RE: General Ideas for a Tax System

RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 4:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I'm trying to figure out if I like that you respond with one post to several posts from more than one person - all with proper quoting - or if it's more confusing than not. [;)] quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri the vast majority of nuclear power generators are owned by corporations that also own other forms of power generation Even if this is true, it only shows another way the companies can get more profit by using less nuclear energy, sinking the taxes they pay for production. So, it would actually support my point. And I insist, if they do not, other companies will take their share of market by offering better prices. And if they do not, people will consume less. And if they do not, technology will come to help any of the actors in the given direction. The difficulties in filling the need (regulations, bureaucracy, etc.), allow for these large multiprocess generators to be insulated (to some point) from competition. Even without the taxing you are calling for, getting into the game is largely prohibited through red tape. With less elasticity in the market, the costs will simply be passed onto the customer. This is a more captive audience than not. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then why mention it? Because I disagree with you. I think that the concept is clear enough for the discussion. If you think it is not, do not discuss. I don't disagree we tax the things we want to reduce and not tax the things we want to increase. On a "global" level, that should be obvious. The problem is that the people who get to decide what to reduce/increase will change, and the things we want to reduce/increase will change, too. Then we get into the whole "democratic consensus" thing. What is that? Democracies don't run on consensus. They are two very different ideas. Or, by "democratic" are you saying that the citizens of each country get to vote on it what is to be reduced/increased? What level of agreement "makes it so?" What %-age of the votes will be required for "consensus" to be reached? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri there wouldn't be enough "negatives" to tax I disagree. Obviously I don't agree there will be. Care to discuss further than simply voicing that you disagree? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri They increase the taxes so as to continue the funding. They don't care about ending the negative behavior. It's all about the money. So, the State gets its taxes and the negative behaviour decreases. Everbody wins :) Everything the State does is tied to taxes. Taxing out of existence X, Y and Z ends up removing funding. Once X, Y, and Z are no longer available to be taxed, where will funding come from? You will run out of things to tax. My example of the smoking cessation programs is that the spending isn't being reduced while the funding is dropping. Had the taxes been limited to being used only for things having to do with their source (ie. cigarette taxes only used for anti-smoking cessation and to help fund "clean up" of smoking's impact) so that once the source starts to dwindle, so does the spending, that would be one thing. That is not what happens here. Not by a long shot. As soon as funding starts to dwindle. a new source of funding will be found. Almost any tax dollar not being spent will be found a place to be spent. Once a government starts spending on some thing, it's not likely to ever stop, even if the source of it's funding is no longer in existence. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Consensus will never be established on pretty much anything like this. I disagree on this too, and I will not drop the consensus part. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean by "consensus," then? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri why are we not taxing everything we want to discourage? For many possible reasons, including the feasibility of the taxes, or possible side effects. There can be many reasons, many! If there are possible side effects we don't want, shouldn't that be part of the decision as to whether or not we want to discourage the original action/behavior/thing? You know, don't just look at the thing alone, but as it relates to the system? Do we want to get rid of insect X? Yes. Why don't we? It is the primary food source for Animal Y, which we don't want to get rid of. Then, do we really want to get rid of insect X? Well, no.

eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 5:15:45 AM)
I answer directly to the OP, I'm sorry if what I'm telling had already been answered, I hope it's something new, but I had no time to read all the discussion. SpanishMatMaster: if you tax property and not profit, with your logic, you are inducing people to work just for food and clothes, as any profit over the income used for primary needs becomes property, than as you tax "inequity" whatever it means, you induce people to not invest any resource or begin any business or cover responsible or qualified work positions as nothing will repay the risk, creating a hell with nothing more than indigence and corruption out of your utopia. I understand you are probably proud of your idea and in your head is everything working perfectly, but you should just think again.

