Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 32723
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2004/8/5-6 [Reference/Tax] UID:32723 Activity:very high
8/5     On taxes from the housing thread below.  I think this deserves it's
                                                                       ^^^^
        own thread.  I was thinking about what a 'fair' tax rate is, whether
        it is for income, property tax, whatever, doesn't matter.  If 'fair'
        means the tax has the same level of burden on each tax payer, there
        can be only 2 truly 'fair' tax rates: 0% and 100%.  Anything else
        is going to be unfair to someone.  What do you think?
        \_ I don't think there is anything inherently unfair in a progressive
           tax rate. It may however be stupid, discouraging of enterprise and
           hard work, etc. But as long as everyone is in the same system it's
           not unfair... no one forces the high income guy to do that work.
           Personally I do believe we'd be better off with a small tax rate,
           with some progressivity but a pretty low slope up to a defined
           "rich point" of at least $150k, and moving up to about 33% as the
           very top rate even for super high income. The fed. gov't may be too
           huge right now to make it ideal. But even at $150k I'd like to see
           less than 15%. Such a system would 1) encourage doing higher paying
           work since you can actually get ahead for your efforts, 2) keep
           the wealthy still with a big incentive to invest in the economy, and
           3) be more fair to those who are able to earn a lot in just a few
           years for some reason, rather than a smaller amount each year.
           Ideally the gov't would be a lot smaller in the first place. And
           I would prefer taxing from the consumption side than the income side
           although there are practical problems with that now. --foo22
        \_ you could also blame howard jarvis. - danh
        \_ Depends on your definition of fairness.  I think fairness is
           achieved when each tax-payer has approximately the same level
           of post-tax income.  This is similar to the scheduling definition
           of fairness, I think.
           \_ Why is that fair?  If someone works harder, they should make more
              money.  If money was not a hoardable resource, I would say
              fairness is achieved where everyone has the same results/reward
              ratio (note: not effort/reward).  Since money is hoardable,
              and reasonable people believe in property rights, things become
              a lot more complicated.  The feeling I get from people who
              know a lot more about 'fairness' (as a formal concept) is that
              the closest tax scheme to 'fair' (as most people define it)
              would be some sort of flat tax scheme. -- ilyas
              \_ Is hard work the only contributing factor to income?  Should
                 someone be rewarded for good luck, in the sense of having the
                 right parents, or born with natural ability, or having chosen
                 a career that turns out to be high paying rather than not?
                 Notice you did a switch in your argument.  In the beginning
                 you said "if someone works harder", then in the middle you
                 switched to "note: not effort/reward".  Which one is it?
                 Do you reward effort?  Do you reward result?  Do you reward
                 good luck?  Is money the measure?  Is societal benefit?
                 Might incentive for some of the above actually
                 be detrimental in some societal sense?  Fairness.  I prefer
                 the communications model where fairness is achieved when
                 all competing consumers of a resource have an equal share of
                 the resource.  In that case, a high-consumer of the resource
                 is throttled (or pay a greater tax, if you will) more than
                 an low-consumer of the resource.  I'd be perfectly happy to
                 discuss other models of fairness if you wish.
                 \_ You are right, I did switch (not on purpose). I meant
                    'results' not 'hard work.'  -- ilyas
                 \_ You are right, I did switch (not on purpose).  I believe
                    results are what's important, not effort.  I view money in
                    a very basic sense: money are the symbol of value.  Value is
                    a very basic sense: money are the symbol of value. Value is
                    that which people want.  I compared money to a resource,
                    but I don't believe it is, in the same sense as air or oil
                    or natural gas.  However, let's run with it for a while.
                    It seems your notion of fairness goes something like
                    this:  There are 2 people digging for oil in the desert.
                    One works 16 hour days, the other works 2 hour days.  Both
                    are equally good diggers, but one digs up about 8 times as
                    much oil.  You say, there are two agents competing for the
                    same resource, so each should get an equal share of the oil.
                    I say that's stupid.  They should keep what they dig up.
                      -- ilyas
                 \_ I'm not the pp.  Of course hard work isn't the only way to
                    make money.  Should it be?  Should we 100% tax gamblers in
                    Vegas?  The lottery?  Should people with greater natural
                    ability be paid the same as someone doing the same thing
                    with less natural ability?  Should I get the same money as
                    a million bucks a year NFL quarterback even though I lack
                    his natural physical ability?  To answer your question,
                    the result is what counts.  You don't 'reward' good luck
                    but I don't see a need to punish it either.  How exactly
                    would you go about taxing good luck, anyway?  Why is it
                    fair that all competitors for a resource get the same
                    amount?  What if one competes harder for it because they
                    want or need it more than someone who puts in less effort
                    to acquire the resource?  Should they be punished or capped
                    in their ability to acquire?  Should the lazy do nothing
                    get the same reward for little or no effort?  That is
                    certainly not fair in any sense of the word I know.
