V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 1 本班某左棍的说法是，flat rate 就是增加穷人的税
我就不明白了，你穷人是不用国家军事保护，还是不上马路？ 你用了国家服务，公共
服务，你为啥不交点税？现在有大约50%的人不交联邦税，这些人有啥理由不交点联邦
税？不用多
flat rate穷人交的也很少，但是你使用了服务就要付钱，这他妈的有啥疑问没有？
从另一个方面讲， 啥事民主？ 民主就是大家决定大家的公共事务。 你他妈的不交税
的参与决定别人税率是多少，这他妈的要脸么？ 这合理么？ 这还能保持民主制度的纠
错体制么？
穷人交税，不仅仅是那点钱的问题，也是民主制度下立法代表性的基石
我要是不用交税，我对于把别人税率提到100% 都毫无意见。 | j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 2 因为flat tax后，这些puppets后面的富人逃税路子被断掉了 | d******a
发帖数: 178 | 3 现在不是不交税的参与决定别人的税率的问题。现在是民主党要让不交税的占人口大多
数，从而不仅仅是参与，而是永远的决定别人的税率的问题。
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 本班某左棍的说法是，flat rate 就是增加穷人的税
: 我就不明白了，你穷人是不用国家军事保护，还是不上马路？ 你用了国家服务，公共
: 服务，你为啥不交点税？现在有大约50%的人不交联邦税，这些人有啥理由不交点联邦
: 税？不用多
: flat rate穷人交的也很少，但是你使用了服务就要付钱，这他妈的有啥疑问没有？
: 从另一个方面讲， 啥事民主？ 民主就是大家决定大家的公共事务。 你他妈的不交税
: 的参与决定别人税率是多少，这他妈的要脸么？ 这合理么？ 这还能保持民主制度的纠
: 错体制么？
: 穷人交税，不仅仅是那点钱的问题，也是民主制度下立法代表性的基石
: 我要是不用交税，我对于把别人税率提到100% 都毫无意见。
| T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | | a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 5 左比们年年不忘的90%税率，放到今天时什么模样？用1952年的税表，调整通胀之后按
2012年的美元币值是
1.7万以下： 22.2% （2013 税率： 10%）
3.4万以下： 23.4%
5.1万以下： 27%
6.8万以下： 29% （2013： 15%）
8.5万以下： 34%
10.3万以下： 35%
12万以下： 41% 。。。
20.6万以下： 54% 。。。
43万以下： 71%
52万以下： 72% （2013： 39.6%）
1百70万以下：88%
2百50万以上：92％
从上面的数据可见：
1. 从0到50万左右，2013的税率，基本相当于1952年的一半。5万以下略低于一半，5万
以上略高于一半。
2. 所以说，1952年的税率，整体高于现在但是更加flat。为什么高，很好理解。世界
大战刚刚结束，完全不同的环境。很多物资甚至刚刚取消配给。
3. real GDP 2013是1952的6倍（折合2009美元币值15.8T对2.5T）。假设税收对GDP比
例不变，所有的bracket都应该乘6，结果是1952年税率调整通胀和real GDP增长后是：
10万以下 22%，45万以下34%，300万以下72%，1千万以下88%，1千5百万以上92%。
4. 这样比较下来，2013的税率相比1952，5万以下和2－3百万以上的税率降低了，中间
这块（5万到200万）的税率增高了。总体占GDP比例没有很大改变（都是8%左右）。
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 本班某左棍的说法是，flat rate 就是增加穷人的税
: 我就不明白了，你穷人是不用国家军事保护，还是不上马路？ 你用了国家服务，公共
: 服务，你为啥不交点税？现在有大约50%的人不交联邦税，这些人有啥理由不交点联邦
: 税？不用多
: flat rate穷人交的也很少，但是你使用了服务就要付钱，这他妈的有啥疑问没有？
: 从另一个方面讲， 啥事民主？ 民主就是大家决定大家的公共事务。 你他妈的不交税
: 的参与决定别人税率是多少，这他妈的要脸么？ 这合理么？ 这还能保持民主制度的纠
: 错体制么？
: 穷人交税，不仅仅是那点钱的问题，也是民主制度下立法代表性的基石
: 我要是不用交税，我对于把别人税率提到100% 都毫无意见。
| T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 6 这个视频提到了当年90%的税真正没交多少。最后其实effective tax rate也就50%。
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: 左比们年年不忘的90%税率，放到今天时什么模样？用1952年的税表，调整通胀之后按
: 2012年的美元币值是
: 1.7万以下： 22.2% （2013 税率： 10%）
: 3.4万以下： 23.4%
: 5.1万以下： 27%
: 6.8万以下： 29% （2013： 15%）
: 8.5万以下： 34%
: 10.3万以下： 35%
: 12万以下： 41% 。。。
: 20.6万以下： 54% 。。。
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 7 flat rate for all income sourse, flat rate for all asset, and flat rate for
all tax id, e.g., corporates pay flat rate as individual based on revenue
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 本班某左棍的说法是，flat rate 就是增加穷人的税
: 我就不明白了，你穷人是不用国家军事保护，还是不上马路？ 你用了国家服务，公共
: 服务，你为啥不交点税？现在有大约50%的人不交联邦税，这些人有啥理由不交点联邦
: 税？不用多
: flat rate穷人交的也很少，但是你使用了服务就要付钱，这他妈的有啥疑问没有？
: 从另一个方面讲， 啥事民主？ 民主就是大家决定大家的公共事务。 你他妈的不交税
: 的参与决定别人税率是多少，这他妈的要脸么？ 这合理么？ 这还能保持民主制度的纠
: 错体制么？
: 穷人交税，不仅仅是那点钱的问题，也是民主制度下立法代表性的基石
: 我要是不用交税，我对于把别人税率提到100% 都毫无意见。
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 8 这个想法不错，但是asset 不精确
很多asset 如果是税后收入购置的，那几不能double tax
for
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: flat rate for all income sourse, flat rate for all asset, and flat rate for
: all tax id, e.g., corporates pay flat rate as individual based on revenue
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 9 why? those assets do not need protection?
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 这个想法不错，但是asset 不精确
: 很多asset 如果是税后收入购置的，那几不能double tax
:
: for
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 10 资本主义国家保护的是财产不受穷人的抢夺。我同意对所有的财产征收flat tax。
取消income tax。如所有财产像中产的房子一样每年收2%的property tax。
有财产的都的交保护费。富人穷人谁也逃不了。 | | | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 11 income is also asset, so treat it same for tax purpose.