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 5:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I answer directly to the OP, I'm sorry if what I'm telling had already been answered, I hope it's something new, but I had no time to read all the discussion. SpanishMatMaster: if you tax property and not profit, with your logic, you are inducing people to work just for food and clothes, as any profit over the income used for primary needs becomes property, than as you tax "inequity" whatever it means, you induce people to not invest any resource or begin any business or cover responsible or qualified work positions as nothing will repay the risk, creating a hell with nothing more than indigence and corruption out of your utopia. I understand you are probably proud of your idea and in your head is everything working perfectly, but you should just think again. And, here we have a good example. Food and clothes are property, too, aren't they? I believe in the US, income is considered private property, too (though it might be difficult to understand that with all the rhetoric about money belonging to the people (general use) and not to those who earn it, that was spouted in 2011/2.

njlauren -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 8:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster General Rule: We tax only what we want to discourage. - Let us tax environmental damage, but covering many times the probable cost of repairing the damage done (even for nuclear waste we can estimate the way to eliminate the damage in the future and the necessary investment today to be able to repair it later). With "one time" we repair it (or plan its repair). With the rest we finance the state. So, tax the industries that create the environmental damage, right? That won't really motivate them to stop, you realize? Any extra cost (the tax) gets rolled into the cost of goods and sold to the consumer anyway. Consumers have no real way to pick and choose which power sources they get their power from, so you'll just be taxing consumers, rather than producers. And, that's a big boot in the ass to a "captive audience." FirstEnergy owns several nuke plants. Their "Davis-Besse" plant in NW Ohio was shut down because of a "pit" found in the containment cap (okay, the pit was merely the size of a football and left 10mm stainless steel cladding out of a 150mm thick carbon and stainless steels reactor cap; but, it was only a pit [8\|]). The company paid $800M to fix the problem and $28M in fines. One of the odd things (to me) was that the fines were not allowed to be passed down to rate-payers. How they were to pay those fines without charging rate-payers struck me as impossible. Well, while working for a different employer, I had the opportunity to talk to some of the linemen for FirstEnergy. Since FirstEnergy rate-payers weren't allowed to be charged, when bulk energy was sold between providers, the fines were, essentially, included in those rates. So, when FirstEnergy produced more power than it's customer base was using and sold that excess to power companies looking to cover shortfalls (say, in California), the fines were paid for by bumping up the cost of that excess power. So, the rate-payers of the power company in CA that bought extra generation from FirstEnergy, ended up paying for those fines. Who are you taxing/fining, then? The producers who are causing the damage, or the customers who don't really have much of a say? quote: - Let us tax inequality, but only above a limit considered "natural" (number to be found by democratic consensus). Let us motivate the rich to help the poor... so that they themselves pay less taxes when the inequality indexes decrease towards that natural limit: but only then. No tax reduction for one individual help "Democratic Concensus" isn't a "natural number" (other than in a mathematical sense), and will be open for political manipulation. "Democratic Concensus" is, in and of itself, pretty much an oxymoron. 50%+1 vote isn't concensus. How would you tax "inequality?" quote: - tax reduction for all when inequality actually decreases. - While doing this, let us tax inequality in properties, not in income. We have nothing against income. We have nothing against a very poor guy earning suddenly a bunch of money. We have something about many people having few and few people having many (beyond the natural limit). How are you defining "property?" Is an investment a "property," or are you thinking of physical things like houses, buildings, real estate, etc.? quote: - Let us not tax profit: we want people to have profit. Nor building companies: we want people to building companies. Nor getting a job: we want them to have a job. What is left to tax? Are you saying to tax whatever is "saved?" That is, if a person makes a profit (which would be exchanging their time-labor input for money), what they don't spend of that profit gets taxed? That is still taxing the profits and income. quote: - Let us tax the abuse of the state institution, but not the use of state institutions. A normal use should be for free, because we do not want to discourage it. Exaggerated use should be punished by law with many times the damage done. This includes particularly the abuse of the legal system. The devil of this last part lies in the details that define it. Use/abuse are subjective terms and may be defined quite differently depending on who is doing the defining. A local radio station puts it this way, "It's not about what is fair and what is not fair. It's about who gets to decide." In the US, conservatives and liberals will define "fair" quite differently when it comes to things like what level of taxation constitutes a "fair share." quote: Let us tax only what we want to discourage. And that, let us tax is heavily, so heavily that the society actually changes. The issue is who gets to decide what "we" want to discourage, and what we are allowed to discourage. Placing heavy tax loads on derogatory speech is most definitely an infringement of free speech, regardless of what the majority may or may not decide. This is the problem with pure democracy. In a pure democracy, you will have tyranny of the majority. Those in the minority will not have any rights (in those areas they disagree with the majority) and will be at the mercy of the majority. That is an afront to any who believe that there are Human rights inherent solely on a person being a human. The general gist of this sort of tax plan is great, but I don't think there is any apolitical way of implementing it. At least in the US, it will be abused to the benefit of those in power staying in power. The lineman don't know what they are talking about, and I can tell you why. There is a common myth that power (and oil and gas) are priced by the provider, that the power generators decide how much to charge, and that isn't true. Prices for power are based on power trading markets, both in futures and spot market pricing, there are regional power grid auctions that decide how much power to buy. Power generators try to estimate demand (using weather data, among other things) to figure out how much natural gas (or coal, or oil) to buy, and they buy futures contracts to cover that (along with hedges in options and derivatives in case they guess wrong either way). Power providers (the power company you have coming into your house) buys power much the same way, they buy peak and off peak futures for given periods, and they make up the difference in a daily spot market. The providers don't get a phone call from Con Ed saying "I need 500 megawatts of people power, how much?", they go onto an auction spot market to buy power, and it is based on demand (spot markets are generally a lot more expensive to play on; if there is a glut of power you sell excess power at a loss, if there is high demand, you pay through the nose). California got whacked when good ole Arnold became governor in large part because Enron gamed the power auction systems. Power providers make more money selling excess power because what they do is find a region that has large demand, and sells it in that market, which due to supply and demand, makes them more profit, there is no doubt, but they don't set the price of oil, any more then Exxon or anyone else sets the price of oil. In the power markets these days, there are providers and there are generators, most of the power companies have sold off their power plants to other companies, and don't generate their own power, and if power generators were able to charge what they want, the providers would be screwed, because in most states their prices are still regulated (since the delivery to your house is done by a single company, who bills you each month), and they can only raise rates so much. I agree that taxing things like the environmental failures do often end up a tax downstream, that they will raise prices to pay for their mistakes. The only way to do this right would be to hit the people most affected, the stockholders. If the company gets fined, that money would need to be paid up front and if fined, the company would not be allowed to write that fine off as a business expense, so it would be a direct hit to their profits. Under current tax code, when a company gets fined like that, they can deduct it as a business cost, which is outrageous, because it is the government lessening the blow (unless they have modified the tax code, as of not many years ago this was the law). There should be laws that if fined, companies are not allowed to try and make up for it by cutting employees or any of the other tricks for a period of time, to act as a deterrance (since if the stock price plummets, the CEO and executives would be on the hot seat). s