                    \_ When I raised my approximately equal post-tax income
                       proposal, people complained that it would kill the
                       incentive to work.  I merely observed that there are
                       many contributing components to income, and hard work
                       is but one.  How about a proposal that says we set up
                       a tax regime where we limit the post-tax income min-max
                       spread to 3x?   Would that still provide incentive to
                       succeed and at the same time be more fair?
                    \_ Do you think it should be results that counts or
                       ability (I include hardwork as part of ability, you
                       can say "ability + hardwork" if you wish) that counts?
                       I can achieve more results than someone more capable
                       and hardworking than me simply because I have more
                       resources, for instance.  Do you think that is fair?
                       \_ How can you include hard work in ability? If someone
                          decides to work hard at writing a book nobody wants
                          to read should he get the same as the guy who is a
                          bestseller? --foo22
                    \_ Just for sake of argument, what if the 2 hour guy
                       gets lucky and strikes oil and the 16 hour guy
                       never does? Tough luck? That's my answer, but I'd
                       like to hear yours.
                       \_ In my experience (with commercial fishing, not
                          with oil specifically) the two hour guy probably
                          did not just find the valueble stuff because
                          of luck.  The same skippers get "lucky" or
                          "unlucky" way too many times in a row for it to
                          be luck.  If one guy takes the time to read up
                          on the behavior of the fish they're hunting for
                          and catches all the fish he certainly earned
                          his massively larger keep even if there was some
                          luck involved.  I think the same thing is almost
                          certainly true in the oil industry.  Why do you
                          think that Monkey Boy was unable to find any
                          oil in texas with Arbusto?  it wasn't luck.
                          \_ You think oil company executives personally choose
                             where to drill?
                       \_ Them's the breaks.  Maybe we can create a government
                          entitlement system for oil hole diggers who never hit
                          it big?  Or maybe the 16 hour guy was just stupid and
                          didn't know as much geology as the 2 hour guy so
                          education wins out?  Or maybe the oil just wants to
                          be free so we should tax both of them at 100% and
                          take the oil by force and just keep it for the rest
                          of us because after all we stand on the shoulders of
                          (oil digging) giants and without the guys who came
                          before us to invent shovels we wouldn't have any oil
                          today.
           \_ Mmmm, socialism.  You do realize that this is all well and good
              until someone loses an eye, right?
              \_ It's easy to give something a label and dismiss it based on
                 that label.  It's easy, but all it is is intellectual laziness.
                 that label.It's easy, but all it is is intellectual laziness.
                 Propose your model of fairness or attack mine, if you can.
                 \_ I'm not the pp, but, that pretty much sounds like
                    Socialism, man.  The reason it doesn't work is because
                    it removes incentives.
                    \_ I said "aproximately the same level of post-tax
                       \_ Do you know anything about Europe? There is very
                          little downward/upward mobility in Europe. The
                          rich have always been rich and will always be
                          rich. The poor and middle class have little chance
                          at being rich. My whole family is European and
                          this is what Europe is like. Do you really want
                          that? In the US, most uber-rich families are back
                          to the mean in about 3 generations and there are all
                          \_ Good post, dim.  One serious difference tho--a
                             lot of the immobility in Europe is the way the
                             educational systems and vocational training are
                             structured (there's also not as much sideways
                             professional mobility as in the US.)  -John
                             \_ Yes, but this ties into it. If your parents
                                went to a certain school or had a certain
                                vocation then you have a much better chance at
                                it. I know, for example, that science positions
                                in France factor in who your parents were
                                and your age. That's ridiculous and it is why
                                so many foreign students come to the US to
                                study and perhaps even to stay. --dim
                          \_ Not with the Bush tax cuts.  Goodbye estate taxes,
                             goodbye investment taxes.  This is the most
                             disturbing part of Bush the younger's policies.
                             --scotsman
                             \_ But you ignore the other side of the coin where
                                the poor stay poor in EU as well.  You seem
                                more interested in tearing down the rich rather
                                than raising up the poor.
                                \_ I haven't said anything to the other side
                                   of the coin.  That's not to say I ignore
                                   it.  Are you suggesting that Bush's tax
                                   policy raises up the poor?  How 'bout his
                                   other economic policies?  His environmental
                                   policies?  --scotsman
                                   \_ Haven't said = ignored.  Anyway, Bush's
                                      tax policies don't hold down the poor,
                                      they allow the poor to keep what they
                                      have should hard work and/or luck lead
                                      them to being rich.  What other economic
                                      policies are you refering to?  What about
                                      his environmental policies is bad for the
                                      poor or worse for them than the rich? We
                                      all drink the same water, breath the same
                                      air, and get the same cancers.