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 资本主义国家保护的是财产不受穷人的抢夺。我同意对所有的财产征收flat tax。
: 取消income tax。如所有财产像中产的房子一样每年收2%的property tax。
: 有财产的都的交保护费。富人穷人谁也逃不了。
| T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | | d******a
发帖数: 178 | 13 又做梦了，你同意管P用。你不是推崇国家机器吗？国家机器掌握在谁手里啊？不管民
主党还是共和党执政，永远都不会动富人的蛋糕，明白不？还不如做梦发动群众推翻现
有政治制度，真正的革命呢？
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 资本主义国家保护的是财产不受穷人的抢夺。我同意对所有的财产征收flat tax。
: 取消income tax。如所有财产像中产的房子一样每年收2%的property tax。
: 有财产的都的交保护费。富人穷人谁也逃不了。
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 14 你不是要合理吗？
我是说的这合不合理。穷人不需要你国家机器的保护。
人是从动物preditor进化而来的，抢夺生产者的资源是所有动物的本性。
人的社会制度一直也是这样的，强权者控制有钱人的财富。
掌握军队利器才会有钱，直到资本主义社会，
有企业精神的富人才控制住了自己的财富。这个社会制度本来就是保护资本。
他们有这个需求，当然要付出代价
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: 又做梦了，你同意管P用。你不是推崇国家机器吗？国家机器掌握在谁手里啊？不管民
: 主党还是共和党执政，永远都不会动富人的蛋糕，明白不？还不如做梦发动群众推翻现
: 有政治制度，真正的革命呢？
| d******a
发帖数: 178 | 15 现在是富人掌握了国家机器，你怎么抢他们的？一些富人笼络中产阶级，教育穷人自我
奋斗自食其力，给人通过努力富裕的机会；另外一些富人忽悠联合穷人，压榨中产阶级
，要把所有自我奋斗的中产阶级消灭光，都变成依附于他们的活电池。作为中产阶级，
你选哪一个？
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你不是要合理吗？
: 我是说的这合不合理。穷人不需要你国家机器的保护。
: 人是从动物preditor进化而来的，抢夺生产者的资源是所有动物的本性。
: 人的社会制度一直也是这样的，强权者控制有钱人的财富。
: 掌握军队利器才会有钱，直到资本主义社会，
: 有企业精神的富人才控制住了自己的财富。这个社会制度本来就是保护资本。
: 他们有这个需求，当然要付出代价
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 16 你要读多点历史。多学点东西。
资本主义的控制，是宣传让普通人认为资本主义最好，很给所有人带来繁荣。
资本主义国家的警察，军队也是有穷人组成的，收入也就3-5万。
富人并不是他们的干爹。如果国家在资本主义下，大部分变得平困，
那底层的人对富人动手，穷人组成的军队也会看戏的。
就如俄罗斯，巴西，阿根廷等这些国家，形式不好的就有强人上台，
剥夺寡头富豪的财富，寡头也就死的死，逃得逃。
富豪在国家机器面前算个球？
【在 d******a 的大作中提到】
: 现在是富人掌握了国家机器，你怎么抢他们的？一些富人笼络中产阶级，教育穷人自我
: 奋斗自食其力，给人通过努力富裕的机会；另外一些富人忽悠联合穷人，压榨中产阶级
: ，要把所有自我奋斗的中产阶级消灭光，都变成依附于他们的活电池。作为中产阶级，
: 你选哪一个？
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 17 All lefties grand ideas share one common trait, they all have "unintended"
consequences that come back to bite lefties right in their asses. O8care
being
the latest example. Wealth tax being a long tradition by now.
1. wealth tax needs an amendment to the constitution. Good luck with that.
2. wealth is extremely hard to measure, much harder to measure than income,
particularly the wealth of the wealthy. As a result, the poor and middle
class would be hammered by a wealth tax if there was such a thing. The risk
will likely be very little affected.
The poor own homes, cash, publicly traded stocks, bonds, funds which are
fairly transparent. The rich own private companies, hedge fund holdings,
arts, cars, wine, islands, these can be said to worth very little or very
much.
You think all the tax loop holes now are mind numbing now? Wait till you
look at estate tax, not to mention a wealth tax. A small business like a gas
station or a auto repair already has a lot of dirty tax tricks. Good luck
taxing the real value of the riches.
3. The rich may not even own wealth at all. Control is as good as ownership
when it comes to wealth. Donate and set up a charitable entity of your own,
be an employee of the entity. The charitable provides you with housing,
travel, etc, plus a generous salary. So long as the charitable makes a 5+%
investment return and dish out 5% to a cause, the wealth that you control
and can access never decreases, yet it is not your wealth. Better still,
your sons and grandsons have control over this wealth too in the future, yet
it is not their wealth either.
for the poor and the middle, the cost to set up and maintain such
arrangement is just ridiculous, but for those dirty rich who have 9,10
figure wealth, it is well worth it. | V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 18 faint 看了你我才知道为啥大家都说左派是空想家，梦想家
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 你要读多点历史。多学点东西。
: 资本主义的控制，是宣传让普通人认为资本主义最好，很给所有人带来繁荣。
: 资本主义国家的警察，军队也是有穷人组成的，收入也就3-5万。
: 富人并不是他们的干爹。如果国家在资本主义下，大部分变得平困，
: 那底层的人对富人动手，穷人组成的军队也会看戏的。
: 就如俄罗斯，巴西，阿根廷等这些国家，形式不好的就有强人上台，
: 剥夺寡头富豪的财富，寡头也就死的死，逃得逃。
: 富豪在国家机器面前算个球？
| A*****a
发帖数: 52743 | 19 小屁孩而已，什么这家那家的
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: faint 看了你我才知道为啥大家都说左派是空想家，梦想家
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 20 Therefore tax on income only but progressive rather than flat.
,
risk
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: All lefties grand ideas share one common trait, they all have "unintended"
: consequences that come back to bite lefties right in their asses. O8care
: being
: the latest example. Wealth tax being a long tradition by now.
: 1. wealth tax needs an amendment to the constitution. Good luck with that.
: 2. wealth is extremely hard to measure, much harder to measure than income,
: particularly the wealth of the wealthy. As a result, the poor and middle
: class would be hammered by a wealth tax if there was such a thing. The risk
: will likely be very little affected.
: The poor own homes, cash, publicly traded stocks, bonds, funds which are
| | | a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 21 事啊。当然没多少。1953年，年入1万5就是1%了。92%的税率，20万起征。现在，39万
是1%，简单折算下来，92%的起征点是，5百20万。我要是挣显著高于5百20万，而且面
对92%税率，肯定花钱找人想法避税。我在花街打杂多年，没吃过猪肉，但是见过不少
rich猪跑。有很多former IRS lawyer和accountant都是for hire的。
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 这个视频提到了当年90%的税真正没交多少。最后其实effective tax rate也就50%。
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 22 u need to make up your mind pal.
is it flat rate on assets or flat rate on assets, income and corporation, or
progressive rate on income only?
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Therefore tax on income only but progressive rather than flat.
