Forbes: Bill Gates Points To The Best Tax System, The Progressive Consumption Tax

[James972]

Progressive taxation is, by definition, unfair.

Everyone should pay EXACTLY the same tax rate (outside of the very poor as the effort would be wasted and self-defeating).

I don't care what Gates says on this, the ONLY fair taxation is where everyone pays EXACTLY the same tax rate...on income and ALL capital gains (including principle residences) with no deductions except for charitable contributions.

That is a fair way of taxation. Progressive taxation is not.

why is it fair that everyone pay the same rate rather than the same price? Do you want to rich to pay more in the supermarket for a can or peas? Then why should they pay more for govt; especially when they already contribute so much to our standard of living and when they get so little from govt?
Progressive taxation is just another form of liberal anti-science welfare that reverses evolution and ultimately does more harm than good.

 

[jimbo]

Unless you hide our savings under the mattress, they are in a bank earning interest.

They are therefore producing taxable income ...

To carry that a step farther, savings in a bank do not stay in the bank earning interest. Money in a bank is reintroduced into the economy to enable people to buy stuff. The spread pays the bills and generates the profit of the bank. Without the money being reinvested. there would be little market for high ticket items or for reinvesting in business.

 

[James972]

To carry that a step farther, savings in a bank do not stay in the bank earning interest. Money in a bank is reintroduced into the economy to enable people to buy stuff. The spread pays the bills and generates the profit of the bank. Without the money being reinvested. there would be little market for high ticket items or for reinvesting in business.

and lets not forget that through the magic of fractional reserve banking a bank can lend out times what it takes in to help families and businesses grow in a sustainable way. Compare that to govt taxing away the money and wasting it on welfare. Liberalism is so stupid it should be made illegal

 

[Crovax]

And so what?

Of course it wont be taxed, because (under the Gates plan) it reduces the impact of the "gifted income" being made ...

And here is what you "don't get": You are not the only one on this forum. So, in any exchange, it is wise to repeat the point to which you are responding. Otherwise, the comment-exchange gets very confusing.

I did quote you on exactly what point I was responding to.

 

[Lafayette]

THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT

Without the money being reinvested.

But if there is no Real Demand by consumers, as is the case in a recession, then the savings is NOT being reinvested to meet a non-existent Demand.

Putting the horse before the cart: When exiting a recession, a country must "stimulate Demand" - which has been lessened by the recession. And the best way to do that is "not to wait" for Demand to recover gradually all by itself. (It needs help.)

Been there, done that historically - between 2010 and 2014 when the Replicants in the HofR refused all Stimulus Spending under the hilarious notion that the American Debt was too high. See the BLS Employment-to-population Ratio for that period - no jobs were being created because no government spending was there to initiate what is called the Multiplier Effect.

Which is this: A dollar spent by the government is re-spent multiple times in a diminishing fashion - but each time re-spent it has the effect of enhancing consumption. (One dollar of Income is re-spent minus whatever savings.)

The cyclic manner of spending was first noted by French essayist François Quesnay in the 18th century. Diagrammatically it looks like this below, but repeated each time money is re-spent but with diminishing returns (because of peoples' savings reserved before spending their income):

__________________________________

 

[jimbo]

THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT

But if there is no Real Demand by consumers, as is the case in a recession, then the savings is NOT being reinvested to meet a non-existent Demand.

Putting the horse before the cart: When exiting a recession, a country must "stimulate Demand" - which has been lessened by the recession. And the best way to do that is "not to wait" for Demand to recover gradually all by itself. (It needs help.)

Been there, done that historically - between 2010 and 2014 when the Replicants in the HofR refused all Stimulus Spending under the hilarious notion that the American Debt was too high. See the BLS Employment-to-population Ratio for that period - no jobs were being created because no government spending was there to initiate what is called the Multiplier Effect.

Which is this: A dollar spent by the government is re-spent multiple times in a diminishing fashion - but each time re-spent it has the effect of enhancing consumption. (One dollar of Income is re-spent minus whatever savings.)

The cyclic manner of spending was first noted by French essayist François Quesnay in the 18th century. Diagrammatically it looks like this below, but repeated each time money is re-spent but with diminishing returns (because of peoples' savings reserved before spending their income):
View attachment 67202979
__________________________________

Do you know what's missing in your circular chart? The word government.
Unfortunately, that word is never missing in liberal solutions to problems, and all too often, government becomes the problem, not the solution.

Case in point. Apple, a large US company, has at present around 200 billion cash assets sitting unused in accounts scattered around the world. Apple would like to return this capital to the US where it could be used for job creating expansion or distributed to stockholders as dividends and would eventually would end up back in the US economic system. Apple can't do this. Why? In order to bring the cash home, the government demands its pound of flesh. In Apples case some 70 billion pounds of flesh.

So the cash sits unused. Sooner or later Apple will reinvest it outside the US. That's the only realistic choice they have. Then the wannabe economists will complain that Apple is moving jobs away from our shores.

BTW, your chart clearly states the chart is describing the free market.

 

[Lafayette]

BTW, your chart clearly states the chart is describing the free market.

It describes a market-economy. Back in the 18th century, there was no concept of "free" or un-free markets. In fact, monarchs contrived at their whimsy un-free markets in order to corner them.

As an American abroad, and subject to FATCA, I am obliged to pay taxes as regards any income earned abroad (less a provision for taxes upon earned-income already paid to my host country). Any interest upon my savings accounts is automatically reported to the IRS by any European bank in which I have an account.

So why, pray tell, not Apple?

