Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Wealth distribution.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Wealth distribution. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 9:32:20 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline 		Who votes for Jeffff to be the dictator?

boi


_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 9:44:32 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		A CEO/COO pay should be capped at some reasonable percentage of the company's receipts for the year with some requirement that it not exceed some multiplier of the lowest paid employee. All bonuses and stock options should be fully taxed and count against the cap. If the CEO wants to get a raise then the company is healthy enough for the lowest wage employees to get a raise too.

Taxation must be progressive or it will benefit the upper class and shift more of the burden on to the workers. That is the problem with consumption taxes. No matter how structured they cannot get around the simple fact that the less money you make the greater the percentage of income is spent on necessities. A progressive income tax was designed to fairly spread the burden of taxes across the entire population with those who benefit from government the most, those who have acquired more wealth, paying the most.

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:11:15 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
....especially SUVs in inner cities or sports cars, if you want to burn petrol like there is no tomorrow and pollute my environment, pay for the priviledge. Same with imports, if you want to eat strawberries in the middle of winter, cough up more money...


SUVs take on a lower risk for permanent injury in collisions. Some of us hate the gas issue and would love to change to a smaller vehicle, but already looking at your partner needing yet ANOTHER surgery because of a car accident she didn't cause, makes you value the bigger, stronger box on wheels. While I agree that luxury should be taxed, safety should not.

boi



Oh great, so because I willingly have a small car, I should pay the same plus as all the house wives in the area who's 2nd cars they use for the dangerous supermarket runs (in walking distance) - sorry, but anybody who wants to guzzle gas should pay for the privilege of polluting my air, being damned lazy should be taxed, fast food should be taxed (we're all paying for the burden it causes on the health system) and a SUV is not a car anybody needs in the city, if you are a farmer and you need a 4 wheel drive, different story but there aren't all that many farmers in inner cities, yet funny enough quite a lot of 2nd and 3rd cars in my area are 4 wheel drives, and the bints who drive them don't mind letting the engine run for half an hour because they run back into the house to pick something else up. I'm always amazed why people find excuses to burn gas like crazy but nobody thinks they should pay for the privilege - I mean if safety is such an issue, why not take the very big car - the public bus? Less convenient, I agree but why not pay for convenience?


_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:15:44 AM   
LadyConstanze


Posts: 9722
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A CEO/COO pay should be capped at some reasonable percentage of the company's receipts for the year with some requirement that it not exceed some multiplier of the lowest paid employee. All bonuses and stock options should be fully taxed and count against the cap. If the CEO wants to get a raise then the company is healthy enough for the lowest wage employees to get a raise too.

Taxation must be progressive or it will benefit the upper class and shift more of the burden on to the workers. That is the problem with consumption taxes. No matter how structured they cannot get around the simple fact that the less money you make the greater the percentage of income is spent on necessities. A progressive income tax was designed to fairly spread the burden of taxes across the entire population with those who benefit from government the most, those who have acquired more wealth, paying the most.



That is a brilliant way of getting big companies to have their headquarters and administration outside of a country and losing most of the tax they would pay. Ask Germany how many high profile tax payers they have lost to Austria, because Austria taxes them less. It sounds fair in principle but in the end everybody who can afford it will move and the country ends up with far less tax income, so to stay affluent they have to tax the lower incomes heavier. Plus it does ruin your incentive to be successful quite a bit if you end up paying so much more, I mean why would I want to work more, if I end up with nearly the same as somebody who works a lot less and is a lot less skilled?

_____________________________

There are 10 kinds of people who understand binary
Those who do and those who don't!

http://exdomme.blogspot.com/2012/07/public-service-announcement.html

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:20:06 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A CEO/COO pay should be capped at some reasonable percentage of the company's receipts for the year with some requirement that it not exceed some multiplier of the lowest paid employee. All bonuses and stock options should be fully taxed and count against the cap. If the CEO wants to get a raise then the company is healthy enough for the lowest wage employees to get a raise too.

Taxation must be progressive or it will benefit the upper class and shift more of the burden on to the workers. That is the problem with consumption taxes. No matter how structured they cannot get around the simple fact that the less money you make the greater the percentage of income is spent on necessities. A progressive income tax was designed to fairly spread the burden of taxes across the entire population with those who benefit from government the most, those who have acquired more wealth, paying the most.



That is a brilliant way of getting big companies to have their headquarters and administration outside of a country and losing most of the tax they would pay. Ask Germany how many high profile tax payers they have lost to Austria, because Austria taxes them less. It sounds fair in principle but in the end everybody who can afford it will move and the country ends up with far less tax income, so to stay affluent they have to tax the lower incomes heavier. Plus it does ruin your incentive to be successful quite a bit if you end up paying so much more, I mean why would I want to work more, if I end up with nearly the same as somebody who works a lot less and is a lot less skilled?


Damn those unintended consequences. Unfortunately the current mindset in DC is that those are the intended consequences.

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:22:59 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A CEO/COO pay should be capped at some reasonable percentage of the company's receipts for the year with some requirement that it not exceed some multiplier of the lowest paid employee. All bonuses and stock options should be fully taxed and count against the cap. If the CEO wants to get a raise then the company is healthy enough for the lowest wage employees to get a raise too.

Taxation must be progressive or it will benefit the upper class and shift more of the burden on to the workers. That is the problem with consumption taxes. No matter how structured they cannot get around the simple fact that the less money you make the greater the percentage of income is spent on necessities. A progressive income tax was designed to fairly spread the burden of taxes across the entire population with those who benefit from government the most, those who have acquired more wealth, paying the most.



That is a brilliant way of getting big companies to have their headquarters and administration outside of a country and losing most of the tax they would pay. Ask Germany how many high profile tax payers they have lost to Austria, because Austria taxes them less. It sounds fair in principle but in the end everybody who can afford it will move and the country ends up with far less tax income, so to stay affluent they have to tax the lower incomes heavier. Plus it does ruin your incentive to be successful quite a bit if you end up paying so much more, I mean why would I want to work more, if I end up with nearly the same as somebody who works a lot less and is a lot less skilled?

Progressive taxation works quite well in reality. It built the US economy. If someone wants to move to a tax haven fine but they should be required to pay taxes on money made in the US or where ever their money is made.

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:26:03 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Who votes for Jeffff to be the dictator?

boi


It won't work. He read as far as "who votes for Jeffff's dick" and was offff and running....


(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:26:32 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
I mean if safety is such an issue, why not take the very big car - the public bus? Less convenient, I agree but why not pay for convenience?



That would be AWESOME...if every major metro area had an effective bus system. But we don't, especially here in Palm Beach county.


_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 10:28:45 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


Progressive taxation works quite well in reality. It built the US economy. If someone wants to move to a tax haven fine but they should be required to pay taxes on money made in the US or where ever their money is made.


BINGO! Any company who's headquarters or primary source of labor is from outside of the country, should suffer HUGE tax increases, above and beyond that of any tax associated with operating businesses inside of the country. It's the ONLY way to overcome the issue of outsourcing.

Fuck NAFTA.

< Message edited by BoiJen -- 8/3/2010 10:29:07 AM >

_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 12:35:03 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Wealth disparity and income disparity are two different things.

I have to side with Sanity on the idea of how will you get or keep anyone worth a damn if you can't pay them based on what they bring to the company.

If a CEO doubles my company profits from 2 million to 4 million shouldn't I be able to pay him Half a million bonus?

I'm partly with Jeffff on the consumption tax, but I would leave corporations out of it, because in the end corporations don't pay taxes anyway. All taxes are paid by individual people the corporate taxes come out of some real person's pocket. stock holder, employees, customers, someone real is not getting that money.

But I'm all for the Fair Tax version of a consumption tax.

The idea is to protect the regime of incentives without truly direct interference except at maybe the most extraordinary levels of almost exclusively business income or capital gains in which I am forced to include carried interests. It's easier to minimize terms.

I do not favor at all income limitations except for a much higher tax schedule for those in the stratosphere of multi-millions per year. AND that only because as a real conservative would agree...we have accumilated some huge bills to pay. But follow me here again, if we are to protect the current regime of the ideal fee market incentives, we must...it is imperative that we fix the federal books...now !!

As long as we are on the subject...Obama has a golden opportunity. Take the income tax...out-of-politics altogether. How about a total elimination of all income taxes below $250,000/yr. ? Half of that population pays very little or no income taxes anyway.

Then a level investment tax on 2 year long term cap. gains etc. with a 10% value added tax (VAT) and a small increase of the EITC for reimbursment for the poorest of us in their survival demand of products and services ?

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 12:44:52 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
That is a brilliant way of getting big companies to have their headquarters and administration outside of a country and losing most of the tax they would pay.

So why are so many American companies' UK branches based in Dublin rather than Britain after thirty odd years of monetarists throwing a whopping tax cut for foreign investors into every budget?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to LadyConstanze)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 12:56:06 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Eliminate income tax. Institute a Federal Sales Tax.

Taxes based on consumption not income. Tax corporations the same way. Spend 22 million on a CEO pay taxes on that amount. Make Corporate deductions based in business re investment.

If you don't spend it, you don't pay any tax. It becomes an incentive for average people to save and invest.


I think it would stop people from investing, because investments would be taxed heavily then, as a result the equipment would not be modernized and imports would take over...


Invesments would not be taxed.

Things purchased with the profit from those investments would be.

Investments for new start-ups only and for only 2 years of those gains. Otherwise investments must be taxed as income just like all other income...some more for extraordinary gains.

ANY...any incentive for investment must reside only in the marketplace...not the tax code. Like I've asked...why should I pay only 15% tax on my millions 'earned' flipping a piece of real estate after a year, while you pay 35% on the salary I paid you to do the leg work for me ?

Corporate tax should be a skim...a gross receipts tax...no deductions, not neccesary.

Thing is when you fuck with the big boys at the corporate level and the congressional tax committees, that brings real heat down upon you.

(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 1:02:32 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		In the last 10 years- we reward and fund incompetence.

Guess what we will see more of?

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 1:06:55 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		NO NO NO NO NO A VAT in addition to an income tax is suicide for productivity and competitive markets.

If they ever get over half the population out of the income tax then they will be able to do the class warfare thing entirely without fear.
Eat the Rich works only so long as there are the rich to eat. Eventually the rich will either leave or be made poor.

Nice try with the any real conservative would agree, but I'm calling you on the BS aspect of while conservatives will agree we have huge bills to pay and we need to cover them we have to attack the spending side of the equation first. Once you (generic you) have shown a REAL commitment to cutting spending I'm willing to discuss how to increase revenue through taxes as necessary.

However the Fair Tax eliminates the Income Tax, Social Security Tax, and Medicare Tax and covers them all with the consumption tax rate set at 23% (inclussive). (pre Healthcare bill spending levels, I have not seen what the rate required will be to cover the monstrosity that is the new healthcare laws cost.)

DomKen requires progressive well consumption of new goods and services is certainly progressive, with "the rich" spending alot more money above and beyond the poverty level of spending in new goods and services. Additionally the removal of those regressive social security and medicare taxes also levels the field a bit for the poor. Lets them have their whole paycheck every month.

Also the benefits of a consumption tax allow for alot of liberal behavior goals to come into play to modify behavior and reduce conspicous consumption of many resources.
The new way to avoid taxation would be to reduce your consumption of new goods and services, thus a smaller footprint in general. Skills that the poor have already would make them practically untaxed.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 1:07:10 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
That is a brilliant way of getting big companies to have their headquarters and administration outside of a country and losing most of the tax they would pay.

So why are so many American companies' UK branches based in Dublin rather than Britain after thirty odd years of monetarists throwing a whopping tax cut for foreign investors into every budget?

Time we all got over this debate about just where corporations are or not.

Corporate America...doesn't exist. They have long since 'moved offshore.' Shall we take a look ? The is a Corporate World...only !

They KEEP or move their profits offshore...they move their manufacturing offshore...they move their white collar work offshore. They lobby to bring in more foreign workers at 1/2 the cost. They are already gone kinkroids so I certainly don't give a fuck just where they locate maybe...maybe 200 jobs for their hdqs.

For Corporations, there is no 'America' there are only costs and customers. Hell people, WalMart has everything offshore. All they need in America is a few clerical workers, retail workers and store managers. The only services they need here are services they can't move or acquire...offshore.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 1:16:10 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		Moonhead why Dublin instead of Britain? simple, The Irish Miracle (even lower corporate taxes than the UK offered)
Ireand has a corporate tax rate of about 12%
The UK has a corrporate tax rate over double that at about 30%
So you tell me why they go to Dublin and not Liverpool

Mr Rodgers you still buy that corporations pay taxes at all?????????????????
No matter if you tax them at 1% or at 60% corporations don't actually pay them they pass them on to one or more of three groups of actual people.
The Employees- don't get raises because the end profit level must reach X% before anyone gets a raise
The Customers because the corporations will add any tax they are hit with and roll it into the receipt and have the customers pay it.
The Stock Holders because if they can't pass it on then it is taken out of profits that belong to the stock holders.

ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE one way or another.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 1:34:24 PM   
annarborsub


Posts: 4
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline 		Archer is the man!

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 1:52:27 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

NO NO NO NO NO A VAT in addition to an income tax is suicide for productivity and competitive markets.

If they ever get over half the population out of the income tax then they will be able to do the class warfare thing entirely without fear.

Nice try with the any real conservative would agree, but I'm calling you on the BS aspect of while conservatives will agree we have huge bills to pay and we need to cover them we have to attack the spending side of the equation first. Once you (generic you) have shown a REAL commitment to cutting spending I'm willing to discuss how to increase revenue through taxes as necessary.


You misunderstand me and I did leave a few things out. Trying to achieve the ideal here means a truly free market tax regime is seperate from spending politically. The conservativism of our founding fathers for example only dealt with business taxes and fees.

The big reason for the creation of the income tax was mathematical because the prohibition of alcohol subtracted 30% of federal taxes. Then as now in a debate on how to tax a free-market is a scientific or mathematical question while spending is almost all political. Rates were extremely high because fiscally they were all conservatives...to pay for WW1.

I did leave out that my tax regime would have a much lower top rate but only the highest 2-5% of all incomes would pay any income tax, gains, dividends or schedule C. 98% of 1040 filers would off the hook...zero income tax.

I too favor a unified budget, no more payroll withholding at all for 98% of filers. With a VAT (federal sales tax) we make up for the loss of income tax while business and investment decisions will be made by the marketplace...not the tax code.

As far as how this would effect the economy...I don't care. I don't want a purchased/modified tax field. If we say we believe in a free market...let the tax code try it for once. Being honest, when was the last set of pols in Wash., who gave a shit about spending ? Yes we need to cut it while we get the income tax out of the discussion.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 2:10:46 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Moonhead why Dublin instead of Britain? simple, The Irish Miracle (even lower corporate taxes than the UK offered)
Ireand has a corporate tax rate of about 12%
The UK has a corrporate tax rate over double that at about 30%
So you tell me why they go to Dublin and not Liverpool

Mr Rodgers you still buy that corporations pay taxes at all?????????????????
No matter if you tax them at 1% or at 60% corporations don't actually pay them they pass them on to one or more of three groups of actual people.
The Employees- don't get raises because the end profit level must reach X% before anyone gets a raise
The Customers because the corporations will add any tax they are hit with and roll it into the receipt and have the customers pay it.
The Stock Holders because if they can't pass it on then it is taken out of profits that belong to the stock holders.

ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE one way or another.


Don't know where you read this in my posts. I am in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. It's not being paid at top rates anyway.

In the aggregate the US has the 2nd lowest tax regime in the industrialized world.

Here

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Wealth distribution. - 8/3/2010 2:24:03 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline 		On the indicvidual level we tax lower than many but on the corporate level only Japan taxes companies higher than we do.
add to that the fact that the US is one of the few countries that includes taxes on profits on things manufacured marketed and sold entirely overseas.

If Maytag builds a washing machine in Mexico and sells it in Brazil and the machine never even saw the face of a US citizen, then Maytag still gets taxed by the US on that profit. Not many other countries have the balls to tax a good that never entered their country.

And people wonder why they lose jobs



< Message edited by Archer -- 8/3/2010 2:25:00 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Wealth distribution. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094