:
: ,
: risk
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 23 My position is quite clear, ideally a flat rate on assets and income (
personal and corporate). But I also agree with you that taxation on assets
are difficult, therefore a progressive tax on income only becomes a
reasonably alternative.
or
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: u need to make up your mind pal.
: is it flat rate on assets or flat rate on assets, income and corporation, or
: progressive rate on income only?
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 24 taxation on wealth is against the fundamental principle of capitalism. It s
principle, not technicality.
China had an ultimate tax on wealth from 1949 to mid 1980s. All properties
of the rich were seized and redistributed, and the government made sure no
one accumulate any wealth. Many of us would rather leave our home town and
family, come to a country whose language we don't speak in pursuit of
opportunity that was not afforded in China.
I have shown you, today's tax code is even more progressive than the 1953
tax code so many lefties love so dearly. Compare to the 1953 tax rates,
today's tax rate is relatively lighter on those making less than 50k AGI and
more punishing to those who make more than that.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: My position is quite clear, ideally a flat rate on assets and income (
: personal and corporate). But I also agree with you that taxation on assets
: are difficult, therefore a progressive tax on income only becomes a
: reasonably alternative.
:
: or
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 25 I think property rights, rather than (no) taxation on wealth is one of the
foundation of capitalism.
It is day and night between a reasonable (and low) tax rate on assets (or as
alternative, back-end asset tax aka estate tax) and property seizure. If
you believe these two are essentially the same, then I guess you would also
believe 100% tax and 1% tax rate are the same.
s
and
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: taxation on wealth is against the fundamental principle of capitalism. It s
: principle, not technicality.
: China had an ultimate tax on wealth from 1949 to mid 1980s. All properties
: of the rich were seized and redistributed, and the government made sure no
: one accumulate any wealth. Many of us would rather leave our home town and
: family, come to a country whose language we don't speak in pursuit of
: opportunity that was not afforded in China.
: I have shown you, today's tax code is even more progressive than the 1953
: tax code so many lefties love so dearly. Compare to the 1953 tax rates,
: today's tax rate is relatively lighter on those making less than 50k AGI and
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 26 taxation is one kind of infringement on property. It took an amendment to
the constitution to grant the federal government the right to tax income.
You should not take this matter lightly.
Now we get the principle straight, lets deal with the technicality of "
reasonable" and "low".
I live on long island, the government and the teachers union think the 3%
property tax I pay on my home is too reasonable and too low. They want to
raise it every single year. I beg to differ. Now is the one time 40% estate
tax rate reasonable and low? it would depend on who you ask I m sure.
as
also
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I think property rights, rather than (no) taxation on wealth is one of the
: foundation of capitalism.
: It is day and night between a reasonable (and low) tax rate on assets (or as
: alternative, back-end asset tax aka estate tax) and property seizure. If
: you believe these two are essentially the same, then I guess you would also
: believe 100% tax and 1% tax rate are the same.
:
: s
: and
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 27 2-3% on all assets, all income with no special treatment for anyone or any
organization sounds reasonable to me.
FWIW, I live in a GOP district, yet my property tax is 3.7%.
estate
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: taxation is one kind of infringement on property. It took an amendment to
: the constitution to grant the federal government the right to tax income.
: You should not take this matter lightly.
: Now we get the principle straight, lets deal with the technicality of "
: reasonable" and "low".
: I live on long island, the government and the teachers union think the 3%
: property tax I pay on my home is too reasonable and too low. They want to
: raise it every single year. I beg to differ. Now is the one time 40% estate
: tax rate reasonable and low? it would depend on who you ask I m sure.
:
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 28 Re 40% estate tax rate.
For a person who died early and his asset growth fast, the back-end loaded
estate tax at 40% vs. annual asset tax certainly could be a raw deal.
For a person who lived long and his asset has little no low growth, the back
-end loaded estate tax at 40% vs. annual asset tax appears to be an
excellent deal.
So it would depend on whom we are talking about.
estate
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: taxation is one kind of infringement on property. It took an amendment to
: the constitution to grant the federal government the right to tax income.
: You should not take this matter lightly.
: Now we get the principle straight, lets deal with the technicality of "
: reasonable" and "low".
: I live on long island, the government and the teachers union think the 3%
: property tax I pay on my home is too reasonable and too low. They want to
: raise it every single year. I beg to differ. Now is the one time 40% estate
: tax rate reasonable and low? it would depend on who you ask I m sure.
:
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 29 你还是没能解释double tax on asset 这个问题
这在法理上就是个无法回避的大问题， 这也是现在为啥tax income, not asset 的主
要原因之一
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: 2-3% on all assets, all income with no special treatment for anyone or any
: organization sounds reasonable to me.
: FWIW, I live in a GOP district, yet my property tax is 3.7%.
:
: estate
| a**e
发帖数: 8800 | 30 现代的信息技术完全可以对选票和义务精确挂钩。美国一共多点人口？算上所有的纳税
记录和福利记录都不够现在big data的边。
2%太高了。实际上，一个人用一生财产的30%换取公共服务是个很合理的的比例。
按人从20岁开始拥有个人财产到70岁五十年算,每年应该是所有财产的0.6%。
比如Bill Gates，每年固定交纳3.6亿。
然后是到当年之前个人的（全部纳税+公共服务劳务价值） - 个人的全部福利，当差值
是正数时，证明对社会公共财产有所有，拥有个人对社会行政的投票权（share公共财
产支配权）；当差值是负数时，对社会公共财产没有所有，则取消个人投票权。对过往
积累的记录可以避免当初宣传驴子的投票权的问题。
对于完成兵役服务的公民，因为相当于曾交纳血税，而生命无价，公共服务劳务价值等
于个人终身纳税总额，终身拥有选举权。（这是为什么在上个世纪60年代前，普遍义务
兵役确保了投票权的社会合理性）。
对于没有财产或者纳税低于个人获得福利的，可以通过积累足够的公共服务劳务价值获
得选举资格。
儿童获得的福利计算在儿童自己身上。当其为个人的财产纳税大于从小开始获得的福利
后才能投票。这样一是公平，既然美国的青年不愿意听父母的指导，当然没有理由让父
母负担他们获得的福利，二可以避免一棒子刚够18岁，除了被大学洗脑外没有任何社会
认知的傻瓜想当然投票。
拥有财富越多的，实际上国家公共服务针对其财产的开支就越大，所以仍然是一人一票
。你要是愿意多出，比如bill gate每年交3.6亿外愿意另外交一份社会纳税人的中值财
产的税额（应该在2000左右），则多一份投票权（即使他疯了用全部财产买票，也就
2000万选票。按现在的制度，现在美国的利益集团通过控制媒体，控制了媒体，恐怕连
这笔钱的1/10都用不了就可以实现这么多选票）。
没有人有资格要求别人放弃人家自己的权利，但是可以放弃自己的，如果你真的认为这
个权利应该是共享的。
对于极端相信民主就是一人一票的无义务权利的人，可以把自己的投票权donate到全国
无义务投票权的pool里，不符合个人投票权资格的人投票结果从这个pool里实现。比如
全国有1000万认为投票资格应该无义务具有的人，把自己的1000万选票donate到pool里
，则这1000万人和所有不具资格但去投票的人分享1000万选票。比如选总统，这1000万
荔波肉+3000万没有选举资格的人投票，60%的人投A,40%的人选不,则最终A获得这1000
万票的600万票，B夺得400万票。
对于认为投票资格应该无义务具有而又不愿意donate自己选票的人，除了承认自己是装
比犯没有别的意义。
其他具有个人选举资格的人则按一人一票投票。
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 资本主义国家保护的是财产不受穷人的抢夺。我同意对所有的财产征收flat tax。
: 取消income tax。如所有财产像中产的房子一样每年收2%的property tax。
: 有财产的都的交保护费。富人穷人谁也逃不了。
| | | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 31 有新意。
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 现代的信息技术完全可以对选票和义务精确挂钩。美国一共多点人口？算上所有的纳税
: 记录和福利记录都不够现在big data的边。
: 2%太高了。实际上，一个人用一生财产的30%换取公共服务是个很合理的的比例。
: 按人从20岁开始拥有个人财产到70岁五十年算,每年应该是所有财产的0.6%。
: 比如Bill Gates，每年固定交纳3.6亿。
: 然后是到当年之前个人的（全部纳税+公共服务劳务价值） - 个人的全部福利，当差值
: 是正数时，证明对社会公共财产有所有，拥有个人对社会行政的投票权（share公共财
: 产支配权）；当差值是负数时，对社会公共财产没有所有，则取消个人投票权。对过往
: 积累的记录可以避免当初宣传驴子的投票权的问题。
: 对于完成兵役服务的公民，因为相当于曾交纳血税，而生命无价，公共服务劳务价值等
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 32 这个想法非常好
合理，可行
可是美国是绝不会干的，一个是， 对选举制度作脱胎换骨的革新，本来就是阻力很大
的事情
另外，你这个想法的本质，就是反民主党的，呵呵
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 现代的信息技术完全可以对选票和义务精确挂钩。美国一共多点人口？算上所有的纳税
: 记录和福利记录都不够现在big data的边。
: 2%太高了。实际上，一个人用一生财产的30%换取公共服务是个很合理的的比例。
: 按人从20岁开始拥有个人财产到70岁五十年算,每年应该是所有财产的0.6%。
: 比如Bill Gates，每年固定交纳3.6亿。
: 然后是到当年之前个人的（全部纳税+公共服务劳务价值） - 个人的全部福利，当差值
: 是正数时，证明对社会公共财产有所有，拥有个人对社会行政的投票权（share公共财
: 产支配权）；当差值是负数时，对社会公共财产没有所有，则取消个人投票权。对过往
: 积累的记录可以避免当初宣传驴子的投票权的问题。
: 对于完成兵役服务的公民，因为相当于曾交纳血税，而生命无价，公共服务劳务价值等
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 33 Asset need protection in a ongoing basis, so it should be taxed in a ongoing
basis. My income is my asset (new asset), my asset is my asset (old asset),
but asset is asset, treat it same way.
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 你还是没能解释double tax on asset 这个问题
: 这在法理上就是个无法回避的大问题， 这也是现在为啥tax income, not asset 的主
: 要原因之一
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 34 then how about taxing you for protection of your life DAILY? since you
need protection everyday
what if your asset does not need to be proteced? such as saving in foreign
bank
lol
too much loophole
ongoing
),
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Asset need protection in a ongoing basis, so it should be taxed in a ongoing
: basis. My income is my asset (new asset), my asset is my asset (old asset),
: but asset is asset, treat it same way.
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 35 US total wealth is estimated at north of $100T, including human capital;
household net-worth is about $70T. These two data point give me upper and
lower bound.
Let's assume the US total wealth net of human capital is around $100T. US
current GDP is close to $16T, Fed tax historically is about 20% GDP no
matter how you change the tax code, so we end up about $3T, or 3%, rather
than 0.6%, of US total wealth net of human capital is about right.
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 现代的信息技术完全可以对选票和义务精确挂钩。美国一共多点人口？算上所有的纳税
: 记录和福利记录都不够现在big data的边。
: 2%太高了。实际上，一个人用一生财产的30%换取公共服务是个很合理的的比例。
: 按人从20岁开始拥有个人财产到70岁五十年算,每年应该是所有财产的0.6%。
: 比如Bill Gates，每年固定交纳3.6亿。
: 然后是到当年之前个人的（全部纳税+公共服务劳务价值） - 个人的全部福利，当差值
: 是正数时，证明对社会公共财产有所有，拥有个人对社会行政的投票权（share公共财
: 产支配权）；当差值是负数时，对社会公共财产没有所有，则取消个人投票权。对过往
: 积累的记录可以避免当初宣传驴子的投票权的问题。
: 对于完成兵役服务的公民，因为相当于曾交纳血税，而生命无价，公共服务劳务价值等
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 36 #1 I pay tax, #2 We happen to live in a civilized society that value life so
that even some people cannot pay tax, we still protect them.
FWIW, I think US global taxation system is obsurd.
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: then how about taxing you for protection of your life DAILY? since you
: need protection everyday
: what if your asset does not need to be proteced? such as saving in foreign
: bank
: lol
: too much loophole
:
: ongoing
: ),
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 37 #1, you said you paid tax ,so you meant you should not be taxed daily again,
right? other people aregue that they paid tax on income,which is not
proteced at all, why should they be taxed on assets that are acquired with
their after tax income again?
#2, actually even the most conservative people , are not saying that no
protection of human who do not pay tax.
the argument is aobut , no political right for them
so
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: #1 I pay tax, #2 We happen to live in a civilized society that value life so
: that even some people cannot pay tax, we still protect them.
: FWIW, I think US global taxation system is obsurd.
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 38 No. Tax whatever ways, annual basis, daily basis, month basis, doesn't
matter. It come down to annual percentage (2-3%), funding sources (old
wealth and new wealth), and if they are treated equal (they should).
again,
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: #1, you said you paid tax ,so you meant you should not be taxed daily again,
: right? other people aregue that they paid tax on income,which is not
: proteced at all, why should they be taxed on assets that are acquired with
: their after tax income again?
: #2, actually even the most conservative people , are not saying that no
: protection of human who do not pay tax.
: the argument is aobut , no political right for them
:
: so
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 39 I generally agree with your idea, but just pointed out there are lots of
loopholes
for example, what if wealthy people only have saving / investment in foreign
country?
also, tax on asset and tax on human must be applied at the same time,
otherwise it is simply not fair
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: No. Tax whatever ways, annual basis, daily basis, month basis, doesn't
: matter. It come down to annual percentage (2-3%), funding sources (old
: wealth and new wealth), and if they are treated equal (they should).
