ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th March 2018, 10:03 AM   #121
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,973
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
It is amusing that you are so offended and lecture me about my "snark" about the methodology in the video you linked, without summary, but go on to write at length about how you haven't read anything I cited,
No, no it isn't. What you might have said is "I believe your evidence is in error, have you read this?" But you had to go with the sarcasm. I just wonder why.

Quote:
won't read it,
I didn't say that. I said there was a lot of them and asked which you might recommend reading first.

Quote:
accuse me of not reading it (indirectly, I might add, which is worse in my book),

Jesus christ, how paranoid are you? How about, rather than trying to read between the lines for stuff that isn't there, you take what I've written at face value? How about giving that a go? I promise you, had I wanted to accuse you of anything, then that's what I would have done. Stop trying to read my mind, you're really not very good at it.


Quote:
and then ask me for a summary! No.
And this is why it's difficult. The evidence you present is reasonable, and I think, very relevant to the topic. It's stuff I haven't read before and seems to be legit. There is, you must admit, quite a lot of it and, as discovered later, some if is blog. How about you go with "Read this one first, it's the one I think explains it all best"?

Trouble is, when good food is served by a **** waiter, I really don't want to eat it.

Why do you want to have a fight when you can have a conversation?


You have a lovely day.
__________________
Up the River!

Last edited by 3point14; 8th March 2018 at 10:05 AM.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 10:47 AM   #122
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,486
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
No, no it isn't. What you might have said is "I believe your evidence is in error, have you read this?" But you had to go with the sarcasm. I just wonder why.
I am not sorry if sarcasm about the quality of shoddy scholarship and misleading statistics at a TED talk offended you.

I just wonder why you want to spend your limited time on me and not on the research that existed before my post and will continue to exist after it.

Quote:
I didn't say that. I said there was a lot of them and asked which you might recommend reading first.
You realise I can read your posts?

Quote:
Now, that's an awful lot of reading, I don't know if I have quite that much time.

A quick scan seems to indicate that, at least the ones you've quoted, state more analysis is required. I'd agree with that.

I think it's very unlikely I'm going to read all you have presented.
Quote:
Jesus christ, how paranoid are you? How about, rather than trying to read between the lines for stuff that isn't there, you take what I've written at face value? How about giving that a go? I promise you, had I wanted to accuse you of anything, then that's what I would have done. Stop trying to read my mind, you're really not very good at it.
Again, I can still read your posts:

Quote:
Have you read them?
Quote:
And this is why it's difficult. The evidence you present is reasonable, and I think, very relevant to the topic. It's stuff I haven't read before and seems to be legit. Trouble is, when good food is served by a **** waiter, I really don't want to eat it.


You have a lovely day.
Please, you've been complaining about the cutlery and refusing to even touch the meat. All you've done is reach for hypocritical excuses to not eat from the start. Confirmation Bias is terrible table manners.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 8th March 2018 at 10:51 AM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 10:50 AM   #123
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,069
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I much prefer the 'some people have too little' money argument. It makes more sense.
'some people have too little money' isn't an argument, it's a premise. An argument is something you would build on top of that premise.

Quote:
I really don't object to lavish lifestyles within societies that take care of their least fortunate. The current situation, however, is lavish lifestyles for the very rich and abject poverty for the very poor.

Once everyone has a home, food, clean water and healthcare and access to a decent standard of education, then a five million pound supercar isn't really an issue. If you're driving your five million pound supercar past people living in the streets for lack of social provision, then you're not being taxed enough.
Maybe. Or maybe you're already being taxed far too much, and the problem is that you live under a dysfunctional wealth redistribution/social welfare system that wastes your tax money without doing any real good. The solution then would not be to take away some of your "too much" money, but to reform the system (and maybe even lower your taxes in the process).

Again, your argument seems to instinctively circle back to solving wealth inequality, rather than, say, poverty, or crime, or life expectancy.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 11:03 AM   #124
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,973
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
'some people have too little money' isn't an argument, it's a premise. An argument is something you would build on top of that premise.
Yeah, it's an argument. It's not a very complete one, but it's certainly an argument. I mean, to be grammatically complete, I'd need to add 'so therefore taxes should increase' but I sort of thought this was assumed.


