Tax the rich!!! pt. 2

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious

This is the problem. The information goes in, but is filtered through your bias lens and comes out the way you want it to. You need to check your bias. Then you can understand what I'm saying.

Oh, I see. You didn't making sweeping generalizations about rich people, my bad. Because of my bias, I just misinterpreted what you were REALLY saying. Uh-huh.

Look, what you are saying now is not quite the same as what you were saying back then. Perhaps due to several of us pouncing on your "rich people are lazy exploiters" position, you moderated to "some rich people are lazy exploiters." I agree with the second position. Hence, we no longer really disagree. Our differences are over what you said in the past - the things I was recalling when I made my observation about you in the first "Tax the Rich" thread.

So, I think we've had this out. I'm outta here.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

There's nothing wrong with being biased against rich people.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Perhaps due to several of us pouncing on your "rich people are lazy exploiters" position, you moderated to "some rich people are lazy exploiters."

I never called anyone a 'lazy exploiter.' That is your term.


btw

One entry found for classism.


Main Entry: class·ism
Pronunciation: 'kla-"si-z&m
Function: noun
: prejudice or discrimination based on class
- class·ist /'kla-sist/ adjective

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


He's a Kerry Republican. Translation: flip flopper, and his flip flopping is dependent on his financial status.

Actually, I'm a McCain Democrat. It usually takes a commie or a Barbara Boxer (but I repeat myself) to make me vote Republican on anything.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
It is my understanding that MtG is the conservative Democrat type.

Actually, I think it's more likely that he's supportive of the Dems now because of the insanity/stupidity/etc of Dubya than because of his current financial status.

-Arrian

I want cheap oil and gas.

Actually, Dubya's stupidity and insanity has a lot of direct impact on my current financial status, since I have clients who live and die on NYMEX oil and gas futures.

[Geronimo]

Ok, there are a number of ways a tax can be a bad thing.

1.It can be bad because it is unethical. (I believe this applies to a greater or lesser degree to all taxes)

2. It can be bad because it's bad for society, that is to say it makes the economy less effective at providing greatest good for greatest number or at the least makes the economies raw real dollar output somehow suboptimal.

-or-

3. The tax can be bad because it will apply to my circumstances in particular and I don't want taxes to effect my particular circumstances.

I suspect there are other reasons that may or may not reflect portions of these three but this seems like a good start.


I see a lot of people suggesting that I or anyone else who suggests that estate taxes are less evil than income taxes only believe this because we do not yet have children. It is stated then when our children are born we will suddenly oppose estate taxes (the fact that we are already heirs to sizable estates ourselves not withstanding apparently). This statement is obviously only relevent if we choose to discuss the relative merits of the taxes based upon criteria 3 above. However of all the criteria to evaluate taxes, criteria number 3 is the least useful for discussion since we will all have differing individual circumstances. I humbly suggest, therefore, that we cease to propose speculation based upon a posters individual circmstances as the real basis of their argument and instead focus on what the poster has to say concerning 1 or 2 or other new criteria with the understanding that -any- given tax may or may not be more or less onerous dependant upon the particular circumstances of the taxed individual.

thanks!

[GePap]

1.It can be bad because it is unethical. (I believe this applies to a greater or lesser degree to all taxes)

The only unethical taxes I can think of are excessive, regressive and punitative ones that seek to empovrish people and keep them barely above subsistance.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

actually the only true 'bad tax' is one that distorts the market.

in other news, oil companies report a 54% increase in profits, as prices of oil soar to above $42/barrel. go baby go! they are just cutting their own throats. soon we will all drive hybrid cars, and then theres no going back. after that, its gonna be hydrogen, then solar power for all (theres a whole lotta desert in the sahara, and the middle east)

[Geronimo]

Now, a bit more on the idea that the estate tax is particularly anti-family while the income tax is regarded as comparitively benign with respect to families.

One objection stated is that someone might die early. In the event that they die early it is suggested the family would be much better off if they had been paying income taxes and then have no estate tax then if they had been paying no income taxes and then had an estate tax.

First let's assume that the familiy had a modest life insurance policy and that there is a surviving parent. Suppose there was no estate tax and this family had been paying 25% of their income to the government ever since both parents graduated from high school. During this time they have also been saving a generous 20% of their income against future expenses. Now, they have lost a source of income but they have (tax free) the net savings from 20 percent of their income over all those years plus their life insurance to keep them afloat.

In the second situation everything is the same except that instead of paying 25% of their income to the government, the family was saving it and the 20% in the first example so that they have been saving a whopping 45% of their net income against future expenses. However in this case there is a large estate tax designed to provide the same income to the government that the income tax was giving in the previous example. When the death in the family occurs it appears a nightmare will transpire as the family will only have their modest life insurance to keep them afloat and their savings will be wiped out!

