OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Oddly enough, there is one thing that Galbraith advocated
which *has* been seriously discredited. One out of many. Do
you know what it is?



Charlie Morgan wrote:
White Castle Hamburgers.


Close, but no cigar.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Capt. JG" said:
It's got to be both in some respects. How can one have wealth and not derive
income from it.


Easily.
Or some would say, stupidly.

In any event, since the repeal of the intangible property
tax, there has been no Federal taxation of wealth itself (in
it's tremendously myriad forms) for a long time.


Dave wrote:
I'm not going to even try to sort out the muddled thinking reflected in that
post.

Why is it always "muddled thinking" when somebody disagrees
with you?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

It's called "progressive" taxation, Max.


"Maxprop" wrote
Which is clearly a failure in concept as applied to the wealthy. The rich
are greedy, not stupid, and they have the means to avoid excessive
taxation.


Or indeed, any taxation they can be it paltry, fair, or
"excessive."

To many wealthy people, *any* tax seems confiscatory and
excessive.


Gilligan wrote:
Why is it greedy to want to keep what you have earned?


Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?





Can we presume that you are not in favor of a flat tax? g



We've already bankrupted the gov't with various fiscal stupidity.


Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

not to
mention states like Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania. Indiana has a balanced budget, by the way.

Great. I'm sure they don't tax anything else, either.


But I see you point, Doug. It would be impossible to 'stick it to the
rich' without a progressive (punitive) tax. It's just not fair that
they're rich and you're not.


I am rich. OTOH I am not of that arrogant & stupid ilk who
think that any progressive tax is "punitive." This goes a
long way to convince anybody reading this thread that a flat
tax is indeed skewed towards the rich and appeals mostly to
those who are greedy & selfish.

Just think of it as hush money to keep the starving masses
from becoming so enraged at their lot in life (as compared
to yours) that they riot and burn your house down.



Gilligan wrote:
Stick it to the rich and they shall go elsewhere. The US is not the only
propserous place in the world.


Being rich is just a symptom of workaholism. Any fool can go out and earn
tons of money. Not any fool can go out and live life well.


It's true that lots of fools are rich, but it's not true
that *every* fool is. If we are going to appeal to logic,
then let's use accurate logic.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:51:05 -0500, DSK said:

Why is it always "muddled thinking" when somebody disagrees
with you?

Because, of course, clear-thinking individuals seldom disagree with me
g.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?


Dave wrote:
Where do you get this stuff, anyway? Private parties do not have the legal
power to require payment of taxes.


Correct. But it is taxing nontheless (a bad pun).

[snip]


Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?


Dave wrote:
Some do and some don't. Estonia, which in the most recent ratings is rated
as more free than the US in economic terms, has a flat rate income tax.


Possibly so. Rated by whom?

Anyway, I never claimed that the U.S. has the best or
free-est tax structure in the world. That would be too
Maxpropian.

And the flat income tax does favor the higher income
brackets... look at the most vocal proponents of it. I'm not
saying it's morally wrong, I'm saying it's unfair.

Furthermore, you must considered the desired economic result
of any imposed legal/economic structure before evaluating
the structure. Do want to encourage the growth of the middle
class? Greater good of the greater number? Or cater to the
wishes of a smaller number of richer people?

In general, most countries (now and thru-out history) are
run by the rich, for the rich. The U.S. has (at times) been
an exception, and in general unbridled plutocracy and class
privilege have not been publicly vaunted as "the American way."

VAT does have some advantages. In particular, if you want to encourage
savings and capital formation, tax consumption rather than earnings.

Sure. In fact, I'd be in favor of that; but the VAT does more.

VAT is exactly that tax structure that Maxprop was mockingly
referring to as ultra-liberal in a recent post: tax the
money every single time it changes hands. It deters
consumption but also production in any business that is not
vertically integrated.

By many serious economists, the VAT is considered a big
reason why the European economy has had troubles growing in
recent times of spurred global demand.


... Problem
in the US is that if it VAT were enacted, it would no doubt simply be
layered on top of the existing system

Why make that assumption? What if it weren't?

Imagine a discussion without straw men, Dave.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Besides a US VAT likely being added on top of the current system, it was
also be highly disruptive to the economy. Income shouldn't be taxes,
purchases should be, but there's still the issue of fairness. Should food be
a VAT? Should a person who makes under $30K pay the same percentage VAT for
a beater car as a richy rich pays for a Rolls?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:59:45 -0500, DSK said:

Why is it not considered greedy to get other people to work
and take profit from their labor? Is that not a tax upon the
laborers?

