Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt the Lower Class ?

Post Reply New Topic

Isn't this statement:

Contradicting this statement:



?

In other words, it only makes sense if you ignore the bolded portion. But isn't the bolded statement relevant, and any attempt to ignore it is a denial of reality?

haha lol

Not in the least.

If I buy a share of ABC Corp for $100, hold it for two years and receive no dividends; and then sell it in two years for $110, I have made a $10 capital gain.

The company and I have never had any business transaction--I have bought my share on the market from another shareholder (or in the case of an IPO from the bank underwriting the share offer)--and I have sold it to another buyer on the market. Now that's not so say that the company is not responsible for my gain--after all, it is the company's reputation that means that a buyer is willing to pay me $10 more for my share than I paid for it--but that gain is still coming out of the pocket of the buyer, not the company. The company has never put one penny of its accumulated earnings into my pocket.

Ok. I see what you're getting at.

Then a lot of people would be receiving unemployment payments.

Define "a net gain for society," in public sector decision making terms.

It's very easy to put a price tag on the cost of public sector spending programs, but how do you quantify their value? One of the reasons that government takes on some tasks that are inappropriate for the private sector is that there is no meaningful way to quantify their value, and hence it is in no one's direct commercial interest to do these things.

Primary and secondary education free at the point of delivery is clearly beneficial to society. But what is it worth? How can we decide if we are getting "value for money" on the services that government is providing? Policing and military defence are beneficial to society--but how do you put a value on these things? Until you can start to look at the public sector through a set of analytical lenses that are appropriate to the task, your rehetoric is a bit empty.

Now, i don't disagree that government bloats. It is in the nature of the beast that when politicians ask us to do something new, the first question is, "how many people do we need to do it?" But that's why politicians are equipped with the pointy scissors. My own department is obliged to shed 10% of its workforce this fiscal--my own job was one of those potentially on the block. Once these people are out the door, we will have to realign our business priorities. There may come a point where we are obliged to say to the Minister, "I'm sorry, but we do not have the resources to deliver this to you," and the Minister will have to make the decision about what priorities he wants his department to meet first.

No. The historical record proves it.

Proves what? Try using the quote function.

ruveyn

Actually, when people talk about a flat tax plan, reducing, and/or eliminating deductions, credits, and exemptions, are a big part of it. In that instance, I was referring mostly to the deductions, credits, and exemptions part of it. Flat tax plans combine fairness and simplicity. With this plan, the intention is to reduce the overall tax rate, which would make it easier for lower income people to pay. Also, with a simpler tax code, efficiencies should increase, which would mean less time and money is wasted.

Also, having everybody paying the same percent isn't the same as paying the same exact amount.

Example at a 10% flat rate:

Person A makes $20,000 per year - they would pay $2,000
Person B makes $200,000 per year - they would pay $20,000
person C makes $2,000,000 per year - they would pay $200,000

A simplified example of our current tax code:

Person A makes $20,000 per year in a 15% tax bracket - they are paying around $2,565 (around 13%)
Person B makes $200,000 per year in a 33% tax bracket - they are paying around $50,528 (around 25%)
person C makes $2,000,000 per year in a 35% tax bracket - they are paying around $676,761 (around 34%)

Our current code is basically equal to tax rate of around 24% (on the people that pay), but that doesn't really include most of the deductions, credits, and exemptions. If we were to spread that out over a larger tax base, streamline the code and increase efficiencies, this number could probably be dropped to around 10-15%.

The flat tax plan is pretty fair, but is it beneficial for lower income people? Not really in the short term, but in the long term, it should be, but I guess it would have to be tested in the real world to determine that. Tax rates aside, the biggest problem I see with the tax code is the deductions, exemptions, and credits part of it. Not only does it cause the rates to increase (to pay for them), but it also wastes a lot of time and money.

Also, considering the top 20% holds 85% of the wealth in this country, this is definitely a problem that needs dealt with, but I don't think it's necessarily a tax collection problem.

you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. the poor already are socked by plenty of state and local taxes which take up a greater portion of their income, than that of the higher classes.

Money is power. Power is a zero-sum game. Some say no harm is done when the upper classes say double their wealth and income whilst everyone else's remain the same. Actually, very serious harm is done. They double their power and that power is taken, stolen if you will, from everyone else who are effectively eventually disenfranchised.

riffing on lord acton, i say that money is power, that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It seems we are told that it's an absolute right to become a Bond villain! So much wealth and power that one can bribe governments to turn a blind eye as one builds a private army, builds a death ray to blackmail the world... to not let that happen is to punish success, is to stifle innovation, to destroy the incentive to work and to save!

Where the hell is the 'like' button?

On that note, the tax system desperately needs to be changed to support savings, investment and production.

We need to make savings non-taxable, instead of punishing it. There's really not a very good incentive to save when tax rates are so much higher than interest rates?

all the more reason for keeping the government as unpowerful as possible consistent with peace and order within the domain.

ruveyn

no its only an argument for a balance between the two, no private nor public ideology is good on its own and maintaining that fallacy doesnt really help anyone.