Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 81 results by Khadaji
I think it is just an excuse for their miserable life : "it's not my fault, it's the Illuminati"
Not to change the topic, but you could replace 'Illuminati' with 'Jews' and be just as correct.
Only a god that was material would be accepted by scientists, as they reject as a fundamental fact that there is anything beyond matter & energy.
Well, no. Scientists currently believe, based on evidence, that the universe is comprised only of matter/energy (same thing), spacetime, fundamental forces, etc.
Well yes. Materialism is a given in modern science.
It's not a belief based on evidence, it's a fundamental axiom of the system of science. Feel free to research it...
But this is the thing about science - if you present evidence that the universe extends beyond the current model, scientists will change their minds. Just like they did when Einstein extended the classical model of relativity.
If anything non-material is rejected a priori, then nothing will ever be 'discovered' or theorized that's non-material.
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.
"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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?
This is precisely what pisses me off about religious people, if there was a god, scientists would accept it,
Only a god that was material would be accepted by scientists, as they reject as a fundamental fact that there is anything beyond matter & energy.
But a god that existed only materially wouldn't be a god.
Of course, this also has the hidden assumption that scientists don't believe in God. Historically speaking, far more scientists have been religious than have been atheist. But even in modern times, you cannot make the flat assertion that scientists as a rule are atheist.
According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not. - LA Times.
You can argue the exact percentage, different polls have different numbers, but it's always going to be a healthy number.
but religious people would only accept it as long as it fits 'their' version, what happens if it turns out there are millions of gods that are nothing like what they believe in but they exist? They'd be pretty fucked then with their logic but it seems that scientists are discovering how life clicks step by step, finding out if there's an afterlife is the only real problem because you have to physically die in order to find out about it.
I can respect people for wanting to believe in things, but I can't respect people who deny reality and expect me to respect that.
I can respect people for wanting to believe in things, but I can't respect people who deny reality and expect me to respect that.
The least bad option is a comprehensive carbon tax that applies to all hydrocarbon fuels, from gasoline to propane. It gives each consumer the freedom to determine the energy use that best suits his or her budget. But is it fair? Only if it is revenue neutral, that is, if the extra tax income is offset with lower taxes elsewhere.
Of course, when you tax energy, you're in essence punishing those who are trying to make an easier life for everyone.
Certainly a good 'tree-hugger' idea, but not a well-thought out tax, in my opinion.
This was already dealt with. Most countries have sales tax. The bureaucracy needed for property tax wouldn't be dramatically different from that needed for sales tax.
This is true. While sales taxes are inherently unenforceable at a very low level (think farmers' markets, cash-in-hand food stalls etc.) they don't require a huge amount of bureaucracy to implement in most cases, and a major benefit of a sales tax is that larger companies find it almost impossible (and not worth it) to avoid.There's always going to be an 'underground' movement, you'll never collect taxes perfectly. But it's just silly to assert that you need a police state to utilize a sales tax.
I saw one country that has a 50% sales tax... ouch!
And, as sales tax is more equally divided between people, it would present less of a burden.
This is a false inference. Equal liability =/= equal burden. A drawback of a sales tax is that the poor pay the same proportion as the rich, unless you exempt basics like cheap food and clothing.I don't consider this a problem. I'm in favor of fair taxation. 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.
It's a false notion that if you are wealthy, that I must have less.
Nope. Untrue. You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.
Of COURSE the renter pays more to cover all costs. It's hardly 'pendantic,' it's merely the truth. Why would you argue with the facts?
Because your argument was that a property tax pushes people into renting which it clearly doesn't. It doesn't matter who is 'taxed' if the renter ends up paying the landlord extra for the tax that the landlord owes.Taxes always affects the behavior of those who are taxed, regardless of their ability to pay. I reject your implied argument otherwise. This has been studied by economists: "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 milliion dollars" - http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/143107?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103772294207
Sound's suspiciously like you wish to discourage wealth.
Not really. I want the human race to acquire as much wealth as it possibly can. Wealth improves people's lives. If you mean that I want to discourage individuals from having a disproportionate share of humanity's wealth, then yeah, pretty much.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.
If I take a plot of land, some building materials, and the labor costs to build a house, the resulting house is worth more than all my preceding costs. I've created wealth.
I think Sales tax or direct taxes are so bad because we can not avoid them.
Sales tax can be avoided... you simply don't buy something.
The idea that all taxes are bad, and that we need to be able to avoid all taxes is hardly worth debating.
This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.
Yes, but the tax affects the renter even if they don't pay it - the landlord charges a little bit extra in rent to make up for having to pay the tax. I'm sure you understand this and are just trolling / being pedantic. Renters de facto pay a portion of any costs that a landlord incurs.
Of COURSE the renter pays more to cover all costs. It's hardly 'pendantic,' it's merely the truth. Why would you argue with the facts?
You think it's 'trolling' to merely be precise about the facts?
In addition, I would say that you should discourage people from owning lots of property. Exempt people from paying tax on the first (e.g.) $500k worth of property, and you discourage renting (the landlord will charge you extra for the tax), encourage working to buy your house (no rent or tax to pay), and discourage buying up huge amounts of property as an investment (either pay tax or raise rents, making you less competitive).
Sound's suspiciously like you wish to discourage wealth.
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.
What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.
If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
The person who owes the tax. So what? If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.
You are being childish. A sales tax is paid by the seller but the costs are born by the buyer. A resource tax is paid by the owner but the costs are born by the consumer.
I'm merely pointing out facts.
A renter does not pay the property owner's tax. Quite clearly, an owner has to take taxes into account, as well as property maintenance & upkeep, but it's silly to state that the *RENTER* is responsible for these costs.
I'm not sure there is more to say in this thread. You are in favour of a bigger state with a collection agency that can monitor citizens and hunt then down for unreported sales transactions.
This was already dealt with. Most countries have sales tax. The bureaucracy needed for property tax wouldn't be dramatically different from that needed for sales tax.
And, as sales tax is more equally divided between people, it would present less of a burden.
You aren't going to change you mind since nothing we say can make a resource tax require the large collection force you envisage.
Facts would be nice. A better argument would certainly help. I'm not tied to this opinion.
The plurality of votes here is for a resource tax that can be run by the land registration office."
Methinks that you overstate the importance of 12 people. That is, after all - the number of votes currently existing for a property tax. And were you to quiz those 12 people, chances are good that at least some of them voted for more than just the property tax.
Good luck with persuading people in this forum to join your ideal of increasing government size and adding to policing the public.
Still beating that strawman, eh?
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.
What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.
If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
The person who owes the tax. So what? If a sales tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
This admission illustrates who pays property tax. It's not the renter.
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.
What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
A property tax is paid whether you are a tenant or an owner as its reflected in the rents.
If the property tax is not paid, who goes to jail?
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
Don't worry about that. Owning a property is appealing. When you reach a certain age, you want to own the place you're staying in. The young can hesitate between the two, most old folks are property owners. Buying a home is also one the best investment a man can make. You just have to avoid the cities where property tax is high.
What you encourage, you get more of, what you punish, you get less of.
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.
Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent. If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.
Nope. Untrue.
You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.
...snip...
Um.
That's exactly how property tax is paid. The landlord factors in the tax when setting rent.
You surely don't imagine that landlords operate as kindly souls and pay the property tax out of the goodness of our hearts?
Who goes to jail if the property tax isn't paid?
IMHO one of the most important criteria is what sort of collection system will be used.
With a land tax (and to some extent a more general property tax) the things being taxed are very public and well defined. The taxing authority has a database of the property being taxed and knows who the owners are. It needs these in order to defend the ownership rights in the first place. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, they can be allowed to stay on the property (if it is their domicile) until they die, with a lien being placed on the property.
On the other hand, most other forms of taxation are significantly easier to avoid. This is a bad thing because their ease of evasion leads directly to more invasive enforcement techniques. A sales tax, for example, ends up requiring a virtual police state where business owners become tax collection agents. A business owner who finds out a competitor is not collecting/paying all their taxes can report them, harming their competitors. Tax agents need to be granted the ability to look into everyone's business to ensure no one is avoiding their "fair share". Income taxes are one of the worst in this regard, requiring everyone to open their personal books up to tax collectors.
If your tax system requires a police state, that is pretty bad indeed.
With a land tax (and to some extent a more general property tax) the things being taxed are very public and well defined. The taxing authority has a database of the property being taxed and knows who the owners are. It needs these in order to defend the ownership rights in the first place. If someone doesn't pay their taxes, they can be allowed to stay on the property (if it is their domicile) until they die, with a lien being placed on the property.
On the other hand, most other forms of taxation are significantly easier to avoid. This is a bad thing because their ease of evasion leads directly to more invasive enforcement techniques. A sales tax, for example, ends up requiring a virtual police state where business owners become tax collection agents. A business owner who finds out a competitor is not collecting/paying all their taxes can report them, harming their competitors. Tax agents need to be granted the ability to look into everyone's business to ensure no one is avoiding their "fair share". Income taxes are one of the worst in this regard, requiring everyone to open their personal books up to tax collectors.
If your tax system requires a police state, that is pretty bad indeed.
That's strange... I pay sales tax virtually every day and I don't live in a police state...
In fact, based on your argument, most of the world is living in a police state:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/sales-tax-rate
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.
