[geeks] Ping...

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:03:00PM -0800, Lionel Peterson wrote:
> --- Andrew Weiss <ajwdsp at cloud9.net> wrote:
> > I think I'd start at people who make more than 200K by themselves a
> > year...
> Hmm... Guess who thinks he will never make more than $200K/year ;^)

FWIW, today I favour taxing households and not individuals, with a very high
rate for all household income over an average of UKP50k per adult.  In the
past, I have earned over 50k, and I fully expect to again in the near future.

> > and people who make over a mil a year should be hit even
> > harder.
> Why - do they demand more police service? Generate more actual garbage?
> Need cleaner rods after the snow falls?

They don't need that money, and they can afford to contribute more to
society.

> I prefer a simple "head" tax, as in "so much per head", since local
> government provides services without regard to amount of taxes paid.

You mean a poll tax.  That means putting a comparitively higher tax burden
on those least able to afford to pay.

> > My solution is a flat tax with no ability to deduct or
> > skip out of paying taxes (especially for corporations).
> 
> Every highly-paid person I know was in favor of a flat tax.

Of course, it's in their best interests.  Greed makes an excellent motivator.

>                                                              As one
> presidential candidate proposed it, I think everyone that made under 
> $35K paid no taxes, after that it was a flat amount of income (10-15%).

How much would that reduce the government's tax income by?

> The fairest taxes (IMHO) are consumption taxes.

No way, they hit those least able to pay the hardest!  Poor people spend
a far higher proportion of their resources on basic necessities like food,
housing etc than the rich.  If, on the other hand, you mean a tax on
consumption of luxuries then I might agree, but then you have to define
luxuries.  For example, basic food and clothing and housing is not a luxury.
But are clothes with designer labels?  Posh houses?  Ice cream?  What about
books?  Are childrens' educational books a luxury?  What about text books?
What about the full version of the OED compared to a "normal" dictionary?
What about fiction?  Educational fiction?  Knuth's "Surreal Numbers" which
is both fiction and educational?  Electricity consumption probably isn't
a luxury, but electricity that goes to power a TV is.  And so on.

>                                                  The worst thing that
> ever happened was the decision to do "payroll deductions", so that
> taxes are "invisible".

My pay roll tells me what my basic salary is, how much goes for taxes,
and how much I am left with, every month, and a summary at the end of the
year.  Hardly "invisible".

> Also, what governement are you thinking of when you say "took the right
> amount the first time"?

Believe it or not, governments almost always follow procedure correctly.
But that's not newsworthy, so only the rare fuck-ups get reported.  Not
once in ten years of working have my taxes been calculated or paid
incorrectly.  When things do go wrong, they generally get sorted out
quickly - which again isn't particularly newsworthy.

-- 
David Cantrell | Member of the Brute Squad | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

  I often reflect that if "privileges" had been called "responsibilities"
  or "duties", I would have saved thousands of hours explaining to people
  why they were only gonna get them over my dead body. 
                 -- Lee K. Gleason in comp.org.decus