What makes you think that an American company legally should be able to shelter its profits abroad? Or, an American either in the US or abroad, to protects his/her assets by hiding them in a bogus offshore company (created by a law-office in Panama) ... ?
____________________

 

[jimbo]

It describes a market-economy. Back in the 18th century, there was no concept of "free" or un-free markets. In fact, monarchs contrived at their whimsy un-free markets in order to corner them.

As an American abroad, and subject to FATCA, I am obliged to pay taxes as regards any income earned abroad (less a provision for taxes upon earned-income already paid to my host country). Any interest upon my savings accounts is automatically reported to the IRS by any European bank in which I have an account.

So why, pray tell, not Apple?

What makes you think that an American company legally should be able to shelter its profits abroad? Or, an American either in the US or abroad, to protects his/her assets by hiding them in a bogus offshore company (created by a law-office in Panama) ... ?
____________________

No, it describes a free market economy. It so states.

There certainly was a concept of free market economics way farther back than the 18th century. Economists have argued economics for centuries. I expect that cave men thousands of years ago grasped the concept of free trade when they had an excess of something and some other cave man had a shortage but had an excess of something else. Kids understand it when they have a big bag of marbles but really really want that cool shooter.

Much of the cash being sheltered abroad has been earned abroad, taxes have been paid abroad, and the US government has no legitimate claim. That is certainly the case with Apple. The government is shooting itself in the foot when it refuses to allow US corporations to return cash to this country.

Those law offices in Panama are not bogus. They are real. The tax breaks are real, and they are legal. Why do you think businesses should not take advantage of legal tax reductions? Half the population pays no income tax. Should they too refuse to take the offered tax breaks? If you (personally) have money have money in foreign accounts, should you have to cough up a third to the government in order to transfer it to a US bank?

 

[Lafayette]

No, it describes a free market economy. It so states.

There certainly was a concept of free market economics way farther back than the 18th century. Economists have argued economics for centuries. I expect that cave men thousands of years ago grasped the concept of free trade when they had an excess of something and some other cave man had a shortage but had an excess of something else. Kids understand it when they have a big bag of marbles but really really want that cool shooter.

Much of the cash being sheltered abroad has been earned abroad, taxes have been paid abroad, and the US government has no legitimate claim. That is certainly the case with Apple. The government is shooting itself in the foot when it refuses to allow US corporations to return cash to this country.

Those law offices in Panama are not bogus. They are real. The tax breaks are real, and they are legal. Why do you think businesses should not take advantage of legal tax reductions? Half the population pays no income tax. Should they too refuse to take the offered tax breaks? If you (personally) have money have money in foreign accounts, should you have to cough up a third to the government in order to transfer it to a US bank?

You are sooo wrong, I don't know where to start.

Obsessed by the word "free", which makes you think there are no bonafide constraints. (Called taxes.)

Get help ...

 

[jimbo]

You are sooo wrong, I don't know where to start.

Obsessed by the word "free", which makes you think there are no bonafide constraints. (Called taxes.)

Get help ...

So you got nuthin'. Time for the personal attacks.

 

[Lafayette]

So you got nuthin'. Time for the personal attacks.

Yeah, right.

Moving right along ...
__________________

 

[jimbo]

Yeah, right.

Moving right along ...
__________________

As you stated, you have no idea where to start.

 

[James972]

What makes you think that an American company legally should be able to shelter its profits abroad?

actually companies should be able to shelter or keep all of their profits so our prices will be lower and we will have a higher standard of living!! A liberal will be a total illiterate and not know that a tax cost like any cost is passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Ever wonder why an Rolls Royce costs more than an apple? Ans: the Rolls has more costs.

The only reason we have a corporate tax at all is to pander to the pure and total ignorance of liberals who in their brainwashed Marxist way want business to pay its "fair share."

 

[Lafayette]

EQUITY AND ECONOMIC FAIRNESS

Progressive taxation is, by definition, unfair. Everyone should pay EXACTLY the same tax rate (outside of the very poor as the effort would be wasted and self-defeating). That is a fair way of taxation. Progressive taxation is not.

Bollocks. Just an opinion of the Rabid-Right who haven't the first notion of equitability.

And when push-comes-to-shove, they are also the first to shelter their children from military duty.

The notion of "fairness" is inculcated in human philosophy since the time of Aristotle. (See here.) In its more modern version, the quality of equitability looks like this:

Where:

Equity or economic equality is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly in regard to taxation or welfare economics. More specifically, it may refer to equal life-chances regardless of identity, to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to increase funds and commitment for redistribution.

The notion of "fairness" is endemic in most modern societies; though there is everywhere a Rabid-Right that insists upon its non-existence, and exalts the Darwinian "prominence of the fittest".

As if humans were all still animals ...
_____________________________

 

[Lafayette]

From the Wall Street Journal:

It never ends, the high-stakes rip-off.

The rich get richer and the poor can go to hell, whilst the middle-class gets squeezed between the two ...
_________________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

And, whilst I'm at it: Total Net Worth of Congress



What a bunch of suckers we are ... !
______________________

 

[Lafayette]

a Ever wonder why an Rolls Royce costs more than an apple? Ans: the Rolls has more costs.

The only reason we have a corporate tax at all is to pander to the pure and total ignorance of liberals who in their brainwashed Marxist way want business to pay its "fair share."

Superciliousness personified ...
______________

 

[James972]

Superciliousness personified ...
______________

Translation: As a typical liberal I have no idea whatsoever how to confute the argument that corporations collect taxes but don't pay them!! As I said the corporate tax is there only to pander to the pure ignorance of liberalism.

 

[James972]

exalts the Darwinian "prominence of the fittest".

As if humans were all still animals ...

so then liberals are anti-science and want survival and reproduction of the least fit??