Wealth Tax

[watch-this-drive]

Could outline some economists who believe that higher tax leads to higher growth?

John Maynard Keynes. :wink:

seriously? where

Which normative quesitons have I missed, the whole argument against the flat tax from most is that it is unfair

Well, I didn't say that the opposing arguments were brilliantly lucid, either. :P

One can come at the 'fairness' charge from a number of perspectives. First, the (luck) egalitarian perspective suggests that no one has a right to wealth that is not the result of their choices; this perspective argues (very persuasively) that people should be compensated if they are 'naturally' less talented than others (something like the Rawlsian Veil is often in play here).

You find that persuasive? - Id say it encourages a poverty trap and disregards the opportunity cost for much greater economic growth - see Hong Kongs

Second, what I would call the 'equal contribution' perspective argues that each person should give up an equal measure of utility to fund the state; since utility is not related to wealth in a simple linear fashion, higher tax rates should be paid by those with more money because of the law of diminishing returns operating on their wealth.

Again, I disagree, there wealth should be used in the economy directly to create growth and activity not by the government

Third, one can argue from a social contract perspective that higher tax rates are the price the poor extract from the rich in return for the poor agreeing to respect property laws; from this perspective, the tax system is simply a protection racket (but a perfectly rational one).

This may be true for hugely underdeveloped tinpot countries but it is irrelevant for developed civilised countries

[stringjack]

seriously? where

I'm being somewhat facetious, but something similar is implied by his work (see here).

You find that persuasive? - Id say it encourages a poverty trap and disregards the opportunity cost for much greater economic growth - see Hong Kongs

As a normative argument, it's exceptionally strong. The reply you suggest doesn't actually engage on the normative level at all; you point to unwanted empirical consequences of implementing the ideals in a pure form. In practice, moderate egalitarians defend the post-war economic consensus: mixed-economies with private ownership, progressive taxation, social security and high quality public services.

Again, I disagree, there wealth should be used in the economy directly to create growth and activity not by the government

What this actually says is that inequalities in contributions to the state can, over time, act to raise the total amount of utility available for consumption. That's fine, and I'm inclined to agree (as is John Rawls, to a certain extent - see here (actually, that's not a great entry...)) but it introduces an additional factor into the model; without that additional factor, the 'equal contribution' ideal acts as a reasonably defensible baseline.

This may be true for hugely underdeveloped tinpot countries but it is irrelevant for developed civilised countries

Again, you're slipping back to the empirical; this perspective isn't arguing that there's going to be a complete breakdown of law and order if you introduce a flat-tax, it's trying to understand how one can justify a tax system. The way in which it does so is to posit a hypothetical, pre-contractual state-of-nature, and then ask what kind of social contract would be agreed by rational agents in those circumstances.

Anyway, my purpose was simply to point out how much normative argument is missing from this thread so far.

[Pax]

So the former pay a larger proportionate share of their wealth than the former. As is the case with stealth taxes which can be seen as a form of flat tax, ergo the stealth.

First of all, could you clean up those sentences a little?

I presume you mean to say that under a flat-tax system, the less wealthy people pay a higher proportion of their wealth in tax than the more wealthy pay. Under a pure flat-tax system, surely everyone would pay the same proportion of their wealth, say 20%, in tax? If you pay 20% and I pay 20%, I'm not sure how either one of us can pay a greater proportion of our wealth than the other.

(I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here; I'm guessing that your actual point is that there is a non-linear relationship between money and 'wealth' or 'utility'.)

You're guessing right, basically the income of lower/middle income groups is worth more, or of more essential use to them than, say to those earning the income chosen by minister3 of over 150000. They spend a greater proportion of their income on essentials and therefore this brings in the ability to pay principle.

So this would give a large windfall to the affluent at a time when the lower/middle income earners are paying the same say regressive 400/500 p.a on a waste charge. Also, as has been touched upon high-income individuals receive income that is not taxed such as gifts and inheritances, capital gains, and rental value of homes and they are more able to claim a number of deductions from their income to arrive at their taxable income.

As regards stealth charges, cost increases and stagnation of income for the lower and middle income earners. This is all about what people really care about, the percentage increase in their disposable income not what percentage their taxes have declined after a tax cut. This latter percentage is a pointless measure of the progressivity of changes to a tax system. For example, if individuals earning 20,000 and paying 200 in taxes have their taxes cut in half and individuals earning 100,000 and paying 40,000 in taxes have their taxes cut by one quarter, the lower income individual’s taxes would be reduced by 50 per cent but the higher income individual’s taxes would be reduced by only 25 per cent. But this is far from a progressive tax change. As a result of the tax cuts, the lower income individual’s disposable income would be increased by 0.05 per cent while the higher income individual’s disposable income would be increased by 20 per cent.

Finally, the billionaires-like-it point is ad hominem; it's not entirely irrelevant, but you've made it at this stage, so you don't have to repeat it over and over.

I normally wouldn't repeat but eh wtd...

It's relevant when a flat tax is being represented as something not favourable to the very wealthy. Some would like to hide that it’s regressive as it would give the largest tax cuts (excluding largely irrelevant tax dodging points) and the biggest resulting increases in income to high-income earners.

Finally, the billionaires-like-it point is ad hominem; it's not entirely irrelevant, but you've made it at this stage, so you don't have to repeat it over and over.

...but being anti-right wing is his raison d'etre

From a neo-con Bush apologist (who if I remember ran away recently)
I’ll take that as a compliment

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

how would a wealth tax work. would it be an savings, property or if an item is for sale above a certin price would an extra tax be paid on that?

[Pax]

I' not sure why Pax keeps bringing up the Billionaires for Steve Forbes, considering the group is run by people who opposed Steve Forbes, and stalked his campaign a few years back following him along with their cutting
"satire".

Maybe Pax is citing them in a humerous manner , however I have a faint belief that he is talking them at their word, and actually believes that what they say is what Forbes wants.

Whatever the point, they are as irrelevant to this debate

Yes it's mostly humerous, but there's some figures at the end of that excerpt that I don't think are irrelevant. Just couldn't leave out the rest.

Steve Forbes’ flat tax proposals would eliminate all taxes on investment income as well as the capital gains tax, thus drastically lowering effective tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. On his own personal tax return, Mr. Forbes would save $174,000 per year if the 1996 version of his flat tax proposal were implemented, according to a 1995 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, while a single person making $25,000 a year would pay over $2,000 per year more.

[watch-this-drive]

From a neo-con Bush apologist (who if I remember ran away recently)
I’ll take that as a compliment

ha ha, if you think having the last word in a debate were you were all over the place and not responding to my questions is a victory for you then enjoy it, ignorance is bliss

[watch-this-drive]

Steve Forbes’ flat tax proposals would eliminate all taxes on investment income as well as the capital gains tax, thus drastically lowering effective tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. On his own personal tax return, Mr. Forbes would save $174,000 per year if the 1996 version of his flat tax proposal were implemented, according to a 1995 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice, while a single person making $25,000 a year would pay over $2,000 per year more.

i think you should read up on recent flat tax proposals from neutral sources, you seem to be stuck out in moonbat land with this stuff

[Pax]

From a neo-con Bush apologist (who if I remember ran away recently)
I’ll take that as a compliment

ha ha, if you think having the last word in a debate were you were all over the place and not responding to my questions is a victory for you then enjoy it, ignorance is bliss

One of the poorest excuses I've heard

edited, have given this enough time

[watch-this-drive]

It should be apparant to you that I made a post and then deleted it having realised the pure futility of debating with you as you couldnt stay on topic and wouldnt answer questions, you had obviously built up a head of steam and stopped reading anything I wrote.
I was being as civil as I could, you really frustrated the hell out of any possible debate on that thread.

[Pax]

It should be apparant to you that I made a post and then deleted it having realised the pure futility of debating with you as you couldnt stay on topic and wouldnt answer questions, you had obviously built up a head of steam and stopped reading anything I wrote.
I was being as civil as I could, you really frustrated the hell out of any possible debate on that thread.

Answer questions?!?

Sounds your like your looting thread "explanations"