View Poll Results: Would You Support a Tax Plan Like This?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, as written.

    2 20.00%
  • Yes, but with changes. (Explain)

    4 40.00%
  • No.

    4 40.00%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

  1. #21
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Because the entire point of working hard and earning as much money as possible is to leave something behind for your children.
    No it's not. People work hard so they can eat. People work hard so they can get a new TV. People work hard so they can do all kinds of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Inheritance taxes are fundamentally immoral.
    I fundamentally disagree with that. Personally it strikes me as the most moral thing to tax- free money people didn't earn.

    If I were to design an ideal society and didn't have to worry about any practical issues I think I would find one where everybody started out exactly equal and then rose or fell based on their own efforts to be the most moral. One where some people start out a million miles ahead and others a million miles behind is what strikes me as immoral.

  2. #22
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'm fine with not taxing sales. Sales tax is regressive. But, the store owner that gets your money is still being taxed on the portion he gets. He pays income tax on it. It appears that every other situation where a person gets new money, except inheritance, are taxed in your scheme, no? So why the exception for inheritance? If anything, I would think that is the type of income where there are the most arguments that it should be taxed. They got the money without having to take any risk or put in any work. It sort of counters the whole idea in this country that people get rich or go poor largely on the basis of their own efforts. I don't know that we should tax it more than other kinds of income, but I don't see the argument for taxing it less.
    I don't have issues with sales taxes as long as they are not working in conjunction with income taxes. Sales taxes are how we started with this country and we were going pretty gung ho prior to the income tax being instituted with the constitutional amendment.

    But with that idea of yours, teamosil, how are you on reporting imputed income? How much wealth do our poor have because things are given to them? They may be under the poverty line, but I could give them a 52" plasma TV. Should they pay taxes on that? What if I want to give them a straight $200? Is that taxed? What about a wealthy man leaving to his heirs in the form of material objects instead of money? How is that figured? Where is the line between gift and taxable income, imputed or otherwise? After all by your words, any gift, no matter how large or small, is obtained without the recipient "having to take any risk or put in any work".

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Because the entire point of working hard and earning as much money as possible is to leave something behind for your children. Inheritance taxes are fundamentally immoral.
    I'll have to disagree with you here, no so much as they may be seen as wrong, but I believe that immoral is too strong a level. teamosil has a valid point. I agree that inheritance taxes, and death taxes for that matter (they really are double taxation) should not exist. But I can't go as far as to call them immoral.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No it's not. People work hard so they can eat. People work hard so they can get a new TV. People work hard so they can do all kinds of things.
    No, at least not entirely. I agree that people work hard to provide the things that they want and need in the here and now and for their own futures, but people really do work hard to also provide something for their children to have something to help improve their lives when they pass on.


    If I were to design an ideal society and didn't have to worry about any practical issues I think I would find one where everybody started out exactly equal and then rose or fell based on their own efforts to be the most moral. One where some people start out a million miles ahead and others a million miles behind is what strikes me as immoral.
    Sadly short of taking children from their parents to be raised "equally", there is no way to do this because the children will be exposed to the success or failure of their parents and are affected by that. What you want is one where one has equal opportunity and can come from behind to succeed. I believe that this country has come the closest to this ideal although I do not believe that we are as close to it as we once were.

    Viktyr, I'm looking over your edits:

    You are saying to further the example that if the base rate at the poverty line was 12% then they next brackets would be 18%, 24%, 30%, etc? Does your system allow for say 11.4%? Mathematically I am sure there would be a way to set the base rate so that the final bracket is 99%. Is this a good thing? Or just a thing?

    The brackets themselves: If poverty line is $10k then the next brackets are $20K, $40K, $80K, $160K, etc?

    Finally you still haven't explained about how the number of people in the household affect which tax bracket one is in.

  3. #23
    ¡Selah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Inheritance was already taxed once, when the deceased earned it. My tax system encourages millionaires to have more children, dividing their estates up between more heirs; in my opinion that is sufficient measure to address the issue of accumulation of inherited wealth.
    Wealthy people rarely have many kids, even before birth control was invented. Kids are the best way to stay impoverished. But I guess if it assisted them in keeping more money out of the hands of the government, they might.