                                      \_ That's not true, although it's
                                         certainly not the fault of policy
                                         at the federal level.  A
                                         disproportionate number of destructive
                                         polluting industries get located in
                                         poor areas, such as power plants in
                                         cities.  Of course, this problem
                                         will really only get solved by
                                         making the factories and power plants
                                         not kill people anymore, which
                                         will only come from technology.
                             \_ Please explain how tax cuts for the rich some
                                how oppress the poor.
                                \_ It's a systemic effect.  These tax cuts
                                   create a tendency to horde.  Wealth begets
                                   wealth, and humans are horders.  I don't
                                   want to see a pure plutocracy in this
                                   country.  There's also the direct effect
                                   of massively shifting the tax burden onto
                                   income tax.  When it comes to paying of
                                   the current deficits it will be much harder
                                   politically to make the case for restoring
                                   those cuts than to tell the public "we all
                                   have to tighten our belts..."  -scotsman
                                   \_ So you think making people have less
                                      money will make them spend more absolute
                                      dollars of those they have left?  This
                                      makes no sense.  By your reasoning, the
                                      richest person would spend near zero
                                      absolute dollars and the poorest would
                                      spend more absolute dollars than the
                                      richest person.  This is clearly false.
                                      People who have more money available
                                      to spend will spend more money.  I don't
                                      understand how anyone could claim the
                                      opposite.  As far as hording goes, so
                                      what?  If someone somehow makes a billion
                                      dollars and doesn't spend any of it,
                                      hordes it as you say, so what?  It is
                                      their money to spend or save as they
                                      choose.  The government sure as hell
                                      won't spend it more efficiently.  If the
                                      government were more efficient then
                                      communism would be the most efficient
                                      economic system which we know to be
                                      false.  So, how exactly is it that rich
                                      people keeping more of their money is
                                      bad for poor people again?
                          sorts of rags-to-riches success stories. Hard work
                          here can get rewarded. The person who mentioned
                          incentives is exactly right. --dim
                       income".  You can go a long way to reduce the min-max
                       spread in American income distribution (the European
                       spread is, what, an order of magnitude or two less?)
                       and improve fairness without eliminating incentives.
                                   \- i havent read the entire thread above
                                      however if you look at say the bottom
                                      quintile in the US, they are essentially
                                      at the same place as the bottom 20%
                                      in sweeden in terms of purchasing power,
                                      or absolute terms. in relative terms,
                                      the top 10% here is a lot wealthier
                                      than all the other normal countries.
                                      which make "inquality" in the narrow
                                      statistical sense greater. as a crude
                                      measure you can see if you can find a
                                      number called the "gini coeficient"
                                      for the national economies you are
                                      interested in. --psb
                       \_ So, a heavier margin-based tax rate with a higher
                          exemption?  I can get behind that.  But i'm deeply
                          bothered by the european VAT taxes.
                       \_ Wow, so you're definition of "aproximately" is
                          "within 2 orders of magnitude?"  I guess it
                          kinda works on an astrophysics scale.
                          \_ You need to work on your reading comprehension.
                             You also need to learn how to use quotation marks.
                                      \_ So taxing the rich at a really high
                                         rate is really about bringing them
                                         down, not about bringing the poor up.
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/9/2-11/7 [Reference/Tax] UID:54736 Activity:nil
9/2     I'm young, and stupid. Does the IRS want reporting on 401K, IRA,
        Roth 401k/IRA? I am decades from retiring, and no plan to withdraw
        anything. But, I just realized that I haven't reported any of my
        retirement plans to IRS for several years, now wondering if I'm
        in big shit...
        \_ The account custodian (bank/brokerage/mutual fund) reports it to
	...
2012/11/5-12/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Tax] UID:54521 Activity:nil
11/5    "Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study":
        http://www.csua.org/u/y7m (finance.yahoo.com)
        'A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed "geeks" ...
        found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he
        had made on individual tax reform ....  It concluded that Mr. Romney's
        plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them
	...
2012/3/5-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:54327 Activity:nil
3/5     My dad is retired and has no income. My income tax bracket is
        pretty high. If I open up a joint high interest CD account with
        him and the INT-1099 comes, is it possible to file it under him
        100% to take advantage of the lower tax?
        \_ IRS says the interest is allocated according to who allocated
           the assets. Do you think it will generate enough interest to
	...
2012/3/7-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:54331 Activity:nil
3/7     "Michigan woman still collecting food stamps after winning $1 million
        lottery"
        http://www.csua.org/u/vp3 (news.yahoo.com)
        `"I feel that it's OK because I mean, I have no income and I have
        bills to pay," she said. "I have two houses."'
        \_ My first reaction was pretty hostile to her, but then, I
	...
2011/4/17-7/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:54087 Activity:nil
4/17    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes
        "The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades
        ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all."
        And people are still complaining about taxes being too high.
        \_ yeah but only 3 out of the 5 people who aren't rich but complain
           are actually counted.
	...