Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on April 01, 2014, 02:03:20 AM

Quote from: Khadaji on March 31, 2014, 05:48:43 PM

Taxes always affect the behavior of those who are taxed, regardless of their ability to pay. I reject your implied argument otherwise.

Yes, but I would argue that since the renters usually bear at least some of the cost of a property tax, the tax will affect their behaviour as well as the one being directly taxed. It certainly doesn't provide an incentive to rent rather than own, since you will still be paying the tax (or most of it), and you will be pissing money away on rent.

I rather doubt if you'll be able to cite for the idea that behavior is affected by taxes not paid by an individual.

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on April 01, 2014, 02:03:20 AM

Quote from: Khadaji on March 31, 2014, 05:48:43 PM

"It is show that the property tax has a strong effect on the decision to invest in housing; an increase of one percentage point in the full-value tax rate will lower applications for investment by 90 million dollars"

Less "investment in housing" does not imply more people choosing to become renters, it implies less people choosing to become landlords. A property tax would have to be close to 100% of the cost of rent before it started to disincentivise owning your own home - the people discouraged from investing are those who are buying to let.

Less "investment in housing" is ownership. Higher taxes will affect the numbers of people who decide to own their own property, you cannot cite any economic study that would show otherwise.

It's merely common sense as well... when the cost of something goes up, you have less people able or interested in purchasing it.

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on April 01, 2014, 02:03:20 AM

Quote from: Khadaji on March 31, 2014, 05:48:43 PM

I think that everyone should pay an equal percentage of taxes. Doing anything other than this is not fair, and indeed, is simply an attempt to punish people for wealth creation.

Yes, I think we've been over this ground. For me, the notion of fairness must be related to the amount that you're able to pay.

You aren't speaking of 'fairness'. Find another word.

You are PUNISHING people who are successful, that's no-one's definition of "fair".

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on April 01, 2014, 02:03:20 AM

If you earn $20k, and pay an income tax of (e.g.) 25%, that $5k can be the difference between eating and going hungry, or between paying rent and being homeless. If you earn $200k, who gives a fuck about $50k? You have $150k left, and since it doesn't cost a rich person any more to survive than a poor person, most of it is spending money.

This is the basis of socialism, not capitalism. It's not the fault or responsibility of successful people to 'save' the less fortunate.

Quote from: Khadaji on March 31, 2014, 05:48:43 PM

An idea based on a false understanding of the pie. That is, what you think wealth is... a pie. And when one person has a big chunk of that pie, you think that you have less of a chunk.

Wealth doesn't work that way.

I understand how wealth is created, and I don't want to prohibit people from getting rich by creating it. However, there is an optimal region (for all taxes) where the redistributive benefit outweighs the wealth lost by the % who were disincentivised to create.[/quote]

"redistributive benefit" - socialism.

I'm interested in discussing the best forms of taxes to collect... not interested in socialism... which I reject as a failed experiment.

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on April 01, 2014, 02:03:20 AM

If you have a skill worth $20m per year, you will still be fabulously wealthy if you pay a tax rate of 50%, 60% even. Are you going to avoid using that skill to make yourself $10m per year, just to stick it to the government?

What gives you the right to take my money only because I'm more successful than others at creating wealth?

You take the capital away from the very people who've proven that they know what to do with it, and give it to government, which has never shown any particular ability to handle money well.

The 'war on poverty' will never be won by giving the poor more money.