Real World Event Discussions
my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 8 of 27
Monday, April 15, 2019 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.
When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.
The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.
When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.
Quote:I'm completely baffled by your reply! Something went wrong. I hope we can pick this up tomorrow.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your claim that middle class or upper or high income earners or wealthy will spend the same amount on yachts, mansions, fine dining, Escalades, Ivy League Schools, Private Schools, cottages, nannies, and Country Clubs as ultra-poor and poverty level earners is preposterous and falls on its face.
Are you not in CA? That Proposition 8 or whatever that allows Citizens to reverse Laws directly is the worst thing around, and grotesquely applied to the worst cases.
I'm working on x-mas gifts - disaster first aid / emergency / survival kits. I USED to be a licensed EMT, so I'm using my knowledge to create efficient kits. Everything should have more than 1 use or be easy to MacGyver. For example, weak tincture of iodine works as an antiseptic, water purifier, and radiation prophylaxis. Emergency blankets are good for shock, warmth in cold weather, sun shelter, and signaling. So I'm sorry if it makes me sound arrogant, but I look at the commercial first aid kits and I snicker. I can do better. You don't need a gazzillion band-aids in 20 sizes. When a disaster strikes you need things that will keep you and your family alive when help might not get to you for a week. That's what I'm working on. Ah ... retirement! One ha
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the least regressive, the most progressive.
When the taxable items are copying the existing Taxation structure of the State, it merely piggybacks on the Taxation apparatus already existing.
If your local Laws have Tax-exempt status for groceries, education, non-luxury housing, transportation, medical/dental, then those spendings will continue to be untaxed. If you choose to live where those non-luxury items are taxed, then your Local Politicians are going to be far more responsive to reasonable changes in status.
The lowest income earners spend the vast majority of their funds on these items which can be tax-exempt.
The highest income earners are going to have the highest percentage of their spending on taxable items. Even if they eat nothing but lobster and steak at home, how much can they really spend on just groceries? All of their luxury spending gets taxed.
When the lowest income people pay taxes on the smallest amount of their expenses, and the highest earners pay taxes on the largest amount of their expenses, that is the most progressive, the least regressive.
And no more complicated than what is already in place now. What is now taxable can remain taxable, what is now tax-exempt can remain tax-exempt. If the Taxpayers are currently happy with paying taxes on each little item, then they can continue to do the same.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The basic idea is the same as trickle-down - that rich people will spend (or invest) us into prosperity. It doesn't work. Rich people neither invest nor spend everything they have. A substantial portion of their wealth is locked away from circulation.
The other idea I've found doesn't work in real life is the idea that the closer the government, the more representative it'll be. From watching real life in the surrounding cities and local agencies, I've seen that everyday people are too pressed by life to actively participate in local government. Instead, the wealthy and the businesses have the spare time and money to hound the planning commissions, the regulators, the service providers etc on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. When, for example, there's a local regulation or fee being considered the businesses will be literally lined up at the local government's door, ready to whine and threaten as long as necessary. I have literally NEVER seen a people-initiated change being considered. And I spent a couple of years on one of my city's commissions, made presentations re zoning to the city council, and worked for a government agency.
Quote:I'm completely baffled by your reply! Something went wrong. I hope we can pick this up tomorrow.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your claim that middle class or upper or high income earners or wealthy will spend the same amount on yachts, mansions, fine dining, Escalades, Ivy League Schools, Private Schools, cottages, nannies, and Country Clubs as ultra-poor and poverty level earners is preposterous and falls on its face.
Are you not in CA? That Proposition 8 or whatever that allows Citizens to reverse Laws directly is the worst thing around, and grotesquely applied to the worst cases.
I'm working on x-mas gifts - disaster first aid / emergency / survival kits. I USED to be a licensed EMT, so I'm using my knowledge to create efficient kits. Everything should have more than 1 use or be easy to MacGyver. For example, weak tincture of iodine works as an antiseptic, water purifier, and radiation prophylaxis. Emergency blankets are good for shock, warmth in cold weather, sun shelter, and signaling. So I'm sorry if it makes me sound arrogant, but I look at the commercial first aid kits and I snicker. I can do better. You don't need a gazzillion band-aids in 20 sizes. When a disaster strikes you need things that will keep you and your family alive when help might not get to you for a week. That's what I'm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 1:16 PM
Quote:Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts. TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on. Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.
Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.
I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 1:28 PM
Quote:What would you think about a small transaction tax? I know that idea came up years ago. It seems far easier to implement and it would affect the high-volume algo trades most.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Tax short-term capital gains 75%. You're not "working" or adding anything to the economy when you plunk some cash into the stock market/tech/real estate/precious metal/unicorn farts roulette wheel for a nonosecond or three, and have your speculative move pay off.
