Is it feasible to switch from an income-based tax system to a wealth-based tax system

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Japher

Don't go to school, work digging a ditch for lesser pay - works and is fair, IMO

You haven't explained to me why this should be so. I know that within the current system you have to encourage people to go to college, but that doesn't make it fair.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
while i agree that a nurse or a ditch digger are doing very difficult jobs - anyone can do that with little training.

people who invest their lives and intellect into society should rightly so get more.
.

Huh what kind of nurses do you have ?? Not the 4 year degree kind that we have, I presume.


**Notation of personal bias on this issue-- Mrs. Flubber is a nurse in a Cardiac Intensive Care Unit -- if you don't think that she is a highly trained professional, well you have no idea what a nurse does

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DuncanK


You haven't explained to me why this should be so. I know that within the current system you have to encourage people to go to college, but that doesn't make it fair.

Fair is what the market says it is. Since a mechanized digger can probably do what a 100 ditchdiggers could do with a shovel, the wage of the shovel wielder is pretty low. In fact even minimum wage is probably too much to make it economic to have 100 guys with shovels rather than the tractor

But moving it into an area without an obvious mechanical replacement . . . Fast food workers have a job where they work incredibly hard for low pay. But the market is fair here. Don't do this job if you do not want to. You don't just wail that your chosen job does not pay enough, you make your own decision about what job is worthwhile for you.

The fact that fast food pays low has created a situation where a lot of students work in the industry and get their first real life experience in the workforce

[Japher]

You haven't explained to me why this should be so. I know that within the current system you have to encourage people to go to college, but that doesn't make it fair.

I really want to address this issue, and began to write a response, realized it was too big, moved it to Word to work on it, realized it would be a book. A book in which I would have to teach economics and the values and termoils that come with life.

No, it is not fair that some people end up digging ditches for their whole lives, but it in one way or another it was that persons choice. Their choice alone. I also pointed out that there are those who do not go to school who become more successful than anyone who does, and they can't hit the awesome J. So if someone does not go to school and ends up digging ditches it is fair, because it is what they chose.

Within the current system they do encourage people to go to school because schools breed what is commonly refered to as "skilled-labor". Notice that labor is still in their. Yet, IMO, going to school can hinder you if you don't chose to learn the right things. What are those right things???? I have no idea, but I know the things I did learn in school weren't them.

The current system also bases all monetary units on the production of a nation. Unfortuatly, ditch diggers are at the bottom (or near bottom) of that production value. While they do the actual digging of the ditch, they were told were to dig, and that person was told were to dig, and the person before that was told why to dig it their, and the person before that put up the money to dig the ditch. Anyone can dig a ditch (almost anyone), fewer people can manage people who know how to dig a ditch, even fewer people then that can translate the digging of the ditch for the managers, even fewer can plan the design of the ditch, and an even fewer can afford the digging of the ditch.

Yet, it is all these people that determine the value of a nation. Without the person who puts the money up to have the ditched digged, there wouldn't be a person to design, translate, manage, or even dig. If that person didn't exist then there would be a decrease in production value. Thus, it is not only a reasonable deduction, but a factual calculation, that the production unit values of those involved in the digging of a ditch are ranked in decreasing value as money holder, desinger, translater, manager, digger. The digger gets paid less because they are at the bottom of the production unit value chain. If there were no people who could dig ditchs then there rank would definitly change, yet anyone can dig a ditch.

A digger could eventually rise to manager or even a translater through on the job training (so that they can still get use out of them for digging) and through on the side training. Yet, to reach the desinger level and in some cases the translater they must get educated, and that is what happens most easily at school. I am not saying that they could not learn this in the field, yet to be recognized by those above them it would greatly help. Why? Because none of these positions would exist unless there was someone putting up the money, and that person is going to go with someone they know can get the ditched digged, not just some dingleberry who says they can do it.

Question: How do you become the guy with the money?

I don't know, but I know this much, you can start as a digger or anywhere in between.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ozz

Silly Cranklyhead

You said it, the employer pays SO low he can't complete with welfare. I don't feel sorry for him at all, bastard.

just saw this one

The employer was an economic development association that needed someone to run around in the office, photocopy stuff, answer the phone etc . It paid around 30,000 which was as good as what several hundred workers could make if they worked year round at the fish plant. But the plant had not been open year round since it was built.

