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

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



Message

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 8:09:47 AM)

You are making some really HUGE assumptions that, for me (and probably many others), don't seem to be as you might like them to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
First we have the fact that those companies are winning more money from other sources - taxes they are no longer paying. According to your logic, that would mean that they would drop their bills to the customers too. Or the companies always just raise the bills and never again drop them when the costs decrease? Really? In Germany they do, it is a result of free market and competence.

I don't hear that opinion and it wouldn't fit most ecenomics in most countries.

Quite simply, people and companies are in business to make money and profit.
They want to make as much profit as possible with minimal effort - that's modern economics.
If the price of some expense in production is reduced, they WOULD NOT reduce the price of the final product to the consumer in general. The extra money/profit gained by saving on the cost of production would go into the investment/expansion of the company or pay the CEO's and managers a higher wage/dividend.
The cost of the product would remain the same (or very nearly) for the consumer unless a competitor's pricing strategy is such that they are losing revenue to the rival company.
It is foolhardy to assume or think that a reduction in production costs would automatically lead to reduction in the cost of the final product to the consumer.
No business in the world thinks along the lines of a charity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Second, we have these companies in competence with themselves. They have means of production which emmit more, and less, CO2. Now they have a powerful incentive to invest in the ones which emmit less.

You really think so?? How naive of you.
All of these carbon and emmissions taxes are able to be offset by buying and selling them to other companies.
Apart from which, the more you tax the company the more they will offset that cost by adding it to the final price of the product to the consumer in order to maintain their profit margins.
To think any different means that you have no idea on how commerce and industry works in the real world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Third, even if they all decide to raise the prices in coordination... by the way, this is forbidden in Germany... they would just create a huge incentive for any newcomer who can live with less profit: they come in, prices sink again.

Raising prices in Germany is not forbidden at all.
Germany is no different to most other first-world economies.
If companies cannot make enough profits for their owners and shareholders they simply stop trading.
You will have noticed that in recent years.
That is why Germany's trade figures are not too bright in recent years - the government cannot raise enough income to pay for its national debt. The most recent growth figures (March 2013) show that it was barely 0.1%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Fourth, the consumer is being motivated on consuming less. Usually he can, but even when he can't, this is only a motivation for the technological development to make it possible.

Again, a very naive view of things.
Consumers will consume as much as they are able to afford.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Fifth, there may be companies offering the same product without emmitting CO2 at all.

I find that assumption highly unlikely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
So... you are supposing, as DesideriScuri, an inlelastic monopoly (he... now it is me with the economic gibberish) where the demand can never drop so much that the company looses by rising the prices. And this is simply not real. At least not in nothing we produce emitting CO2, AFAIK, and not in a free market. And particularly not in the energy production in Germany.

And not only are you supposing an inelastic monopoly... you are also ignoring the other side of the medal! You are only considering the rise of taxes, not the drop.

Taxes very rarely drop.
If they do, it is either by such a small amount as to be negligable or would only benefit those that can already afford to pay the taxes in the first place. It is rarely of benefit to most of the community.
Your response here clearly shows that you have a very naive and utopian view of business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Not surprising that in "this the worst of all possible worlds" seeing "only the void half of the glass" my idea sounds horrible. Every idea would sound horrible in this situation.

For all these reasons, and I think that they are many many good reasons, I do not believe in your scenario.

Perhaps you should get your head out of cloud 9 and get to grips with reality.
Your scenario is completely unworkable and unsustainable.

Centuries ago, they tried something similar with a window tax.
The bigger or more windows you had, you paid more tax.
What did people do? They boarded up the windows so no tax was payable.
That revenue stream just died a death and was never reinstated.



DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 8:19:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Third, even if they all decide to raise the prices in coordination... by the way, this is forbidden in Germany... they would just create a huge incentive for any newcomer who can live with less profit: they come in, prices sink again.

Raising prices in Germany is not forbidden at all.
Germany is no different to most other first-world economies.
If companies cannot make enough profits for their owners and shareholders they simply stop trading.
You will have noticed that in recent years.
That is why Germany's trade figures are not too bright in recent years - the government cannot raise enough income to pay for its national debt. The most recent growth figures (March 2013) show that it was barely 0.1%.


I think he was referring to the companies within a certain sector all raising their prices together, as one. What is called collusion in the US (where it is also illegal).



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 9:17:07 AM)

I knew what he meant.
And yes, it's pretty much illegal in most of the first-world economies.

However, it can and does happen quite often.
Sometimes it's very difficult to prove it though and without some form of concrete proof, the authorities are scuppered.

The latest one over here is the price of fuel (gas, to you) and the fact that the monopoly enjoyed by a small minute number of controlling companies seem to have covered up the scandal for decades.
The European watchdog is currently investigating BP, Shell, StatOil and a few others with a view of prosecution under protectionism laws.
One problem I can already see is that Total (a French petroleum company) is mainly owned by the French government - so they won't like the EU legal eagles poking their nose into their business.



LookieNoNookie -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/22/2013 3:52:14 PM)


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.
- 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 - 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).
- 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.
- 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.

Let us tax only what we want to discourage. And that, let us tax is heavily, so heavily that the society actually changes.


There should only be ONE tax rule:

You earn money....you pay tax.

The stupidity of some paying a unique tax because they made their money on Capital gains is beyond ridiculous.

I make MOST of my income on capital gains income and I pay 23.8% based on income "above 400K".

This is AS stupid as declaring that SSI income should only be paid on income below 135K.

It's income.

You make a kazillion bucks....you pay X....you make a kazillion bucks....you pay the % of SSI.

Period.

End of discussion.

It would affect my income taxes by (maybe) 24%.

It wouldn't affect my lifestyle for 3 seconds.

Well...maybe 18 seconds.

24% of my taxes would affect me.....not at all.

Everyone should pay the same fucking tax.

Period.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 12:30:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, here is where we part ways. Now, you are dictating what can and can't be done by the individual.
No, taxes are no dictation, and if they are, then all countries already do this, including the US. All countries have taxes on behaviours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, since what is and what isn't desirable can, and will, change, as the winds of change so often do, you will have a reduced ability to plan for the tax code
I do not think so, not more than today. And I do not think that you have proven it either. Changes in the tax system are inevitable, to a certain point good, and occur already often enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That won't work in America, regardless of all the partisan sniping you might hear in response to this post.
You opinion, please understand that you have not proven it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'll read your response to this post, and that will be the it for me here.
It's ok, but I hope that you consider some of the things you said as refuted. I mean, I spent a lot of time showing you for example why there would be not automatically an increase tax burden on individuals, why there would not be immediately a general rise on the price of goods, etc.

It would be nice if that arguments did convince you or you just abandon by tiredness. Which is actually my impression :( because I do not understand your exposed reasons to abandon the thread (as I said, all countries already tax and forbid behaviours).

Best regards.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 12:34:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I hid freedomdwarf1 and I told him. If he wants to know what I think about anything he says, he can use a PM. Corollary - if he does not use a PM is because he does not want to know what I think about anything he says (a imply b *DOES* imply that no-b implies no-a).

Best regards.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 1:11:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

I hid freedomdwarf1 and I told him. If he wants to know what I think about anything he says, he can use a PM. Corollary - if he does not use a PM is because he does not want to know what I think about anything he says (a imply b *DOES* imply that no-b implies no-a).

Best regards.

There's no point in using a PM for a discussion.
That's the whole point of putting it in the forum - its a discussion for everyone to read and comment on.

And so far, you haven't proven anything to me except that you won't accept any explanation or other PoV except your own and your arguments against the other posters are just non-sensical and you are blind to everything else.

Your idea of a different tax system just doesn't work and you can't or won't accept that fact.
We have tried to explain to you that your ideas and assumptions just don't work the way you see them as working.
Yet you blindly soldier on and dismiss any reasons showing your idea is just a nonsense and impractical.
You trot out the same explanation ad-nausiem as if we hadn't heard it before.
Perhaps you think if you repeat it enough times some people will believe it.
Seriously dude, get your head out of the clouds and at least try to understand why your idea won't work.





SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 1:44:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It is also sad for me that you seem not to notice any of the positive aspects that I have been listing and mentioning.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 2:32:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It is also sad for me that you seem not to notice any of the positive aspects that I have been listing and mentioning.

I'll answer that....
There are none that I can see. None whatsoever.



DesideriScuri -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 4:22:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It is also sad for me that you seem not to notice any of the positive aspects that I have been listing and mentioning.

I'll answer that....
There are none that I can see. None whatsoever.


Actually, freedomdwarf, there are positives. But, just like I stated in probably my first response in this thread, the devil is in the details. And, in the case that has been fleshed out, it's quite a big fuckin' devil. Enough so, that I can't support it. SpanishMatMaster may be 100% correct when talking about Germany, Germans, and the way things work over there, but that is still quite a huge difference from the way things work in the US. Since I'm not in Germany and never have been (though a portion of my ancestors hailed from there), I am not going to argue his methodology wouldn't work in Germany.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 5:53:48 AM)

Desideri, I understand that you are tired, but IMHO I really have shown, with solid arguments, why many of your asserts are wrong, and the rest are opinions which you have not proven in any way. Sad that we have to finish it this way, but I respect your tiredness, it must be as frustrating for you as it is for me.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 6:23:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Desideri, I understand that you are tired, but IMHO I really have shown, with solid arguments, why many of your asserts are wrong, and the rest are opinions which you have not proven in any way. Sad that we have to finish it this way, but I respect your tiredness, it must be as frustrating for you as it is for me.

Sorry SM, but your 'asserts' are far from solid.
As per my previous post, you are making some really HUGE assumptions that just don't and won't work in the real world.

As Desi said - the devil is in the detail.

Let's just take one simple 'assert' that you used shall we?
Your first point taken from my reply in post#121.
You automatically assumed that when a reduction in the cost of the manufacturing of a product is reduced, the final product price to the consumer would also be reduced by the manufacturers and thus be a cheaper product.
That assumption is just sooooo wrong that I can hardly believe that someone with any sanity and intelligence would actually be gullible enough to believe this bullshit??
Can you really not see that this is just idealistic utopianism at its very best?
As Desi said - that just wouldn't work in the US.
It wouldn't work like that in the UK or any part of the EU - including Germany!
The world of business and economics just doesn't work like that.

And from your post#125 you replied "Changes in the tax system are inevitable, to a certain point good, and occur already often enough."
The tax system doesn't change that frequently - not even in Germany.
Also, in that same post, you said "It's ok, but I hope that you consider some of the things you said as refuted. I mean, I spent a lot of time showing you for example why there would be not automatically an increase tax burden on individuals, why there would not be immediately a general rise on the price of goods, etc."
To me, you showed nothing of the sort - only a utopian dream, not reality.
You didn't refute with solid argument - you merely dismissed.
You spent a lot of time spouting a utopian dream world - not reality.
If you tax the company, that extra burden of cost gets added to the cost of the product. That means the individual pays more for the product just to cover the tax you are proposing. That in itself is a price rise and also an indirect tax on the consumer because they are paying the tax you levy on the company.
So.... your example is very badly flawed to the point of it being disproven completely.
You finish that post with "It would be nice if that arguments did convince you or you just abandon by tiredness".
Your arguments were shot down in flames. It was nothing to do with tiredness at all.
The problem is with your intransigence in accepting that your idea is not workable, anywhere.
Your arguments and 'asserts' are drastically flawed and unsustainable.



eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 9:23:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It is also sad for me that you seem not to notice any of the positive aspects that I have been listing and mentioning.

I'll answer that....
There are none that I can see. None whatsoever.


