out of the box thought on taxes

So the plumber in my semceanrio would be taxes more then Romney, investors can switch to the stock market and city people will be screwed and have an incentive to move out to other areas. If I live on my 200 foot yacht makin big day trading stacks of cash I get to pay less taxes then a janitor that has to live on land because he can't afford a sweet yacht?

 

What you "gotcha" was the inability to understand reality. I have never suggested illegal or unethical profits are reasonable.

 

Your mistake in logic is simple. As an example, India has lower wages than the US. But they are not underpricing their labor. There labor force is an evolving system and part of that evolution is the low wages to produce products or services for countries with higher labor costs. What we have at present in the US and part or all of the rest of the more wealthy countries is a situation in which labor is priced too high and in developing countries labor is priced too low. It will eventually equalize.

 

In fact you proved nothing of the kind. All you did was express an opinion you can't back up in reality.

No one but Geoist theorists actually use that kind of calculation, ergo, taxes on land are pass on just like the "rent" value of the land if the land owner has an ounce of brain left in his body.

 

You never did take a guess on how long it would take to equalize, evan if we don't talk wages, you have to look at safety issues for an unfair advantage.
This moving to a world market system started about the same time we started hearing things like welfare moms, really unfair considering the poor had no voice in this decision.
At the time this was started, the government had to know that they needed money to run the country and help the poor would have to be shiffted from the income tax lost to some other tax but at the same time they lowered the tax on the only people that would benefit from this.
Do you think the government at that time understood that companys would not bring the money home and pay taxes on it.

 

Consider this hypothetical: the landowner is 100% disabled and unable to work or till the soil or perform any kind of constructive labor. He inherits a small sum and buys some land which he rents to a farmer and the market rental is such that he can rent it inclusive of the rental value + the tax on the land. Do you still see that person as a parasite?

 

Unfair to whom? The low paid worker in the 3rd world needs the job to make enough to feed his family. Why is the elite labor any more important than the low paid worker?

I am a humanist. I see no one human deserving of wage than any other human and if in the process the 3rd world country can evolve its way out of being a low wage country I see that as an advantage. The time line is not as important as the reality of a person still gets to do the job. Considering that off shoring a job does not reduce employment in the elite labor force I see doing so as a win win situation. Government knew for a fact that not all foreign profits would return, partially because capital does not ultimately pay most of the tax levied against it. In this case it is domestic labor who pays the tax because of either lost jobs or lower pay.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/

I also see elite labor (Union jobs) as excessively expensive when considered against the rest of the labor pool within the same country.

So basically we see two things wages are being equalized within domestic labor and elite labor did it to themselves by charging wages which priced themselves out of the domestic labor market; and since government has taken over the role of working conditions, job safety, environmental protection et al, this could all be foreseen.

The end result is, some elite workers lose their jobs and if they are not willing to retrain and accept market wages instead of elite wages it is their own fault.

 

In my opinion the basic unfairness of our labor market is the fact that 12% of that labor force is paid so much many lower wage workers in the domestic market cannot afford the products and services that the elite labor force produce. The concept that as much as the market will bear in the labor market is no more good for the masses than capital charging as much as the market will bear for their products or services.

 

I'm not argueing for union per say, but there has to be a way for people to keep up with inflation and a say in safety in production.
Unions are just like companys in that they can price themselves out of the market.
Inflation is used by both government and employers to their advantage, but hurt people on a fixed wage, there has to be a balance.
Countrys that have workers working for a dollar a day is one thing but when they use slave or slave like conditions do need to be addressed or it will never stop.
Cotton and other crops in some places today a raised by slaves and the products are sold on the world market. should that be stopped?
In this case it is domestic labor who pays the tax because of either lost jobs or lower pay.
So those that didn't loose there job pick up the slack with higher taxes and then they are encouraged to blame the poor for that when the poor had no choice in it.

 

That is not what I said. The poor should not be blamed. In fact except for what some labor units do to themselves there is no blame. Business is as business does! The world market for labor must equalize over time because the poor underpaid workers of India deserve as good a standard of living as the workers in the rest of the world. We should strive for good working conditions the world over, but withholding jobs from countries with low wages and poor conditions only keeps their plight as it is.

Using the excuse that low wage countries pollute or are oppressing labor is a no prize getter. We went through those stages in our labor evolution and it is likely low wage countries have to do so as well.

Please recognize that we have been talking about economics and taxation and competition, not how to preserve and protect elite labor forces.

 

So we should sanction a country like N.K. because it will hurt the people.
So really I think we can agree on is the only thing that would really make a difference is if shipping costs went way up, jobs would come back home.

 

I did not know we were seeking agreement. I thought we were expressing what we believed was best for our economy and how taxation affects it.

If we were to take the total wages paid to labor in the US, divide by the number of workers to arrive at an average wage it would still be well above the poverty level and those wages would make those who earn it a comfortable living.

Obviously you don't agree with every human everywhere deserving a decent standard of living as much as the next guy. I guess having lived in third world countries made me more aware of the huge disparity of not just wealth, but standards of living. Obviously you can come up with extremes with which we definitely agree, such as North Korea, but they are the extreme, not the norm in the 3rd world.

 

I don't come here to fight, I come to learn. I see no advantage with argueing with dumb and dumber but people like yourself with a better understanding of these things are people I can learn from, even if we don't agree. I think your founding fathers had that attitude in mind for your government.
I thought that would be understood with the number of questions I asked and I never ment to change your words into something you did not say I just tryed to put it into terms that I understand.
As far as the taxes are concerned, nothing can be changed without hurting someone and it would have to be done with great care as to not hurt the country over all.
Then it would have to be done by people who really had the best interest of all stakeholder in mind, I'm not sure you have those people.

 

To achieve prosperity a nation must go through stages, just like the US and Canada did. We have achieved the most prosperous countries the world has ever seen. But in the process of achieving that success we effectively without intent, did so to the disadvantage of the 3rd world. We started as an agrarian society and moved into an industrial society and we are moving toward a service society, all of which is very acceptable. We have discovered as we evolved that if we allow the rest of the world more of the jobs we have created we have elevated their standard of living and effectively raised our own as their masses become huge markets for our own goods and services. Actually the only part of our labor force negatively affected is the elite labor force. If you read http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/12/study-offshoring-creates-as-many-u-s-jobs-as-it-kills/ and sites like it, you will recognize that we have not actually lost jobs in the process of off shoring, but in fact have created more than that number. Read this study: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1147.pdf What you will see is the relatively small % domestic workers lost, and when you recognize that those loses occurred in that set of workers which tend to be elite then you will also understand that while our domestic labor force has lost little, the 3rd world labor force has gained a lot.

We can say truthfully and clearly, though some specific individuals have been disadvantaged, the labor force as a whole has improved its situation. Economics is about enhancing wealth, improving over all economies, not specifically protecting each and every type of job or individual job. We should always take comparative advantage and economies of scale into consideration.

 

Have you ever thought about the old idiom, "penny wise, pound foolish?" Attempting to save all elite labor jobs will end up costing the over all economy over the long haul. It is a form of protectionism which always comes back to bite us in the backside.

 

e·lite .A group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp because of their power, talent, or wealth.
I find it odd that we would put different meaning to the word elite, in my mind it is more like Doctors or Lawers or anyone that can stay ahead of inflation, but I doubt if any union members would agree with you, but I might.
There are a few things that I have noticed and find odd in our discussion. IF we are going to make good suggestion here on what could be done to the tax code to make things better, the first step has to be to understand all the problems and the veiws of the stakeholder and then come up with suggestions.
I think that is what I have been doing, trying to get the whole picture.
I have had simular discussions with gov. people, both sides, working people, union and non union, company people of all sorts.
I find with most of them their reaction to me saying I have come to learn is the same, they always offer to teach me more about thier point of view and never think they have anything to learn from me all well making assumption on who I am or what I think. I'm not saying I have anything to teach anybody but until more people are willing to listen and talk we won't learn from the past or make things truely better.