:
: again,
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 40 Then it comes to execution, and I agree with you the execution will be hard
to impossible. But if you look at it, the tax regime by taxation on assets
would very likely be progressive rather than flat. Therefore, the current
progressive tax regime on income may not be a bad alternative. The curve
certainly can be different. If somehow someone can come up with an
alternative regime that more closely reflects taxation on assets regime,
that would be great. Until then, I guess I will support the current
progressive tax on income regime.
I said I am against US global taxation regime, I think it is absurd. I know
what you mean, but currently I haven't come to any strong opinion. I tend to
think if they strictly invest in foreign country, it is not U. Sam's
business. But if they invest in some foreign investment vehicles, and that
vehicle invests in US, then the vehicle would need to pay tax on US asset
basis.
I am not clear what you mena by tax on asset and tax on human must be
applied at the same time.
foreign
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: I generally agree with your idea, but just pointed out there are lots of
: loopholes
: for example, what if wealthy people only have saving / investment in foreign
: country?
: also, tax on asset and tax on human must be applied at the same time,
: otherwise it is simply not fair
| | | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 41 I think I know what V123 means by tax on human.
The premise of the tax on asset is based on theory that everyone's asset
needs to be protected by the government. (Let's forget about theft, and
other loss for now, which is another interesting topic)
Then protection is not only protecting asset, but also on every individuals
as well. (Some say lives are priceless. How much do we assess each
individual is worth of). Aside from the asset citizens possess and pay
annual tax every year, every individual must also pay tax on the protection
on themselves, every year.
hard
know
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Then it comes to execution, and I agree with you the execution will be hard
: to impossible. But if you look at it, the tax regime by taxation on assets
: would very likely be progressive rather than flat. Therefore, the current
: progressive tax regime on income may not be a bad alternative. The curve
: certainly can be different. If somehow someone can come up with an
: alternative regime that more closely reflects taxation on assets regime,
: that would be great. Until then, I guess I will support the current
: progressive tax on income regime.
: I said I am against US global taxation regime, I think it is absurd. I know
: what you mean, but currently I haven't come to any strong opinion. I tend to
| T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 42 我还是感觉herman cain那三点比较靠谱。而基于存下来，或者继承下来的每年交钱非
常controversial。
在所有的交易链中，税只在最后一个关口被charge。而不是在任何一个交易中。
所以999这个提到进入个体时交9%，出（即消费时）时交9%。不说具体数字吧，这个设
计还是合理的。不管你中间怎么损失（比如你买油画1米，卖的时候400K）中间不管你
hold多少年，中间怎么损失的，以最后交易时的数字为标准。简化了每年的计算个人
asset这种比IRS恐怕还要繁杂的系统。 | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 43 OK. My opinion is we need funding to protect individuals, their assets and
maintain other infrastructures. These are funding needs. Then seprately,
there is a funding source question, where are these fundings coming from?
My argument is, and I think you and me deviate from here, we do not tax on
human since we as a society value life more than assets and we will pretect
human lives regardless, that leaves income and assets as the only main
funding sources. And we treat them in the same way. Income, new assets;
properties, old assets. All assets.
individuals
protection
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: I think I know what V123 means by tax on human.
: The premise of the tax on asset is based on theory that everyone's asset
: needs to be protected by the government. (Let's forget about theft, and
: other loss for now, which is another interesting topic)
: Then protection is not only protecting asset, but also on every individuals
: as well. (Some say lives are priceless. How much do we assess each
: individual is worth of). Aside from the asset citizens possess and pay
: annual tax every year, every individual must also pay tax on the protection
: on themselves, every year.
:
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 44 你意识到，保护人员安全，也是需要钱的
但是你又说，我们不让人员为这种对它的保护付钱，因为我们重视生命
那么我想问你，你知道天下没有免费午餐，那么谁来付钱？ 所以你建议，让有钱的人
来付钱
这归根到底有个问题，为什么他们因该为别人的生命保护付钱？ 这个最根本的why 你
说不出来，那么就跟波尔布特差不多了
所谓的“ we value liefe more than assets ” 这句话乍一听很有道理，但是用到
tax上讲就是彻头彻尾的虚伪了， 你value 的话你出钱啊，别干那种你value 别人出钱
的事情
还不是我请客你掏钱的把戏。
跟前些天国内那动物保护组织一样，拦车救狗，最后赖掉宠物医院的账单，让人家告上
法庭
pretect
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: OK. My opinion is we need funding to protect individuals, their assets and
: maintain other infrastructures. These are funding needs. Then seprately,
: there is a funding source question, where are these fundings coming from?
: My argument is, and I think you and me deviate from here, we do not tax on
: human since we as a society value life more than assets and we will pretect
: human lives regardless, that leaves income and assets as the only main
: funding sources. And we treat them in the same way. Income, new assets;
: properties, old assets. All assets.
:
: individuals
| T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | 45 这样怎么样？
大家都出钱，出不起钱的呢？那就只好出时间，出风险。比如去当兵，去labor camp。
社会可以出钱建立政府保证大家的生命和财产，但是不能保证他们的无忧无虑的福利。
除非你把你欠的那份挣出来。
最低工资的价值你总可以创造吧。 | V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 46 这个主意提出来，你就被左棍骂死了
我请客，你出钱，然后你竟然回头让我劳动来偿付，你不人道，你不普世
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 这样怎么样？
: 大家都出钱，出不起钱的呢？那就只好出时间，出风险。比如去当兵，去labor camp。
: 社会可以出钱建立政府保证大家的生命和财产，但是不能保证他们的无忧无虑的福利。
: 除非你把你欠的那份挣出来。
: 最低工资的价值你总可以创造吧。
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 47 The working poors also have assets and income, they should have skin in the
game in the tax regime. Can you distinguish between tax on all assets and
income equally and tax on rich's assets and income only?
Let me ask you one question, do you think the society should protect those
who cannot afford to pay?
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 你意识到，保护人员安全，也是需要钱的
: 但是你又说，我们不让人员为这种对它的保护付钱，因为我们重视生命
: 那么我想问你，你知道天下没有免费午餐，那么谁来付钱？ 所以你建议，让有钱的人
: 来付钱
: 这归根到底有个问题，为什么他们因该为别人的生命保护付钱？ 这个最根本的why 你
: 说不出来，那么就跟波尔布特差不多了
: 所谓的“ we value liefe more than assets ” 这句话乍一听很有道理，但是用到
: tax上讲就是彻头彻尾的虚伪了， 你value 的话你出钱啊，别干那种你value 别人出钱
: 的事情
: 还不是我请客你掏钱的把戏。
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 48 I am for no representation w/o taxation. People who pay tax decide the
welfare level of the society. Enlist is another option. I have no taste for
forced labor.