What we should be taxing is what's called the "rentier" economy: Money gathered through the sheer fact of ownership. Doesn't matter if what you own is a zinc mine or rental units or an bank or a stock or a painting.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Monday, April 15, 2019 6:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
They forced you to switch to days?
They haven't told us anything except for that it's happening. This isn't my first rodeo. I made sure my manager had my phone number last night so she could call me and give me a heads up if I have to come in a different time when my bi-weekly vacation is over.
Quote:
Do they still have a night shift doing what you did?
Right now, yes. By the end of May, probably not. There won't be any night shift.
Quote:
Do they still have the same number of employees doing the tasks that you do?
They haven't fired anybody yet, except for the HR department... and my store manager had to take a 3 month "stress leave". She's probably not coming back.
Three people on overnights quit in the last 2 months. One is on leave because he broke his arm. They have a hiring freeze, so we've had to do the same amount of work short 4 people. Again, this isn't my first rodeo. They're working the laws of attrition now. I think they expect that at least half of us will quit when we go to days too. They're probably right.
Quote:
Are you thinking of doing that bike assembly job, for lots more money?
I looked into it a couple of times. The closest they're hiring are in South Bend, which would be too far a drive for me even if I had a great car. I should look into it again. It's been a while since I checked.
Quote:
And you might have caught on to the point.
For those facing the Marginal Tax Rate of 90%, that means making
another $4,200 results in $420 of more Take-Home pay.
I don't think you caught on to my point. 10% of 1 Million is still $100,000. They made a hell of a lot of money before they were paying that rate too.
15% of $4,200 is bullshit. I might as well just go work a much easier job where I can fuck off all night and get the same pay. Don't have insurance either way.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:56 PM
Quote:Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.
Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.
I'm not sure if we are communicating
Quote:I would hope that paid TV would be a luxury, and certainly should be. I only get 25 channels of on-air broadcast. Why would more be non-luxury? Poor or low income folk should spend less time watching TV anyhow.
TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on.
I don't recall if soda is taxed, but it should be. Chips usually are, and should be. All sodas should be. Juices and tap water are not, and are better than sodas, and would reduce the healthcare burden. Yes, sodas and chips are luxury items. If you are so wealthy that you choose to pay a luxury tax when you can easily avoid it, more power to you.
All restaurant should be classified as luxury. How complicated is it to make a hamburger at home? Chicken? PBJ, Grilled Cheese? And less fast food should also reduce the healthcare burden.
All pets are a luxury.
Quote:So let's try to use an example, with $1,000 per month based on UBI proposals.
Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.
I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..
$400 - non-luxury rent/mortgage.
$100 - non-luxury vehicle cost, and perhaps maintenance (but not fuel)
$200 - grocery, not taxed
$100 - monthly average cost of kid's school
$50 - medical/dental, untaxed
$850 - total non-taxed expenses per month.
So, 15% of the low income person's income is exposed to Tax. If the tax was 20%, then the total tax percentage is 3% of the income, assuming that every single dollar of the $150 was spend on luxury items.
Now somebody who earns $20,000 per month.
To spend only the same 15% on taxable items, they would need to spend only $3,000 on taxable expenses.
If it is non-luxury housing, the monthly payment would likely be less than $1,000 - but let's say $2,000 for this example.
Non-luxury vehicle payment: likely less than $250 per month, but let's say $500 for this example.
If it's still the same school as the other kids, that is still $100.
Still $50 for the same medical/dental as the poor person.
So far, $2,650 in non-taxable expenses.
So for grocery, let's say a month of ste
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:19 PM
Perhaps I should have used the term Basic Necessities.
I was using the term luxury as a shorthand, with assumed understanding.
I meant luxury = not a basic necessity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, April 18, 2019 9:56 PM
If you want to know what Medicare For All would do the healthcare profits, just look at how health care stocks are tanking today in anticipation.
Quote:
Healthcare's Hemorrhaging As Medicare-For-All Massacre Continues
For the fifth day of the last six, healthcare stocks are getting hammered as fears that 'Socialist Democrats' great experiment with 'Medicare for All' are growing...
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-18/bernie
Wow, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of vultures.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, April 19, 2019 2:04 AM
Quote:I'm not sure if we are communicating
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.
Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.
Quote:I would hope that paid TV would be a luxury, and certainly should be. I only get 25 channels of on-air broadcast. Why would more be non-luxury? Poor or low income folk should spend less time watching TV anyhow.
TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on.
I don't recall if soda is taxed, but it should be. Chips usually are, and should be. All sodas should be. Juices and tap water are not, and are better than sodas, and would reduce the healthcare burden. Yes, sodas and chips are luxury items. If you are so wealthy that you choose to pay a luxury tax when you can easily avoid it, more power to you.
All restaurant should be classified as luxury. How complicated is it to make a hamburger at home? Chicken? PBJ, Grilled Cheese? And less fast food should also reduce the healthcare burden.
All pets are a luxury.
Quote:So let's try to use an example, with $1,000 per month based on UBI proposals.
Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.
I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..
$400 - non-luxury rent/mortgage.
$100 - non-luxury vehicle cost, and perhaps maintenance (but not fuel)
$200 - grocery, not taxed
$100 - monthly average cost of kid's school
$50 - medical/dental, untaxed
$850 - total non-taxed expenses per month.
So, 15% of the low income person's income is exposed to Tax. If the tax was 20%, then the total tax percentage is 3% of the income, assuming that every single dollar of the $150 was spend on luxury items.
Now somebody who earns $20,000 per month.
To spend only the same 15% on taxable items, they would need to spend only $3,000 on taxable expenses.
If it is non-luxury housing, the monthly payment would likely be less than $1,000 - but let's say $2,000 for this example.
Non-luxury vehicle payment: likely less than $250 per month, but let's say $500 for this example.
If it's still the same school as the other kids, that is still $100.
Still $50 for the same medical/dental as the poor person.
So far, $2,650 in non-taxable expense
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, April 20, 2019 8:42 AM
I'll try to redo this with utilities included.
Basic necessities are not taxed.
"Luxury" meaning non-basic necessities.
Quote:Consumption tax is INHERENTLY regressive. One has to do many 'things' to it to try to make it not so. But on a percentage basis, it seems unavoidable that poorer people will still spend a larger portion of their income on consumption tax, on everyday small 'luxuries', than a rich person will spend on their cars or yachts.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Trickle Down is completely unrelated, as far as I can tell. It sounds like you are not paying attention, and also might never.
Also, I forgot Retirement and Savings - both of which are usually not taxed.
I'm not sure if we are communicating
Quote:I would hope that paid TV would be a luxury, and certainly should be. I only get 25 channels of on-air broadcast. Why would more be non-luxury? Poor or low income folk should spend less time watching TV anyhow.
TV other than free on-air? Sounds like a luxury to me. Soda? Chips? Luxuries. Fast food 'restaurant' meals? Luxuries. Cat food for your pet? A luxury. And so on.
I don't recall if soda is taxed, but it should be. Chips usually are, and should be. All sodas should be. Juices and tap water are not, and are better than sodas, and would reduce the healthcare burden. Yes, sodas and chips are luxury items. If you are so wealthy that you choose to pay a luxury tax when you can easily avoid it, more power to you.
All restaurant should be classified as luxury. How complicated is it to make a hamburger at home? Chicken? PBJ, Grilled Cheese? And less fast food should also reduce the healthcare burden.
All pets are a luxury.
Quote:So let's try to use an example, with $1,000 per month based on UBI proposals.
Wealthy people OTOH won't pay nearly the percentage of their income on consumption tax because they simply don't spend as big a portion of their income. You've said so yourself. Poor people spend every last dime, rich people don't.
So, just to be clear, I'm talking about proportion of income whose spending will go to luxury tax. That's what makes it regressive.
I likened it to trickle down only because they both rely on fictional behavior of rich people. In trickle down, the fictional behavior is that when they have 'enough' money they'll start investing in production just because they feel like it, and so prices will come down. No one apparently thought to question why a rich person would invest in diminishing profitability. In consumption tax the fictional behavior is that rich people will spend a large portion of their income on luxuries and so the tax will be progressive. But they don't. They don't spend a large portion of their income at all. I think it was Thorstein Veblen who basically said - there are only so many cars you can buy. So many gold toilet paper holders. And so on. There's even a limit to luxury spending, and so a limit on luxury tax, especially compared to income..
$400 - non-luxury rent/mortgage.
$100 - non-luxury vehicle cost, and perhaps maintenance (but not fuel)
$200 - grocery, not taxed
$100 - monthly average cost of kid's school
$50 - medical/dental, untaxed
$100 - utilities, untaxed
$950 - total non-taxed expenses per month.
So, 5% of the low income person's income is exposed to Tax. If the tax was 20%, then the total tax percentage is 1% of the income, assuming that every single dollar of the $50 was spend on luxury items.
Now somebody who earns $20,000 per month.
To spend only the same 5% on taxable items, they would need to spend only $1,000 on taxable expenses.
If it is non-luxury housing, the monthly payment would likely be less than $1,000 - but let's say $2,000 for this example.
Non-luxury vehicle payment: likely less than $250 per month, but let's say $500 for this example.
If it's still the same school as the other ki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME