Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
alarmclock
Participant[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]
Again, thanks for the input. A few things
1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.
2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.
Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.
3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.
I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.
Participant[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]
Again, thanks for the input. A few things
1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.
2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.
Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.
3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.
I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.
Participant[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]
Again, thanks for the input. A few things
1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.
2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.
Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.
3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.
I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.
Participant[img_assist|nid=6205|title=Income tax vs 2pct Wealth tax|desc=Income tax vs Wealth tax |link=node|align=left|width=466|height=258]
Again, thanks for the input. A few things
1) I wish I had not mentioned the oxygen tax, I essentially trolled my own post. It had nothing to do with the topic.
2) robson: “Taxing wealth discourages the incentive to save”.
Alarmclock: The only thing I would mention is that if you buy a refrigerator, you ‘credit’ your cash account and you debit your refrigerator account, so the balance sheet should remain the same — there’s no tax benefit to spending. Of course, this points to the infeasibility of calculating wealth, and it is unreasonable to expect all tax payers to depreciate assets.
3) If I can successfully post an image, then anyone in the “W” section would prefer a wealth tax; anyone in the “I” section would prefer an income tax.
I am done beating this horse. I honestly did not anticipate the uniformly negative responses but that is what makes the interweb great.
ParticipantThanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:
Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”
Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!
Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”
Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.
Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”
Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.
The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.
ParticipantThanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:
Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”
Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!
Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”
Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.
Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”
Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.
The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.
ParticipantThanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:
Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”
Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!
Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”
Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.
Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”
Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.
The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.
ParticipantThanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:
Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”
Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!
Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”
Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.
Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”
Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.
The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.
ParticipantThanks for the comments. I’d like to respond to a few things:
Surveyor: “Instead of daydreaming about changing the tax code to fit your personal situation, maybe you should think about studying the tax code”
Alarmclock: I agree that learning more about the tax code as it stands now is a great idea. I did say: “there is no political will to make such a change” — this is code for “Let’s everyone put on your imagination hats”. I’m just playing a game of “SimUS” (like SimCity)… and I reserve the right to daydream about whatever I like!
Aecetia: “your assumptions are incorrect!”
Alarmclock: I’ll take this as ‘your facts are incorrect’ — I believe you are referring to my claim, parpahrased as ‘the wealthiest 10% currently pay 70%…’ — I believe this is perfectly in line with the data you provide.
Aecetia: “get it right AC, we need less tax, not more.”
Alarmclock: I can’t argue that point. If it were up to me the bottom of the tax return would have 2 fields: Your Capital Expenses share and Operating Expenses share. You would be required pay your Federal CapEx share (as you do now)… but you could write *whatever* dollar amount you wanted for Operating Expenses. Keep in mind that the Federal operating expense budget is many, many times larger than the capital budget.
The point seems largely missed here is that I propose that taxing the “change in wealth” (the derivative of wealth with respect to time) is less fair than taxing the wealth itself. I would like to plot and upload an income/wealth graph divided into two regions: those that would see their tax bill increase, and those that would see it decrease. I feel confident that nearly everyone here would be on the ‘decrease’ side.
ParticipantMaybe you should consider mortage backed securities. These pay about 1-2% better than the best bank rates. They spread out the risk across multiple mortgages so you are safe — there’s basically no chance that mutiple mortgages will default everywhere. If you look historically, you can see that people would rather skip food and credit cards than fall behind on their mortgage. Lastly, you can balance your risk/return by getting the “tranche” that matches your investment goals, they go from AAA (basically good-as-gold) down to B grade.
ParticipantMaybe you should consider mortage backed securities. These pay about 1-2% better than the best bank rates. They spread out the risk across multiple mortgages so you are safe — there’s basically no chance that mutiple mortgages will default everywhere. If you look historically, you can see that people would rather skip food and credit cards than fall behind on their mortgage. Lastly, you can balance your risk/return by getting the “tranche” that matches your investment goals, they go from AAA (basically good-as-gold) down to B grade.
ParticipantMaybe you should consider mortage backed securities. These pay about 1-2% better than the best bank rates. They spread out the risk across multiple mortgages so you are safe — there’s basically no chance that mutiple mortgages will default everywhere. If you look historically, you can see that people would rather skip food and credit cards than fall behind on their mortgage. Lastly, you can balance your risk/return by getting the “tranche” that matches your investment goals, they go from AAA (basically good-as-gold) down to B grade.
ParticipantMaybe you should consider mortage backed securities. These pay about 1-2% better than the best bank rates. They spread out the risk across multiple mortgages so you are safe — there’s basically no chance that mutiple mortgages will default everywhere. If you look historically, you can see that people would rather skip food and credit cards than fall behind on their mortgage. Lastly, you can balance your risk/return by getting the “tranche” that matches your investment goals, they go from AAA (basically good-as-gold) down to B grade.
ParticipantMaybe you should consider mortage backed securities. These pay about 1-2% better than the best bank rates. They spread out the risk across multiple mortgages so you are safe — there’s basically no chance that mutiple mortgages will default everywhere. If you look historically, you can see that people would rather skip food and credit cards than fall behind on their mortgage. Lastly, you can balance your risk/return by getting the “tranche” that matches your investment goals, they go from AAA (basically good-as-gold) down to B grade.
-
AuthorPosts