Where do you get this stuff, anyway? Private parties do not have the legal
power to require payment of taxes.

[snip]

Seems to work for a number of Balkan and European countries,

Which have vastly different tax structures including a VAT tax.

Are you in favor of a federally imposed VAT tax?

Some do and some don't. Estonia, which in the most recent ratings is rated
as more free than the US in economic terms, has a flat rate income tax.

VAT does have some advantages. In particular, if you want to encourage
savings and capital formation, tax consumption rather than earnings.
Problem
in the US is that if it VAT were enacted, it would no doubt simply be
layered on top of the existing system, further increasing the pot of gold
available to hire bureaucrats and hand the money one guy earns to somebody
else who didn't earn it.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

I've always thought Rumsfeld was part of the topical scum that lives upon
the American flesh. He just proved it by the leak of his self-serving CYA
memo.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:30:26 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Sounds like Rumsfeld.

Hey, Jon, are you adding a new name to your mantra? Is it now
"Halliburton,
Cheney, Rumsfeld" instead of just "Halliburton, Cheney?" Are you sure
Pavlov's dogs are ready to respond to the change?

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Dave wrote:
On 3 Dec 2006 21:07:03 -0800, "Peter" said:

Not at all. I said that it should be somewhere between 10 and 50 percent.
How is that "going to water"?

So - you'd be satisfied if the rich paid 10% of their income as tax?
You'd consider that they were apying their fair share?

Have you also missed what I was asking, Peter? My question was not what
percentage of each individual's income he should pay for income taxes. I was
what percentage of the aggregate income taxes paid by all taxpayers should
be born by each of the three groups I identified. Different question
entirely. I was looking for a breakdown among the three groups. Jon's 10-50%
simply wasn't responsive to the question, since it didn't differentiate
among the 3 groups.


Hell, Dave, I was trying to get the simplest possible answer to see if
Jon actually had any opinions at all other than some vague feeling that
the rich weren't paying their fair share. Given that as a starting
point, it might be possible to work up to something more abstract. But
no. Waste of time as per. Arguing with Joe is more productive. At least
he *has* opinions he's prepared to defend. A bit like a dog walking on
hind legs to be true, but better than a dog that can't even limp.

Lost interest now - unproductive. The summary seems to be that Jon
favours a progressive tax but can't express this clearly, nor can he
figure out what the breaks should be, except he's convinced the rich
aren't paying their fair share. I've told him that they are, but he
seems to doubt me. Shrug.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Capt. JG wrote:
When you live on expensive property, you pay property tax mostly based on
the market value (assessment). Is this not the case where you live?

Actually this may be one of the differences between the USA and
Australia. The short answer is, no, or not in the same way. I pay local
govt taxes based on the unimproved capital value of my property. These
are flat rate and are used to fund services such as roads, garbage
collection, libraries etc. There are discounts for people on pensions.
I pay no taxes on improvements to the place. In some states you also
pay land tax if it's not used for farming or is your principal place of
residence. I was horrified when a friend of mine in Fla told me his tax
assessment would go up if he put in a concrete slab instead of crushed
gravel workshop floor. We don't have that sort of crap.

There are no property taxes on boats etc so the crap you guys go thru
picking the cheapest state to keep a boat in is a bit of a joke really.
I hope our clowns never figure that one out.

PDW

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...



The best thing to do is to pay as little tax as possible, even if it
requires earning as little as possible.

Great idea. I believe I'll quit my profession and go on welfare.
Yeah, splendid idea.

Max


There are other ways. Own your own business, which for you is easy. Pay
yourself dividends - no FICA; driving to work, meals etc are now tax
deductable; per diem is tax free; many things can be classified as
business expenses - including your boat if done properly. Own rental
property - another great deduction! Put the kids on the payroll, deduct
the dog as security costs, take the family to conventions, look at
starting up offices in nice locales - take the whole family, etc, etc.
Live like a king and pay much less tax. Don't forget to get a tax ID and
a reseller ID so you pay no sales tax! Do services for cash at a
discount (unreported income), own a bar/restaurant/store - a good
percent of cash income goes unreported, vending machines - washers,
dryers, candy, games etc - all cash!

Only a liberal would go on welfare to avoid paying taxes.

My response was entirely facetious, not requiring a response such as
yours.

Max


My response was a handy tip to all those who want to bring down the
system.

Um, do you really believe they need such tips? Seems they've been doing a
bang-up job without your help.

Max