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 11:15:12 AM)
Hello, Desideri! I will write here such "headers" to make it easier. My problem is that I cannot write 3 answers in a row to 3 different people, the system prevents it, so it seems that I have to gather if I write more than 2 answers. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The difficulties in filling the need (regulations, bureaucracy, etc.), allow for these large multiprocess generators to be insulated (to some point) from competition. Even without the taxing you are calling for, getting into the game is largely prohibited through red tape. With less elasticity in the market, the costs will simply be passed onto the customer. This is a more captive audience than not. I completely disagree, even in the US, even for the energy market. See other postings on this behalf. The companies themselves compete internally when they chose which kind of generators to invest in + there are other companies around + others can appear if the high prices make it worthy + the consumer can consume less + technologies to reduce consume can be developed if the prices rises (is already happening). Any one single of these factors is enough to break the inelastic monopoly. We have all. I am sorry but I have the impression that I am repeating myself and that none of us is going to move or convince the other. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem is that the people who get to decide what to reduce/increase will change, and the things we want to reduce/increase will change, too. Happens all day already. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri {Consensus} What is that? A wide agreement, Desideri. A wide agreement, which is more than 50% +1 but does not require unanimity. I do not think that I have to give a concrete number because anything considered in the laws of the country as "wide agreement" works for me. I know Spain, for example, where there are two parties which represent much, much more than 50%, so an agreement between them both would be "consensus". I guess that in the USA a number met by both Republicans and Democrats would also be "consensus". But I do not want to enter the discussion about your political system, how democratic it is, how to improve it, what not do to or what do to, please understand me on this! Please! It is simply not this discussion! Open a new thread if you want a better way to find consensus in your country! Please! I have the impression that you are fascinated by a discussion which has nothing to do with my proposal, and you try to carry me to your discussion using this thread and I do not want to. Not here. Please. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Democracies don't run on consensus. They are two very different ideas. Or, by "democratic" are you saying that the citizens of each country get to vote on it what is to be reduced/increased? What level of agreement "makes it so?" What %-age of the votes will be required for "consensus" to be reached? See above. If you want to discuss how to define a consensus in a modern democracy, I recommend that you open another thread. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Obviously I don't agree there will be. Care to discuss further than simply voicing that you disagree? Not more as you have simply voiced that there would not be enough... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Taxing out of existence X, Y and Z ends up removing funding. There is a long, long way before this happens, and then we can tax more things we want to discourage. As science advances and offers new opportunities, the use of technologies "now obsolete and more damaging as the new ones" will always be something to discourage. There will be always enough things to discourage. Just, changing the tax system as I propose, we will progress much more rapidly as doing what we are doing now: Taxing things we want to happen. Which makes me slapface, honestly. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Once a government starts spending on some thing, it's not likely to ever stop, even if the source of it's funding is no longer in existence. Whale oil. They have stopped spending on whale oil. They found a better technology. But I have again the impression that your sentences here have nothing to do with my specific ideas on taxing, that you are presenting some kind of general problem of the state which is independent on what you tax. Sorry if I got that wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If there are possible side effects we don't want, shouldn't that be part of the decision as to whether or not we want to discourage the original action/behavior/thing? You know, don't just look at the thing alone, but as it relates to the system? You are getting too philosophical here. If your final conclusion is going to be that we do not want to tax calling somebody an ass in private because we do not 'actually' want to discourage it, then be my guest, I agree anyway and it is a matter every country can decide by its own anyway. You were the one finding "things we want to discourage and we do not want to tax", now you define "discourage" so that you do not want to discourage them because of the effects of that tax... be my guest. I do not see the point of this particular part of the discussion. Best regards. Hello, eulero83: quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 if you tax property and not profit, with your logic, you are inducing people to work just for food and clothes Absolutely not, it depends on the concrete percentages applies to the concrete amount of property, based on calculations based on which kinds of. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 than as you tax "inequity" whatever it means, you induce people to not invest any resource or begin any business or cover responsible or qualified work positions as nothing will repay the risk Absolutely wrong, as investing is the way to get more money. You have built a strawman and you are attacking it. Like I proposed to tax the poor heavily for having some property, instead of taxing the rich only on exaggerated inequality (BTW there are good standard definitions of inequality). And you are completely ignoring the main point of the OP, which is not the tax on that specific "unwanted" target. Plus, there have been many countries taxing property one way or another, and many still do, so it will be hard to convince me that it provokes the economic crush its has already not provoked in dozens of countries for centuries. I guess that you only believe this because you have ignored completely all the rest and you imagine some kind of heavy tax on the jeans of the beggar. This is absurd. Please stop attacking the strawman or I will have to ignore your messages. Best regards. Hello, njlauren! quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I agree that taxing things like the environmental failures do often end up a tax downstream, that they will raise prices to pay for their mistakes And often ends also in people changing or improving their technologies, abandoning obsolete ones, in new technologies getting developed, in people consumig less... It is really the force of the market I rely on here. And I thank you for your wonderful explanation about how good energy market is. It reinforces my point to DesideriScuri that taxing "bad energies" would indeed provoke a shift, and pretty rapidly. Thank you all for your participation!

