There's no way to say without bias because it depends on your priorities. Flat tax is definitely more fair, but the moral value of a fair system can be less than the benefits of progressive tax redistribution to a certain point.
It's really up to the aggregate morality of the country. Should a rich man's resources be spent producing an extra yacht for that successful man, should it become ordinance to drop on our enemies, or something that keeps old people alive?
That kind of question doesn't sit well with most, because it implies that others have power to take the fruit of their labor. But there's also an implicit knowledge that Mr.Big Jew's new Mercedes isn't really that important and he can live with a bigger cut taken out of his income compared to an old widow in west Virginia.
It lowers taxes for the already wealthy. Now, some people suggest that this would result in a glorious age of investment and growth, but I don't buy it. People on high incomes don't really need even more enormous incentives to keep producing. The flip side is that it would result in either a higher rate of tax, or a drastic reduction in services, for lower and middle earners. Overall, that's likely to do more harm to the economy by hammering the consumer base. Generally speaking, the poorer you are, the more of your income you spend and the less you hoard or pump in to assets. Redistributive taxation takes advantage of that to the benefit of the economy, as well as society.
>Let's see, if I employ my brilliant superhuman CEO brain for 4 hours a day, I will earn 1,000,000 dollarydoos minus 200,000 dollarydoo income tax. If I employ my brilliant superhuman CEO brain for 8 hours instead, I will make 2,000,000 dollarydoos instead but the socialist tax rate that triggers for income above 1 M per day will have state extorting an extra 400,000 dollarydoos in daylight robbery called taxes. Therefore instead of flexing my superhuman CEO brain for 8 hours a day for 2,000,000 - (200,000 + 400,000) = 1,400,000 dollarydoos I will only work my CEO superbrain for 4 hours for 1,000,000 - 200,000 = 800,000 and spend the extra 4 hours shitpo- giving brilliant investment advice on /biz/. But since my charity is not appreciated, the end result is that economy suffers through loss 4 hours' worth of my brilliant faculties.
and this is why flat rate is better than progressive rate tax.
>Socialist set income tax at 99% for salary over 250k >Be CEO >Set salary to $1 >Be in lowest income tax bracket >100 million/year in stock options >Only pay capital gains tax >Your taxes are effectively lowered >Upper middle class are the only ones who suffer >Libtards celebrate victory of progressive tax plan by subsidizing cuck sheds for all families program
Depends on what the tax is set at and what is considered income. Say it's a 15% flat tax on all income, personal and corporate, and no way to get around it? I'd consider it a good thing. If it's loophole filled tax code that is easy to get around, it'll be a shitstorm because of lack of income for the feds.
99% tax brackets are fucking retarded though. In the end, the fundamental problem with income taxes is that they're a tax on productivity. Same goes for corporation taxes. Wealth, capital gains, and sales taxes are often a better way to raise revenue, especially in a globalised economy. That doesn't mean, however, that income taxes shouldn't operate on a progressive scale. Personally, I increasingly favour the idea of replacing much welfare with a negative income tax at the lower end of the scale, but there's little point in the upper bracket ever nudging over 50%.
>>1047488 >But there's also an implicit knowledge that Mr.Big Jew's new Mercedes isn't really that important and he can live with a bigger cut taken out of his income compared to an old widow in west Virginia. Where do people get this idea that the rich do nothing with their money but buy yachts and fancy cars? What about investments (creating jorbs)? What about charity? What about giving their own children and grandchildren a better life? You may as well just counter that the poor do nothing but waste their money in booze and lotto tickets. I don't have any statistics to cite but I find it very hard to believe that any definition of "rich" people you can find spends a higher percentage of their income on non-essentials than a similar definition of "poor" people.
Poor people spend everything they earn (more, sometimes). The wealthier people get, the more of their income tends to go into things like savings, mortgages, investments, and so on. Those often fail to provide as much of a driver for the economy as typical consumer spending would, especially when they drive asset price bubbles as we're seeing in real estate (and were seeing in stock prices until fairly recently). Indeed, it would probably be better for the economy if they were spending it all on yachts and fancy cars.
>>1047615 Has anyone ever considerd a federal sales tax? It would seem more efficient at closing all the loopholes allowing megacorps to hide money overseas if the feds just took a cut at the point of sale
All European countries have something like that. It's 20% here in the UK, though pretty much all essentials are exempt (food, rent, mortgage payments, most transport, etc). It's at least one thing which ensures that a huge company pays some taxes in the jurisdiction that they're making their money, but the downside is that it acts as a brake on consumer spending.
>Those often fail to provide as much of a driver for the economy as typical consumer spending would This is false.
>especially when they drive asset price bubbles as we're seeing in real estate Rich people aren't the ones buying extra houses and that bubble isn't driven by anything they are doing. It's driven by cheap interest rates that the US Federal Reserve is issuing. The bubble is because people who would not otherwise be able to afford it are getting big loans for houses. More buyers in the market drives up the price, this is basic economics. When interest rates rise the bubble will pop and a lot of people are going to lose their shirts. Most of those people will be poor and will blame it on the rich because they don't understand.
I have never understood why we have a tax system that actively penalizes you for hard work and earning more. It just kills incentive to do more. And you can't even pass the money on to loved ones and children and family without getting slammed by inheritance tax.
Seriously whats the point in doing that. Better off just doing less and earning less. We might as well just adopt a communistic or marxist approach or whatever that stupid impractical system is.
>>1047669 >I have never understood why we have a tax system that actively penalizes you for hard work and earning more Are you one of those people who doesn't understand how marginal tax rates work? If the tax rate on income below $25,000 is 10%, and the tax rate on income above $25,000 is 20%, and you happen to make $25,001, you only pay the 20% tax rate on that last dollar. The rest of it still gets taxed at 10%. Somehow, a huge number of Americans don't understand this.
Also the inheritance tax only applies on estates worth more than $5,000,000, and only on the value of the estate above that amount.
A flat tax is more fair and historically used, I.E. Tithe. Personally I think it's more fair and I'm middle class. But I also dislike old people who are just using up tax money to live and poor losers who blame others for their problems.
I understand it well enough. I also already made my decision long ago to not bother attempting to do more than the bare minimum. I work part time, earn less and just have lots of time to enjoy for myself.
Why bother with anything else? There's no incentive to do more.
>>1047709 So you got zero dollars for the extra hours you chose to work? Oh, wait, no, you did get more money. But you're a Jew and didn't get as much as you wanted so that's the same as zero and slavery.
Saving, particularly in a period of weak growth and financial retrenchment, lowers the velocity of money. Cash is being pulled out of the circulating economy. Banks' willingness to lend is predicated more on the health of the overall economy than it is on the savings that people have with them, so money isn't being lent out. Poor rates of return have encouraged the rich to invest in unproductive assets, which is precisely the cause of property bubbles in most of the cities which are currently suffering from them. This is driving the cost of living up for consumers, and concentrating money towards the top, which then gets recycled into already overpumped assets. People aren't investing in new businesses and jobs because the economy is moribund and they see little potential for growth. That's where the Austrian view of saving falls down, as it assumes that the money will be reinvested in job creation, which just isn't happening at the moment.
Here's my ideal tax system that I came up with when I was an Econ grad student (dropped out before I got my master's lol): >flat tax of around 30% >$20,000 standard deduction for individuals, most other deductions eliminated >payroll taxes completely eliminated, rolled into regular income tax (which is why it's so high) >most other deductions eliminated >corporate income tax eliminated and replaced by a 15% VAT >$2,000,000 lifetime long-term capital gains exemption; all capital gains earnings after this point are taxed as income at the regular rate; losses as well as gains are tabulated on a year-to-year basis, inflation is factored in (exemption rises yearly)
>>1047728 The point is hour 41 is taxed much higher than hour 1 is. It's not like I'm a CEO making millions and balking at my lower rate of return beyond 250k. Instead of shitposting on 4 chan, I was being productive. You'll understand when you're old enough to enter the workforce.
>>1047734 No but that's the problem with soley going based off of income. What is not taken into account is how it is earned. If I get a raise, I pay more income tax. I may not necessarily be working harder, however; if I put in an extra hour, it is much more likely I am being more productive than not working that hour.
>example does not imply tax is based on hours worked.
>>1047746 Our current system has different tax rates for eah strata of citizen. If someone is impoverished they should pay less, but everyone else should have a flat rate. I guess it would be hard to keep the system honest
>>1047761 They should pay taxes, just less. And that underclass is similar to how things are now. Honestly I'd be fine with withholding voting rights for the impoverished living in the government's dollar, we do the same to criminals.
>>1047731 >Saving, particularly in a period of weak growth and financial retrenchment, lowers the velocity of money Hogwash, for two reasons. One, rich people don't save. They invest. There is a critical difference here, because the money is still being used. It doesn't sit in some Scrooge McDuck bank vault doing nothing. It's being used to fund new business ventures and things that do real work. Second, the "velocity of money" meme is false. Trading doesn't create wealth, only producing more things which have value creates wealth. If you have three guys on an island with three coconuts they can buy and sell those coconuts all day for ever grander sums of whatever currency they invent but they still only have three coconuts. Charging a billion dollarydoos for a coconut versus one dollarydoo doesn't change the value of the thing you are buying in the end.
The rest of your "argument" is what I would call "lies", but I doubt you are knowingly making false statements so we'll just chalk it up to ignorant speculation.
>Banks' willingness to lend is predicated more on the health of the overall economy than it is on the savings that people have with them, so money isn't being lent out. It's based of various fed policies that regulate who they have to lend to and at what rates along with the Fed base rate. Banks do not give one single fuck how "healthy" the economy is when they decide to grant a loan or not. All they look at is the potential of the loan taker to pay it back with enough interest to turn a profit. >Poor rates of return have encouraged the rich to invest in unproductive assets, which is precisely the cause of property bubbles in most of the cities which are currently suffering from them. [So many citations needed]
>>1047761 >underclass who pays no taxes and essentially takes all the services Having an underclass of people who pay less taxes (nobody pays no taxes unless they don't participate in the economy in any way) and receives no services would just lead to a smaller workforce and higher crime which would cost us more than if we just gave them the services in the first place. Making it so that people are capable of contributing to society should be an obvious net-benefit
>>1047783 >rich people don't save. They invest They don't invest though. They either loan out money, inflate their assets, or loan out money to inflate assets. Investment, in the actual industrial economy, has dried up since the 1980s despite growing profits because there has been a campaign to direct all efforts into financialization. It's true that most businesses are started with private capital and that this has been the case since the industrial revolution, but it is only a small amount of the "investment" being done by the wealthy who usually make fortunes by buying monopolies or loaning at interest
>If you have three guys on an island with three coconuts they can buy and sell those coconuts all day for ever grander sums of whatever currency they invent but they still only have three coconuts BUT THIS IS WHAT RICH PEOPLE DO
>Banks do not give one single fuck how "healthy" the economy is when they decide to grant a loan or not. All they look at is the potential of the loan taker to pay it back with enough interest to turn a profit. 100% agree that loaning out money is usually done without regard to the actual consequences said loan could bring about. I disagree with them taking into account how if they could make it back as was demonstrated in the lead up to 2008 when banks gave out loans for zero down payment and infinite debt/equity ratios
>>1047783 >Trading doesn't create wealth, only producing more things which have value creates wealth Trading does, in fact, produce wealth. If you buy thing for 100 and sell it for 120, you have created 20 on consolidated balance sheet of mankind. >rich people invest oh boy, do they ever. You could just as well say that poor people don't save but invest into savings account. There is a difference between "investing" into a financial instrument and between actual real investment spending where you buy up land and machines and pay workers to develop a business. With complexity and variety of available financial instruments this disparity is only growing. If financial market worked without any delay, overhead cost or risk, the identity of savings=investment would hold well, but as it turns out, it doesn't.
When banks (and private individuals) don't lend to a business that they see no potential for growth in, that in itself is a comment on whether they think that the wider economy has growth potential. It's bizarre that you could think the two are disconnected.
Also, you still seem to be under the impression that all investment is equally growth-generating. It isn't.
Finally, as far as London is concerned at least, since 2008 the majority of properties sold have gone to investors rather than owner-occupiers. That is not productive investment, it doesn't increase the supply of homes, it just inflates prices. The same appears to be true of most other global cities.