    I don't think your tax plan will help save this system. This system cannot be saved. You might be able to see that if you acknowledge the amount of corruption and inefficiency in this government. A new system is needed. One that has not been invented yet. A system that can account for human greed, and somehow prevent that greed from destroying long term progress.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quick clarification needed. Why and how does your proposal encourage the wealthy to have more kids? I couldn't work that out.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  5. #25
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I don't have issues with sales taxes as long as they are not working in conjunction with income taxes. Sales taxes are how we started with this country and we were going pretty gung ho prior to the income tax being instituted with the constitutional amendment.
    Actually we were pretty much a third world country prior to the 16th amendment. For example, approximately 1 in 8 kids died before reaching 1 year of age- roughly twice as high as in Sierra Leone today, which currently has the highest infant mortality rate. The US's GDP was about 8% of the world GDP where now it is 22%.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    How much wealth do our poor have because things are given to them?
    Not sure what you're getting at there. The poor, by definition, have very little wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    They may be under the poverty line, but I could give them a 52" plasma TV. Should they pay taxes on that? What if I want to give them a straight $200? Is that taxed? What about a wealthy man leaving to his heirs in the form of material objects instead of money? How is that figured? Where is the line between gift and taxable income, imputed or otherwise? After all by your words, any gift, no matter how large or small, is obtained without the recipient "having to take any risk or put in any work".
    Yeah, gifts and inheritance are currently taxed at the same rate. Makes sense to me that should continue to be that way. But, somebody who is in poverty and gets $200 would only pay the very low rate for their bracket.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    No, at least not entirely. I agree that people work hard to provide the things that they want and need in the here and now and for their own futures, but people really do work hard to also provide something for their children to have something to help improve their lives when they pass on.
    That's certainly one reason some people work hard. But lots of people don't even have kids and they still work just as hard. Generally people without kids actually work harder because they aren't having to leave work early to pick kids up after school or take sick days or whatever. When a huge assignment comes in that is going to require working weekends and travel and whatnot, guess who gets it- the people without kids. So, there are many different motivations for working hard. I don't see why that particular motive would excuse the people that it benefits from paying their taxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Sadly short of taking children from their parents to be raised "equally", there is no way to do this because the children will be exposed to the success or failure of their parents and are affected by that.
    Yeah, no doubt. That's why I said if I didn't have to worry about practical realities. I'm just explaining what to me would be the moral ideal- equal opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I believe that this country has come the closest to this ideal although I do not believe that we are as close to it as we once were.
    You are correct that we're sliding in that regard. Severely in fact. The statistical measure of it is called "intergenerational income mobility". It measures what percentage of people whose parents are in a particular income bracket when they retire manage to make it into a different income bracket by the time they retire themselves. Sometimes they look back one generation, sometimes two.

    Back in the 60s the US had the highest intergenerational income mobility of any country in the first world. Meaning how rich your parents were was not a very strong indicator of how rich you would be by the time you retired. But we slowly fell through the 70s, then started plummeting in the 80s and kept falling ever since. Today we are tied for the lowest intergenerational income mobility in the first world. Some studies find that we're the lowest, some say we're tied with the UK.

  6. #26
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    I'll have to disagree with you here, no so much as they may be seen as wrong, but I believe that immoral is too strong a level. teamosil has a valid point. I agree that inheritance taxes, and death taxes for that matter (they really are double taxation) should not exist. But I can't go as far as to call them immoral.
    Honestly, I perceive them as a direct assault upon family values. It is the government directly interfering with and attempting to divide the basic functions of the family unit.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    You are saying to further the example that if the base rate at the poverty line was 12% then they next brackets would be 18%, 24%, 30%, etc? Does your system allow for say 11.4%? Mathematically I am sure there would be a way to set the base rate so that the final bracket is 99%. Is this a good thing? Or just a thing?
    Sure. You could set the base rate at 11.4%, and then the next bracket would be 17.1%, 22.8%, 28.%, etc. The problem with setting a base tax rate such that the maximum bracket is 99% is that the base tax rate can be adjusted by Congress at any time; I initially thought that a hard cap wasn't necessary because of the outlandish incomes necessary to reach 100% (essentially a maximum income), but I just can't support a system that imposes an income cap. The top marginal tax rate after WW2 was 91%, so I rounded it down to ninety.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    The brackets themselves: If poverty line is $10k then the next brackets are $20K, $40K, $80K, $160K, etc?

