Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Note that 'tax' becomes negative when 'income' is smaller than 'offset'. When represented like this, does it still bother you?

Einherjar wrote:

Interest is exponential, which means that wether you tax earnings before investment or consumption afterwords is irrelevant.

It is relevant, though, whether you tax it once or tax it twice, which is what is currently happening.

Thomas writes

Quote:

Note that 'tax' becomes negative when 'income' is smaller than 'offset'. When represented like this, does it still bother you?

I think what bothers me is that I am a libertarian (little "L") at heart and this smacks way too much of socialism for me to be comfortable with it. It seems that it would put way too much power into the hands of the government to have influence over the benefactors of that lump sum payment. I've not rejected it yet, however, and am still thinking about it.

But that's even worse.

A lump sum tax would have the same effect, although due to less welth redistribution luxury consumption would increase some, and whatever is between esentials and luxury would decrease a bit.

Perhaps the closest thing to a non distorting tax would be "smart taxes" taxing variables assosiated with what the money is being used for. Taxing gas for road maintinance for example.

But that's even worse. Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who suggested the Republic would be at risk once the politicans found out they could use our money to buy our votes? I know he thought the Republic was doomed as soon as the people found out they could vote themselves money.

It seems that it would put way too much power into the hands of the government to have influence over the benefactors of that lump sum payment.

Einherjar wrote:

A lump sum tax would have the same effect, although due to less welth redistribution luxury consumption would increase some, and whatever is between esentials and luxury would decrease a bit.

Not quite. For example, under a lump sum tax of $5,000 a year, someone making $10,000 a year before taxes makes $5,000 after taxes. He could never afford luxuries in the first place, so the consumption he cuts consists of necessities.

By contrast, someone who makes $100,000 a year before taxes makes $95,000 after taxes, so the consumption he cuts consists of luxuries. That makes lump sum taxes unfair in terms of income distributions.

Einherjar wrote:

Perhaps the closest thing to a non distorting tax would be "smart taxes" taxing variables assosiated with what the money is being used for. Taxing gas for road maintinance for example.

That's one way of doing it. Another way is to tax goods in fixed quantity. The most famous suggestion so far is a tax on the raw value of land. (Land is in fixed supply, so nobody can respond to the tax by producing less of it.)

How would government influence things if everyone gets the subsidy

You mean the millionare gets the same subsidy as the poor person? The government gets the money it dispenses from us. It has no other source of income. I object to the government taking our money and then doling it back out to us like they were generous or something. It's like me snitching $10 from you and then giving you $10 as a gift.

You mean the millionare gets the same subsidy as the poor person? The government gets the money it dispenses from us. It has no other source of income. I object to the government taking our money and then doling it back out to us like they were generous or something. It's like me snitching $10 from you and then giving you $10 as a gift.

You mean the millionare gets the same subsidy as the poor person? The government gets the money it dispenses from us. It has no other source of income. I object to the government taking our money and then doling it back out to us like they were generous or something. It's like me snitching $10 from you and then giving you $10 as a gift.

Okay, I'm not intending to nitpick here, but the devil is always in the details isn't it? How is this 'income' determined? What constitutes income? And how is this 'substance of the system' different than a progressive tax bracket to begin with?

I do understand that Einherjar though an equicable system of measuring income is still a problem - $10,000 a year in Albuquerque is a whole lot more money than $10,000 in Santa Fe a mere 50 miles away for instance.

I do understand that Einherjar though an equicable system of measuring income is still a problem - $10,000 a year in Albuquerque is a whole lot more money than $10,000 in Santa Fe a mere 50 miles away for instance. So if you decide that shouldn't make a difference as people can choose to live wherever they want, you still have the problems of determining what income must be reported--and it must be reported to somebody--and what can be exempt, etc. There are simply too many ways to make money without that becoming complicated. So I'm not sure we would gain anything in the national reduction of paperwork effort, etc.

And I see huge problems built into a consumption tax as well as previously posted.

I know there is a solution in here somewhere though, and if enough people keep thinking on it, somebody will hit it. I have reservations about all of it, but I'm not ready to dismiss any of it yet.

Foxfyre wrote:

I do understand that Einherjar though an equicable system of measuring income is still a problem - $10,000 a year in Albuquerque is a whole lot more money than $10,000 in Santa Fe a mere 50 miles away for instance.

Yeah, that always stuck in my craw too. It would be nice if there were some way to factor in regional cost of living, but I guess that's another whole topic for discussion.

I think the "lump sum subsidy" solution would save paperwork, although it might not be entirely fair. Still, I am on record as supporting just such a subsidy only restricted to employed people and people seeking employment.