【在 T*********I 的大作中提到】
: 这样怎么样？
: 大家都出钱，出不起钱的呢？那就只好出时间，出风险。比如去当兵，去labor camp。
: 社会可以出钱建立政府保证大家的生命和财产，但是不能保证他们的无忧无虑的福利。
: 除非你把你欠的那份挣出来。
: 最低工资的价值你总可以创造吧。
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 49 1. 你，我，以及大家都知道你所说的working poor 的asset 是皇帝的新衣，是根本不
存在的
就这样，税法的deduction 做法深入人心而不可能更改，所以导致结果就是实际上对
asset征税是不针对穷人的。这个在美国待了几年的人都明白
2. 我们的社会应该保护those who can not afford to pay, but you get to get
money first
我们该不该给中国几千万光棍媳妇？ 应该， 你go ahead去找那么多女人来first
别扯这些应该不应该， 你吃的喝的，都是钱，而不是上帝给的。任何长期成制度的政
策，都必须能meet the end 才行，仅仅一个应该不应该啥也解决不了
短期的少数人不能pay, 但是有社会包容，长期的大量的如此，社会破产，再应该也没
戏。 你问问希腊啥国家的那些人这个那个应该不？ 应该也没用
the
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: The working poors also have assets and income, they should have skin in the
: game in the tax regime. Can you distinguish between tax on all assets and
: income equally and tax on rich's assets and income only?
: Let me ask you one question, do you think the society should protect those
: who cannot afford to pay?
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 50 Are you against flat rate on asset and income or not, I am confused.
Sometimes I feel you do, now it seems you do not. I am all for meet the ends
, you know, and I would like the total outlay come down from, say 20%, to 15
% GDP, or less. I only like to have a same flat rate on asset and income, be
it 1%, 2% or 3%, based on total Fed outlay, you know, meet the ends.
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 1. 你，我，以及大家都知道你所说的working poor 的asset 是皇帝的新衣，是根本不
: 存在的
: 就这样，税法的deduction 做法深入人心而不可能更改，所以导致结果就是实际上对
: asset征税是不针对穷人的。这个在美国待了几年的人都明白
: 2. 我们的社会应该保护those who can not afford to pay, but you get to get
: money first
: 我们该不该给中国几千万光棍媳妇？ 应该， 你go ahead去找那么多女人来first
: 别扯这些应该不应该， 你吃的喝的，都是钱，而不是上帝给的。任何长期成制度的政
: 策，都必须能meet the end 才行，仅仅一个应该不应该啥也解决不了
: 短期的少数人不能pay, 但是有社会包容，长期的大量的如此，社会破产，再应该也没
| | | V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 51 我觉着tax on asset 第一有法理漏洞，第二根本不可行，
法理漏洞就是我上面说的，如果不伴随tax on person，那么就是unfair， 这个漏洞必
须解决，而且是合理的解决
第二，不可行， 我讲过，对asset 收税比income 收税难的多，而且有些问题确定无解
，比如隐藏在外国的。 无法执行的东西就是NO
只有上面两个都解决了，才能说on asset 是否flat rate 的问题
我支持ｆｌａｔ ｒａｔｅ 的主意，但是你要先解决上面问题
其实想来想去，我认为唯一可行，也还合理的其实还是ｆｌａｔ ｒａｔｅ ｏｎ ｉ
ｎｃｏｍｅ
ends
15
be
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Are you against flat rate on asset and income or not, I am confused.
: Sometimes I feel you do, now it seems you do not. I am all for meet the ends
: , you know, and I would like the total outlay come down from, say 20%, to 15
: % GDP, or less. I only like to have a same flat rate on asset and income, be
: it 1%, 2% or 3%, based on total Fed outlay, you know, meet the ends.
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 52 so your proposal is:
1 2-3% annual tax on wealth, perhaps another 2-3% tax on income. Good luck
with that amendment to the constitution.
2. no representation w/o taxation: those don't pay tax has no say in the
matter of the nation, unless they enlist in armed service. Good luck with
that amendment to the constitution too.
I think your proposal will be extremely well received by the wall street "
investment class". You know, the Romney kind. They have vast amount of
wealth, in the mean time, they have
access to very profitable investment vehicles. The majority of their wealth
is invested and making 10,20 or even 100% returns annually.
For arguments sake, lets say Romney makes 10% pre-tax return on his total
wealth, very likely an underestimation, but recognize he could not possibly
invest all his wealth. Such annual return exceeds his basic needs by huge
margin,
therefore rolls right into his wealth and compounds forward. As you wish, he
pays 2% wealth tax, and 2% income tax. That leaves him a 7.8% growth in his
wealth. Not
too shabby since as it stands in 2013, cap gain is taxed at 20%. So Romney
would pretty much gain the same amount of money, pay the same amount of tax,
accumulate the same amount of incremental wealth. If he manages to get
higher investment return, he could come out ahead of his current situation.
This is even without any loophole, tax avoidance bull shit.
On the other hand, a farmer or a small business owner, likely will not
achieve such high margin via their ownership of a farm or a small business.
In addition, whatever income their assets generate, a much bigger portion
goes to support
their basic needs in life. As a result a 2% tax would very likely be a
straight forward -2% loss to their asset. With time passing, they may have
to sell their asset to meet the taxation, thereby dismantling the business
they created and nurtured.
Grandma's savings account will be devastated for obvious reason. By taking,
2% over 20 years, the government would seize 35% of her life savings.
for
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I am for no representation w/o taxation. People who pay tax decide the
: welfare level of the society. Enlist is another option. I have no taste for
: forced labor.
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 53 I disagree there is 法理漏洞. But let me step back a little bit, what is
your idea to solve this 法理漏洞?
I do not think U. Sam have any business for foreign assets. Only two
countries in the world have a global tax regime.
In terms of difficulty of tax on asset. Since tax on asset will be
progressive (I assume you agree, let me know if you do not), thus practical
and reasonable tax regime should be progressive on income.
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 我觉着tax on asset 第一有法理漏洞，第二根本不可行，
: 法理漏洞就是我上面说的，如果不伴随tax on person，那么就是unfair， 这个漏洞必
: 须解决，而且是合理的解决
: 第二，不可行， 我讲过，对asset 收税比income 收税难的多，而且有些问题确定无解
: ，比如隐藏在外国的。 无法执行的东西就是NO
: 只有上面两个都解决了，才能说on asset 是否flat rate 的问题
: 我支持ｆｌａｔ ｒａｔｅ 的主意，但是你要先解决上面问题
: 其实想来想去，我认为唯一可行，也还合理的其实还是ｆｌａｔ ｒａｔｅ ｏｎ ｉ
: ｎｃｏｍｅ
:
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 54 so 2-3% asset tax is out of the window yet again now?
"practical and reasonable tax regime should be progressive on income." is
your new proposal? what about the "no presentation w/o taxation" clause of
yours?
