tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post550696346924525748..comments2024-03-18T02:22:56.392-04:00Comments on Disgusted Beyond Belief: Why I am a libertarian (small-l)DBBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-52062894006362114282007-05-10T09:16:00.000-04:002007-05-10T09:16:00.000-04:00One could always make the argument that money not ...One could always make the argument that money not taxed is money that helps the economy in some way or another. But we do need to tax some money, and I think it just makes more sense to tax capital rather than labor - because then it encourages people to do labor (i.e. work and earn a paycheck) rather than sit back and just collect dividends, which is not actually a productive activity. And since those who earn money mostly on dividends tend to be the very well off, they can afford to pay taxes - in fact, the taxes they pay won't impact their consumption nearly as much as those who work, who tend to consume income as fast as they can earn it. <BR/><BR/>In the end, taxing only investments but not labor would mean that those who earn money on labor would have more money free to invest, and they won't mind losing some of their returns to taxes because it is unearned income anyway. I know that I always feel the tax bite out of my paycheck for working as much more painful than the taxes paid on my (modest) investment income - because I see the investment income as just icing on the cake, money I earn without doing anything at all. <BR/><BR/>I know the arguments - that taxing investment income reduces returns so people won't invest as much - but then, really, just where the hell else can they put their money but in investments? Put it in a bank account collecting 1% interest? I don't think so. And all those untaxed dollars going to those who actually work for a living will mean more spending by those who work for a living, which will increase the value of investments, perhaps offsetting the taxes.DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-85916343430636964652007-05-09T22:55:00.000-04:002007-05-09T22:55:00.000-04:00I would argue that a sales tax (especially one lik...I would argue that a sales tax (especially one like the fair tax, which taxes both goods and services), is less regressive than an income tax. Many wealthy people do not have jobs. They live from capital gains and investments, which are taxes at a much lower rate than wages. The advantage of a sales tax is that it taxes consumption, rather than production. For society to punish those who produce those things it needs is absurd.<BR/><BR/>Also, a sales tax (if it is applied only to new goods, like the fair tax) is green. If there is a 28% sales tax (and no income, social security, death, or other taxation), then people have a 28% incentive to resell items which they no longer use, rather than throwing them away. This is generally a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, somebody who makes money and never spends it is nearly always employing that money in a way which helps others. If they keep it in the bank, it is loaned to businesses and creates jobs. If they keep it in the stock market, it still finances the creation of jobs. The fair tax would not tax investments, but only consumption.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-56047719438925868662007-05-09T20:02:00.000-04:002007-05-09T20:02:00.000-04:00Yeah, if you have only a sales tax, it is regressi...Yeah, if you have only a sales tax, it is regressive, and that is a problem.DBBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17805375811782552873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-67687577846249481792007-05-09T19:25:00.000-04:002007-05-09T19:25:00.000-04:00A problem with sales tax is that it end up with th...A problem with sales tax is that it end up with the poor paying a much higher percentage than the rich. Since the poor usually spend the vast majority of their money buying things they will have to pay a large part of their annual wage on sales tax, which leads to them not being able to accumulate as much wealth as to move up classes. While the rich who do not spend the same amount of their annual budget on buying things end up paying a much lower percentage, and they are able to save up more money which allows them to accumulate great amounts of wealth. That is why i think a pure sales tax is not just. But I do believe that the current income tax system is broken and do like your idea of a starting price of income tax.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2925765946042638459.post-38882898014754277852007-05-09T13:53:00.000-04:002007-05-09T13:53:00.000-04:00Amen to all that. I used to be of the opinion tha...Amen to all that. I used to be of the opinion that welfare was necessary for people who either really can't work (mentally disabled people or people with severe physical challenges) and I guess I still feel like as a society, we have a responsibility to take care of people who need it. Because it's just good luck that both my children were born healthy and my husband and I are healthy enough to work and earn a good living. But I don't think other people who were not so lucky should have to shoulder the burden alone if they have family members who need support for their entire lives.<BR/>That said, I have an upper-middle class friend who gets juice from her sister. Sister receives WIC or food stamps or something, and never drinks her allotted supply of juice. So I find it ridiculous that my friend who makes a very good living is benefiting from welfare instead of the sister just turning down the juice that she doesn't use. It's just plain old taking advantage of the system as far as I'm concerned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com