Needless to say that is *not* how I would advocate the estate tax to be implemented.

I offer the following objections:

1. the spouse survived and to protect families I am happy to allow families to share such savings so that they aren't instantly SOL when a death hits one of the breadwinners. no estate tax is applied because one of the owners of the estate is still alive.

2. The entire situation could be avoided by a formula in which the estate tax is a percentage that increases with the age of the deceased. That way there need be no awful surprises. If you die early your family keeps more. If you live to a ripe old age then you will pay the highest estate tax percentage when you die. I haven't heard this idea before but I like it as a means of completely removing the concern about uncertainty of when you might die. And since my original idea was simply to have practically all your wealth be taxed if necessary when you die to avoid society having to pay income taxes this idea should be more appealing since that high tax level will only hit if you are lucky enough to live to a ripe old age. So they could plan for it, just like what the income tax supporters say they love about the income tax.

I actually like idea 2 best. In any event the point is that you could reduce income tax using the estate tax without disadvantaging families in any way!

Here's another thought concerning the income tax and it's effect on families. I just learned that tom ridge is considering stepping down from his job in government because his children will be attending college soon and his 175,000 dollar salary will be insufficient to cover the expenses. He says he must now enter the private sector to avoid the financial sacrifice that being employed for only 175k a year in the public sector represents. College is very expensive folks! Does it really make sense to tax parents income at 25% a year when not even 175K a year is sufficient to cover those college expenses? the overwhelming majority of the expenses of raising a family hit early on. The pain of the estate tax hits after they have been dealt with. Why oh why, do people insist that the income tax is pro-family while the estate tax is not?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
in other news, oil companies report a 54% increase in profits, as prices of oil soar to above $42/barrel. go baby go! they are just cutting their own throats. soon we will all drive hybrid cars, and then theres no going back. after that, its gonna be hydrogen, then solar power for all (theres a whole lotta desert in the sahara, and the middle east)

The're cutting all of our throats. Wow! I didn't know it had gotten that high.

[Ming]

Geronimo... first of all, I haven't seen any numbers that your pay taxes only at death plan will generate the type of revenue the government currently gets from the current income tax structure. While you have been trying oh so hard to make justify your position, the numbers probably don't add up.

And second... if you removed all income tax, and basically lost all your money when you died, I would likely bet that most people wouldn't die with much money legally in their accounts. They would find even better ways around the system... and the government wouldn't be getting much out of the deal.

Your plan won't work So stop trying to use it to justify the death/estate tax

[Lawrence of Arabia]

heres my plan

1. the bottom 50% of america (using the median income) pays 0% income taxes
2. eliminate sales tax
3. eliminate estate tax
4. close corporate tax loopholes
5. tax credit for families of children going to private schools
6. adjust tax brackets using inflation rate + real growth to prevent bracket creep.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ah, MtG remembers as well.

Kid, what I said was that the specific thread I was hoping to find was buried deep, and so I presented other examples of the same thinking. I quoted you. The quotes show you making sweeping generalizations about rich people being lazy exploiters. Which is the thing I accused you of and you deny.

What I'm having trouble finding is the very first thread we argued in. I figure it's gotta be in early to mid '03, since you registered in March '03. But I can't remember the title. So I was looking at all threads that mentioned communism or capitalism in the title and had more than a couple of hundred posts.

I know the thread exists, and so do you. But you don't want me to find it, since I will then be able to provide even more quotes that support my accusation, which you claim is false.

Damn, this is getting kinda silly. My post in the other thread was intended as a mild jab. You got all upset, denied, which pissed me off, and here we are being ridiculous.

Friday afternoon, baby. Productivity, weee!

-Arrian

If the search function is working, you could search for all of Kid's posts before a certain date.

[Kuciwalker]

[a] Originally posted by Kidicious
I have been trying to tell you what I meant by those comments but you don't want to hear it.[/q]

Why, exactly, can't we tell what you meant from the statement? Perhaps because it makes you look bad?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
heres my plan

1. the bottom 50% of america (using the median income) pays 0% income taxes
2. eliminate sales tax
3. eliminate estate tax
4. close corporate tax loopholes
5. tax credit for families of children going to private schools
6. adjust tax brackets using inflation rate + real growth to prevent bracket creep.

That's going to be quite a bit of tax on the wealthy. You do realize that the revenue collected from estate tax is insignificant compared to the amount of income tax collected. And if you eliminate sales tax you will have to collect even more income tax to cover it.