Flat Tax Rate. (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

arr shit you caught me, i've only been here 3 months.

edit: I've been here all my life, the ankur garg thing is a gag.

 

[mr_shittles]

arr shit you caught me, i've only been her 3 months.

So I take it you've never filled out a tax return?

edit: thats a pretty good gag. LOL.

 

[Shuter]

Horay lets all flatten the tax system.

 

[katie_tully]

Which would explain why katie_tully's 300,000 a year grandfather didn't work very hard... he could of worked his ass off and got very little for his work.

Well...actually, no. It had nothing to do with the fact that he could have earnt more, but couldn't be fucked doing the work for little in return ... He did little in the first place and got paid reasonably well for it, plus my grandmother was on 6 figures also, so it's not like they needed to exert themselves to make more money. He started off as a chemical engineer for Shell, and ended up making more sitting behind a desk doing bugger all.

The whole thing is shit. When they trial it in a Western country that isn't ex communist or third world, let me know. That's only if it's moderately successful.

 

[Rorix]

I'd have to disagree with your statement that there is no economic argument for taxing luxury goods.

I am afraid that you do not even understand the common economic argument that I was making in my original post - that the tax system should not artificially induce distortions in consumption patterns or reworded, EACH GOOD/SERVICE SHOULD BE TAXED EQUALLY.

You have misunderstood the point to be saying "OMG DONT TAX LUXURY GOODS" which I can only assume is because you are not aware of the above principle.

Taxing luxury goods allows the goverment to collect revenue without depriving individuals or households of their basic standard of living. Furthermore, the demand for luxury goods is relatively inelastic compared to normal goods. This means that a moderate increase in price will not affect demand significatly, so the consumers get what they want, the level of production is not affected and the government pockets a bit of money.

a) Why is tax good?
b) Why is every individual entitled to a basic standard of living, but NOTHING MORE, regardless of income.
c) You have misused the term 'normal goods'
etc. etc.
This has the facade of an argument but since it's addressing the wrong issue it's largely useless, don't bother responding to the above objections

Taxing luxury goods is a very good idea, but the only problem is . . . What constitutes luxury good? People's ideas of what is a "luxury good" varies.

Sigh. That's not the issue at the moment here at all. I love the way you just state 'taxing luxury goods is a very good idea'. Actually, I don't. I hate it. It's stupid. Stop that.

 

[Rorix]

Well...actually, no. It had nothing to do with the fact that he could have earnt more, but couldn't be fucked doing the work for little in return ... He did little in the first place and got paid reasonably well for it, plus my grandmother was on 6 figures also, so it's not like they needed to exert themselves to make more money. He started off as a chemical engineer for Shell, and ended up making more sitting behind a desk doing bugger all.

Anecdotal evidence 4L.

The whole thing is shit. When they trial it in a Western country that isn't ex communist or third world, let me know. That's only if it's moderately successful.

No, you are. You can't dismiss something just because it hasn't been adopted by a country that you consider worthy. There's certain arguments for and against, both economically and socially, and saying OMG LOL NO EMPRICIAL EVIDENCE ITS A PIECE OF SHIT is quite narrow minded.

Equally, I can say, PROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM. Simply citing major economies won't work since you can't tell me that an experiment has been conducted with all other factors remaining equal with a finding that progressive tax systems boosted living standards simply because such an experiment isn't really possible.

Your entire argument is based on empricial evidence when none exists to support you AFAIK.

 

[Shuter]

^ What he said.

 

[mr_shittles]

Why is every individual entitled to a basic standard of living, but NOTHING MORE, regardless of income.

I never said that people deserve NOTHING MORE.
Stop making up stuff and pretending that other people said it.

 

[mr_shittles]

I am afraid that you do not even understand the common economic argument that I was making in my original post - that the tax system should not artificially induce distortions in consumption patterns or reworded, EACH GOOD/SERVICE SHOULD BE TAXED EQUALLY.

You're AFRAID of my not understanding the argument?
Yeah, I can imagine you timidly sitting behind your computer monitor shitting your pants just because I dont understand your argument. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

 

[Shuter]

You're AFRAID of my not understanding the argument?
Yeah, I can imagine you timidly sitting behind your computer monitor shitting your pants just because I dont understand your argument. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

What could be implied from his comment in that he was afraid of your stupidity and thus he wonders and is afraid of what you'll do next. Stupid irrational people should be feared.

 

[ohne]

I am not against a flat tax rate, provided that there is a significant tax-free threshold to back it up. Ideally up to $20000-30000 the rate of tax would be zero, and after that you would have a flat rate in line with the company tax. This would have the effect of encouraging those out of work back into the workforce and it should also clamp down on tax avoidance as there is less room for manoevering through different bands and the disparity between personal and business tax levels.