>investment in the industrial economy is booming. Where do you think those machines replacing workers come from? My ass? VC funded startups and small development labs within large corps are doing that work, funded by VC equity or bond issuance.
>loaning out money is done without regard for the consequences Found the guy who has never loaned out money lol
>>1047891 >buying a home is not a productive investment so this is true, it's an allocation of savings, but the market for homes in already built places is strong and the market for newly built homes is weak. this is a failing of the consumers, not the producers or investors.
china built a lot of new cities that nobody lives in. by your metrics that's productive investment but it will probably bankrupt them, or at least blow their bubbly economy into a prolonged, Japan style depression. what were we saying about loans being made without regard for consequences?
The corporate bond market is arguably the most productive financial market of all. ZIRP has perverted this by creating incentives for companies to borrow for share buybacks and dividends but that's a blip on the radar and speaks to problems with the equity markets, not bonds.
Honestly it's not even obvious what you consider "productive" at this point. Are you just uncomfortable with abstraction?
>>1047631 you're halfway there. the problem is that if you make $13000 you spend almost all of it just on necessities like transportation, food, and rent, so that 1300 means that you have to cut your food budget basically in half or not have insurance on your car.
If you made 130k instead, 13k is a lot more money in dollar terms, but it doesn't hurt your quality of life at all because cost of living doesn't scale linearly with income (unless you're an idiot)
>>1047783 I didn't pay attention in macro, the post
trade absolutely creates value, that's why it's more economically efficient for countries and businesses to specialize rather than generalize. Whenever a trade occurs, it can be assumed that the it benefits both parties or they wouldn't have done it. thus it follows that utility to both parties is greater after the trade than before, which is the definition of an increase in value.
for example if I have a company that makes baloons and I sell them to a party clown, then the total utility has increased, because I need cash more than I need balloons, and he needs balloons more than the cash he paid, because the balloon will net him more in the long run. Thus everyone ends up better than they started.
I think the confusion you have is that utility is not just a property of a good itself, but of the allocation of the good as well.
>>1048128 >trade absolutely creates value, that's why it's more economically efficient for countries and businesses to specialize rather than generalize. That's not what I was arguing against. Trading is a useful service and to that end it is "worth" something like any other service, but that has nothing to do with the garbage that is "velocity of money" which is the idea that the more trading goes on the more wealth is generated regardless of how much utility is actually being generated by that trading. A high velocity of money requires more currency to be in the system so that people have something to trade with but it doesn't make the products and services that money buys more valuable.
>>1047711 The assumption of a flat tax is that it would provide the same amount of money as the current progressive system would, so if 15% is the minimum (which it really isn't since poor people get 100% of their federal taxes back), then it would be considerably higher than that.
Workers sell labor, the wealthy sell products and services, if the tax burden shifts to the wealthy that means workers can pay more for products, but productivity hasn't increased, it does not mean they can pay for more products, prices just rise. The opposite happens if the tax burden shifts to the poor, the wealthy have more money to lure better workers to their businesses and wages naturally rise to compensate for the higher taxes.
You might as well go for a flat tax to reduce the cost of administration and remove another instability.
>>1047783 Not hogwash, With a sufficient risk free savings rate a great deal of capital is removed from the investment side of the market. b/c the 0 to 1 scale of risk might be quite broad and may or may not made up for in the marginal ROI with added risk. as such large portfolios with the mandate to preserve capital would break into an average Risk Free position. b/c 2% risk on 60% of a portfolio, is about the same as 1.2% on 100%.
I find it interesting that nobody thinks, in the US at least, the current system is more regressive. Yes, people living in poverty pay very little taxes. But people making $50-500k pay anywhere from 20-30% or more total tax, while people making $1,000,000+/year pay closer to 15-20%.
While the poor would hate a flat tax, so would the ultra wealthy. Flat tax only really benefits the upper-middle class. The thing is, the bottom 50% of earners only represents like 10% of the total income, so increasing their tax gets you pretty much nothing, while it have a much greater affect on their purchasing power and spending compared to taxing richer people. At the same time the ultra wealthy will find ways to cheat the flat tax just like they do in countries with high top tier income tax.
