root@trwatf.UUCP (06/12/85)
>> [Lord Frith] >> You're being taxed worse than a rich man. Under Reagan's proposal, the >> rich will make out like gangbusters. My qualm is that I see little >> reason to tax ANYONE at a different rate than anyone else... the >> so-called flat-rate taxation system. Since when is there a correlation >> between a person's income and the burden he places on state and >> federally funded works? If Raegan wanted a moral and just tax he would >> propose a flat-rate tax. > > What about the fact that there is a certain amount of money that every > person really needs? If it costs, lets say, $7,500 a year for a person to > subsist, does it make sense that a family of three, making 15,000 a year, > should pay the government out of their subsistance money, while the Yuppie > making $100,000 a year should only be paying taxes out of his cocaine money > instead??? No that doesn't make sense at all. Now I could be macheavellian and claim that these people actually don't deserve to survive because they don't work hard enough... their inability to make money a direct result of their lack of initiative and skill. Surplus wages - a direct result of harder work or work with more leverage - pays for sweet cocaine. I could argue this... but I'm not going to try because this really isn't talking about the real world. It talks about an abstract economy with little consideration to non-economic factors. It's a useful object lesson, though, because from this we learn that people don't eat if they don't work. Okay back to your point. I guess we could start the zero tax bracket at a number dependent upon the number of personal exemptions one has, and perhaps exemptions for the blind and elderly as we have now... although I think serious consideration should be given to the selection of these exemptions. Why the blind? Why the elderly? Why not some other group that needs the exemption as much? Notice that this system could be expanded into MANY catagories of people with varying needs. Problem with this is that there's no way for the federal government to track so much information. Abuses would be legion. Tracking how much you earn from your employer is far easier for the IRS. That's why they base their taxation on income. > The way that you're talking, it even seems that you'd prefer if people > were paying the same amount no matter what. That would be even more > ridiculous. Not at all ridiculous when you understand what taxation really is. You the taxpayer are employing the federal government to provide various services to the general whole of society. Why should a rich person give more when he consumes no more and no fewer services than a poor person? Fair is fair. It SOUNDS better and is emotionally more appealing to make the rich person pay more because, you say, he has more that he can spare. After all, how much money does he really need to survive? It doesn't take $100,000 to feed and clothe yourself. Yet, is it fair to take away what he has earned with his brain or his hands just because you say he doesn't need it to feed himself? No. He deserves as much as he has earned. The government deserves to take ONLY it's due, and no more, for the services it provides. > I think that if we tried this flat tax rate system, we would all be in deep > shit, when the poor people suddenly realize what's happening to them. That depends on how much they earn, what the tax rate is, and what the ZBA for his situation is. Would the poor be organized enough to attempt a violent insurrection? I wonder. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (06/14/85)
> While you are at it one could increase the tax rates on corportaions. >They pay too little as it is. They pollute the air, water, and ground. >They exploit labor. And they get a tax break too ? Of course they could >leave the U.S in protest but that could be stopped by passing laws that >makes it an act of treason if a corporation locates off shore to avoid >paying their fair share of taxes. Corportaions should be taxed at around >50% considering that our whole economic system is geared to there well >being and fiscal health. "There is no free lunch". If you believe that a corporate tax is a tax that you do not pay, you are, as the song goes, "chasing rainbows". Reguardless of the legislation enacted, you cannot get blood from a turnip, and you cannot get taxes from a mirage. The corporate tax is real; the notion that there is a corporate entity apart from people is an illusion. Corporations involve people; people build them, operate them, supply them, invest in them, work in them, and purchase their products and services. Raising corporate taxes makes Congress and the President look good, because it *appears* that they shifted the tax burden away from people. It makes the corporations look bad because the taxes must be paid through higher prices, lower wages, higher unemployment, and lower return on investment. Only people pay taxes, and that includes corporate taxes. David Olson "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/15/85)
> >> [Lord Frith] > >> You're being taxed worse than a rich man. Under Reagan's proposal, the > >> rich will make out like gangbusters. My qualm is that I see little > >> reason to tax ANYONE at a different rate than anyone else... the > >> so-called flat-rate taxation system. Since when is there a correlation > >> between a person's income and the burden he places on state and > >> federally funded works? If Raegan wanted a moral and just tax he would > >> propose a flat-rate tax. > > > No that doesn't make sense at all. Now I could be macheavellian and claim > that these people actually don't deserve to survive because they don't work > hard enough... their inability to make money a direct result of their lack > of initiative and skill. Surplus wages - a direct result of harder > work or work with more leverage - pays for sweet cocaine. > > I could argue this... but I'm not going to try because this really > isn't talking about the real world. It talks about an abstract economy > with little consideration to non-economic factors. It's a useful > object lesson, though, because from this we learn that