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 11:48:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren The lineman don't know what they are talking about, and I can tell you why. There is a common myth that power (and oil and gas) are priced by the provider, that the power generators decide how much to charge, and that isn't true. Prices for power are based on power trading markets, both in futures and spot market pricing, there are regional power grid auctions that decide how much power to buy. Power generators try to estimate demand (using weather data, among other things) to figure out how much natural gas (or coal, or oil) to buy, and they buy futures contracts to cover that (along with hedges in options and derivatives in case they guess wrong either way). Power providers (the power company you have coming into your house) buys power much the same way, they buy peak and off peak futures for given periods, and they make up the difference in a daily spot market. The providers don't get a phone call from Con Ed saying "I need 500 megawatts of people power, how much?", they go onto an auction spot market to buy power, and it is based on demand (spot markets are generally a lot more expensive to play on; if there is a glut of power you sell excess power at a loss, if there is high demand, you pay through the nose). California got whacked when good ole Arnold became governor in large part because Enron gamed the power auction systems. Power providers make more money selling excess power because what they do is find a region that has large demand, and sells it in that market, which due to supply and demand, makes them more profit, there is no doubt, but they don't set the price of oil, any more then Exxon or anyone else sets the price of oil. In the power markets these days, there are providers and there are generators, most of the power companies have sold off their power plants to other companies, and don't generate their own power, and if power generators were able to charge what they want, the providers would be screwed, because in most states their prices are still regulated (since the delivery to your house is done by a single company, who bills you each month), and they can only raise rates so much. I agree that taxing things like the environmental failures do often end up a tax downstream, that they will raise prices to pay for their mistakes. The only way to do this right would be to hit the people most affected, the stockholders. If the company gets fined, that money would need to be paid up front and if fined, the company would not be allowed to write that fine off as a business expense, so it would be a direct hit to their profits. Under current tax code, when a company gets fined like that, they can deduct it as a business cost, which is outrageous, because it is the government lessening the blow (unless they have modified the tax code, as of not many years ago this was the law). There should be laws that if fined, companies are not allowed to try and make up for it by cutting employees or any of the other tricks for a period of time, to act as a deterrance (since if the stock price plummets, the CEO and executives would be on the hot seat). s Yet, the utilities have to get the okay to raise rates. PUCO holds the power to allow or prevent rate hikes. Most likely, First Energy buys as much fuels as they can, so they can produce as much as possible, considering they can sell their excess on the open market.

