Announcement

**Solly** · February 6, 2007, 19:15

At least once they're starved the problem is gone.

**Provost Harrison** · February 6, 2007, 19:15

And less flippant stupidity from you would also be appreciated

**Solly** · February 6, 2007, 19:16

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Because those with the least have the least ability to pay - they are further from the poverty line. Due to the inbalance of wealth, even if we had a proportional taxation system in question here, the richest 15% are going to pay a higher proportion of money - we actually have a progressive taxation which means the proportional burden is going to be higher the richer the person gets - but still, the more money you earn, the more money you have!

How would you feel if you were impoverished - could you afford on minimum wage to pay a fixed wage when it may take most of your income not allowing you to feed your family, maybe not even yourself? Think deeply about what you are saying here...

If you don't earn enough money to support a family, don't start one.

**Dauphin** · February 6, 2007, 19:16

Originally posted by Drogue
Which is why I favour a simpler system of taxing gross income. Don't tax dividends seperately, just tax it as if it were earned income by that person. So high-earners pay the typical high rate of tax and lower earners the base rate. Afterall, it is income, like any other.

Do the maths of it and you will find that the 32.5% dividend tax rate (+10% tax credit) does in fact equate to the 40% income tax rate.

**Drogue** · February 6, 2007, 19:18

Originally posted by Dauphin
Do the maths of it and you will find that the 32.5% dividend tax rate (+10% tax credit) does in fact equate to the 40% income tax rate.

Yes, but it doesn't mean poorer people pay the lower rate of tax. Which strikes me as silly. It's income, thus you should treat it as income. It also has inefficiencies for the organisation of a firm, as finance theory suggests.

Whatever rates tax should be for income, they should be the same for all the income you get, not different for those earned in different ways.

Originally posted by Patroklos
The "democratic" way of doing it is a flat tax.

Surely the democratic way is to have it decided by referendum?

Originally posted by Patroklos
In either case, paying taxes is a form of civic responsibility. I can legitimately be concerned about what taxes are spent on because it is my money. But with the richest 15% suppling 75% of the money, it is not such a stretch to see why some of that group could care less what the other half (more actually!) think in that regard.

The point of democracy is voting, within constraints. It's the idea that people have equal say no matter how much they earn or contribute. Now, tax can be seen as a tyranny of the majority, but equal rights to vote is a pretty inalienable right, is it not?

Also, as Dauphin points out, the richest 15% do not contribute 75% of the money. 15% from corporate taxes, 35% from indirect, and 15% from the bottom 75%. That leaves 25% from the richest 25% in direct tax. Obviously they also pay indirect tax, but it's not such a cut-and-dry 'the rich pay while the poor consume' system.

Originally posted by Patroklos
Thats why I bawk at the "exempt the poor from taxes" crowd, or allowing them to receive more than they pay from direct benefits, it reduces them to proles.

Perhaps better a prole than starved?

**MOBIUS** · February 6, 2007, 19:19

Re: Re: So, how many tax payers are there in the US anyway?

Originally posted by Drogue

Deficit spending. Yes it's a lot, but it's also management. The crime of the Iraq war, financially, is not the huge deficit, IMHO. It's the fact that running up that level of deficit could have provided universal healthcare and a sensible public school system. It's not so bad, economically, for the US to have a large debt. It just could have been spent so much better, IMO.

How much was it they needed to spend for Kyoto, for instance...?

Or, take Hurricane Katrina: I think the inundation of New Orleans was a direct result of neglect through spending on the Iraq war...

Levee Repair Costs Triple

Apparently the NOLA levees could be fixed 73 times over for the money already spent/earmarked on/for the Iraq War!

**Provost Harrison** · February 6, 2007, 19:19

Originally posted by Doddler

If you don't earn enough money to support a family, don't start one.

I can understand your objection from a certain perspective, where the people make absolutely no effort to be productive and support a family from welfare. However where two people are productive to the best of their capabilities, it shouldn't be beyond their capabilities to be able to provide a relatively decent standard of living for themselves and a child, perhaps two...

**Patroklos** · February 6, 2007, 19:20

Because those with the least have the least ability to pay - they are further from the poverty line. Due to the inbalance of wealth, even if we had a proportional taxation system in question here, the richest 15% are going to pay a higher proportion of money - we actually have a progressive taxation which means the proportional burden is going to be higher the richer the person gets - but still, the more money you earn, the more money you have!

How would you feel if you were impoverished - could you afford on minimum wage to pay a fixed wage when it may take most of your income not allowing you to feed your family, maybe not even yourself? Think deeply about what you are saying here...

I know all that PH, I am not talking about raising the taxes on the poor. I would rather to a flat income tax, and then increase corprate and other taxes to make up some of that lost revenue. I don't expect that to give us nearly the tax income we have now, but if I had the power to make those changes we wouldn't need that much tax income.

**Solly** · February 6, 2007, 19:21

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

I can understand your objection from a certain perspective, where the people make absolutely no effort to be productive and support a family from welfare. However where two people are productive to the best of their capabilities, it shouldn't be beyond their capabilities to be able to provide a relatively decent standard of living for themselves and a child, perhaps two...

I don't know, two is pushing it..

**Drogue** · February 6, 2007, 19:22

Re: Re: Re: So, how many tax payers are there in the US anyway?

Originally posted by MOBIUS
How much was it they needed to spend for Kyoto, for instance...?

Impossible to measure, as it's all indirect costs. But I'd imagine less than $730bn. That's a *lot* of money.

I reckon more was wasted on nukes that were destroyed during detente, though.

**MOBIUS** · February 6, 2007, 19:24

Re: Re: Re: Re: So, how many tax payers are there in the US anyway?

Originally posted by Drogue
Impossible to measure, as it's all indirect costs. But I'd imagine less than $730bn. That's a *lot* of money.

Well, you and I both know it was a rhetorical question...

**Dauphin** · February 6, 2007, 19:25

Originally posted by Drogue

the richer pay 40% and the poorer pay 22%, done by thresholds. Yet dividends are taxed at a flat rate (30% IIRC). Which strikes me as silly. It's income, thus you should treat it as income. It also has inefficiencies for the organisation of a firm, as finance theory suggests.

Whatever rates tax should be for income, they should be the same for all the income you get, not different for those earned in different ways.

It's 10% and 32.5%, at base and higher rate. You also get a 10% tax credit, effectively making it 0% and 25%.

When combined with CT rates it usually means that the net effect is that (after double taxation) you pay a net rate of 40% if you are higher rate tax payer and ~19% if you are basic rate tax payer.

I happen to agree with your viewpoint, but the amount of tax you pay under a CT system or no CT system is going to end up being near enough identical. It's the collection method and timing that changes.

**Provost Harrison** · February 6, 2007, 19:32

Actually if you add on National Insurance, which is 11% then 1%, the real difference between the two bands is considerably smaller!

**Dauphin** · February 6, 2007, 19:33

National insurance is not a tax. Gummint says so.

**MOBIUS** · February 6, 2007, 19:35

That's why they were happy to put it up recently...

Announcement

So, how many tax payers are there in the US anyway?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment