The poor will still have to buy those (unless you think that is a "luxury" too). Should they suffer that tax burden on those too? (you exempt food, but what about school supplies?)
I look at the whole value of a market item. Let's pick food, for instance. (a favorite subject of mine, lol)
The Marginal theory assumes that a potato holds more value to one person than another. That and it itself is a presumptive theory. Just because someone has more than one potato, doesn't mean they value it any less than someone with one, since it cannot be assumed that 2 potato did not scratch their way up from being a 1 potato. Therefore, both must be given equal value.
There is that presumptive thinking again. How do you know the rich don't care about their money? I'm sure there are some, but I don't use paintbrushes, nor use presumptive thinking. Many do care about it, it's how they 'got rich' in the first place.
The equalization of the taxes, plus the exclusion for the low-income group addresses the disparity in income. Everybody is entitled to the exclusion, regardless of their income. After that amount, it is all taxed at the same rate. It is the only logical possibility to remove the ongoing belief that one group doesn't pay in enough, while another group doesn't pay in much at all, if anything.
If someone uses more infrastructure, they pay more in the way of road taxes, tolls, etc. If someone uses more utilities, they pay more in the related taxes. That is a consumption tax, not an income tax. if you use 10kwh of electric and pay 10 cents in tax, the corporation (which also pays corporate taxes, depending on their structure) uses 100kwh, they will pay $1,000 in taxes.
Exactly when did someone earning 100k get food stamps/housing assistance/medicaid without being fraudentail? None that I am aware of. But they pay into it via their taxes. So no, I have to say the marginalization of the dollar value as you define it is not correct.
Well this removes benefits of such services. And that isn't even necessarily true. See this (the bottom part): http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=38191&postcount=34
The model was for the most part ditched a long time ago. It doesn't hold in the data or mass surveys. Do you have a study that suggests otherwise or a reason for believing the current literature and the growing field of marginal economics is completely wrong?
Again, the studies, the data supports my view, not yours. Marginal value is a heavily studied topic.
That "belief" is not universal. For one, most people who support progressive taxation (which is probably the majority of people) probably don't agree with a flat tax to "solve" that potential issue.
I am talking more about public goods which include subsidies. You use more, you get subsidized more. As for roads, I am talking about the Federal cost. Public goods often have free rider problems. This is well known.
And again, I say what data do you have to support this claim? Your views were once the prevailing views in economics until they were disproven. This is decades ago.
You know that's what we do right now, right?
I have no clue I told you I submit to you on economics lol. I am reading more about it though on the side of the current crisis. The only economics I touch on are those in my books thought they are truly either right or left. A few I have found to be more centered.
NBER seems a good resource to use, should you care to study a bit. Though they are heavy on Micro Economics, that seems to be the interest.
http://www.nber.org/info.html
Thanks I booked marked it I will check it out. I will admit when I lack knowledge in a particular field of study. If I am proven wrong I have no qualms on admitting it. Though I do have a tiny bit of knowledge from things I read. I will be reading a new book starting tomorrow on the Housing Crisis.
Economics are a very tough nut...few have a true grasp. Knowing one has limitations allows for valued discussion, it is why we learn.
Oh I am limited
. Though I like to learn. Though what do you think about the current tax filing system. I think it should be done away with and no one should get a tax refund back? You can weigh in on this question myp...
Oh I am limited
I think it should be done away with and no one should get a tax refund back? You can weigh in on this question myp...
I feel that by taxing in a way that cannot be manipulated (consumption, luxury....etc...), much of the inequity can be removed.
Of course they can, but you need to show the data or studies that suggest otherwise. Do you have anything like that? As is fundamental to science, our intuitions are often flawed and wrong and not sufficient to challenge established theories. Here are a couple places to start for more on marginal theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism
You can find many references to actual studies in the references at the bottom of both those wiki pages.
I would say it isn't nearly as far-fetched as suggesting the flat tax is the "only logical possibility" to remove the belief that one groups pays more or less than their fair share. In reality, it comes down to a subjective valuation and even with a flat tax, there will be people who argue that- like me. But I accept that there is no perfect situation- you will never make everyone happy with a tax structure or get everyone to pay their "fair share" whatever that means. What we can do however, is to go by the data and try to maximize utility- including long-term utility.
All rich people are not synonymous with corporations. And all corporations do not pay all those taxes (see loopholes). Again, you to some extent will always have free rider problems. I don't see why you are in favor of a flat tax, but then also support corporate taxes, etc. if that is a means of leveling the playing field. Aren't you really just for progressive taxation then if the incidence of tax falls more on the rich for such activity?
I apologize for the mess of my post... must have missed a 'quote' somewhere...
No, I am not for a progessive taxation, but appreciate the twist, lol.
I'll take a look tonight.... work doesn't allow much for concentration when reading.
To continually place the tax burden on the high income group is disproportionate. Almost a penalty for doing well, IMO. Above and beyond paying more into the societal pool than any other group dollar for dollar, it is also the same group that builds hospitals, librarys, etc to the benefit of the other income groups.
Didn't say they were.
I DON'T support corporate taxes. I was mearly stating what exists. They are a pass through method of the government finding another way to support a bloated spending system. No coproration worth it's salt takes those taxes off the bottom line, they pass it through via their product or service, which means the consumer pays for it.
No, I am not for a progessive taxation, but appreciate the twist, lol.
Similar threads