    Finally you still haven't explained about how the number of people in the household affect which tax bracket one is in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Quick clarification needed. Why and how does your proposal encourage the wealthy to have more kids? I couldn't work that out.
    The way the Federal poverty line is defined is by the number of people in the household. In 2011, the poverty line for an individual was $10,890, a family of four was $22,350, and a family of eight was $37,630. Each person in the household increases the poverty line by a little under $4,000, which is subject to the same doubling process as the regular tax brackets. There's a breakoff point-- which is too complicated for me to calculate-- at which having another child provides more of a discount on taxes than it costs to raise that child. This means another child that grows up with all of the clothing and school supplies and technological gadgetry expected from a member of his class and splitting the inheritance one more way when mommy and daddy pass on.

    That's why I'm not worried about accumulated wealth; the tax system itself encourages people to break up their estates.
    Last edited by Korimyr the Rat; 01-17-12 at 02:27 PM.

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    The way the Federal poverty line is defined is by the number of people in the household. In 2011, the poverty line for an individual was $10,890, a family of four was $22,350, and a family of eight was $37,630. Each person in the household increases the poverty line by a little under $4,000, which is subject to the same doubling process as the regular tax brackets.
    I see. Thanks. One question more, should having lots of children be seen as a route to greater wealth? Social engineering much?
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  8. #28
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    I see. Thanks. One question more, should having lots of children be seen as a route to greater wealth? Social engineering much?
    It's not "a route to greater wealth" is it's all money you earned in the first place. It isn't like the EITC that "rebates" people more money than they paid, or the welfare system that rewards people with more of the government's money-- the taxpayers' money-- for having more children. You have to earn the income in the first place for having children to save you money on taxes, and for having children to be profitable you have to earn enough money to support them properly.

    And yes, you could say that it's a form of social engineering. I believe in social engineering, and as far as government social engineering goes, I think this is a fairly light touch.

  9. #29
    ¡Selah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    I see. Thanks. One question more, should having lots of children be seen as a route to greater wealth? Social engineering much?
    Our current system also rewards certain behavior such as being a homeowner, having children, and obtaining an education.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  10. #30
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,955

    Re: Viktyr Korimir's Tax Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Actually we were pretty much a third world country prior to the 16th amendment. For example, approximately 1 in 8 kids died before reaching 1 year of age- roughly twice as high as in Sierra Leone today, which currently has the highest infant mortality rate. The US's GDP was about 8% of the world GDP where now it is 22%.
    That's not necessarily saying anything. What was the cause of the high mortality rate then compared to now? Where does medical science stand along that line? What is the comparison for inflation adjusted dollars for our rate of growth prior and after the 16th amendment? Given that the 16th amendment was followed almost immediately by the Great Depression does not exactly bode well, although I am one to note that causality is not necessarily the seemingly evident cause. There's a phase for that but I can't recall it at the moment. But that also follows that our increase in GDP growth over the last century vs the prior century is due to the 16th amendment and the collecting of income tax.



    Not sure what you're getting at there. The poor, by definition, have very little wealth.
    Yeah, gifts and inheritance are currently taxed at the same rate. Makes sense to me that should continue to be that way. But, somebody who is in poverty and gets $200 would only pay the very low rate for their bracket.
    But gifts are not taxed unless you give over a certain amount. In other words, a given family can be given 100 gifts valuing $150 each by 100 individuals and the receiving family would never need to report that on their income taxes, and would never think to if the items were all materials items like TV, and DVD's and even basic cell phones (my trac phone only cost $20). And what about imputed income from charity? Any food, clothing, or other gifts are imputed income regardless of their source. Would you have that taxed as well? Do you tax grants?

    BTW the annual gift tax exclusion currently is $13,000 per Donee(person receiving the gift) as per the IRS web site.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Sure. You could set the base rate at 11.4%, and then the next bracket would be 17.1%, 22.8%, 28.%, etc. The problem with setting a base tax rate such that the maximum bracket is 99% is that the base tax rate can be adjusted by Congress at any time; I initially thought that a hard cap wasn't necessary because of the outlandish incomes necessary to reach 100% (essentially a maximum income), but I just can't support a system that imposes an income cap. The top marginal tax rate after WW2 was 91%, so I rounded it down to ninety.
    You had noted in creating a tax cap that the last bracket would be what ever percentage hit 90% or above. And I can agree with you that the ridiculous amount needed to get to 90% might warrant that rate, but I can never condone a 100% rate, regardless of how much the person makes because then the person would have no income. At that point the person's income would then drop to 0 because he wouldn't bother to work any more and just live off what he has. For that matter, at the level your plan would propose he wouldn't even need to live off interest. Place it all in an escrow account and pull out what's needed. Then that would be all that money not doing any real work in the system.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •