable to suppose that there is a basic estate that a family needs to retain through generations? (Aside from the practical considerations outlined in (1).)
Anyway, why do you think people have that motivation instead of that the rich can simply afford to pay more without equivalent hardship? You may disagree with that opinion, but it's hardly the "crabs in a bucket pulling each other down" image that you evoke.
|
1) No real comment here.
2) Currently yes. Under a new system where basic needs are taken care of though... this shouldn't really be so. Unless people are spending irresponsibly.
3) Except you don't support sole income tax. So it really seems like an arguement of "Flat tax vs Progressive tax + other taxes. In your perferred system it seems these taxes would stay.
4) Define basic estate.
People work harder to not work hard. "Hardship" is really an abstract concept... and really doesn't come in to pay much after you account for needs. One of the largest causes of hardship is not being able to afford needs. Once this is taken care of... there ins't that much difference in the well being between a rich person and a poor person. The rich person is actually under more mental stress and duress... when you remove the "not sure if i can pay my bills effect." (Aside from those who don't do shit and burn through there money anyway.)
In such a case.... once again it's the middle class person who wins out in this.
