Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (6451)	3/11/2004 7:46:48 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I'll be very interested in her response to your post.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (6451)	3/11/2004 7:53:13 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

The whole issue of taxation is distorted. The question is not one of fairness but one of correctness. By that I mean what tax system yields the greatest income for the national use. One can clearly say that tax rates of 100% will yield nothing - no one would work. Similarly a tax rate of 0 would yield nothing. Now then, the issue becomes one of what works best. Clearly it is appropriate that those who make more should pay more. Does that mean their rates should be higher or should the percentage be the same. Personally I lean to the flat tax concept with a big exemption on the first say $30k. I also believe everyone should pay something - hence - SS taxes (aka payroll taxes) should be assessed on everyone - but perhaps without a cap and at a lower rate. Such a policy would end the fallacy that SS is a paid for insurance program. So, what is the proper rate? I don't know. I only know that an argument based on "fairness" is political and not economic. But then again - one need only appeal to the ignorant to be elected.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (6451)	3/11/2004 8:39:17 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

a257.g.akamaitech.net why don't you point out where you got the quote or provide a link. At least give the page number. Your "quote" was not there.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (6451)	3/11/2004 9:02:56 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

your "attempt" at relating "fairness" to the tax code quite misses the mark... what's the matter CR, did reading the entire report prove a bit daunting for you? it was hardly a glowing interpretation of the current tax system... sounds like a lot of people aren't paying their "fair share" or perhaps much more "fair share" than others... of course it goes on to delineate what is a central aspect of tax reform, leading to a rise in real incomes..."reducing the tax system's deleterious impact on incentives to work, save invest, and innovate" and how the current "progressive" system fails in that endeavor do read the entire report tau.ac.il ..... However, it comes with considerable compliance and economic costs. What is often not appreciated is the extent to which the targeting of these tax preferences subjects taxpayers with the same income to different effective tax rates (Box 5-2). Elimination and consolidation of tax preferences would help simplify the tax system and improve economic incentives. Fairness: Relating Taxes to Ability to Pay and to Economic Well-Being The income tax system should relate a taxpayer’s tax liability to his or her ability to pay and to his or her economic well-being. This is the rationale behind the current progressive rate structure, whereby tax rates rise with annual income, as well as behind many of the existing tax preferences.However, the link to ability to pay begins to weaken when taxpayers with the same level of income pay different amounts of tax, because of differences ineligibility for some tax preferences, or have different opportunities to avoid paying taxes......