Wealth Taxes: A Future Battleground [W:471]

[Federalist]

If you don't accept this, perhaps you're willing to reject the entire argument about property rights, since my ownership of property affects those who don't own property.

So you don't think that people should establish rules regarding who has the right to use and control (i.e. own) rivalrous goods?

 

[obvious Child]

I think we all can agree the entire tax code needs to be scrapped and remade from the ground up. At least I hope we can all agree .

The problem with this is that you're still going to get a lot of the problems.

Even at a flat tax. All a flat tax does is set a rate at which income is taxed. The vast majority of the tax law is dictating what is taxable. A flat tax doesn't fix this complexity. A flat tax has the ability to be just as complicated as the current system we have once Congress gets done with it. There's nothing stopping Congress from writing that X income from Y source is subject to a modified rate from the flat tax.

 

[ReformCollege]

The problem with this is that you're still going to get a lot of the problems.

Even at a flat tax. All a flat tax does is set a rate at which income is taxed. The vast majority of the tax law is dictating what is taxable. A flat tax doesn't fix this complexity. A flat tax has the ability to be just as complicated as the current system we have once Congress gets done with it. There's nothing stopping Congress from writing that X income from Y source is subject to a modified rate from the flat tax.

Well in that case, there is nothing stopping Congress from writing a 200% tax rate! Seriously, there is never anything stopping Congress from screwing up a good policy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't persue a good policy in the first place does it?

 

[obvious Child]

Well in that case, there is nothing stopping Congress from writing a 200% tax rate!

Theoretical yes. But I would imagine that wouldn't fly with the SCOTUS on illegal seizures.

Seriously, there is never anything stopping Congress from screwing up a good policy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't persue a good policy in the first place does it?

True, but until you can ensure that Congress doesn't write any special laws on taxes, any system you propose on taxes can be manipulated. The real way to fix the tax code is to get into the guts: what is taxable. The rates aren't a big deal in actuality.

A gross flat tax would be the simplest as it ignores all expenses and deductions, but it would also be the most brutal. Congress would have a relatively hard time messing with a gross tax if people held them to the notion of what "gross" meant in terms of business.

IMO, the drive for tax reform fails to deal with the core problem of how Congress mucks with what is taxable and when it's taxable and who gets special credits. A push for a flat tax won't solve any of these problems.

 

[ReformCollege]

Theoretical yes. But I would imagine that wouldn't fly with the SCOTUS on illegal seizures.



True, but until you can ensure that Congress doesn't write any special laws on taxes, any system you propose on taxes can be manipulated. The real way to fix the tax code is to get into the guts: what is taxable. The rates aren't a big deal in actuality.

A gross flat tax would be the simplest as it ignores all expenses and deductions, but it would also be the most brutal. Congress would have a relatively hard time messing with a gross tax if people held them to the notion of what "gross" meant in terms of business.

IMO, the drive for tax reform fails to deal with the core problem of how Congress mucks with what is taxable and when it's taxable and who gets special credits. A push for a flat tax won't solve any of these problems.

Of course it would probably be manipulated and ruined over time. But my point is, our system is already manipulated and ruined. So anything we do to return the amount of ruination and manipulation to zero is a good thing. I see it like a car. Just because dirt is going to accumulate on it over time, doesn't mean you don't wash it.

 

[Joe Steel]

Excellent. Now let's move to the solutions. How do you propose to get today's black Americans out of the slavery of inner city slums? Without beating the s*** out of the wealthy, of course, as that would make them slaves/slum dwellers too.

Economic determinism is the driving force of all history. When the natural interests of black Americans, economic as well as all others, are as well-addressed by our public policy as are the interests of white Americans, we will see a truly equal social order. That will include racial diversity in housing.

 

[obvious Child]

Of course it would probably be manipulated and ruined over time. But my point is, our system is already manipulated and ruined. So anything we do to return the amount of ruination and manipulation to zero is a good thing. I see it like a car. Just because dirt is going to accumulate on it over time, doesn't mean you don't wash it.

The way I see it, starting over is going to end up with much of the same because the core of the tax law is defining what is taxable and when. So in a sense, starting over is a waste of time as you're just reinventing the wheel. You're going to spend huge hours of time and money to end up largely in the same place. Therefore, I think it's better to just take what we know we're going to have anyways and strip out the rest.

 

[ReformCollege]

Economic determinism is the driving force of all history. When the natural interests of black Americans, economic as well as all others, are as well-addressed by our public policy as are the interests of white Americans, we will see a truly equal social order. That will include racial diversity in housing.

Lol. Public policy can't force equality without rigging merit. Basically, you're for a race based patronage system, where who you are matters more then what you do. In other words, forced redistribution. Try and dress it up as you like, but it's not fooling anyone.

 

[Joe Steel]

Lol. Public policy can't force equality without rigging merit. Basically, you're for a race based patronage system, where who you are matters more then what you do. In other words, forced redistribution. Try and dress it up as you like, but it's not fooling anyone.

Public policy may not be able to eliminate personal prejudice but it can compel equitable treatment in personal interactions. It can force employers to consider everyone or housing sellers to sell to everyone. If that's forced redistribution, so what. I see nothing wrong with forced redistribution.

 

[ReformCollege]

Public policy may not be able to eliminate personal prejudice but it can compel equitable treatment in personal interactions. It can force employers to consider everyone or housing sellers to sell to everyone. If that's forced redistribution, so what. I see nothing wrong with forced redistribution.

Sure, you can force them to consider selling houses to everyone. But I absolutely disagree that public policy should force them to sell those same houses at different prices to different people. THAT is forced redistribution.

 

[Joe Steel]

Sure, you can force them to consider selling houses to everyone. But I absolutely disagree that public policy should force them to sell those same houses at different prices to different people. THAT is forced redistribution.

When did anyone get a price preference because of public policy?

 

[ReformCollege]

When did anyone get a price preference because of public policy?

They don't. And I guess I shouldn't be giving you any ideas on how they could....