Actually, freedomdwarf, there are positives. But, just like I stated in probably my first response in this thread, the devil is in the details. And, in the case that has been fleshed out, it's quite a big fuckin' devil. Enough so, that I can't support it. SpanishMatMaster may be 100% correct when talking about Germany, Germans, and the way things work over there, but that is still quite a huge difference from the way things work in the US. Since I'm not in Germany and never have been (though a portion of my ancestors hailed from there), I am not going to argue his methodology wouldn't work in Germany.



there are no positives for society in general, and in germany things don't work differently from all the other western countries, being part of eurpean community not only it's in an open system but it can't close the system with customs duties as it's against the international agreement germany not only accepted but proposed, there could be more or less taxes but the things where the state takes money are the same, the only difference is probably spanishmatmaster sees his personal lifestyle as more righteous
and thik others should pay taxes if they don't use his lifestyle. I can make the example of what happened in italy 5 years ago, we have many taxes on fuels and as the pertol price raised a lot self employed truckers refused to deliver goods all together at the same time (not a strike but something alike) as the fuels cost was too expansive to have profits from their work, in one week time supermarkets and gas station were almost empty, fresh vegetables, fruits, and fish's prices rised a lot, so the governament had to lower taxes on fuels if used in transports' companies.
Now he is only refusing to answer questions that ask specific information and are not as nebolous as his proposal.



eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 9:50:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Let's just take one simple 'assert' that you used shall we?
Your first point taken from my reply in post#121.
You automatically assumed that when a reduction in the cost of the manufacturing of a product is reduced, the final product price to the consumer would also be reduced by the manufacturers and thus be a cheaper product.
That assumption is just sooooo wrong that I can hardly believe that someone with any sanity and intelligence would actually be gullible enough to believe this bullshit??



I totaly agree with what you say, and I'd like to add some more, prices are set by the supply and demand law not by production costs:
-if you can produce goods at a lower price but at the same rates as other companies in the same market supply don't change demand is the same price is the same you have more profit, if you reduce prices you'll sell your stock quickly but you will have a lower profit than other companies, if demand doesn't decrease.
-if you can produce goods only with higher production costs you can only hope the unsatisfied demand will pay the price will give you enough profits or you are out of market and will have to shut down your company, you can invest more money to improve your production methods but this means for years profits will be used to cover this investment, and money are not free as banks ask interests on loans.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/23/2013 11:46:33 AM)

Well.

Now waiting for (non-hidden) questions or comments. Anyone else has something?



Real0ne -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/24/2013 12:09:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Let's just take one simple 'assert' that you used shall we?
Your first point taken from my reply in post#121.
You automatically assumed that when a reduction in the cost of the manufacturing of a product is reduced, the final product price to the consumer would also be reduced by the manufacturers and thus be a cheaper product.
That assumption is just sooooo wrong that I can hardly believe that someone with any sanity and intelligence would actually be gullible enough to believe this bullshit??



I totaly agree with what you say, and I'd like to add some more, prices are set by the supply and demand law not by production costs:
-if you can produce goods at a lower price but at the same rates as other companies in the same market supply don't change demand is the same price is the same you have more profit, if you reduce prices you'll sell your stock quickly but you will have a lower profit than other companies, if demand doesn't decrease.
-if you can produce goods only with higher production costs you can only hope the unsatisfied demand will pay the price will give you enough profits or you are out of market and will have to shut down your company, you can invest more money to improve your production methods but this means for years profits will be used to cover this investment, and money are not free as banks ask interests on loans.



yeh but inflation has the biggest effect on prices.

Milk nearly tripled since 2001 and the population (demand) did not.



Real0ne -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/24/2013 12:23:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Desideri, I understand that you are tired, but IMHO I really have shown, with solid arguments, why many of your asserts are wrong, and the rest are opinions which you have not proven in any way. Sad that we have to finish it this way, but I respect your tiredness, it must be as frustrating for you as it is for me.

Sorry SM, but your 'asserts' are far from solid.
As per my previous post, you are making some really HUGE assumptions that just don't and won't work in the real world.

As Desi said - the devil is in the detail.

