View Full Version : Just when you thought that thing couldn't get any worse ...
Eric Stoner
06-04-2009, 11:20 AM
No. You've presented that before and that's not what I have in mind. Please re-read and keep looking. Hint: think of what is not essential to life and basic economic well-being.
No. I am not going to play silly little guessing games. It's YOUR dumb idea. YOU flesh it out and spell it out as I have repeatedly invited you to do.
threlayer
06-04-2009, 07:37 PM
I'll have to say it again. No tax as I have proposed has yet been implemented. The only "luxury" taxes that have been enacted were "dumb ideas" and I agree with you there. That's why mine is different.
This not a guessing game I dreamed up; it's what you wanted after I told you that you won't be able to find a proposal similar to mine.
Perhaps you should read my proposal again to get clear what it really is. Again.... I have done as much as I can to describe it without being privvy to economic details I don't have.
Eric Stoner
06-05-2009, 07:28 AM
I get that you don't like what I've proposed, not that it matters what you nor I personally like. Nor should you take offense because we have different opinions; and don't give me that "one set of my facts for everybody stuff". The fact is that it, as a type of moderate consumption tax not fully placed on the near-poor, is a more practical and socially-responsible way than a large VAT. Remember a VAT would inevitably be placed on top of current income taxing, and is highly regressive.
I think I owe you an apology. I confused your "luxury " tax proposal with your "sales " tax proposal. In contrast to a luxury or excise tax, the sales tax would result in a gargantuan bureacracy and volumes of new regulations as I have laid out. It would also encourage a huge underground economy as many European countries have to deal with.
Why not go for a flat or flatter income tax ? Every study and every practical application ( Switzerland ) shows that it results in MORE revenue.
threlayer
06-05-2009, 08:27 AM
It would be a mix between a small (sort of) sales tax and a luxury tax; it is different because it would be collected at the source rather than the sale point. The main point is that it would not be a large tax and it would be based on sales (distribution) out of the source not the consumption; that would make it much simpler to implement and collect.
Switzerland is sort of a unique social case, as you may know.
Eric Stoner
06-05-2009, 09:55 AM
It would be a mix between a small (sort of) sales tax and a luxury tax; it is different because it would be collected at the source rather than the sale point. The main point is that it would not be a large tax and it would be based on sales (distribution) out of the source not the consumption; that would make it much simpler to implement and collect.
Switzerland is sort of a unique social case, as you may know.
I have to correct myself. While it has very low rates and NO CAPITAL GAINS TAX, Switzerland does not use the flat tax.
There's a raging debate over whether Hong Kong has a flat tax. Most of the economic successes that use a flat tax are the Baltic Countries, the Czech Republic, Georgia and Panama. Almost all have enjoyed very health rates of economic growth.
threlayer
06-06-2009, 06:46 AM
There is more to cause/deny economic growth than merely taxes.
Deogol
06-06-2009, 08:36 AM
There is more to cause/deny economic growth than merely taxes.
We should make a list. Here is what I have discovered as a business owner:
Available capital.
Available education resources.
Available skills.
Available housing (You realize in California your business needs to make enough to pay for those over priced houses your workers want/have to live in.)
Available infrastructure for your type of business.
Flexibility of the culture (likely not to make dildo's in Nebraska even if it imports money into the state and city.)
A list could also be made for dancers too.
threlayer
06-06-2009, 02:14 PM
That's a good list....
We should make a list. Here is what I have discovered as a business owner:
Available capital.
Available education resources.
Available skills.
Available housing (You realize in California your business needs to make enough to pay for those over priced houses your workers want/have to live in.)
Available infrastructure for your type of business.
Flexibility of the culture (likely not to make dildo's in Nebraska even if it imports money into the state and city.)
A list could also be made for dancers too.
Eric Stoner
06-09-2009, 07:38 AM
We should make a list. Here is what I have discovered as a business owner:
Available capital.
Available education resources.
Available skills.
Available housing (You realize in California your business needs to make enough to pay for those over priced houses your workers want/have to live in.)
Available infrastructure for your type of business.
Flexibility of the culture (likely not to make dildo's in Nebraska even if it imports money into the state and city.)
A list could also be made for dancers too.
At the top of your list and my list and any business owner's list is "available capital". And obviously the COST of that capital in both interest rates and taxes.
threlayer
06-09-2009, 07:10 PM
In my corporate evaluation class, they taught that income taxes were just expenses of doing business. I see no reason to change that outlook.
Eric Stoner
06-10-2009, 10:16 AM
In my corporate evaluation class, they taught that income taxes were just expenses of doing business. I see no reason to change that outlook.
Yeah except when those taxes affect your competitive position.
threlayer
06-10-2009, 06:20 PM
So does my overhead, cost of product, shipping, and that of my competition. They have the same tax laws too.