thompsonx -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 12:42:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren The lineman don't know what they are talking about, and I can tell you why. There is a common myth that power (and oil and gas) are priced by the provider, that the power generators decide how much to charge, and that isn't true. Prices for power are based on power trading markets, both in futures and spot market pricing, there are regional power grid auctions that decide how much power to buy. Power generators try to estimate demand (using weather data, among other things) to figure out how much natural gas (or coal, or oil) to buy, and they buy futures contracts to cover that (along with hedges in options and derivatives in case they guess wrong either way). Power providers (the power company you have coming into your house) buys power much the same way, they buy peak and off peak futures for given periods, and they make up the difference in a daily spot market. The providers don't get a phone call from Con Ed saying "I need 500 megawatts of people power, how much?", they go onto an auction spot market to buy power, and it is based on demand (spot markets are generally a lot more expensive to play on; if there is a glut of power you sell excess power at a loss, if there is high demand, you pay through the nose). California got whacked when good ole Arnold became governor in large part because Enron gamed the power auction systems. Power providers make more money selling excess power because what they do is find a region that has large demand, and sells it in that market, which due to supply and demand, makes them more profit, there is no doubt, but they don't set the price of oil, any more then Exxon or anyone else sets the price of oil. In the power markets these days, there are providers and there are generators, most of the power companies have sold off their power plants to other companies, and don't generate their own power, and if power generators were able to charge what they want, the providers would be screwed, because in most states their prices are still regulated (since the delivery to your house is done by a single company, who bills you each month), and they can only raise rates so much. I agree that taxing things like the environmental failures do often end up a tax downstream, that they will raise prices to pay for their mistakes. The only way to do this right would be to hit the people most affected, the stockholders. If the company gets fined, that money would need to be paid up front and if fined, the company would not be allowed to write that fine off as a business expense, so it would be a direct hit to their profits. Under current tax code, when a company gets fined like that, they can deduct it as a business cost, which is outrageous, because it is the government lessening the blow (unless they have modified the tax code, as of not many years ago this was the law). There should be laws that if fined, companies are not allowed to try and make up for it by cutting employees or any of the other tricks for a period of time, to act as a deterrance (since if the stock price plummets, the CEO and executives would be on the hot seat). s Yet, the utilities have to get the okay to raise rates. PUCO holds the power to allow or prevent rate hikes. Those are the standard protocols that come with being a govt. sanctioned monopoly quote: Most likely, First Energy buys as much fuels as they can, so they can produce as much as possible, considering they can sell their excess on the open market. Most likely????Is that like guess?Wouldn't factual knowledge be more usefull?

eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 2:35:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Hello, eulero83: quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 if you tax property and not profit, with your logic, you are inducing people to work just for food and clothes Absolutely not, it depends on the concrete percentages applies to the concrete amount of property, based on calculations based on which kinds of. quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 than as you tax "inequity" whatever it means, you induce people to not invest any resource or begin any business or cover responsible or qualified work positions as nothing will repay the risk Absolutely wrong, as investing is the way to get more money. You have built a strawman and you are attacking it. Like I proposed to tax the poor heavily for having some property, instead of taxing the rich only on exaggerated inequality (BTW there are good standard definitions of inequality). And you are completely ignoring the main point of the OP, which is not the tax on that specific "unwanted" target. Plus, there have been many countries taxing property one way or another, and many still do, so it will be hard to convince me that it provokes the economic crush its has already not provoked in dozens of countries for centuries. I guess that you only believe this because you have ignored completely all the rest and you imagine some kind of heavy tax on the jeans of the beggar. This is absurd. Please stop attacking the strawman or I will have to ignore your messages. Best regards. So in your utopia there are no pubblic services provided or any kind of welfare I suppose, 'cos you named a few things to put a tax on, this means taxes will be high or worth nothing as no service will be guaranteed. I come from from one of the country that taxes property (cars, real estate, televisions...) with profits, incomes, energy, sold goods, and almost anything else, and by the way economy IS collapsing. The problem with taxing only "the rich people" is that there are just a few really rich persons, so when proposal like your are applied there are many middelclass families that discover to be rich when taxes are collected. It's the same every time socialist area governament tried to impose new taxes they use the words "don't warry only big incomes/assets/real estate properties will be considered" so most of people think "I'm not rich so I agree" and in the end of the year they discover their house is big, the money they are saving for retirement are many, and their cars are luxurious, so next election most vote for a liberal governament. My point was another by the way, you said "we must tax what we want to discourage" than "we must not discourage profit" and than "we must tax property" this is a loop 'cos I don't see the point in making profit if it's not to have property so if I'm discouraged in collecting property I just won't work for profit, but save my time for resting or having fun, and aslo accepting more responsibility on my workplace, or study years for a better paid job, as the whole point of doing this is owning more properties and as you said society will punish me for owning more than average people do. The whole thing I read in your OP is not a strawman but a childish and naive way to adapt socialism to a free market economy that usually gives more problems than a planned economy, and as you can see from the ammount of prostitutes and underpaid workers moving to germany from eastern europe, this just doesn't work fine.

cordeliasub -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 3:00:35 PM)
There is a simple reason that this whole "inequity" thing makes no sense. I see it in so many discussions online and in the news. Because money's value depends on where that money IS. In my little town, 100K a year would mean I'm a rich woman. In other places in the country, 100K would mean I am just a plain old middle class person. And who decides how much is too much? "You can have one vacation a year and five pairs of shoes, but only one of them can be designer....oops, wait, that other person over there can't afford designer....gimme those shoes." And what about work ethic and motivation? If i knew that no matter how hard I worked I wasn't going to get anything different from what the lazy guy who did just enough was going to get - because, ya know, we all have to be THE SAME (which is not the same as fair or equal, btw), why in the world would I bust my butt just so I could give everything I worked for back? For the record, I am not rich. It's the 19th, and I have less than 100 buck to make it through the rest of the month - with kids. So no, I am not trying to protect my right to amass an empire. Just pointing out that there is no real way to decide what makes everyone "the same."

thompsonx -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 3:50:57 PM)
quote: And what about work ethic and motivation? If i knew that no matter how hard I worked I wasn't going to get anything different from what the lazy guy who did just enough was going to get Why does this bother you? Why does how much someone else makes offend you? Each worker, in this scenario, has the choice of working as much or as little as they choose. quote: - because, ya know, we all have to be THE SAME (which is not the same as fair or equal, btw), why in the world would I bust my butt just so I could give everything I worked for back? No one has asked you to give away anything you worked for. If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to more air than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to more happiness than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to more sleep than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to shit more than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to piss more than you? If my point is not clear I can make this list longer.

eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 5:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: And what about work ethic and motivation? If i knew that no matter how hard I worked I wasn't going to get anything different from what the lazy guy who did just enough was going to get Why does this bother you? Why does how much someone else makes offend you? Each worker, in this scenario, has the choice of working as much or as little as they choose. ok I choose to work as little as possible

DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 6:11:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Yet, the utilities have to get the okay to raise rates. PUCO holds the power to allow or prevent rate hikes. Those are the standard protocols that come with being a govt. sanctioned monopoly Thanks for catching up, Thompson! quote: quote: Most likely, First Energy buys as much fuels as they can, so they can produce as much as possible, considering they can sell their excess on the open market. Most likely????Is that like guess?Wouldn't factual knowledge be more usefull? Pot... kettle...

cordeliasub -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 6:19:34 PM)
quote: If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to more air than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to more happiness than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to more sleep than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to shit more than you? If I work harder than you do should I be entitled to piss more than you? If my point is not clear I can make this list longer. Um....if you do not know the difference between air and piss and a wage someone works for, I am not quite sure how to explain it. My point is.....this idea of there being some magical consensus about how much is "enough" for everyone else to make is....ridiculous. There will never be a consensus, and who gets to decide? The bottom line is that there is a segment of people who wants to make success borne of hard work and self-motivation some sort of greedy moral failure. it gets really old after awhile.