people don't eat > if they don't work. > > Okay back to your point. I guess we could start the zero tax bracket > at a number dependent upon the number of personal exemptions one has, > and perhaps exemptions for the blind and elderly as we have now... > although I think serious consideration should be given to the selection > of these exemptions. Why the blind? Why the elderly? Why not some > other group that needs the exemption as much? > > Notice that this system could be expanded into MANY catagories of people > with varying needs. Problem with this is that there's no way for the > federal government to track so much information. Abuses would be legion. > Tracking how much you earn from your employer is far easier for the IRS. > That's why they base their taxation on income. > > > The way that you're talking, it even seems that you'd prefer if people > > were paying the same amount no matter what. That would be even more > > ridiculous. > > Not at all ridiculous when you understand what taxation really is. You > the taxpayer are employing the federal government to provide various services > to the general whole of society. Why should a rich person give more when he > consumes no more and no fewer services than a poor person? Fair is fair. > > It SOUNDS better and is emotionally more appealing to make the rich person > pay more because, you say, he has more that he can spare. After all, how > much money does he really need to survive? It doesn't take $100,000 to > feed and clothe yourself. Yet, is it fair to take away what he has > earned with his brain or his hands just because you say he doesn't need > it to feed himself? No. He deserves as much as he has earned. The > government deserves to take ONLY it's due, and no more, for the services > it provides. > > > I think that if we tried this flat tax rate system, we would all be in deep > > shit, when the poor people suddenly realize what's happening to them. > > That depends on how much they earn, what the tax rate is, and what the ZBA > for his situation is. Would the poor be organized enough to attempt a > violent insurrection? I wonder. > -- > > UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith > ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO > > "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous" Gee, I naively thought government exists to serve people, not the other way around. Thanks for straightening me out! ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (06/18/85)
> > While you are at it one could increase the tax rates on corportaions. > >They pay too little as it is. They pollute the air, water, and ground. > >They exploit labor. And they get a tax break too ? > > "There is no free lunch". ... > Reguardless of the legislation enacted, you cannot get blood > from a turnip, and you cannot get taxes from a mirage. The corporate > tax is real; the notion that there is a corporate entity apart from > people is an illusion. > Corporations involve people; people build them, operate them, > supply them, invest in them, work in them, and purchase their products > and services. > Raising corporate taxes makes Congress and the President look > good, because it *appears* that they shifted the tax burden away from > people. It makes the corporations look bad because the taxes must be > paid through higher prices, lower wages, higher unemployment, and lower > return on investment. > Only people pay taxes, and that includes corporate taxes. And that is the issue here. Shouldn't the people who profit from the corporation pay some extra tax for the priviledge of using common resources? If yes, the most effective way to administer the tax is to tax the corporation. Some of the tax may go into the cost of the product to the consumer, some into lower return on investment. In either case, those who benefit from the good produced pay for the social goods consumed by the corporation (air, water, police and fire protection, military protection, etc. ) What is wrong with a simple flat tax with one deduction. That deduction set at the average return for the prior year. If you are below average you pay no tax. Above average? Take your gross, subtract the average, pay a flat percent of what is left. Those who win at the economic game get to pay for it. Those who are loosing can at least watch the action for free. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) (06/18/85)
In article <136@SCINEWS.UUCP> todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >Gee, I naively thought government exists to serve people, not the other >way around. Thanks for straightening me out! You don't understand; It's much easier to "serve" people when you have the power to control their lives and can specify just what services they "really" need. :-) Mark Biggar {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/19/85)
In article <136@SCINEWS.UUCP> todd@SCINEWS.UUCP writes: > > Gee, I naively thought government exists to serve people, not the other > way around. Thanks for straightening me out! Hey no problem. By the way.... how many fingers am I holding up? ;-) Actually I don't really understand your complaint. I'm trying to get across the idea that government is payed exactly for the services it provides. That means if one person consumes an average of X dollars a year then each person should pay only X dollars a year in taxes for those services irregardless of his income. Sounds pretty much like government existing for the people to me. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"
ayers@convexs.UUCP (07/02/85)
/* ---------- "Re: Tax reform (another screwing, w" ---------- */ "There is no free lunch". If you believe that a corporate tax is a tax that you do not pay, you are, as the song goes, "chasing rainbows". /* End of text------------------------------------------------ */ FINALLY!!!!! Someone said it out loud: the emperor has no clothes on. The only thing you left out was that corporate profits work off a PERCENTAGE of the GROSS, which means higher prices to pay the tax, and therefore more actual dollar profit... think about it.... blues, II (on second thought, don't think about it -- you're depressed enough already...)