Then the current day tax regime is already "practical and reasonable", given
that it is already more progressive than in the golden days of 1953, is
that not the case?
Would your "progressive on income" tax regime afford us on going protection
of our lives and properties? or a few hours later you would change your mind
again and demand tax on wealth for protection on wealth?
practical
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I disagree there is 法理漏洞. But let me step back a little bit, what is
: your idea to solve this 法理漏洞?
: I do not think U. Sam have any business for foreign assets. Only two
: countries in the world have a global tax regime.
: In terms of difficulty of tax on asset. Since tax on asset will be
: progressive (I assume you agree, let me know if you do not), thus practical
: and reasonable tax regime should be progressive on income.
:
| i***e
发帖数: 648 | 55
其实这就是中产阶级逐步消亡的根本原因。
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: so 2-3% asset tax is out of the window yet again now?
: "practical and reasonable tax regime should be progressive on income." is
: your new proposal? what about the "no presentation w/o taxation" clause of
: yours?
: Then the current day tax regime is already "practical and reasonable", given
: that it is already more progressive than in the golden days of 1953, is
: that not the case?
: Would your "progressive on income" tax regime afford us on going protection
: of our lives and properties? or a few hours later you would change your mind
: again and demand tax on wealth for protection on wealth?
| V**3
发帖数: 12756 | 56 我说的法理漏洞在于2点，再说一遍
1. income 已经tax 过，再对 用income 购置的asset tax 就是double tax,这不合理
你说asset 需要保护，可是从保护说出发，也不对，因为这样算，income 不需要保护
，你为啥tax income?
2. tax asset 明显是只对一部分有asset的人征税，这个作为固定制度，显然不合理，
你的解释是保护说，可是我的argue(保护人--对人征税）显然更strong。 而你说的no
representation without tax ，根本不可能
practical
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I disagree there is 法理漏洞. But let me step back a little bit, what is
: your idea to solve this 法理漏洞?
: I do not think U. Sam have any business for foreign assets. Only two
: countries in the world have a global tax regime.
: In terms of difficulty of tax on asset. Since tax on asset will be
: progressive (I assume you agree, let me know if you do not), thus practical
: and reasonable tax regime should be progressive on income.
:
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 57 You have a comprehension problem my friend, A flat tax on asset and income
will be very likely be quite progressive if measured on income only.
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: so 2-3% asset tax is out of the window yet again now?
: "practical and reasonable tax regime should be progressive on income." is
: your new proposal? what about the "no presentation w/o taxation" clause of
: yours?
: Then the current day tax regime is already "practical and reasonable", given
: that it is already more progressive than in the golden days of 1953, is
: that not the case?
: Would your "progressive on income" tax regime afford us on going protection
: of our lives and properties? or a few hours later you would change your mind
: again and demand tax on wealth for protection on wealth?
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 58
Income is your (new) asset.
no
You can tax on all asset, running risk of a revolution. Do we protect
properties? How are we going to tax on individual? Based on his asset? His
asset and income? His priceless life so equal amount of tax for everybody?
【在 V**3 的大作中提到】
: 我说的法理漏洞在于2点，再说一遍
: 1. income 已经tax 过，再对 用income 购置的asset tax 就是double tax,这不合理
: 你说asset 需要保护，可是从保护说出发，也不对，因为这样算，income 不需要保护
: ，你为啥tax income?
: 2. tax asset 明显是只对一部分有asset的人征税，这个作为固定制度，显然不合理，
: 你的解释是保护说，可是我的argue(保护人--对人征税）显然更strong。 而你说的no
: representation without tax ，根本不可能
:
: practical
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 59 Are your calling for progressive taxation on assets :-)
If the "investment class" can grow their wealth substantially faster, more
power to them. I figure by doing that they can grow the national wealth
faster since the capital would be used more efficient, no? But I also figure
national wealth is tied to national productivity, at least loosely, I doubt
it can grow any faster.
Back to poor grandma. She will pay much less tax when she was young and has
little assets, which translate to a larger saving/asset.
wealth
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: so your proposal is:
: 1 2-3% annual tax on wealth, perhaps another 2-3% tax on income. Good luck
: with that amendment to the constitution.
: 2. no representation w/o taxation: those don't pay tax has no say in the
: matter of the nation, unless they enlist in armed service. Good luck with
: that amendment to the constitution too.
: I think your proposal will be extremely well received by the wall street "
: investment class". You know, the Romney kind. They have vast amount of
: wealth, in the mean time, they have
: access to very profitable investment vehicles. The majority of their wealth
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 60 please do enlighten me, pal. I really do not have the lawyer type brain
cells.
say a retiree having 50k in a savings account. making 3% in interest. a 3%
tax on asset would be equivalent to 100% on income. leaving him 0 income for
the year. After paying for food, he would have less assets at hand at the
year end.
say a hedge fund owner, having 100 million invested, making 10% return. a 3%
tax on asset would be equivalent to 30% on income. leaving him 7 million
net income for the year, advancing his wealth to 107 million. He could spend
2 million on a drunk Christmas party and still come out 5 million ahead.
If this is progressive, it is rather very much progressive towards the favor
of the rich and well connected.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: You have a comprehension problem my friend, A flat tax on asset and income
: will be very likely be quite progressive if measured on income only.
| | | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 61 A young kid comes out of college and earns 50k a year, he has no meaningful
asset, he may have negative networth because of student loan. He is likely
to pays only 3% on his income that is $1500 and nothing else until he has
positive networth, instead of paying nearly $8500 in Fed tax, save the
difference, good deal? His networth will grow to 230K before the asset
becames a "drag".
How much US median household networth is? 110k 2004 dollar in 2007 survey.
So he get a tailwind before he far exceed median household networth. So you
tell me is it a good or a bad deal for middle class?
for
3%
spend
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: please do enlighten me, pal. I really do not have the lawyer type brain
: cells.
: say a retiree having 50k in a savings account. making 3% in interest. a 3%
: tax on asset would be equivalent to 100% on income. leaving him 0 income for
: the year. After paying for food, he would have less assets at hand at the
: year end.
: say a hedge fund owner, having 100 million invested, making 10% return. a 3%
: tax on asset would be equivalent to 30% on income. leaving him 7 million
: net income for the year, advancing his wealth to 107 million. He could spend
: 2 million on a drunk Christmas party and still come out 5 million ahead.
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 62 my position has been and is still:
between 20% and 30% flat tax on income. If one has to play progressive and
create a few brackets between 20 and 30, so be it. But, no deduction, no
exemption, no pay roll tax, no difference between earned and cap gain. This
naturally ensures the tax income be a stable portion of GDP. Closes all loop
holes. Encourage employment.
I m not sorry about the entire industry of tax lawyers and accountants this
will wipe out. If all IRS agents lost the job, even better.
