|
Post by Rasteroid on Mar 2, 2006 4:43:57 GMT -5
I'm not economist, in fact I frequently shit my pants when talking to anyone with a head for money, about money. BUT, I was thinking the other day, and I'm sure this concept been proposed before but I wonder if anyone out there could fill me in on the details.. Our current tax system, right, is based on taxing what you earn, and what you spend. Basically the money flowing in and out of your personal world. The money you already "have", or "don't have" (debt), is not considered. (I'm using "quotes", because I'm starting to have serious issues with these concepts. Moving on.) Ok, now the hardest part of this idea would be the implementation, but what if the government kept tabs on exactly how much equivalent liquid assets _everyone_ had. I mean with the cash in your bank account, plus your house, your car, (second resale value used of course,) etc. etc. All that would be added up to a single sum, x. Your x. And then at tax time every year, you pay 10% of your x. (Or 5%, whatever arbitrary number sufficiently funds the country.) So egalitarian, right? I mean, the rich pay a lot, the poor pay little. But they generally still get to keep their earnings. It's kind of like when the Doomsday Device detonates; you might have a DDD at 20% while your neighbor is at 10%. After the explosion, you would be at 10% while he's at 5%. You lost 5% more than him, but at least you maintained your lead, so it's quite fair. Seriously, a person I respect basically called me a capitalist pig today, and I consider myself pretty left wing. It shook my beliefs. Me and Ah Ram had to chat about it for a long time. Also, new research indicates poverty makes you stupid. Poverty causes stress, which makes your brain enter survival mode, which causes less and less brain cells to go to higher functions like cognition and thought. These poor guys might not have worked as hard as our ancestors, and so inherited less capital than us, but don't they deserve a chance? Think about it. Don't be greedy, guys. Love! Just love!
|
|
vilhazarog
Diplomat
F)ight, F)ight, F)ight, P)arry, P)arry, P)arry!
Posts: 125
|
Post by vilhazarog on Mar 2, 2006 12:59:59 GMT -5
This would encourage people to spend every penny they have to avoid being taxed, which is bad. What if someone's net worth is negative? Seriously in debt? Do they get a payout instead of being taxed?
|
|
|
Post by assmonster on Mar 2, 2006 13:03:13 GMT -5
my net worth is definitely negative... bring on the free money!
shit. this just reminds me that i have to do my taxes. but hey, i get money back so i should WANT to do my taxes! that and its a good reason to avoid doing any real work.
|
|
vilhazarog
Diplomat
F)ight, F)ight, F)ight, P)arry, P)arry, P)arry!
Posts: 125
|
Post by vilhazarog on Mar 2, 2006 14:14:01 GMT -5
Another problem with this idea... the vast majority of my networth is in my house. If I were taxed 10% of my networth I would have to immediately have to sell my house to cover my taxes. And what about people's retirement funds? Your retired and the government is going to chip away at your retirement 10% a year every year?
|
|
|
Post by assmonster on Mar 2, 2006 15:23:28 GMT -5
what we need is more taxes for the rich and less taxes for the poor. oh, and a government that doesn't side with big business and corporate tax cuts for their rich buddies... not to mention bleed our social programs dry with stupid ideas like cutting the GST which only benefits the rich (but sounds like it benefits everyone = lies and trickery to get votes) and leaves less money in the system for people who really need it.
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Mar 2, 2006 21:05:06 GMT -5
Well, it probably wouldn't be 10%.. more like 1%. Maybe it would fluctuate upwards in times of crisis. If all your net worth is in your house.. well, I guess you'd have to plan ahead. It doesn't matter if people spend their money, unless they send it overseas. Whoever they gave it to will end up paying tax on it, right? The government will always know how much it's getting. And if the government takes more one year, they should know they'd be getting less next year. The main problem is money being transferred in and out of the country.. so I guess this tax system needs to be applied globally. You could say that people with negative net worth don't get money back, I guess. Basically the idea is rooted in trying to level out the playing field, without taking away the incentive to earn. Another idea I had is some cap on personal wealth. Do people with more than ten million dollars really need any more? I wonder how much money that would return to the economy if the excess money from people beyond that limit were seized...
|
|
|
Post by assmonster on Mar 2, 2006 21:39:53 GMT -5
man, would bill gates ever be pissed. he'd lose a little bit of money on that deal!!
|
|
|
Post by Jemaat on Mar 3, 2006 23:13:51 GMT -5
While the concept of money and the feudalistic market economy is generally offensive to me, for the time being I'm stuck with it, so I have devoted some thought to this. Taxing someone on their net worth could be a bit troublesome. Some other forms of taxation that may appeal to you:
GST or VAT - Good and Services Tax and Value Added Tax, respectively. This tax is applied whenever goods or services are purchased (with a number of exceptions depending on the country). In New Zealand, the GST is at 12.5%. Capital gains tax - This tax is applied whenever someone makes a profit reselling something. For example, if you buy a house, and sell it after 10 years when its value has increased by 50%, you are taxed on the difference between the initial purchase price and the resale price (taking into account inflation as well).
|
|
|
Post by assmonster on Mar 4, 2006 0:07:32 GMT -5
the GST here is 7%, but the douche.. i mean conservatives say they're going to lower it to 5% over a number of years. they say this will benefit everyone but that's a LIE. Poor people (like myself) get a GST reimbursement a few times a year and, thus, don't technically pay the tax. therefore, a reduction in the GST does no good to the people who actaully need a financial break.
|
|
|
Post by psiweapon on Mar 4, 2006 0:10:47 GMT -5
What gives me the creeps about economy is speculation. It's like, urgh, do your own goddamned work to get money! Real Estates here in Spain are popping out like mushrooms. I'm just hoping for the day the balloon goes "poof!" and then they'll have to look for a pimp. Speculating with the own land we live in, they should all stub their toes with the bathroom door every morning of their lives. They deserve it.
Btw, VAT in Spain is 16%
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Mar 4, 2006 13:21:26 GMT -5
Rast, I think your system would encourage a lot more cash-at-the-back-of-the-drawer situations, where everyone keeps their money at home so they get to actually *keep* their money... Not that there isn't a fair bit of that now.
|
|
Economics Of Insanity
Guest
|
Post by Economics Of Insanity on Apr 21, 2006 21:04:08 GMT -5
Another idea I had is some cap on personal wealth. Do people with more than ten million dollars really need any more? I wonder how much money that would return to the economy if the excess money from people beyond that limit were seized... really depends on your definition of 'returned to the economy' and how this would be carried through. let's take gates alone for an example here. (stats from www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&datatype=Person&uniqueId=BH69)Net Worth: $40.7 bil that would place $40.69 bil from his hands, into some other hands (as of yet unnamed by your theory, i have to presume the government for bill gate's safety. can you picture the rush on his house if he personally handed out 40.69 bill USD because he was over the cap?). 40.69b would not make a dent in the US nat'l debt. 40.69b would (distrubuted across the US population... roughly 300m... well 2m shy or so but we'll say 300m) be about $135.64 per person. bill gates also founded, with his wife and father it appears, the bill and melinda gates foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm) which is where he donates a good proportion of his wealth to (i'm unsure about exact numbers on that one. but i know he does supply it with his own personal cash). this foundation itself works towards several goals of its own, as well as redistributes some of it's money in the way of grants (rarely below 15k and rarely above 1m according to the site) to other charities and worthy causes. ON TOP of that. microsoft corporation exists as a result of his... timing. that employs several thousand people across the world on top of giving many many lawyers judges, juries and such employment. now. likely. if confronted with a 10m personal wealth cap likely A. gates foundation would drop ha-mazingly in value B. Gates would move to another country, taking any taxes he does pay with him. likely another myriad of messed up things you wouldn't want. sorry to argue and run. but yeah. i might not be back to this forums, i usually forget these proboards ones.
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Apr 22, 2006 12:10:09 GMT -5
Well, we'd have to implement this as a world-government thing. I'm with all the lefties in south america, the people are gonna rise up and stomp the wealthy corrupt anyway.
What I'm talking about is just an extreme version of high tax brackets for the wealthy. I like to think and talk in terms of extremes, not because we're going to go there one day, but it gives an idea towards what we're headed.
I think Microsoft is kind of a bad company, dancing around your right-wing corporate-agenda example, I respond that it would be cooool if Microsoft closed. They lame! ahsah! ^^~
|
|
|
Post by Mikhail on May 24, 2006 14:40:51 GMT -5
What if you have inherited a Million dollar house but nothing else? You work at mcdonalds so you cant afford to pay the even the 1% tax on just the house ($10,000) Because you also need to by food and pay bills. Not to mention additionla tax on your vehicle and income.
Flat Tax is the way to go.
|
|
vilhazarog
Diplomat
F)ight, F)ight, F)ight, P)arry, P)arry, P)arry!
Posts: 125
|
Post by vilhazarog on May 24, 2006 15:25:19 GMT -5
Actually, in that situation you're already screwed in the United States (well, the estate tax laws keep changing, so it depends on what year you get your inheritance.) The govt will immediately demand $500,000 because you just got a $1 million inheritence. So you gotta sell that house quick.... unless your family benefactor was smart enough to set up some kinda trust, then you might be ok.
|
|