[geeks] Ping...

[David Cantrell]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 05:47:32AM -0800, Lionel Peterson wrote:
> > > 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'll answer those in reverse order.  One of the features of living in a
society (and contrary to the lies of some lunatic right-wingers, there *is*
such a thing, and we do live in it) is that by necessity one delegates
some decision-making to ones representatives in the societal decision-
making process.  If you are one of those lucky few to be earning millions
(to take an extreme example) then I think it's pretty reasonable for those
representatives to deduce that you can afford to contribute quite a bit of
it.  And consequently that you don't need it for your own personal ends.
For those people in the middle - say earning betwen 50K and 100K - well,
there needs to be a cut-off point somewhere.  It would be no more arbitrary
than the cut-off points for income tax bands that we have right now.

I suppose I would be happy to let people opt out of society if they disagreed
that vehemently with its existence.  Of course, they would then lose all
the rights and priveleges they gain from being a member of society, such as
ones property and the right to not be hunted down with hounds and then used
as a sex toy in the basement of a dodgy pub.

> > > 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.

So you mean a poll tax, with a comparitively higher tax burden on those
least able to afford to pay.  I dunno about where you are, but over here
we learn about the badly named "Peasants' Revolt" in the 14th century,
where a poll tax, which burdened the poor whilst being of no consequence
to the rich (the rich who controlled taxation, gosh, what a surprise),
sparked a revolt which caused a great deal of damage and disruption and
nearly led to the overthrow of the kingdom.  After that, politicians seem
to have learnt their lesson and avoided such oppressive schemes until the
last few years of the 20th century, when a deluded government tried it
on again.  The riots were ... impressive.  The amount of tax revenue
collected *declined* because of people refusing to pay - and because it was
ordinary people refusing to pay, and not just a few rich layabouts, there
ain't enough prisons to force them to pay - and it is one of the major
reasons why that party got booted out of office, and has no chance of
regaining office for the foreseeable future*.  I wonder how many hundred
years it'll be before a politician forgets their history lessons again.

* - actually, I'll let you in on a secret.  Thatcher's Poll Tax was really
a cunning plan hatched by the Guild Of Comedians' long-term joke-planning
task force.  It worked.  The Conservative Party has now been a joke for
over ten years and there's at least another decade of life in it.

> > > > 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)

and you will note also quite comfortable with the idea of contributing my
money too.

> but I can't defend my right to keep it just as vigerously?

I would never dream of revoking the right to free speech.

I advocate people making a fair contribution to society.  Feel free to
disagree, but I don't much care because when I become benevolent dictator
of the world I will send in a crack squad of buxom virgins to distract you
whilst my trained monkeys take what you owe plus a collection fee.

> 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?

The correct solution, of course, would be to declare that to be an illegal
tax dodge and imprison the fuckers if they refused to pay up.  If they try
to leave the country, stop them at the airport, and if they slip through
anyway, nationalise all their assets in the country, revoke their citizenship,
and nationalise $destination_country's_citizens' assets up to the value
that was stolen by the tax evader.  If they take citizenship elsewhere,
nationalise that country's assets to the total value removed from the home
country by the thief.

Actually no, the correct solution is to realise that tax rates that high
are silly.  I never advocated tax rates that high.  I do think that our
current top rate of income tax is too low though.  It should be increased,
whilst sales taxes should be decreased, thus shifting the tax burden onto
those more able to afford to pay, such as myself.

> > > 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?

Tax it anyway.  It's not as if governments don't try to do that anyway
right now.  A close friend apparently has the opportunity to apply for
US citizenship because he's lived there for N years with a .USian wife.
He has decided not to, one of the reasons being that even if he moves
away from the US the US government would tax his earnings abroad.  No
doubt other governments try the same trick.

> > > 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.

Ahh, what they actually say is that you have a salary of 52k/yr.  That's
different.  It is trivial to calculate what one is paid per month or per
week from that.  Those people who fail to understand the difference between
salary and take-home pay I have little sympathy for.  I see no scam.

-- 
Grand Inquisitor Reverend David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

          All praise the Sun God
          For He is a Fun God
          Ra Ra Ra!