Tax discussion thread (U.S. focused)

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:
[...]
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.

(2)  I see.  I didn't realize that you were talking about your system and not the current one. 

(3)  I don't currently have any opposition in principle to an income tax + estate tax system.  When did I say that I thought the current system was ideal?  That's what we're arguing here, right, ideal systems? 

(4)  To be honest it's just an idea I threw out, I hadn't thought about it much.  But there are some people to whom the perpetuation of a certain intact estate is fairly vital.  Farms, for instance.  And for everyone, there are heirlooms and so on that may be quite valuable but it would be pretty awful for the government to take some away.  But the practical considerations limiting the collectibility of estate tax on small estates outlined above would IMO give plenty of protection against this and I am pretty sure that there are exemptions for farms and other similar considerations. 

(5)  (A) Maybe I'm using the wrong term again with hardship ...  but are you sure you're right?  What is your evidence?
(B) Anyway, whether that's right or wrong, that would still be a different sentiment than the one you previously characterized.  Are you backing down from that assertion?