[geeks] Ping...

[Lionel Peterson]

Just a wrap-up post to close out the thread (he said, as he poured
another load of gasoline on the fire!)

Who pays? See:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

There is also a link to the source data on their homepage at
www.rushlimbaugh.com

Now, a few nits to pick below...

--- David Cantrell <david at cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:03:00PM -0800, Lionel Peterson wrote:
> > --- Andrew Weiss <ajwdsp at cloud9.net> wrote:
> > > I think I'd start at people who make more than 200K by themselves
> a
> > > year...
> > Hmm... Guess who thinks he will never make more than $200K/year ;^)
> 
> FWIW, today I favour taxing households and not individuals, with a
> very high rate for all household income over an average of UKP50k
> per adult. In the past, I have earned over 50k, and I fully expect
> to again in the near future.

Most people (not David, AFAIK) feel comfortable imposing huge taxes on
people who make more than they think they themselves will ever make.
"Go ahead, tax the brains out of a $200K/year person - I'll never make
that much!"
 
> > > and people who make over a mil a year should be hit even
> > > harder.
> > Why - do they demand more police service? Generate more actual
> garbage?
> > Need cleaner rods after the snow falls?
> 
> They don't need that money, and they can afford to contribute more to
> society.

Ugh - spoke too soon - I just don't buy that argument... "They don't
need that money." - I don't want anyone else determining how much
money/house/children/beer/etc. "I Need". And "what I can afforsd to
contribute" is my business, not anyone elses...
  
> > I prefer a simple "head" tax, as in "so much per head", since local
> > government provides services without regard to amount of taxes
> paid.
> 
> You mean a poll tax.  That means putting a comparitively higher tax
> burden on those least able to afford to pay.

Point taken, I was thinking more along the lines of taxes somehow
equating to the services provided for the revenue.
 
> > > My solution is a flat tax with no ability to deduct or
> > > skip out of paying taxes (especially for corporations).
> > 
> > Every highly-paid person I know was in favor of a flat tax.
> 
> Of course, it's in their best interests.  Greed makes an excellent
> motivator.

No - simplicity. Steve Forbes proposed a flat tax that ws, I think,
10-15%, with rate of 0% up to, IIRC, $35K. Greed also goes both ways,
you seem quite comfortable taking my money (see above), but I can't
defend my right to keep it just as vigerously?

The tax structure in your country (used to, anyway) have rates that
went up to what, 95%?  I belive the net effect that policy had was
cause high-income citizens to go into tax exile... How did that help?
 
> > As one
> > presidential candidate proposed it, I think everyone that made
> under 
> > $35K paid no taxes, after that it was a flat amount of income
> (10-15%).
> 
> How much would that reduce the government's tax income by?

Increase. Poor people don't pay taxes. Rich people (with proper
assistance from advisors) pay less than 15%, it is the middle class
that gets socked with the full 25-35% income tax.

> > The fairest taxes (IMHO) are consumption taxes.
> 
> No way, they hit those least able to pay the hardest!  Poor people
> spend a far higher proportion of their resources on basic
> necessities like food, housing etc than the rich.  If, on the other
> hand, you mean a tax on consumption of luxuries then I might agree,
> but then you have to define luxuries.  For example, basic food and
> clothing and housing is not a luxury.

Agreed, I was thinking ot the earlier point of price vs. services
provided.

BUT - Luxury taxes don't work - In the US they did that, and it killed
the luxury maritime industry in the US - why buy a $200K boat in the US
and pay a 25% luxury tax, when I can go outside the us and save that
$50K?

> > The worst thing that
> > ever happened was the decision to do "payroll deductions", so that
> > taxes are "invisible".
> 
> My pay roll tells me what my basic salary is, how much goes for
> taxes,
> and how much I am left with, every month, and a summary at the end of
> the
> year.  Hardly "invisible".

It is a scam - My employer saysthey pay me (lets say) $52K/yr - why
don't I see $1,000 each week - well, the taxes come out first. So you
are really paying me (say) $750/week, and giving the government
$250/week on my behalf. (it is a perception thing I guess)
 
> > Also, what governement are you thinking of when you say "took the
> right
> > amount the first time"?
> 
> Believe it or not, governments almost always follow procedure
> correctly.
> But that's not newsworthy, so only the rare fuck-ups get reported. 
> Not
> once in ten years of working have my taxes been calculated or paid
> incorrectly.  When things do go wrong, they generally get sorted out
> quickly - which again isn't particularly newsworthy.

Going for humor - I agree with your assertion.

I hope David, and others understand this is a debate on ideas, not
meant to pick on anyone on the list or the ideas they hold dear.

Lionel

=====
Lionel

"Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten
programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software"
Bill Gates, in "An OpenLetter to Hobbyists" dated February 3, 1976
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/