Progressive tax is simply better due to rich having a higher tendency to just hoard the wealth they save in taxes, while ever dollar you tax from a poor person is essentially one less $1 that's going to be spent and taxed the next day anyway.
There is no penalty for you anymore so than there is someone making the same amount, but working less. Why does the fact you choose to work more matter?
Lets say you work 40 hours a week, and that's just enough to cover your food and a roof over your head. If the gov taxed you more at that point you couldn't pay it. You can choose to work another 20 hours, and yes it may be taxed at a slightly higher rate, but because your base expenses haven't changed. You're going to pocket a lot more of that extra money regardless of the slight tax increase. That's the whole point of a progressive tax.
>>1048163 Productivity has been rising for decades while wages have stagnated. Taxes have also been lowered for the top earners during this period. The wealthiest individuals do not invest the money into productive enterprises at the rate predicted by neoliberal economists.
Flat tax will have similar administration costs to a progressive system and both have costs that are negligible compared to the rest of the budget.
Yes. I reckon that a combination of VAT and capital gains may be a better way to raise revenue from companies and ensure a level playing field between small and large businesses than trying to apply a consistent corporation tax rate.
>>1047669 >you earn money by working hard You say that on /biz/ of all places?
Hard work is an abstract idea people like to give themselves. The idea that the harder you work the more you earn is even sillier. It's about working smart within the rules of the economy. I don't feel any desire to change this, but it's annoying when people say they're rich because they "worked hard".
>>1048579 >The wealthiest individuals do not invest the money into productive enterprises at the rate predicted by neoliberal economists. Why bother risking your money on a productive enterprise when you get a guaranteed return of 8% per year underwritten by the fed just holding the S&P? You'd have to either be stupid or be onto a sure thing.
>>1048964 If two people decide to trade it's to be assumed that they both benefit from it. If I give you a life saving medicine in exchange for something and it saved your life this transaction created wealth. If instead of consuming it you give that medicine to a chemist who then reverse engineers it and goes on to save many lives this transaction created even more wealth. If the chemist instead of reverse engineering it decides to use it as a paper weight or a piece of modern art this transaction also created wealth. The medicine has no absolute value or purpose in and of itself, rather it's value depends on who holds it and what they use it for.
>>1048971 >If instead of consuming it you give that medicine to a chemist who then reverse engineers it and goes on to save many lives this transaction created even more wealth. No, the chemist's labour created the wealth. Our transaction was a zero sum game. He gets $<x> worth of medicine and I get $<x>. >a piece of modern art Again, it was this action which created the wealth, not the transaction.
If trading produced wealth we could just pass the medicine back and forth an infinite number of times and we'd have infinite medicine worth of wealth. That's not how it works.
You can see this is true by imaging what happens if we ban everyone from working and only let trading take place. Eventually all the things we trade would be used up or worn out, and we'd have no wealth left. Labour is necessary to create value.
>>1048974 Your whole view of trading (or possibly wealth) is warped. I imagine you see it as some sort of financial game where the only thing changing is numbers on a monitor. Physically moving something from a to b is labour. Dealing with the logistics of negotiation and contract work is labour. Those things I just mentioned constitute trading, therefore trading is labour. All of those things create wealth out of literally nothing because they allow for existing resources to be put to good use.
>You can see this is true by imaging what happens if we ban everyone from working and only let trading take place. Even if we forbid everyone from working, we would still be able to maximize our collective wealth by trading what remaining resources we do have with each other.
>>1049161 >This is why you make the flat take not apply or apply at lower rates where someone in poverty would hurt a lot losing 15%. Start it at ~$40,000 Maybe in the short term but you have to look at the long term knock on effects.
No, it really isn't. Generally speaking, unless you are living on passive income, you create a higher income and more economic value by doing things others are unwilling or unable to do. That's what's meant by "work hard".
It doesn't mean spend more time pulling the fries out of the fryer at McFatburger.
It means invest 70 hours a week in managing and growing your own business
It means spend 4 years at a university earning a degree in Chemical Engineering.
It means spending 6 months a year at sea on a deep water oil rig.
All those things pay above average wages, because most people don't want to do them. Maybe it's not hard for you or me, but if the majority of lazy people won't do it, it is hard work.
Thread replies: 105 Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 438049
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.