which tax is fairest?

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Net worth is a reflection of your spending habits, family expenses and a host of other things that I don't want the government involved in.

it's also a reflection of how much you can steal and get away with...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Earnings are a measure of the realized gain from the playingfield protected by the necessary evil that is government. Net worth is a reflection of your spending habits, family expenses and a host of other things that I don't want the government involved in. Government involvement would not be directly related to protection of individual liberties so much as protection of government. Never a good thing.

So why would, say, a parasite like Paris Hilton with huge assets (!) have to pay less tax than a self-made multi-millionair with a large income but far less assets? Difficulty in assessment does not seem a good reason to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Earnings are a measure of the realized gain from the playingfield protected by the necessary evil that is government. Net worth is a reflection of your spending habits, family expenses and a host of other things that I don't want the government involved in. Government involvement would not be directly related to protection of individual liberties so much as protection of government. Never a good thing.

So why would, say, a parasite like Paris Hilton with huge assets (!) have to pay less tax than a self-made multi-millionair with a large income but far less assets? Difficulty in assessment does not seem a good reason to me.

are you still talking about a tax on net worth, or just the inheritance tax now?

Surely you see problems with a tax that discourages savings.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Earnings are a measure of the realized gain from the playingfield protected by the necessary evil that is government. Net worth is a reflection of your spending habits, family expenses and a host of other things that I don't want the government involved in. Government involvement would not be directly related to protection of individual liberties so much as protection of government. Never a good thing.

So why would, say, a parasite like Paris Hilton with huge assets (!) have to pay less tax than a self-made multi-millionair with a large income but far less assets? Difficulty in assessment does not seem a good reason to me.

are you still talking about a tax on net worth, or just the inheritance tax now?

Surely you see problems with a tax that discourages savings.

All taxes have negative consequences of some sort or another. Income taxes discourage work, for example. On the whole I think inheritance taxes have the fewest negative consequences overall.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dreamdancer 0]

i predict a large increase in inheritance tax as more and more come to see its attractions as the 'fairest' tax

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[popsjumper 2]

I'd support a Stupidity Tax.

With the way things are going in this country, a Stupidity Tax would wipe out the national debt in no time at all.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

it seems pretty obvious to me that an inheritance tax is the fairest of them (the taxed individual is dead so it's not going to affect them much, if at all )

That is not "fair" that is "easy"

The fairest is a poll tax.... but that is not really workable.

The next is a flat rate tax based on govt expenditures. You take the years projected expenses and calculate the rate each individual over the age of 18 would have to pay to pay off the projected debt. So anything earned from 1 dollar to 1B dollars would be taxed at the same *rate*.

That way each individual person has to pay SOMETHING.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

i predict a large increase in inheritance tax as more and more come to see its attractions as the 'fairest' tax

Nope.

The following explains American government:

There are three classes in this country

1. Those who pay to elect the government.
2. Those who pay for the government.
3. Those who barely matter.

It costs about $8.5M per term or $1,417,000 a year to land a US Senate seat paying $174,000 for a net pay of -$1,243,000 a year. It costs about $1.5M per term or $750,000 a year to become a US Representative with the same pay for a -$1,152,000 return on your investment. To make the arithmetic work Congress Critters pay for their election with hard-money contributions to their campaigns and soft money contributed to the party. Only .4% of Americans contribute over $200 to a candidate, with some candidates receiving the majority of their hard money from people donating the $2500 per individual/$5000 per couple legal maximum. That less than .4% and various companies + PACs pay to elect our government.

America has the most progressive tax system out of the OECD 24. By 2008 the top 1% were paying 38% of federal income taxes, top 5% 59%, and top decile 70%. These people pay for the government.

The bottom half pay 2.7% of federal income taxes with the average tax rate negative for the two bottom quintiles. These people pay for neither elections nor government and therefore barely matter.

An inheritance tax increase would anger the people paying for elections (generally you need to be wealthy to be handing out $5000 to each of your favorite politicians on a regular basis which implies a sizable estate) and limit campaign contributions.

With FICA covering just 1/3 of a professional class widower's working income below the social security cap and that likely to get worse we need to set aside at least $3-$4M in todays dollars which will quickly reach the estate tax exemption as Congress neglects to adjust it for real inflation. We're likely to safeguard the left over for our children by voting against people who'd like to increase estate taxes which can decide closely contested elections.

The rest would like higher inheritance taxes with a lower exemption. They'll get some media coverage to keep their shouts down (Elected officials like to talk about such things and even introduce bills that can't pass) and generally be voting on other issues which affect them personally when they get to the polls so they barely matter.

This also explains other things like our immigration policy. We don't have open borders because professionals like doctors, lawyers, and engineers coming from other countries with lower standards of living would cause downward wage pressure and tax collections among the people who pay for government. We do have porous borders and lax enforcement (we're required to have an easily forged photo ID and social security card when hiring people and don't have to use the database matching SSNs to names) of employment laws which allow unskilled and semi-skilled labor in (such people aren't giving much up to come like houses or sacrificing much if they get deported) to keep costs down among the people paying for elections although it hurts the people who barely matter.

[pirana 0]

I say income tax; because below a certain income level there should be very little tax at all, including sales tax. Sales tax also just seems a way to tax money that has already been taxed. If all, or most income, is taxed when it is paid out, and at the proper level, then why do wew need sales tax?

As an aside, I'd get rid of most loopholes, credits, deductions, etc.

A percentage of income, progressing as income progresses, with minimal exceptions (none - if that's what it takes to sell it as fair) seems the way to go.

But getting the corporations and individuals hooked on loopholes off the teat - good luck on that.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I say income tax; .......

I say the concept of "fair" is meaningless in the context of taxes. Taxes are designed to generate revenues for the government with the fewest negative electoral consequences. I simply don't buy any of the whining rhetoric about this tax being fairer than that, or about some tax or other representing "double taxation" because "the money has already been taxed". Money isn't taxed, people and transactions are taxed.

My personal preference (and I'm not claiming any special fairness for it) is a hefty inheritance tax, so each generation knows it has to make it on its own rather than freeloading on Grandma's and Grandpa's hard work, thriftyness and talents.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.