Quote:
Maybe. Or maybe you're already being taxed far too much, and the problem is that you live under a dysfunctional wealth redistribution/social welfare system that wastes your tax money without doing any real good.
I reject that argument completely. I'd need evidence. I accept that not all public money is spent efficiently, but that's the case for all pooled money everywhere, public or private.

Against the possible and undemonstrated inefficiencies, I will give the the raft of social services available to me as a UK resident. Item one, the NHS, which is demonstrably more efficient with its money than is the US system.

In passing - police, fire, prison services. Worker protections, standards agencies and the rest.



Quote:
The solution then would not be to take away some of your "too much" money, but to reform the system (and maybe even lower your taxes in the process).
I think you first need to demonstrate the inefficiencies and demonstrate that things would be more efficient if people spent their own money. Again, absent evidence, I reject this. Money pooled, as any leveraging businessman knows, is more effective.

Quote:
Again, your argument seems to instinctively circle back to solving wealth inequality, rather than, say, poverty, or crime, or life expectancy.

No, not wealth inequality, as I've stated. Once everyone has what they need in the 21st C, food, shelter, healthcare, some leisure - and I'll include some way to access the internet in that, then I don't care if someone's car costs more than the entire life earnings of everyone I've ever met.

If, however, a large portion of society does not have the essentials of living, then the bloke in the car that costs more than my street isn't being taxed enough. Nothing to do with inequality, just to do with there being a lowest possible financial point we will allow our fellow citizens to descend to.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 11:42 AM   #125
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,069
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, it's an argument. It's not a very complete one, but it's certainly an argument. I mean, to be grammatically complete, I'd need to add 'so therefore taxes should increase' but I sort of thought this was assumed.
Of course it's not assumed. Because it doesn't actually follow.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 11:49 AM   #126
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 14,973
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Of course it's not assumed. Because it doesn't actually follow.

The following is an argument, complete, but not proven.

"Some people have too little, therefore taxes should rise"



I assumed you'd work out and fill in the extra bit at the end.


I suspect you and I spend an awful lot of time talking past each other.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 12:24 PM   #127
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 43,122
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
I doubt many a capitalist merely lend their own money. Are we blaming billionaires for having billions or for managing even a lot of billions more? Governments eternally indebted and pushing loan rates up worldwide and central banks (federal reserve and all) manufacturing money by just fixing a low rate for banks were not intended as the topic of this thread
So the housing bubble was because the government was not borrowing enough money to soak up all the available money looking for sure thing investments. So instead they ended up with mortgage backed securities?

That doesn't make sense either.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 01:12 PM   #128
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So the housing bubble was because the government was not borrowing enough money to soak up all the available money looking for sure thing investments. So instead they ended up with mortgage backed securities?

That doesn't make sense either.
Sorry, but your post doesn't make the slightest sense to me.

Isn't your post the old technique of saying any garbage and asserting the opponent said it, to follow it up with a calculated reply to the garbage?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 01:30 PM   #129
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,828
Against the possible and undemonstrated inefficiencies, I will give the the raft of social services available to me as a UK resident. Item one, the NHS, which is demonstrably more efficient with its money than is the US system.

In passing - police, fire, prison services. Worker protections, standards agencies and the rest.[/quote]

Fellow UKer, I agree completely. To the point that I pay voluntary additional taxation.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 01:33 PM   #130
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,069
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Against the possible and undemonstrated inefficiencies, I will give the the raft of social services available to me as a UK resident. Item one, the NHS, which is demonstrably more efficient with its money than is the US system.

In passing - police, fire, prison services. Worker protections, standards agencies and the rest.
Fellow UKer, I agree completely. To the point that I pay voluntary additional taxation.[/quote]

Do you pay because you have too much money, or for some other reason?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2018, 08:57 PM   #131
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,290
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
The following is an argument, complete, but not proven.

"Some people have too little, therefore taxes should rise."