RottenJohnny -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/19/2013 7:25:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny I can't imagine it's very successful at keeping businesses alive while forcing them to pay high taxes. I have missed that discussion, but I hope nobody pretends that I am proposing to rise the taxes. I am proposing to change them, not rise them or sink them. I didn't have that impression at all. I understood what your intent was. I was simply trying to understand where RealOne was going with his ideas.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/20/2013 1:21:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 So in your utopia I stopped reading here. Reformulate your answer without sarcasms if you want me to read it. Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/20/2013 1:23:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cordeliasub There is a simple reason that this whole "inequity" thing makes no sense. I see it in so many discussions online and in the news. Because money's value depends on where that money IS. Ok, I stop reading here for the moment... can you please explain two things? * Does the income tax make sense for you? Particularly when, as in most countries, does not depend on the place you earn your money. So, if you want to present a problem of tax systems as a whole, then please open a new thread for it, here it would be only the problems other tax systems do not have [:)] . * When exactly did I say that this could not possibly be considered in the equation? I appreciate the interest many people took on this thread, seriously, but sometimes I have problems finding the time to help when people do not really seem to have thought a lot before writing the answer. No offense intended, and maybe I am completely wrong and you did think a lot, but for me it sounds like you did... - "Oh, here a potential problem, I write it and see how he reacts." Instead of: - "Oh, here a potential problem. Could it be resolved? Hm... yes, of course, doing this and that... ok, do I have something to say?" And you are not the only one! Some people seem to participate with the exclusive intention to attack, not trying really to explore the idea with an open mind. And then I get tired of answering things I think I should not have to explain. I am tired now, sorry if you pay for others account, I sincerely appreciate your interest and would be glad to read your answers, just a bit more... self-analysed... ones. Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/20/2013 1:25:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny I can't imagine it's very successful at keeping businesses alive while forcing them to pay high taxes. I have missed that discussion, but I hope nobody pretends that I am proposing to rise the taxes. I am proposing to change them, not rise them or sink them. I didn't have that impression at all. I understood what your intent was. I was simply trying to understand where RealOne was going with his ideas. Ok, thank you very much. Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/20/2013 1:33:05 AM)
...and why the hell is everybody concentrating on the inequity stuff anyway? [:D] Seriously, it is only a small part of the whole system! Maybe because I am European and thus the US people fear a socialist brainwash behind my proposal? Guys, read my lips! No more income taxes! No more taxes on profit! No more fees to create a company! No more fees for the bureaucracy of the state! No more taxes per employee! No more VAT! I would not be more business-friendly! I hope it is because you simply agree with the rest :) .

eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/20/2013 3:09:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 So in your utopia I stopped reading here. Reformulate your answer without sarcasms if you want me to read it. Best regards. I was not sarcastic, you proposed your idea as a new tax and welfare system to build a a better society (more equal and envairoment friendly) that's not used in any actual nations (usually or production, commerce, and property are taxed or property is forbidden and everything is provided by state) it's the definition of utopia. But if you get offended by this it's better you don't read more as it will get worse.

eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/20/2013 3:16:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster ...and why the hell is everybody concentrating on the inequity stuff anyway? [:D] Seriously, it is only a small part of the whole system! Maybe because I am European and thus the US people fear a socialist brainwash behind my proposal? Guys, read my lips! No more income taxes! No more taxes on profit! No more fees to create a company! No more fees for the bureaucracy of the state! No more taxes per employee! No more VAT! I would not be more business-friendly! I hope it is because you simply agree with the rest :) . I AM Europian and I think inequity is the engine of economy and well being, maybe there is no socialdemocratic brainwash behind your proposal but you should also show some math with it, by now what you wrote is just populism.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02