Property tax on residential lettings is paid by the tenants through their rent. If owning a property makes sense, the level of property tax is irrelevant as you pay it whether you own or rent.
Nope. Untrue.
You're now stating that people will be taxed even if they DON'T own property.
I see no reason for the state to own 28% of the land. If the government needs money, it can sell its land. To my mind this is a major benefit of a property/resource tax - thanks for bringing it up.
Since tax is raised to meet a budget, no matter what tax you choose, the same amount of money gets raised. Sales tax is more expensive to administer than a resource/property tax
Only because it would affect far less people.
and it requires a ton of regulation and bureaucrats. You can see why the property/resource tax option is most popular here :-)
People are always in favor of someone else paying taxes.
But if you want a truly fair system, and one that takes the lowest amount of money from any person, it has to be a tax on EVERYONE.
The same argument was made not long ago by President Obama with regards to universal health insurance... EVERYONE has to be on it for it to make sense.
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
I would not tax either of them a penny on their wealth or income. The one with more property will pay more tax and if it happens to be the millionaire, he will reduce the wage he pays his janitor. Call it trickle down taxation.
The important thing is that both are encouraged to employ their assets and there is no penalty for success.
If you are only taxing those who own property, then you're intentionally pushing people into renting rather than ownership.
And since the government owns 28% of the land in the U.S. - that's 28% that will never be taxed.
Hawker,
You seem incapable of distinguishing between taxation and spending. The collection of taxes is independent of the distribution of benefits. As I already pointed out, whatever you consider as equitable is possible with a sales tax.
I think it makes more sense to consider the economic ratifications of the tax system, and the social aspects of the spending.
You seem incapable of distinguishing between taxation and spending. The collection of taxes is independent of the distribution of benefits. As I already pointed out, whatever you consider as equitable is possible with a sales tax.
I think it makes more sense to consider the economic ratifications of the tax system, and the social aspects of the spending.
A good point... collection is totally and completely separate from spending.
And you are certainly correct that a sales tax is by far the fairest tax there can be. It's almost COMPLETELY voluntary. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy anything.
And millionaires certainly spend more on 'things' than a janitor does.
Google "straw man" - I never proposed a progressive taxation system so need not defend one.
If you have no interest in taxing a millionaire at a higher rate than you do his janitor, then we agree.
Take a history lessons about Bill.
Every body knows he steals it. Even hacktivists say so.
Every body knows he steals it. Even hacktivists say so.
Everyone except the guy who wrote it. He freely sold it to MS for $25000 and then got a bonus of $50000 when joined Microsoft as an employee.
Superb so even if this us true instead of earning millions he get 75k. Great for him.
Sheer speculation not based on anything at all.
This is a silly supposition based on a flawed understanding of everyone as 'equal'. Everyone is equally brilliant, everyone is equally capable, everyone is equally persistent.
Silly.
Khadaji - in the real world, the state does provide an educated workforce and commercial infrastructure that will give the wealthy woman a better return on her taxes if the only way of raising tax is a sales tax. To argue for a tax system on the basis that you don't think the state should provide education is to ask us enter a parallel universe.
And yet, people became wealthy thousands of years ago, with no public education system whatsoever.
You asked what I think a fair system would be?
Until you define the term "fair" - we won't be speaking of the same topic.
In a democracy, I think a system that is has no impact on the spread of wealth and power in society is fair.
Then you aren't in favor of progressive tax systems... good to see you agree with me.
It doesn't matter if people make huge amounts of money or inherit it. It stinks if the tax system gives it to them just because they were born in the right place. That is my objection to ideas like flat taxes and sales taxes - they give a much bigger return on tax paid to those who need an educated workforce and a well run economy.
Oops... I guess you really didn't mean what you said. You ARE in favor of a taxing system that inhibits the free growth of wealth & power.
If that growth in wealth is achieved by redistribution through the tax system, there has to be a very good reason for it.
You make a false statement without any citation or support, then conclude that your opinions on taxation are correct based on that false statement.
Progressive taxation takes away the very capital needed by those who are best posed to create real wealth. You undoubtedly believe that the government can more effectively spend that capitol than the people who EARNED it.
I don't see that there is a good reason to redistribute towards the wealthy so naturally I oppose any tax system that does just that.
The wealthy do not benefit from progressive taxation, nor would their wealth be created hypothetically with a flat tax.
In any case, a sales tax does not encourage the use of assets.
Neither does a progressive tax. You wish to punish the very people who've DEMONSTRATED by their very wealth that they can use their assets most effectively.
A resource tax does.
No, it merely drains capitol from the very people who've proven that they can make the most effective use of it.
On that basis alone, its a no brainer as to which is the better tax.
A conclusion based on faulty data will rarely be accurate.