ForumGarden

Bryn Mawr;541574 wrote: Not suggesting that at all - just a removal of the inbuild block within the system that prevents the poor from getting a foot on the ladder even though their buisness plan might well stack up.



In your terms, no track record, no money. If you start from zero, how do you get a track record. As I found out the hard way today, without proof of identity, stable income, residence and fifty other forms of documentation you cannot even open a bank account to form the basis for a track record. We can point out obstacles all day long, but obstacles can be overcome. People do it every day. it's always hard to start. I'm short on time, but I'll be back.



Bryn Mawr wrote: I would like to know where the communication is failing. What am I saying in :-









that is so left field as to be beyond discussion?Not at all. I think I'm talking about poor but not penniless, and you're talking about the latter.

Accountable;541902 wrote: We can point out obstacles all day long, but obstacles can be overcome. People do it every day. it's always hard to start. I'm short on time, but I'll be back.



Not at all. I think I'm talking about poor but not penniless, and you're talking about the latter.


Not necessarily penniless - in this country you can earn about $160 / week before you start to pay taxes. I just think that the tax rate is not the major obsticle to enterprise which appeared to be your original premise.

Bryn Mawr;541903 wrote: Not necessarily penniless - in this country you can earn about $160 / week before you start to pay taxes. I just think that the tax rate is not the major obsticle to enterprise which appeared to be your original premise.Aha! Now I understand. Actually you mentioned an obstacle, not I.

Bryn Mawr;540819 wrote: [...]

The cause of social unrest *is* the disparity between poor and rich but also the degree to which passage from one to the other is blocked. I would argue that it is not, of itself, tha tax regeim that causes that blockage but the degree to which money is available for enterprise. This is more a function of bank lending rulles and interest rates than of tax - by the time you are paying tax your venture has either succeeded or is in trouble anyway.

[...]
I don't see taxes as an obstacle to success, but what could possibly be a disincentive to become more successful - a tool to punish those who sprint too far ahead of the pack. Everyone should pay their fair share, but to use financial disparity as justification to raise one portion of the population's taxes is unfair, to say the least.

Accountable;541911 wrote: Aha! Now I understand. Actually you mentioned an obstacle, not I.

I don't see taxes as an obstacle to success, but what could possibly be a disincentive to become more successful - a tool to punish those who sprint too far ahead of the pack. Everyone should pay their fair share, but to use financial disparity as justification to raise one portion of the population's taxes is unfair, to say the least.


And therein lies our confusion. I'd taken your "squelching the ambition and creativity of those who are advancing our society" to refer to your comments on taxes rather than to my comments on pay differentials.

What is a fair share? Given that there is a basic minimum cost of living - some form of roof over your head, enough food to keep body and soul together etc, it is unreasonable to tax anybody earning less than that minimum. Can we agree on that?

Assuming a minimum cut-off of tax liability, is it so much of a jump to say that, above another cut-off your normal living costs (housing food transport entertainment) are taken care of and that any excess is discressionary spend?

In the same way as it is reasonable to cut the tax liability to zero where income is less than a living wage, it is reasonable to increase the tax where the income is above the "comfort" zone - as long as that increase is not punative.

I would totally agree that the tax rates under our early Labour governments (1950's?) was excessive at 98% for the top band but I don't think 40% is out of order for earnings over $160,000.



Comments?

Pick a percentage. Pick an income that establishes minimum cost of living. Charge all income above that minimum the same percentage. Then watch incomes soar, and tax revenues along with them.

Bryn Mawr;541933 wrote: And therein lies our confusion. I'd taken your "squelching the ambition and creativity of those who are advancing our society" to refer to your comments on taxes rather than to my comments on pay differentials.



What is a fair share? Given that there is a basic minimum cost of living - some form of roof over your head, enough food to keep body and soul together etc, it is unreasonable to tax anybody earning less than that minimum. Can we agree on that?Yes.



Bryn Mawr wrote: Assuming a minimum cut-off of tax liability, is it so much of a jump to say that, above another cut-off your normal living costs (housing food transport entertainment) are taken care of and that any excess is discressionary spend?Only as an abstract, certainly not as a legal "threhold" (for lack of a better term)



Bryn Mawr wrote: In the same way as it is reasonable to cut the tax liability to zero where income is less than a living wage, it is reasonable to increase the tax where the income is above the "comfort" zone - as long as that increase is not punative.The instant it is raised above the rate of other income - indeed, the instant it becomes considered "other income" - it becomes unfair, punative, and therefore unreasonable. Such a tax falls under the phrase "from each according to his abilities".



If a person earns $50,000 of taxable income, he would pay approximately $7500 in taxes (15%). Another person earing double would pay double, if the tax rate were static, about $15,000. That's fair. To charge 15% for the first $60,000 ($9K) then bump the rate to 28% for the remainder ($11,200!!) is patently UNfair. Don't get wrapped around the numbers; I'm sure they're not accurate vs current law.

Bryn Mawr wrote: I would totally agree that the tax rates under our early Labour governments (1950's?) was excessive at 98% for the top band but I don't think 40% is out of order for earnings over $160,000.





Comments?I'm sorry. To claim fairness by saying he can "afford" to pay more is ridiculous. The principle is unfair.

Accountable;554156 wrote: Yes.



Only as an abstract, certainly not as a legal "threhold" (for lack of a better term)



The instant it is raised above the rate of other income - indeed, the instant it becomes considered "other income" - it becomes unfair, punative, and therefore unreasonable. Such a tax falls under the phrase "from each according to his abilities".



If a person earns $50,000 of taxable income, he would pay approximately $7500 in taxes (15%). Another person earing double would pay double, if the tax rate were static, about $15,000. That's fair. To charge 15% for the first $60,000 ($9K) then bump the rate to 28% for the remainder ($11,200!!) is patently UNfair. Don't get wrapped around the numbers; I'm sure they're not accurate vs current law.

I'm sorry. To claim fairness by saying he can "afford" to pay more is ridiculous. The principle is unfair.


Just a couple of points / questions :-

Punative is "intended to punish", the fact of separately defining a portion of income does not, in itself, punish anybody. A differential of 1% would not punish. I would disagree that it was even unreasonable.

I did not suggest that a high earner should pay more because he can afford it - affordability is a measure of the ratio of commited spend to disposable income and it's a sad fact of life that many high earners have a higher committed spend than they have available disposable income.

I did suggest that, in the same way as as it is reasonable to ringfence the minimum living income and making that tax free, it is reasonable to also ringfence the minimum income required for comfortable living and applying a reduced tax to that amount.

I would be interested in knowing your understanding of the phrase "from each acording to his abilities".



If we take the English tax system which approximates to 0% up to £5000, 10% from there to £10,000, 22% above (ignore the 40% band as coming under your definition of punative and not being part of my proposal of minimum living / minimum comfort - at £100 / week you can survive, at £200 / week you can live, minimum values for each) then at £5000 you pay nothing, at £10,000 you pay £500 at £15000 you pay £1600.

The nett effect of this is that you are giving a £600 rebate to every tax payer, no more, no less, across the board. Would phrasing it in such terms make it any more palatable?

The £600 makes a huge difference to those living on the borderline and is a useful addition to those on higher incomes. You are not punishing the higher paid, you are helping those on the edge.

Why double the tax rate above 10K?

Accountable;554911 wrote: Why double the tax rate above 10K?


Because giving every tax payer a £600 rebate makes a big difference to the marginals.

The money is ours to begin with. The gov't should have to justify every ha'penny they take from our pockets. The only way possible to give a rebate is to take too much money from the start.



It's .. not .. the .. government's .. money! :-5

Accountable;555078 wrote: The money is ours to begin with. The gov't should have to justify every ha'penny they take from our pockets. The only way possible to give a rebate is to take too much money from the start.



It's .. not .. the .. government's .. money! :-5


Isn't 1776 anymore.

Damn greedy politicians are giving everything away.

Accountable;540050 wrote:

Our governor just announced he wants to make an STD vaccine mandatory for female school students, while he's against mandatory flu vaccines! Of course, it's completely irrellevant that his former chief of staff is a lobbyist for the drug company that makes the vaccine, which has also contributed a ton to his campaign coffers. :rolleyes:


Wow,..That's completely ridiculous.

K.Snyder;555726 wrote: Wow,..That's completely ridiculous.
Merk just announced theyre giving up lobbying other states to do the same, because they're not having success. Texas is the only one that agreed.