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

[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.