I assumed you'd work out and fill in the extra bit at the end.
There's still a link of your logic chain missing. You don't explain how raising taxes helps the people who have too little. Again are we supposed to fill in the extra bit at the end with, "and we will give the extra money to the people who have too little?" Or perhaps you favor, "this will mean fewer people with too much money and therefore the people who have too little won't be better off absolutely, but they will be a little better off relatively."

Because until you do that, you don't really have an argument, you just have two unconnected assertions.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 12:55 AM   #132
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Again are we supposed to fill in the extra bit at the end with, "and we will give the extra money to the people who have too little?"
That is an oversimplification, but yes, it's about it, like when you pay for expensive K-12 and even send a yellow bus to pick the poor kids and also pay or subsidize their lunch at school. It's the consequence of having certain twisted religious beliefs shaping society, like that cult with the cross which promotes charity, mutualism and solidarity. They also dare to propose free health and general care for those who are ill or old and incapable of working to care for themselves or pay for that care. Also for those who are extremely young and can't see for themselves.

Add to that minimum wages with subsidies paid by the government or the employers themselves. And add a progressive taxation, with people making less than 30K paying nothing and billionaires having a disposable income after low corporative taxes paying 50% of it. Have also the cities getting from poor households just the cost of public lighting and pavement maintenance and getting a percentage on valuation from the most luxurious mansions. All of that makes for Gini indexes before and after taxes and transferences to be 0.58 and 0.75 in Denmark, but only 0.51 and 0.53 in Mexico. The United States is in an intermediate situation, with 0.51 and 0.62, along with Turkey.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 02:11 AM   #133
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
What would happen if you abolished income tax and only taxed people when they actually spend their money?
Have different categories with different VAT rates.
Low or no VAT on basic necessities and a lot on luxury items.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 9th March 2018 at 02:12 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 03:54 AM   #134
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
What would happen if you abolished income tax and only taxed people when they actually spend their money?
Have different categories with different VAT rates.
Low or no VAT on basic necessities and a lot on luxury items.
You still need some income/earnings taxes, but only affecting the 10-15% richer.

You could manage to have low VATs of fixed monthly sums for dentists, plumbers, car shops, hairdressers or gardeners, for instance. And corporative income taxes as low as 10 to 20%, provided they can't provide goods and services to their executives and shareholders, and a personal income tax is paid when shares or properties are sold at a much higher value.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 04:08 AM   #135
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,897
A progressive VAT is a good idea: the IRS would only need to know how much you earned in a year and how much you got saved at the beginning and the end of said year: you must have spend the difference.
Keeping a basic amount tax free, normal medical costs, too, but make major investment very pricey (like a 100% rate on buying a mansion, making it it cost twice as much).
Such a tax would be hard to evade.
__________________
"When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 04:28 AM   #136
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
A progressive VAT is a good idea
Do you really understand what a VAT is? You're talking about sales taxes (for instance, taxes on registered movables and immovables) and taxes on disposable incomes.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 05:32 AM   #137
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,897
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Do you really understand what a VAT is? You're talking about sales taxes (for instance, taxes on registered movables and immovables) and taxes on disposable incomes.
The tax wouldn't be collected by shopkeepers and sellers: it would be determined once a year, as derived from incomes/savings as mentioned above.
It would replace basically all other taxes on individuals except the inheritance tax.
Such a tax would go against the (false) paradigm that consumption is a good in itself. It would reward wise spending and savings.
__________________
"When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 05:46 AM   #138
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The tax wouldn't be collected by shopkeepers and sellers: it would be determined once a year, as derived from incomes/savings as mentioned above.
It would replace basically all other taxes on individuals except the inheritance tax.
Such a tax would go against the (false) paradigm that consumption is a good in itself. It would reward wise spending and savings.
Go for it! (but none of that relates with VAT)
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 05:49 AM   #139
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,897
Both are consumption taxes.
In the literature, it is referred to as a progressive VAT.
__________________
"When someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:03 AM   #140
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Both are consumption taxes.
They certainly are

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
In the literature, it is referred to as a progressive VAT.
Then tell me how is the added value estimated.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:06 AM   #141
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
What would happen if you abolished income tax and only taxed people when they actually spend their money?
Have different categories with different VAT rates.
Low or no VAT on basic necessities and a lot on luxury items.
People would have less luxury. That kind of stinks.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:14 AM   #142
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,134
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
People would have less luxury. That kind of stinks.
In and of itself-probably.
If the reduction in luxury was less than the increase in health, safety, and opportunity for self-actualization would that ease the blow?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:31 AM   #143
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
In and of itself-probably.
If the reduction in luxury was less than the increase in health, safety, and opportunity for self-actualization would that ease the blow?
Depends on a ton of stuff and how you look at it. We can frame it as a violation. A rapist leaving money doesn't ease the blow of rape.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:36 AM   #144
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
But Bob, luxury would cost more but living would cost less.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:37 AM   #145
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
But Bob, luxury would cost more but living would cost less.
So?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:39 AM   #146
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,134
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Depends on a ton of stuff and how you look at it. We can frame it as a violation. A rapist leaving money doesn't ease the blow of rape.
Framing makes a difference, of course.

A soldier who is sacrificed in battle might take comfort knowing that his sacrifice saved the lives of his comrades.

All depends on your choice of hyperbole.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:42 AM   #147
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Framing makes a difference, of course.

A soldier who is sacrificed in battle might take comfort knowing that his sacrifice saved the lives of his comrades.

All depends on your choice of hyperbole.
Neither of us is being hyperbolic
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:56 AM   #148
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,134
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Neither of us is being hyperbolic
Comparing taxation to rape, or warfare, is hyperbolic.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 07:09 AM   #149
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Comparing taxation to rape, or warfare, is hyperbolic.
I strenuously disagree but probably a conversation for another time.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:05 AM   #150
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
So?
Invalid, rule of so!

So, in other words, the people who struggle to make a living (the bottom x%) can have it easier. The middle class can have it about the same. The top x%, who can afford it, can have their luxuries.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:11 AM   #151
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Invalid, rule of so!

So, in other words, the people who struggle to make a living (the bottom x%) can have it easier. The middle class can have it about the same. The top x%, who can afford it, can have their luxuries.
That isnt a rule of so violation.

To your follow up, I would ask again, so? Where are you going with this?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:36 AM   #152
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,486
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
What would happen if you abolished income tax and only taxed people when they actually spend their money?
Have different categories with different VAT rates.
Low or no VAT on basic necessities and a lot on luxury items.
Interestingly, the current US tax system is more progressive than other countries that have VAT, which usually end up regressive, but when you account for their greater social spending other countries reduce inequality to a greater degree.

Quote:
What's going on here? Basically, all of the progressivity of our fellow developed nations' welfare states comes on the spending side. They spend a whole lot more on transfer programs, education and health services, and other initiatives that are redistributive in impact. We, by contrast, tax progressively, and then spread the money around in a less progressive fashion.

This isn't an accident. UC Davis's Peter Lindert has argued in his book "Growing Public" that European social democracies were only able to develop the programs they did because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower growth as much as progressive income taxes, particularly those on capital income. European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill.

But in addition to troublesome growth effects, taxes on capital income and savings tend to produce taxpayer backlashes. Monica Prasad, who co-produced the above charts, has argued that countries like the United States with progressive tax codes saw a strong conservative reaction against high taxes and welfare policies, with the net effect being that the redistributive agenda lost ground. In any case, Prasad and Deng found that when the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do. In English: The less progressive the code, the more progressive the system.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 08:39 AM   #153
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That isnt a rule of so violation.

To your follow up, I would ask again, so? Where are you going with this?
You have an excellent sense of humor.

I would like to make life easier for poor people by making millionaires and billionaires pay more for luxuries they really don't need but that they would still be able to afford. Is that not obvious?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; 9th March 2018 at 09:13 AM.
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 09:14 AM   #154
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,350
So how does this tax money get to poor people? Has that been addressed? BTW the worst cases of poverty on the planet aren't all going to be in countries that billionaires live in and get taxed on.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 09:50 AM   #155
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,982
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
You have an excellent sense of humor.

I would like to make life easier for poor people by making millionaires and billionaires pay more for luxuries they really don't need but that they would still be able to afford. Is that not obvious?
It wasn't obvious. Thank you.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 09:54 AM   #156
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 867
My pleasure.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 10:03 AM   #157
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 7,503
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Interestingly, the current US tax system is more progressive than other countries that have VAT, which usually end up regressive, but when you account for their greater social spending other countries reduce inequality to a greater degree.

Linky.
Fascinating, and indeed counter-intuitive. To get my head around improved growth under progressive consumption taxes (not VAT in this case), I made my way to an article on The Economist which made this point:

Quote:
In terms of economic incentives, the most efficient remedy would be to replace the federal income tax with a much more steeply progressive consumption tax. Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts. As taxable consumption rises, the tax rate on additional consumption would also rise. With a progressive income tax, marginal tax rates cannot rise beyond a certain threshold without threatening incentives to save and invest. Under a progressive consumption tax, however, higher marginal tax rates actually strengthen those incentives....

... If a progressive consumption tax were phased in gradually, its main effect would be to shift spending from consumption to investment, causing productivity and incomes to rise faster. Should a recession occur, a temporary cut in consumption taxes would provide a much more powerful stimulus than the traditional temporary cut in income taxes.
As one who has rather unquestioningly felt progressive income taxes are better than regressive consumption taxes, I am giving this new perspective some serious thought, including going back to sources that yet cite evidence for the "traditional view."

Anyway, good stuff. Never say you cannot get anywhere on ISF in changing minds.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2018, 06:31 PM   #158
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,675
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Fascinating, and indeed counter-intuitive. To get my head around improved growth under progressive consumption taxes (not VAT in this case), I made my way to an article on The Economist which made this point:



As one who has rather unquestioningly felt progressive income taxes are better than regressive consumption taxes, I am giving this new perspective some serious thought, including going back to sources that yet cite evidence for the "traditional view."

Anyway, good stuff. Never say you cannot get anywhere on ISF in changing minds.
Very interesting.

Does something seem kind of wrong about this part, though?

Quote:
If a progressive consumption tax were phased in gradually, its main effect would be to shift spending from consumption to investment, causing productivity and incomes to rise faster.
I'm trying to imagine the actual humans or "corporate people" who would forgo consuming ___ to invest in ___.

I'm having a hard time seeing it.

I'm also not sure the highlighted part is actually true, either, although it's kind of still the consensus among economists, I'm sure:

Quote:
With a progressive income tax, marginal tax rates cannot rise beyond a certain threshold without threatening incentives to save and invest.
I man, it might "threaten" it in theory, but again I'm not sure how much of a real effect is there, unless the idea is that it's a covert(ish) way of getting rid of ridiculous business expense writeoffs , like vacations to Vegas with friends in "the business" one can take and write the whole thing off as a business expense instead of paying Uncle Sam?


-----
ETA:
Assuming the Economist article is correct, wouldn't that decrease domestic demand to some extent?

-----

ETAA:
I'm pretty sure the primary reason Europe has better social spending and less inequality is just because they don't flush so much money down the toilet on fraudulent, wasteful, and abusive military spending as well as vampire, rent-extracting healthcare robber baronry.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

Last edited by kellyb; 9th March 2018 at 06:39 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 12:42 AM   #159
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,549
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post

I'm trying to imagine the actual humans or "corporate people" who would forgo consuming ___ to invest in ___.
Think of it as just supply and demand: goods to be consumed become -indirectly- more expensive and "goods" to be invested remain cheaper in comparison.

Anyway, I disagree in part with that article, but it's too complex to discuss the whole subject in a forum.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2018, 09:15 AM   #160
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,675
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Think of it as just supply and demand: goods to be consumed become -indirectly- more expensive and "goods" to be invested remain cheaper in comparison.
Yeah, but does (for example) modest inflation encourage capital investment? Has anyone ever sussed out the size of the effect there?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.