LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 87
0 members and 87 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 02-17-2005, 09:38 PM   #3343
Spanky
For what it's worth
 
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: With Thumper
Posts: 6,793
I don't know how some of you guys keep your jobs. I have enough trouble keeping up with the boards let alone taking the time to post something. Maybe I am just slow. By the time I post this and do some work I am going to be five pages behind.

As for the tax issue - my two cents.

1)We tax the rich more because all taxes suck and we want to make them as little painful as possible. The utility of each dollar decreases the more money you make. So taxes are less painfull for rich people. In addition, rich people have much more invested in the security of the nation than do poor people. The more land you own the more important it is for you to have it protected by the police and the military. Donald trump needs the protection of the legal system significantly more than a welfare mom. In total anarchy Trump loses a lot, the homelss person not much.

2) Income taxes and taxes on capital suck because they do discourage productivity.

3) A straight consumption tax sucks because it is so regressive

4) The solution, as stated before, is you exempt spending on certain necessities. Then tax the hell out of luxury items.

5) You want Bill Gates to make at lot of money, you just don't want him to spend it. So every time he buys a luxury item tax the hell out of it. You encourage him to invest all his money because that creates more jobs than his consumption. Models have shown that consumption by rich people creates less stimulus to the economy than consumption by poor people. It is better to have ten people buy Toyotas than have one rich person by a Rolls Royce even though they ad up to the same amount. The production and purchase of the Toyotas is a much better economic growth generator.

6) Yes - this system would be open to abuse. All sorts of lobbies would want their products to be taxed less. But what system is not? And if implemented correctly, such a system would encourage wealth creation and not be regressive. Why not shoot for the best system. You may come up short but that is better then coming up short on the second best system.

Last edited by Spanky; 02-17-2005 at 09:44 PM..
Spanky is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 AM.