17 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76It's just one many of his deflections when he's incapable discussing an issue.
Do we really need to get into juvenile name calling and calling people out on typos?
I understand that we don't always agree with each other, but let's try to keep our debating niveau a little higher than that, eh?
But USAP, let's forget for a second that the progressive tax system is what we have. What about Z's initial point? Does a progressive tax syst ...[text shortened]... hink it is necessary for there to be competition for all resources necessary to survive.
But to your point, I'm not following at all. I'm talking about the fact that ALL countries with an acceptable quality of life taxes the rich more than the poor. In American government all Republicans have done the same, yet, nobody accuses them of "demonizing the rich"
In my opinion having progressive taxation makes economic sense. And there is not one single example of a country that has proved otherwise.
17 Nov 09
SH76 is right to return to the original question and asks
"So, let me reverse the roles. Should progressive taxation be abolished?"
Presumably the alternative is that people who have no money ought to pay more tax than people with money??? I see some problems with that.
What actually happens is that people with a bit more money pay a bit more tax. People with a lot more money avoid paying tax.
17 Nov 09
Originally posted by finneganThe alternative would be a flat tax (or now they call it a fair tax) or a straight sales tax and no income tax or something like that. In some sense, this would hurt the wealthy because deductions and complex tax avoidance mechanisms would be moot.
SH76 is right to return to the original question and asks
"So, let me reverse the roles. Should progressive taxation be abolished?"
Presumably the alternative is that people who have no money ought to pay more tax than people with money??? I see some problems with that.
What actually happens is that people with a bit more money pay a bit more tax. People with a lot more money avoid paying tax.
I'm in favor or a progressive income tax like we have now; but the flat tax is an idea with some merit.
17 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76There is some merit in the idea, but it would have to be a 60-70% or so flat tax on income, with a substantial tax-free part (say, the minimum wage). That way, waste because of income inequality is minimal, yet it's still cheap for employers to hire low-paid workers, which results in low unemployment.
The alternative would be a flat tax (or now they call it a fair tax) or a straight sales tax and no income tax or something like that. In some sense, this would hurt the wealthy because deductions and complex tax avoidance mechanisms would be moot.
I'm in favor or a progressive income tax like we have now; but the flat tax is an idea with some merit.
17 Nov 09
Originally posted by finneganThe economics of single-parent family life mean that single mothers are disproportionately represented among the poor. Among U.S. households headed by single mothers in 1998, one-third lived below the poverty line, compared to 12 percent of male-headed families. In 1999, 42 percent of children living in female-headed families were poor, compared to 18 percent in male-headed families, and 8 percent in couple-headed families. Overall, women with dependent children comprise two-thirds of the poor population, a phenomenon referred to as the "feminization of poverty." This is especially pronounced for African-American and Hispanic women who head families, with 43 and 51 percent, respectively, living below the poverty line, compared to 31 percent of white mothers who head families. African-American (14.7😵 and Hispanic (16.8😵 single fathers are also more likely to be living below the poverty line than their white male counterparts (10.8😵.
I love these figures. Maybe zeeblebot is my friend after all!
"The percentage of household living on less than 40% of U.S. median household income (adjusted for household size) was lowest in the Nordic countries, and much lower than in the U.S."
Right so that is not ok is it? For a lot of people the US model is not working.
"The extensive social ...[text shortened]... ons have to go bankrupt when ill health strikes because your health system is a disgrace?
Read more: Single-Parent Families - Economics Of Single-parent Family Life http://family.jrank.org/pages/1578/Single-Parent-Families-Economics-Single-Parent-Family-Life.html#ixzz0X8QrbkZi
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes very telling stats. A curious thing about single mothers is the way they are subjected to such intense "moral" scrutiny and harsh judgement, when despite their very inadequate resources they choose to care for their children and not simply abandon them, which of course is what stunning numbers of fathers seem able to do with brutal finality and little if any retribution. And of course many impoverished young women choose not to abort in order to take on themselves the responsibilities for which they are then so harshly judged and yet so inadequately supported. The society which abandons them to their destiny reaps in time the fruits of its own neglect.
[b]The economics of single-parent family life mean that single mothers are disproportionately represented among the poor.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorra70%?? Yikes. Steve Forbes' flat tax plan was, I think, 16%. Of course that was in addition to state income tax, sales tax, FICA, medicare tax, etc.