 

1% Transaction Tax
.005%-.02% Financial Transactions Tax

add in a carbon tax for good measure, eliminate all other local, state, and federal taxes, and abolish the IRS.

 

The definition of "elite" can be applied to any set of individuals or situations. In this case I was applying "elite" to that set of the work force which has managed to get itself into a position to get more than most of the rest of the labor force. In that sense it is they who make more relative to their overall skill levels than any other group of similar workers. In the US that tends to be union labor, and I personally don't see union labor as deserving any more than all other groups of labor of similar skill.

Now to the tax code; remember the old saying, "what is good for GM is good for the country?" Essentially that same thing holds true today. What is good for corporate America is good for the country. In that process we have to presume that the government will continue to keep corporate America honest. If you read anything about tax incidence back a ways when it was discussed you know that capital seldom ultimately pays the tax levied against them. Depending on the elasticities of supply and demand and mobility of capital taxes tend to be paid by the consumer and labor to a greater extent than it is paid by capital; so my primary assertion here is that Corporate taxes are not the right way to collect revenue. Individuals who make money from the goods and services capital produces and distributes should pay those taxes in the form of a graduated or progressive individual income tax.

Virtually all forms of sales taxes, VAT taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes and most LVT Taxes (inspite of Geoists claims) are regressive and should be eliminated. Tariffs should also be eliminated, so my personal opinion is that all taxes at all levels should be a progressive income tax and except for incidental capital gains such as home inflation and small owner investment dividends, and other investment income should be taxed not unlike regular income. All caps on FICA (and other payroll taxes such as medicare) should be removed and everyone should pay it on all of their income.

 

And you think such a tax could support the government as it is? I may have been unclear in the op, but I wasn't asked what tax *rates* you'd like to see, but what KIND of taxes would make us most competitive. I don't mean 'a little' vs 'a lot' but 'sales' vs 'income' vs 'property' etc.

 

This isn't true. I could just as easily say, "the income tax is inherently regressive", and you might say, "nut uh, it's progressive because those earning more pay higher rates." Now, if we can make an income tax progressive, what makes you think we can't make a sales tax progressive? The fair tax (up to a reasonable point) was progressive, where basically if the head of a family with 2 children earns 40k he pays no tax, but if he earns less than that he gets a credit (essentially, he is given a small amount of $). Everyone is given a tax credit such that if they earned (if I remember this right) 2x the poverty level they'd pay no tax. It's actually far more progressive - and sales taxes can be made progressive just as easily as an income tax can.

 

I think we agree on way to many things but your use of the elite would be easier to take if you said the elite of the labour force, I am sure you would agree there are other types that also could be called elite.
(incidental capital gains) this is what we have in Canada, someone like yourself with some investments would get the discount, but people who earn a living like MR Romney would pay full earned income rate.
We don't get to right off interest on our house so it dosn't get taxed as an investment, just the one we live in that is. I can see the advantage to the write off that you have but with our system but many here use that to move up the scale and a tax free investment. They just keep buying bigger and bigger houses until they retire and then they down size every few years. If they have chosen the right area to live it generally works quit well.

 

The point is, progressive tax rates are called that because the rate goes up with income. A sales tax or VAT is call "regressive" because a poor person pays as much tax on any given item as a rich man. I don't make up titles for taxes, I simply use the titles which are commonly used. I do not believe a flat tax as you described is best for our nation. In my opinion those who make more money tend to get more value from our infrastructure.

 

I don't get to write off interest on my home either because I don't have a mortgage on it. I personally think we should eliminate deductions like that.

 

Like any other change, that would hurt alot of people and I think that would be a hard one to change, alot of those people have guns.
I do like our system it does give the little guy a chance to take advantage of inflation, of coarse we would like to have the best of both systems

 

I am for what gives the little guy an even break; not a leg up, but an even break. I didn't mean to sound critical earlier. Many people think of these forum as debate forums. To me, from my own personal experience, all I have ever seen are opinions. Some are well supported and can be used for learning new stuff, but many are personal opinions only.