But the workers could earn their wages at the plant for 14 weeks and then go on unemployment at 55% of gross pay-- which after taxes is something like 65%-75% of net. So the choice was work at full pay or not work at 2/3 pay. Not working also meant you could cut and sell firewood for extra cash, or hunt/act as a guide etc etc. All these activities brought in a little extra cash.

So thats the bastard employer

Originally posted by Ozz


No, your tax dollars went to feed the greedy.

Welfare/UIC fraud is a minor economic problem compared with the Federal government's corruption and
mismangement.

Well either is a waste so I would prefer my rates were lower

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Flubber
Fair is what the market says it is.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Japher


I really want to address this issue, and began to write a response, realized it was too big, moved it to Word to work on it, realized it would be a book. A book in which I would have to teach economics and the values and termoils that come with life.

No, it is not fair that some people end up digging ditches for their whole lives, but it in one way or another it was that persons choice. Their choice alone. I also pointed out that there are those who do not go to school who become more successful than anyone who does, and they can't hit the awesome J. So if someone does not go to school and ends up digging ditches it is fair, because it is what they chose.

Within the current system they do encourage people to go to school because schools breed what is commonly refered to as "skilled-labor". Notice that labor is still in their. Yet, IMO, going to school can hinder you if you don't chose to learn the right things. What are those right things???? I have no idea, but I know the things I did learn in school weren't them.

The current system also bases all monetary units on the production of a nation. Unfortuatly, ditch diggers are at the bottom (or near bottom) of that production value. While they do the actual digging of the ditch, they were told were to dig, and that person was told were to dig, and the person before that was told why to dig it their, and the person before that put up the money to dig the ditch. Anyone can dig a ditch (almost anyone), fewer people can manage people who know how to dig a ditch, even fewer people then that can translate the digging of the ditch for the managers, even fewer can plan the design of the ditch, and an even fewer can afford the digging of the ditch.

Yet, it is all these people that determine the value of a nation. Without the person who puts the money up to have the ditched digged, there wouldn't be a person to design, translate, manage, or even dig. If that person didn't exist then there would be a decrease in production value. Thus, it is not only a reasonable deduction, but a factual calculation, that the production unit values of those involved in the digging of a ditch are ranked in decreasing value as money holder, desinger, translater, manager, digger. The digger gets paid less because they are at the bottom of the production unit value chain. If there were no people who could dig ditchs then there rank would definitly change, yet anyone can dig a ditch.

A digger could eventually rise to manager or even a translater through on the job training (so that they can still get use out of them for digging) and through on the side training. Yet, to reach the desinger level and in some cases the translater they must get educated, and that is what happens most easily at school. I am not saying that they could not learn this in the field, yet to be recognized by those above them it would greatly help. Why? Because none of these positions would exist unless there was someone putting up the money, and that person is going to go with someone they know can get the ditched digged, not just some dingleberry who says they can do it.

Question: How do you become the guy with the money?

I don't know, but I know this much, you can start as a digger or anywhere in between.

I hope you didn't spend too much time on this. I'm just not seeing how any of this is fair.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Flubber
Huh what kind of nurses do you have ?? Not the 4 year degree kind that we have, I presume.

We have nurses with 4 year degrees too, but they don't do that kind of work. The nurses with 2 year degrees do that, I think.

[Japher]

I hope you didn't spend too much time on this. I'm just not seeing how any of this is fair

Really? I did spend some time on that, and if you are so ignorant as not to see that life is not fair, that it is based on your worth to society and not on how loud you whine then I am not going to waste any more time with your sniffling.

[Capt Dizle]

The problem is not taxes. The problem is wages.

We are in a period where technology replaces labor and more and more people are being employed in the services industry. Cheap labor is spilling over the border on the one hand and manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas hand over fist.

Unless the 50% of Americans who do not vote decide to get involved in politics the gap between the rich and poor will only grow exponitially over the next 20 years.

We are already imprisioning a huge proportion of our people.