Let's just take one simple 'assert' that you used shall we?
Your first point taken from my reply in post#121.
You automatically assumed that when a reduction in the cost of the manufacturing of a product is reduced, the final product price to the consumer would also be reduced by the manufacturers and thus be a cheaper product.
That assumption is just sooooo wrong that I can hardly believe that someone with any sanity and intelligence would actually be gullible enough to believe this bullshit??
oh come on, it sounds so intelligent though!
you got it, they take the savings add to corp profits.
The only thing that will drive the price down is not only competition but losses usually have to be seen first LOL.

Can you really not see that this is just idealistic utopianism at its very best?
As Desi said - that just wouldn't work in the US.
It wouldn't work like that in the UK or any part of the EU - including Germany!
The world of business and economics just doesn't work like that.
ditto
And from your post#125 you replied "Changes in the tax system are inevitable, to a certain point good, and occur already often enough."
The tax system doesn't change that frequently - not even in Germany.
Also, in that same post, you said "It's ok, but I hope that you consider some of the things you said as refuted. I mean, I spent a lot of time showing you for example why there would be not automatically an increase tax burden on individuals, why there would not be immediately a general rise on the price of goods, etc."
To me, you showed nothing of the sort - only a utopian dream, not reality.
You didn't refute with solid argument - you merely dismissed.
You spent a lot of time spouting a utopian dream world - not reality.
If you tax the company, that extra burden of cost gets added to the cost of the product. That means the individual pays more for the product just to cover the tax you are proposing. That in itself is a price rise and also an indirect tax on the consumer because they are paying the tax you levy on the company.
So.... your example is very badly flawed to the point of it being disproven completely.
You finish that post with "It would be nice if that arguments did convince you or you just abandon by tiredness".
Your arguments were shot down in flames. It was nothing to do with tiredness at all.
The problem is with your intransigence in accepting that your idea is not workable, anywhere.
Your arguments and 'asserts' are drastically flawed and unsustainable.



yep

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/achmedsilece.jpg[/image]


LOLOLOL



eulero83 -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/24/2013 1:39:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

Let's just take one simple 'assert' that you used shall we?
Your first point taken from my reply in post#121.
You automatically assumed that when a reduction in the cost of the manufacturing of a product is reduced, the final product price to the consumer would also be reduced by the manufacturers and thus be a cheaper product.
That assumption is just sooooo wrong that I can hardly believe that someone with any sanity and intelligence would actually be gullible enough to believe this bullshit??



I totaly agree with what you say, and I'd like to add some more, prices are set by the supply and demand law not by production costs:
-if you can produce goods at a lower price but at the same rates as other companies in the same market supply don't change demand is the same price is the same you have more profit, if you reduce prices you'll sell your stock quickly but you will have a lower profit than other companies, if demand doesn't decrease.
-if you can produce goods only with higher production costs you can only hope the unsatisfied demand will pay the price will give you enough profits or you are out of market and will have to shut down your company, you can invest more money to improve your production methods but this means for years profits will be used to cover this investment, and money are not free as banks ask interests on loans.



yeh but inflation has the biggest effect on prices.

Milk nearly tripled since 2001 and the population (demand) did not.


you mean in €zone in the USA or in the UK? because reasons can be different, inflation is mostly correlated with currency and energy prices, in europe many countries (like italy and germany) traded a lower change rate between their currency and euro to increase exportation or protect their market as they would never be allowed to do it again in the future, this produced a bust in prices the 1/1/2001 and oil price increasing in the last years did also a lot of damages, about USA I can't be sure but I know $ went from a strong currency policy to a week currency one but as I said I can't be sure, in the last years I know UK's governament devalued £ to go trought global crisis, about milk you named one of the few goods that don't follow the supply and demand like fuels tobacco (in italy also coffe) flour and eggs, demand is independent to price with this goods, and this is the reason why in europe milk is produced by quotas. I could have asked what happened to supply but I don't think it's this the case.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: General Ideas for a Tax System (5/24/2013 10:17:23 PM)

Apparently not. Ok then, I unsubscribe the thread. Thanks everybody for your participation!



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.201172E-02