Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient.


Maxprop wrote:
Like a flat tax?


Simple, yes. Fair?

More like a progressive income tax, with fewer loopholes.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Taxes should be simple, transparent, and efficient.

Maxprop wrote:

Like a flat tax?

Simple, yes. Fair?

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt. By adjusting X and Y one can make it as
progressive or regressive as you want. (You'd need negative values of Y
to do serious regressive tax.)

That was one of the selling points among the pointy headed intellectuals
flogging the flat tax in the late 80's - it's simple, transparent, and
can be as progressive as you want. Then Malcolm Forbes Jr came along
and sold it as a strictly regressive idea, which is the one that stuck.

//Walt

DSK wrote:

Gilligan wrote:
There's a natural incentive for the wealthy not to have the poor riot.


BINGO!


... Feudalism rules!


It already exists under our allodial system.


I thought the allodium was more or less an opposite to
infeudation?


It is, but Gilly, being the Sybil of this fair and gentle group, can
easily espouse dichotic systems.

Cheers
Marty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

That's a tougher question.

Let me get this straight. You're against compulsory payment of union dues,
but maybe for compulsory union membership. I.e. maybe people should be
required to join the union but not have to pay union dues?


I said compulsory dues are wrong-minded, but I was thinking of how they're
used... e.g., for political campaigns, which was an issue a few years ago.
Obviously, if you're a member, you need to pay dues to fund the union.

I am not sure about the requirement to join a union to work. It's a mixed
bag of protection and obligation. I've seen, as I said, both sides of it.

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

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were
pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had
an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not
been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor
asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped
him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was
given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had
a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we
shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union member,
he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


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

Like a flat tax?


Simple, yes. Fair?


Walt wrote:
With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.

Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function
progressive tax.

IMHO it would be far more fair, and waste a heck of a lot
less productive effort, to have income taxes either
eliminated altogether (not likely, the Feds depend on it far
too much) or made into a very simple equation with few
exceptions, exclusions, loopholes, etc etc.

That way, an argument about whether the tax was unfair to
rich people could focus on where it should be, the marginal
rate of increase of the tax at some given income level.

But that's not likely, since too many people want to start
the argument by thrusting their own silly assumptions
("taxes should cater to the self-intterst of the wealthiest
5%") forward as axioms.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Like a flat tax?

Simple, yes. Fair?

Walt wrote:

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.


Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function progressive tax.

If you insist on being a purist, perhaps.

I was referring to the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the
grandfather of all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax
that applied to corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for
individuals.

As it's proponents say: "One of the many benefits associated with a flat
tax is that it is able to achieve progressivity in the tax system--those
earning more pay more in taxes as a percentage of income--while at the
same time eliminating the damaging effects of high and increasing
marginal tax rates."

See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publi...cfm?PubID=8521.
or
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared...sNav=pb&id=151

IMHO it would be far more fair, and waste a heck of a lot less
productive effort, to have income taxes either eliminated altogether
(not likely, the Feds depend on it far too much) or made into a very
simple equation with few exceptions, exclusions, loopholes, etc etc.

The problem as I see it is that every time the rules of the game get
changed there's a lot of noise and smoke about how it's going to become
fairer, but in the end those who can afford to buy the politicians come
out ahead. Strange, eh?

That way, an argument about whether the tax was unfair to rich people
could focus on where it should be, the marginal rate of increase of the
tax at some given income level.

But that's not likely, since too many people want to start the argument
by thrusting their own silly assumptions ("taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%") forward as axioms.

Many people seem to go along with the "taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%" axiom because they have the idea
that they'll be one of them someday. Commonly, this is referred to as
being a "sucker".

//Walt

With the right exemptions, it can be. Say, a flat X percent with the
first Y dollars exempt.



Then it's no longer a flat tax. It's a step-function progressive tax.


Walt wrote:
If you insist on being a purist, perhaps.


It's not so much being a purist, it's looking at the intent
vs the execution. Sure it's nice & simple, but it's
blatantly unfair to those making Y+1 dollars and does not
achive any degree of progressiveness in the upper 1%, upper
5%, etc income brackets. Considering that this is where the
money is, the one-step flat/progressive tax is arbitrarily
limiting revenue & depressing aggregate demand.

And besides, you just know that next year, it'll be two
steps, plus some loop holes. The year after, three or four
steps plus more loopholes. Pretty soon we're in the same mess.

A citizen should be able to calculate his own taxes, get the
correct answer with less than a full day's work on it, and
the form should be the size of a post card. And the tax
should be structured to maximize revenuse while minimizing
negative impact on the national economy.





I was referring to the work of Hall & Rabushka in the early 80's, the
grandfather of all modern "flat tax" proposals. It had a flat 19% tax
that applied to corporations and individuals with at $25k deduction for
individuals.


Yep, seen that one. It's not a terrible idea.


The problem as I see it is that every time the rules of the game get
changed there's a lot of noise and smoke about how it's going to become
fairer, but in the end those who can afford to buy the politicians come
out ahead. Strange, eh?


Isn't it though? I think somebody should apply for a grant
to study this.





Many people seem to go along with the "taxes should cater to the
self-intterst of the wealthiest 5%" axiom because they have the idea
that they'll be one of them someday. Commonly, this is referred to as
being a "sucker".


Or because the people telling them they should be in favor
of it are at the same time catering to other, less socially
acceptable prejudices.

DSK

How's about a flat sales tax of 10% for American made goods and 15% for
imports.

Abolish all income based taxes.

Joe

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:29:56 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:15:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

That's a tougher question. I was part of union, and I was required to join
for a summer job. There were dues, but the benefits and the pay were
pretty
good, considering I was in high school and had minimal experience. I had
an
accident at work while driving a forklift... damaged a lot of expensive
equipment through no fault of my own except inexperience. If I had not
been
a member of the union, I would have been fired for sure. I was slightly
injured and had to take off a couple of weeks. The salaried supervisor
asked
me one time what happened. The union steward was present, and he stopped
him
when he started to get mean (I'm sure his job was on the line). I was
given
an opportunity to make a statement, and briefly mentioned my lack of
experience. When I returned to work, the supervisor found someone to train
me, so that it wouldn't happen again.

In another situation, I was a staff employee in a union shop (defense
contractor). The union was pretty strict about members not doing anything
beyond their job description, but tended to look the other way if you had
a
good relationship with the employee/staff member. We had a situation of
another supervisor telling his subordinates (me included) that we
shouldn't
fraternize with union people... exchange pleasantries and the like... I
think he was on a power trip. When this became obvious to a union member,
he
basically walked off the job along with the other members in the shop
until
the "rule" was rescinded.

Very difficult to believe, Jon. Considered a wildcat strike, an
unfair labor practice, and no Union that I know of would allow that
to happen. Could be held liable for any damages to the company over
the issue. If there is nothing written in the contract about the
right to fraternize then you cannot "strike" over any aspect of the
issue. If there is something in the contract about it, you would have
to go through the grievance procedure.

Frank


It lasted about 1/2 hour. Everyone was satisfied with the result. Can't help
it if you have difficulty believing it.


Management was satisfied to accept the cost of a half hour disruption
and shutdown of their operation with an illegal wildcat strike? No I
don't believe that.

Management should have filed an unfair labor practice complaint with
the NLRB, and if they did not, it is very difficult to believe. The
Union cannot endorse a "strike" over any issue, grievable or not,
that is why there is a contract.

Frank