People say that our standard of living is getting better. Well, that is because of technology. In terms of real wages things are getting worse and will continue to worsen as long as the rule of law is in the hands of corporations and not the common man.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
We are in a period where technology replaces labor

This period is called capitalism. Technology has always been used to replace labor, esp. skilled labor.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Japher


Really? I did spend some time on that, and if you are so ignorant as not to see that life is not fair, that it is based on your worth to society and not on how loud you whine then I am not going to waste any more time with your sniffling.

Your worth is not determined by your wealth, income or status. Most people are worth about the same. Some people aren't worth squat. People who do low paying jobs are very usefull to our economy.

[TCO]

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This period is called capitalism. Technology has always been used to replace labor, esp. skilled labor.

And I would say that while the productivity of labor has increased greately with capitalism, real wages have increased little thoughout the era, and have decreased since the 70s in this country.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DuncanK


People are paid what they are worth with a capitalist society?! A ditch digger should be the richest man then. Well, maybe those nurses who have to help you with your bowel movement

The rich are always going to get out of their taxes even if we were to tax them more. There is no way to make it fair.

And this differs from other economic systems how? Communists who were powerful managed to game their own system to acquire a modicum of wealth and privilege which they were even allowed to pass on to their children. The problem is a much more general one, namely corruption. Your choice amongst economic system sis to be in a poor corrupt system or a rich one.

I favor sales taxes. To keep these from becoming regressive simply exempt food, rent, medicine, education etc. from the tax. It's simple, much more cost effective than having every person in the U.S. (almost) fill out a tax return, which costs many billions of dollars in wasted hours, labor and taxes. Plus it gives people back some of their privacy.

[Lancer]

I agree with that earlier poster!

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The problem is not taxes. The problem is wages.


People say that our standard of living is getting better. Well, that is because of technology. In terms of real wages things are getting worse and will continue to worsen as long as the rule of law is in the hands of corporations and not the common man.

Sorry jimmytrick, I missed this when I restated your point about realwages.

The thing about out standard of living is how can it be better when real wages are decreasing? The answer is the disparity of income.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Your worth is not determined by your wealth, income or status. Most people are worth about the same. Some people aren't worth squat. People who do low paying jobs are very usefull to our economy.

The inherent "worth " of a human being is very different that the economic value we place on their labours. The same person can earn twice as much for Job A as job B. The worth of the person did not double just their pay.

Sure low paid jobs are useful to the economy, that does not mean that a burger flipper should earn what a school teacher does. THis is no value judgement on the worth of people, merely an observation of the economic value of two tasks based on responsibility, training and skill whic is reflected in the market rates for the two tasks

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This period is called capitalism. Technology has always been used to replace labor, esp. skilled labor.

No, that is not true. Why don't you stick to the facts.

Capitalism is not evil. People are. Communism is not evil. People are. Socialism is not evil. People are.

Capitalism will always produce the most wealth, we just need a mechanism to cap the greed and force more of the fruit of our labor into our pockets and less into the capitalist vault.

Now the capitalist says that he is responsible for the creation of wealth because he is the one who ventures capital. Therefore he should reap the profits. And everyone else should be thankful that he has provided jobs.

But the creation of wealth is equally the result of the labor of the workers. Our political system has evolved to serve the interest of the capitalists. The system strives to a)stimulate people to the level of education corporations need, b)provide the illusion of self governance, c)provide stability i.e. plenty of prisions, d) provide levels of income just above the threshold needed to provoke unrest, e)provide a safety net for those who can't provide for themselves, f)allow for orderly immigration needed to inflate the labor supply to ensure that wages remain depressed.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Sikander
I favor sales taxes. To keep these from becoming regressive simply exempt food, rent, medicine, education etc. from the tax. It's simple, much more cost effective than having every person in the U.S. (almost) fill out a tax return, which costs many billions of dollars in wasted hours, labor and taxes. Plus it gives people back some of their privacy.

A sales tax will certainly increase speculative wealth. It will, however, decrease consumption and therefore investment.

Consumption is tied to investment. Consumption determines the return to investment. By taxing consumption you encourage speculative wealth which is a drain on the economy.

