Saturday, 24 September 2011

Fair Taxation

We all inter-are [as Thích Nhất Hạnh famously teaches] and as Elizabeth Warren eloquently demonstrates in an impromptu talk in an amateur's video of her on the campaign trail for a Massachusetts senate seat now held by Scott Brown.

The viddy was kiped from Buddhist_philosopher's solo blog American Buddhist Perspective.

7 comments:

  1. "Fairness" is a path to the Dark Side. There is zero fairness in "class warfare". It is fair that the 'rich' are required to pay twice as much income tax? That is the real fact, contrary to Obama's lies. It's called a "progressive tax" system and we already have it.

    I believe that Warren Buffet made his money through Capital Gains tax. He made very risky investments that turned out very good for him a decade or two later. So with high risk? comes high reward. Capital Gains tax is *double* taxation already and that is why it is at 18%. The government already got their money from the company as income. So the government goes after the share holders and taxes the same money again. Again this is fair? I think we can do very well without this kind of 'fairness'

    Instead how about we tax everyone who has ever voted for a Democrat. They are the ones who got us in this fiscal mess and destroyed our economy with their outdated failing ideology. It would only be "fair" that they are required to pay a little more than everyone else right? See how "class warfare" is wrong yet?

    Washington D.C. has gotten more Tax Revenue than ever before and has stolen more money from our children's children than ever before. They have a *spending* problem, instead of a revenue problem.

    Furthermore, the science of economics show that lowering taxes INCREASES tax revenue. There is a sweet spot where that relationship flips but that is around 18 percent, instead of 50%. The Feds only want 38% but then there is State, County, and City that all want their piece of the cake.

    Scott Brown is just a statist Democrat that calls himself a Republican so I find her campaign humorous. I believe Scott Brown can count on the T.E.A. Party being absent from his next campaign. So in the end, she can replace Scott Brown if she wants. *shrugs* lulz

    Competitive free-markets have risen more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Statism, on the other hand, has the vast record of having everyone be poor.

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the founding father's developed the three governing branches of judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. The intent is for them to fight with themselves for more power instead of fighting the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Angel,

    I think that what is important in terms of a happy and harmonious society is not just a reasonable standard of living, but a relatively small gap between the rich and the poor.

    "The government already got their money from the company as income."

    The government doesn't keep it, it's invested in shared resources - the kind of necessary infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals) that individuals and corporations are not good at creating.

    "So the government goes after the share holders and taxes the same money again. Again this is fair? I think we can do very well without this kind of 'fairness'"

    Whether taxation occurs once or in two parts is surely irrelevant?

    "Instead how about we tax everyone who has ever voted for a Democrat. They are the ones who got us in this fiscal mess and destroyed our economy with their outdated failing ideology. "

    I seem to recall that the unsafe sub-prime investment and subsequent banking crisis occured under the Bush administration.

    "See how "class warfare" is wrong yet?"

    I don't see the parallel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Furthermore, the science of economics show that lowering taxes INCREASES tax revenue."

    If that's the case then Sweden, Denmark and Norway must have really low taxes in order to afford such great social capital. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Elizabeth Warren's talk and why it is relevant to this blog does go to the point of seeing the whole of what is transpiring and understanding that an Ayn Rand philosophy, say, where everyone can be a lone actor, is impossible.

    The rich cannot have gotten rich on their own, independent of a deep and wide interaction with the general public. We are all intermeshed economically, socially and culturally.

    Taxes are imposed at points of transaction. There is nothing at all out of sorts for there to be a tax on both a corporation's income and on the income of an individual, who happens to be part owner of that corporation. There is no double tax.

    A lot of what you are arguing, Angel, is what brought us the Great Recession that began in earnest at the end of the Geo.W.Bush Administration. The Laffer Curve [higher revenue is achieved thru lower taxes] and supply-side economics are fully discredited. We've been there and it wrought disaster.

    But, Angel, I agree with you (and disagree with Shonin) that redistributing income is terrible policy. Happily, a proper, fair tax policy, that looks at the whole of what's going on, would both be fully equitable and incentivize good work, good behavior, and innovation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, Angel, the idea of "taxing the same money twice" is bogus. Money is constantly being tax assessed as it is in constant movement through the economic system.

    In the best case, taxes are used in ways that are beneficial to the whole of a country, and effectively upgrade everybody's circumstance and level of happiness.

    Associated with Shonin's second comment, the Scandinavian countries have high tax rates and especially happy people. Governments can use money productively and efficiency. The USA has, historically, thought to have been a particularly good and effective governing entity. The Scandinavian countries also keep their national debt low. It would be good, in my opinion, if the USA copied a lot of what those countries do relating to taxation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tom,

    "I agree with you (and disagree with Shonin) that redistributing income is terrible policy. Happily, a proper, fair tax policy, that looks at the whole of what's going on, would both be fully equitable and incentivize good work, good behavior, and innovation"

    I'm not arguing for redistributing income. I agree with the latter values you described.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel I should add that a progressive income-tax policy [which, sadly, has become less progressive due to Republican economics] is not unfair nor a redistribution of income.

    Better off people use more of public services and as a matter of equity should pay at a higher rate than poorer people.

    Also, sales taxes and certain fees are highly regressive and should be modified to hurt poorer people less.

    The concept of "fairness," judiciously applied to tax policy, would be wholly beneficial.

    ReplyDelete

Dharma News

Loading...