 

[Rorix]

I never said that people deserve NOTHING MORE.
Stop making up stuff and pretending that other people said it.

what someone is entitled to and what someone deserves is a different thing. You've drawn an imaginary line between certain essential goods and assumed that every household is entitled to these goods and these goods only, but non-essential goods should be taxed. But again, I am not trying to further this point of discussion as it is irrelevant to the current issue of distortions in consumption.

You're AFRAID of my not understanding the argument?
Yeah, I can imagine you timidly sitting behind your computer monitor shitting your pants just because I dont understand your argument. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

I must hand it to you. That is the most creative way I've ever seen on the internet to avoid answering a point.

 

[mr_shittles]

c) You have misused the term 'normal goods'
etc. etc.

How did I?

 

[mr_shittles]

From what standpoint? Certainly not an economic one, the GST removes artifical distortions to consumption patterns that arise due to varying taxes for different goods promoting consumption of one over another.

Going back to your original point Rorix, you said that having an equal tax on every product removes economic distortions.

Beleive it or not, that's not quite true.

 

[Rorix]

How did I?

In consumer theory, an inferior good is one for which demand decreases when income rises, unlike the more common normal goods, for which the opposite is observed. Inferiority, in this sense, is an observable fact rather than a statement about the quality of the good.

Going back to your original point Rorix, you said that having an equal tax on every product removes economic distortions.

Beleive it or not, that's not quite true

Artificially induced distortions, but please, elaborate. Why is it not quite true?

 

[mr_shittles]

Artificially induced distortions, but please, elaborate. Why is it not quite true?

You may not have done high school economics so I don't expect you to know this.
Get an economics textbook and read a bit about "negative externalities".

Situations exist where the price levied for a good or service does not reflect the total cost of producing that good or service. In such circumstances, governments may levy an additional tax on the product to ensure that the price consumers pay for that product is one which reflects the total cost of producing that product.

Where a product that results in the production of negative externalities is sold without adjusting for the cost of the negative externality, an inefficient allocation of resources has occurred.

So in summary, levying higher taxes on certain products is sometimes needed in order to create a more efficient allocation of resources.

 

[Rorix]

You may not have done high school economics so I don't expect you to know this.
Get an economics textbook and read a bit about "negative externalities".

I can see where this is going. Believe me, I am quite capable of understanding the material in the yr12 economics course.

Situations exist where the price levied for a good or service does not reflect the total cost of producing that good or service. In such circumstances, governments may levy an additional tax on the product to ensure that the price consumers pay for that product is one which reflects the total cost of producing that product.

I think what you're trying to say is that the social cost is unpriced.

Where a product that results in the production of negative externalities is sold without adjusting for the cost of the negative externality, an inefficient allocation of resources has occurred.

So in summary, levying higher taxes on certain products is sometimes needed in order to create a more efficient allocation of resources.

While you are making a reasonable point, this has not been a consideration of your argument so far which again, serves to discredit your entire line of reasoning against the proportional system which you said, paraphrasing, had no argument for it. To achieve an optimal allocation of resources where the social cost is priced (i.e. at the point where marginal social cost = marginal social benefit), the extra levies on these goods would go toward the repair of the social damage i.e. environmental damage, resource depletion, whatever is appropriate. This is not done under the progressive tax system and is far closer to the proportional tax system than the current tax system. Furthermore pricing the social cost via taxes (which could also be accomplished through various legislation, a fact you 100% ignore probably because the textbook you're quoting from doesn't discuss it and you had no grasp of the concept previously) is more of an extension of the proportional tax system where the social price and not the monetary price is considered.

 

[Shuter]

Yes, shittles the point you raised are talking about suppliers, in this thread we are talking about consumers, specifically, their income. This has nothing to do with suppliers and social costs, negative externalities ect. So why would you bring them up?

It's like you're saying that all rich people are going to be the only ones who purchase goods which will have unfactored social costs, so therefore we should tax rich people's incomes more tax to cover this.

Their income has nothing to do with the point you raised, so why bring up that point in a flat tax thread?

 

[mr_shittles]

Yes, shittles the point you raised are talking about suppliers, in this thread we are talking about consumers, specifically, their income. This has nothing to do with suppliers and social costs, negative externalities ect. So why would you bring them up?

It's like you're saying that all rich people are going to be the only ones who purchase goods which will have unfactored social costs, so therefore we should tax rich people's incomes more tax to cover this.

Their income has nothing to do with the point you raised, so why bring up that point in a flat tax thread?

I didn't bring that point up in refernece to "flat tax." I brought it up because someone falsely claimed that taxing all goods at the same rate is efficient.
That's not necessarily correct. Just trying to separate truth from fiction.

 

[Korn]

Who here supports a flat tax rate? why?

Why would u, it makes the ppl on low incomes have a high percentage of their income taken in tax, and the rich to have minimal tax in relation to their income