[Ramo]

Bah, the welfare state keeps the workers dependent upon the state and the owners. The real solution is for the workers to take control of their businesses.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Flubber


The inherent "worth " of a human being is very different that the economic value we place on their labours. The same person can earn twice as much for Job A as job B. The worth of the person did not double just their pay.

Sure low paid jobs are useful to the economy, that does not mean that a burger flipper should earn what a school teacher does. THis is no value judgement on the worth of people, merely an observation of the economic value of two tasks based on responsibility, training and skill whic is reflected in the market rates for the two tasks

How is the economic value different? Work is basically work. Some do work harder, but work is basically work. How should a school teacher get payed more. People need hamburgers just as bad as they need education, not that need is all that matters. The point is that both are serving society and should be compensated equally for it. I'm not saying that the school teacher should not be compensated for the expense of his education.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DuncanK


How is the economic value different? Work is basically work. Some do work harder, but work is basically work. How should a school teacher get payed more. People need hamburgers just as bad as they need education, not that need is all that matters. The point is that both are serving society and should be compensated equally for it. I'm not saying that the school teacher should not be compensated for the expense of his education.

Hmm so should ALL jobs be compensated equally, regardless of skill, education, effort, danger, responsibility, scarcity of supply or demand??

wow

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Flubber



Hmm so should ALL jobs be compensated equally, regardless of skill, education, effort, danger, responsibility, scarcity of supply or demand??

wow

people should recieve free training and education, but should then be paid the same as everyone else. Perhaps people should be paid more for more dangerous or undesirable jobs.

Scarcity..... Why?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DuncanK


A sales tax will certainly increase speculative wealth. It will, however, decrease consumption and therefore investment.

Consumption is tied to investment. Consumption determines the return to investment. By taxing consumption you encourage speculative wealth which is a drain on the economy.

I fail to see why this would concern you in the least since it seems as though your answer to things is to flush the economy down the toilet wholesale.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DuncanK

I'm not saying that the school teacher should not be compensated for the expense of his education.

Hmmm well you have the expense of 4-7 years of schooling and then of course the opportunity cost of the foregone wages for those 4-7 years. So you could lump sum them this amount or hey -- offer a higher wage


The fallacy of you idea is obvious

-- No financial incentive to progress or get promoted.
-- Many industries with lower margins die out as they cannot afford the higher wages
-- NO low paid jobs largely held by students (good starter jobs)
-- NO starter jobs at all since people could sit in the same job forever
-- Everyone with talent and drive would flee to somewhere else that rewards effort and initiative

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you have a very large poor population, they will incite a revolution, and then your precious property will go up in flames, or get stolen and the poor people will install a rule of the proletariat, and then the old rich will lose everything.

Or, conversely, you will have an all powerful police state that oppresses the people and keeps them in their place. The only reason Russia slowly collapsed is because Stalinism was repudiated. Heavy handed regimes hardly ever fall over from inside. It is only when they show signs of weakness do the revolts begin.

Wealth doesn't drive the economy. Income drives the economy.

Investment is an important element in driving the economy. It is one of the 4 major components in the GDP. Saving, and investing that saving, improves the economy by promoting technological improvement.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Sikander


I fail to see why this would concern you in the least since it seems as though your answer to things is to flush the economy down the toilet wholesale.

True, but let's just say it does concern me. Everyone should know about economics. Even Communists.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Wealth doesn't drive the economy. Income drives the economy.

Investment is an important element in driving the economy. It is one of the 4 major components in the GDP. Saving, and investing that saving, improves the economy by promoting technological improvement.

We're talking about savings that isn't invested but is used for speculation.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Flubber
The fallacy of you idea is obvious

-- No financial incentive to progress or get promoted.
-- Many industries with lower margins die out as they cannot afford the higher wages
-- NO low paid jobs largely held by students (good starter jobs)
-- NO starter jobs at all since people could sit in the same job forever
-- Everyone with talent and drive would flee to somewhere else that rewards effort and initiative

I was just pointing out the unfairness of the distribution of income in our capitalist system. Of course, a system not so infavor of people with wealth, and with more planning would not have the problems that you state here.