wealth tax

[surveyor]

Alarmclock:

Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code and using it (as it is currently structured) to make you wealthy.

Lots of people want the tax code to change, but it simply isn’t going to happen (if it does change, I guarantee that you will find that it has become even worse). What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?

It isn’t brain surgery – lots of people have used the current system to get ahead and be wealthy and the first thing they did was to look at the advantages of the current situation instead of sitting around complaining that the current system is unfair or trying to find a way to shift the tax burden to someone else.

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[XBoxBoy]

This article is so full of faulty logic it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s just take the last paragraph. The author gives a rather strange analogy of oxygen consumption to try and prove that the more you use, the more you pay is not a fair tax.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we tax oxygen consumption. Quite the opposite, mostly we tax people’s consumption based on the negative impact of that consumption to the rest of society. (Breathing is not generally thought of as a negative to others) Thus the most expensive things to consume are probably cigarettes and alcohol. Followed by gasoline. Currently under most consumption taxes (ie sales tax) we do not tax basic things, like food, medicine or rent. (ok, rent is open to debate but let’s not nitpick on that.) Likewise, if we legalized recreational drugs, or prostitution you can bet that the government would put heavy taxation on these activities.

As to the question of “fair”, let me point out that fair is a relative concept. This article has as it’s underlying premise, that those with more money should pay the bulk of the taxes? Why is that fair? If you’re poor, you would probably say, yes that’s fair. But if you worked hard and saved you might have a different opinion.

Let me offer the suggestion that taxes shouldn’t be about sticking it to the rich, that instead they should be about discouraging behavior that is harmful to others (causes negative externalities in eco-jargon) and rewarding behavior that is good for society.

With that in mind, if you want to increase taxes, why not tax pollution? If you or your company pollutes, you harm others, so maybe you should pay lots of taxes. I would wager that strong taxes on pollution would do more to improve our environment than any government mandated standard.

On the flip side, when someone earns money from working, don’t we want to encourage that behavior? If so, why would we tax people for working? Worse, the wealth tax outlined in this article would be a tax on those that save. In case you haven’t been paying attention, one of the big problems we face in the USA today is that people consume too much and save too little. Why would you want a tax that encourages more consumption and less saving?

The bottom line to this is to question the role that you want taxes to have in our society. Once you decide that, you can evaluate proposals much more effectively. However, if you don’t look at what you hope to accomplish by taxation, if instead you just want to collect as much of other peoples money as possible, then yeah, a wealth tax makes sense. (Which reminds me of Willie Sutton who was asked why he robbed banks to which he replied, “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Likewise most politicians tax the wealthy, not because it’s fair, but because that’s where the money is.)

Just my two cents,

XBox

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Raybyrnes]

“What most people don’t realize though is that EVERYONE has the capacity to minimize their taxes using the current tax code. It does take a little work, it does take a little study, but isn’t that the exact way to get wealthy?”

Once again surveyor, Right on the money with your comment. Problem with taxes isn’t the codes, it is the fact that it requires mental effort to figure it out. It also requires a little creativity to figure out how to minimise the tax burden.

The ealthy are able to manipulate the system becasue they can afford to pay a specialist to figure this out for them. The specialist does well because once he figures out all the loopholes he simply needs to reapply them to whoever is going to pay his fee.

For the rest of us it requires that we due a lot of leg work early on in the process and then it also requires that we stay abreast of the changes.

I sort of wonder why people will spend a ton of time searching the interenet for a good price on a car yet spend little time learning about taxes. Let’s see, I will buy a car maybe 1 in every 5 years and it represent maybe 5% of my income yet I do not want to learn anbout taxes that hit every year to the tune of 30% or more.

I can’t figure that out.

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Aecetia]

Alarmclock- your assumptions are incorrect! According to the Wall Street Journal: “In 1980, when the top tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate if 35%, they pay more…” closer to double the 1980 amount. 86% of all Federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners; the top 50% pay 97% of all income tax; the top 1% pay 39% up 2% from 2000 when Presidente Boosh took office.

Get it right AC, we need less tax, not more. If the poor would stop smoking and ride the bus, they would probably not be contributing to taxes at all!

[Author]

Posts