There is some merit in the idea, but it would have to be a 60-70% or so flat tax on income, with a substantial tax-free part (say, the minimum wage). That way, waste because of income inequality is minimal, yet it's still cheap for employers to hire low-paid workers, which results in low unemployment.
A 25% flat tax that picks up after, say $20k per year per person, would allow the feds to collect more tax revenue than it does now; and that's without a national sales tax to go with it.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Around_the_world
It's just one many of his deflections when he's incapable discussing an issue.
But to your point, I'm not following at all. I'm talking about the fact that ALL countries with an acceptable quality of life taxes the rich more than the poor. In American government all Republicans have done the same, yet, nobody accuses them of "demonizing the rich ...[text shortened]... conomic sense. And there is not one single example of a country that has proved otherwise.
Eastern Europe
Countries that have flat taxes Countries considering flat taxes
Advocates of the flat tax argue that the former-Communist states of Eastern Europe have benefited from the adoption of a flat tax. Most of these nations have experienced strong economic growth of 6% and higher in recent years, some of them, particularly the Baltic countries, experience exceptional GDP growth of around 10% yearly.
* Lithuania, which levies a flat tax rate of 24% (previously 27😵 on its citizens, has experienced amongst the fastest growth in Europe. Advocates of the flat tax speak of this country's declining unemployment and rising standard of living. They also state that tax revenues have increased following the adoption of the flat tax, due to a subsequent decline in tax evasion and the Laffer curve effect. Others point out, however, that Lithuanian unemployment is falling at least partly as a result of mass emigration to Western Europe. The argument is that Lithuania's comparatively very low wages, on which a non-progressive flat tax is levied, combined with the possibility now to work legally in Western Europe since accession to the European Union, is forcing people to leave the country en masse. The Ministry of Labour estimated in 2004 that as many as 360,000 workers may have left the country by the end of that year, a prediction that is now thought to have been broadly accurate. The impact is already evident: in September 2004, the Lithuanian Trucking Association reported a shortage of 3,000-4,000 truck drivers. Large retail stores have also reported some difficulty in filling positions.[9] However, the emigration trend has recently stopped[citation needed] as enormous real wage gains in Lithuania (presumably due to the shortage of workers) have caused a return of many migrants from Western Europe. In addition to that, it is clear that countries not levying a flat tax such as Poland also temporarily faced large waves of emigration after EU membership in 2004.[citation needed]
* Whilst in most countries the introduction of a flat tax has coincided with strong increases in growth and tax revenue, there is no proven causal link between the two. For example, it is also possible that both are due to a third factor, such as new government that may institute other reforms along with the flat tax.
* In Estonia, which has had a 26% (24% in 2005, 23% in 2006, 22% in 2007, 21% in 2008, 21% in 2009, planned 20% in 2010, 19% in 2011, 18% in 2012) flat tax rate since 1994, studies have shown that the significant increase in tax revenue experienced was caused partly by a disproportionately rising VAT revenue.[10] Moreover, Estonia and Slovakia have high social contributions, pegged to wage levels.[10] Both matters raise questions regarding the justice of the flat tax system, and thus its long-term viability. The Estonian economist and former chairman of his country's parliamentary budget committee Olev Raju, stated in September 2005 that "income disparities are rising and calls for a progressive system of taxation are getting louder - this could put an end to the flat tax after the next election" [23]. However, this did not happen, since after the 2007 elections a right-wing coalition was formed which has stated its will to keep the flat tax in existence. However, critics argue that the tax rates these countries have are actually more progressive than flat.[11]
Countries that have flat tax systems
These are countries, as well as minor jurisdictions with the autonomous power to tax, that have adopted tax systems that are commonly described in the media and the professional economics literature as a flat tax.
* BIH [24]
* Bulgaria [12]
* Albania [13][14]
* Czech Republic Czech Republic[15]
* Estonia [16][17][18]
* Georgia [18][19]
* Guernsey [20]
* Kazakhstan [21]
* Iceland [20][22][23] Iceland's system differs from the Hall-Rabushka flat tax by taxing investment income and allowing numerous exceptions.[24]
* Iraq [25][26][27] It is not clear how effectively the Iraqi tax is being collected in practice.
* Jersey [28]
* Kyrgyzstan [20]
* Latvia [18]
* Lithuania [18][29]
* Macedonia [20][30]
* Mongolia [31]
* Montenegro [32]
* Mauritius [20]
* Romania [18]
* Russia [18][33]
* Serbia [34]
* Slovakia [18]
* Ukraine [18][35]
Also:
* Transnistria, also known as Transnistrian Moldova or Pridnestrovie.[36] This is a disputed territory, but the authority that seems to have de facto government power in the area claims to levy a flat tax.
Countries reputed to have a flat tax
* Hong Kong Some sources claim that Hong Kong has a flat tax,[37] though its salary tax structure has several different rates ranging from 2% to 20% after deductions. Taxes are capped at 16% of gross income, so this rate is applied to upper income returns if taxes would exceed 16% of gross otherwise.[38] Accordingly, Duncan B. Black of Media Matters for America, says "Hong Kong's 'flat tax' is better described as an 'alternative maximum tax.'" [39] Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute similarly notes that Hong Kong's "tax on salaries is not flat but steeply progressive."[40] Hong Kong has, nevertheless, a flat profit tax regime.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by finneganif you are "supported" then it's not your "responsibility", is it?
Yes very telling stats. A curious thing about single mothers is the way they are subjected to such intense "moral" scrutiny and harsh judgement, when despite their very inadequate resources they choose to care for their children and not simply abandon them, which of course is what stunning numbers of fathers seem able to do with brutal finality and little i ...[text shortened]... The society which abandons them to their destiny reaps in time the fruits of its own neglect.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Especially given this part of the quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Around_the_world
Eastern Europe
Countries that have flat taxes Countries considering flat taxes
Advocates of the flat tax argue that the former-Communist states of Eastern Europe have benefited from the adoption of a flat tax. Most of these nations have experienced strong economic growth of 6% and high ...[text shortened]... steeply progressive."[40] Hong Kong has, nevertheless, a flat profit tax regime.
* Whilst in most countries the introduction of a flat tax has coincided with strong increases in growth and tax revenue, there is no proven causal link between the two. For example, it is also possible that both are due to a third factor, such as new government that may institute other reforms along with the flat tax.
18 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Of course, that would coincide with the abolishment of state income tax and social premiums. A much more efficient system that requires very little regulation - and little regulation also means few loopholes. Another nice thing about a high income tax is that it provides room to have a low corporate profit tax, say 25%. People generally do not migrate to other countires quickly, at least not as quickly as companies do.
70%?? Yikes. Steve Forbes' flat tax plan was, I think, 16%. Of course that was in addition to state income tax, sales tax, FICA, medicare tax, etc.
A 25% flat tax that picks up after, say $20k per year per person, would allow the feds to collect more tax revenue than it does now; and that's without a national sales tax to go with it.
18 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotthis is probably the root problem with many political arguments. As long as A and B both happened at the same time, you can argue that A caused B.
i'm not gonna cherrypick the cut an paste.
how likely is it to get 'proven causation' for anything political? you could always make that kind of argument (or much of the time).
A great example is the way the president is generally blamed for any economic problems that occur on his watch. Why bother trying to make logical connections to show specifically how the president was directly responsible? - the only "proof" you need is just to observe that he was president when the problem existed.
Likewise with the flat tax in Eastern Europe. I remember back in 1990, our family was on vacation in Germany and we decided to see how things looked on the other side of the Wall. It was a stark contrast. It seemed like everything was either gray or beige. The streets were all "paved" in cobblestones. It was as if I had entered a time warp and gone into the Middle Ages. So it would have been very surprising if the Eastern Bloc nations didn't see faster than average growth rates no matter what economic system they enacted as long as it wasn't what they had before. I'm sure there was a major economic gain just from paving over the cobblestones. And that's the point the article itself appeared to be making.
19 Nov 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou really need to learn about something called "endogeneity" before drawing anymore conclusions from economic data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Around_the_world
Eastern Europe
Countries that have flat taxes Countries considering flat taxes
Advocates of the flat tax argue that the former-Communist states of Eastern Europe have benefited from the adoption of a flat tax. Most of these nations have experienced strong economic growth of 6% and high ...[text shortened]... steeply progressive."[40] Hong Kong has, nevertheless, a flat profit tax regime.