If one in the low income group experience hardship in such tax regime, he
could apply for welfare. But welfare should be administered independently of
the tax system and private charity should be the preferred first line of
welfare providers.
Social Security and Medicare are then to be understood as what they really
are: welfare and welfare must be means tested by current assets and income
in the final years before retirement.
On personally level this should be the only tax authority by the Fed. States
should have no overlapping tax authority on income, only use and sales.
Local muni has only tax authority on real estate.
I also happened to agree with no presentation without taxation of yours.
When registering for vote, one must show at least 1 >0 tax return in the
past 4 years. Unless one spent most of last 4 years in educational
institutions.
figure
doubt
has
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: Are your calling for progressive taxation on assets :-)
: If the "investment class" can grow their wealth substantially faster, more
: power to them. I figure by doing that they can grow the national wealth
: faster since the capital would be used more efficient, no? But I also figure
: national wealth is tied to national productivity, at least loosely, I doubt
: it can grow any faster.
: Back to poor grandma. She will pay much less tax when she was young and has
: little assets, which translate to a larger saving/asset.
:
: wealth
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 63 So to win in your tax scheme, the trick is spend every single dime one earns
immediately and do not save a penny. Brilliant way to encourage the poor to
stay poor.
In a few years, that kid of yours grew in to a typical median family of 110k
. When you charge him the 3% flat asset tax. Do you count the home he now
likely owns? He probably owns a home worth 4 or 500k. Your 3% asset tax is
immediately 15% of their income. Not counting maybe two cars and a bank
account?
Do you include the mortgage (say a 417k conforming) in his asset? that is,
is it a tax on asset or a tax on equity? If so, how progressively is he now
treated? If not, who s going to cough up the tax revenue to maintain the
share of government inlay compare to GDP? the mortgage issuing bank? there
goes a recipe to shoot up mortgage rate by 3% instantly.
meaningful
you
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: A young kid comes out of college and earns 50k a year, he has no meaningful
: asset, he may have negative networth because of student loan. He is likely
: to pays only 3% on his income that is $1500 and nothing else until he has
: positive networth, instead of paying nearly $8500 in Fed tax, save the
: difference, good deal? His networth will grow to 230K before the asset
: becames a "drag".
: How much US median household networth is? 110k 2004 dollar in 2007 survey.
: So he get a tailwind before he far exceed median household networth. So you
: tell me is it a good or a bad deal for middle class?
:
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 64 are you saying the wealth of the investment class or any rich class for that
matter is tied
to the national wealth and thereby tied to the national productivity
therefore can NOT grow substantially faster?
If that s the case, wouldn't there be no widening of the wealth gap at all
and this discussion of having to tax the rich more by some means all moot?
figure
doubt
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: A young kid comes out of college and earns 50k a year, he has no meaningful
: asset, he may have negative networth because of student loan. He is likely
: to pays only 3% on his income that is $1500 and nothing else until he has
: positive networth, instead of paying nearly $8500 in Fed tax, save the
: difference, good deal? His networth will grow to 230K before the asset
: becames a "drag".
: How much US median household networth is? 110k 2004 dollar in 2007 survey.
: So he get a tailwind before he far exceed median household networth. So you
: tell me is it a good or a bad deal for middle class?
:
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 65 I was thinking net asset all along. I appologize for not make it clearer.
One's debt is another's asset, so if we tax on asset w/o considering the
debt, we essentially double tax on the same asset, or triple square whatever
tax considering loan holder can borrow against the loan.
Mortgage would shoot up, the house price would go down, I am not sure the
cost of ownership will change by that much, isn't it the same argument for
abandon mortgate interest deduction?
earns
to
110k
now
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: So to win in your tax scheme, the trick is spend every single dime one earns
: immediately and do not save a penny. Brilliant way to encourage the poor to
: stay poor.
: In a few years, that kid of yours grew in to a typical median family of 110k
: . When you charge him the 3% flat asset tax. Do you count the home he now
: likely owns? He probably owns a home worth 4 or 500k. Your 3% asset tax is
: immediately 15% of their income. Not counting maybe two cars and a bank
: account?
: Do you include the mortgage (say a 417k conforming) in his asset? that is,
: is it a tax on asset or a tax on equity? If so, how progressively is he now
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 66 My opinion is the widening income gap has a lot to do with globalization,
not necessarily to do with the current tax regime. Certainly discriminate
income from labor against income from investment helped. But my gut feeling
is globalization is the top reason, and I am for globalization.
I do not really care that much if we have to tax the rich more or less by
some means. I just want to treat net-asset and income equally, because I
think it is fair. Any tax regime get the similar taxation burden
distribution will be welcomed. It also helps a little when I do my college
kid calculation.
that
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: are you saying the wealth of the investment class or any rich class for that
: matter is tied
: to the national wealth and thereby tied to the national productivity
: therefore can NOT grow substantially faster?
: If that s the case, wouldn't there be no widening of the wealth gap at all
: and this discussion of having to tax the rich more by some means all moot?
:
: figure
: doubt
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 67 So we are talking about a 3% equity (=asset-liability) tax here, on persons
AND corporations since the bank now must pay 3% tax on my loan, which they
ll charge back onto me by raising my interest by 3%, which would be almost
doubling my borrowing cost.
To maintain the cost of ownership, municipals must get on the band wagon to
shift the existing property tax to loan underwriters, instead of home owners
. Please send the memo to my mortgage bank and my town hood. And I am going
to go take out a home equity loan.
plugging the mortgage deduction loop hole would have no effect on mortgage
rate though. It may even reduce the mortgage rate by reducing the demand for
mortgages. Home price may come down a little bit by the tax saving one
would have, that would further reduce the demand on mortgage.
A hypothetical equity tax is extremely easy to avoid for the well equipped.
Just use a majority of one's asset as collateral to take out a loan,
preferably from a foreign entity not under US tax jurisdiction. The loan
will be deposited with an offshore custodian in safe and liquid assets. This
would generate a lot of demand for US govies!
whatever
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I was thinking net asset all along. I appologize for not make it clearer.
: One's debt is another's asset, so if we tax on asset w/o considering the
: debt, we essentially double tax on the same asset, or triple square whatever
: tax considering loan holder can borrow against the loan.
: Mortgage would shoot up, the house price would go down, I am not sure the
: cost of ownership will change by that much, isn't it the same argument for
: abandon mortgate interest deduction?
:
: earns
: to
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 68 I hear you said nothing like that will happen, I happen to hold the same
opinion on flat rate as we talk about practicality.
persons
to
owners
going
for
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: So we are talking about a 3% equity (=asset-liability) tax here, on persons
: AND corporations since the bank now must pay 3% tax on my loan, which they
: ll charge back onto me by raising my interest by 3%, which would be almost
: doubling my borrowing cost.
: To maintain the cost of ownership, municipals must get on the band wagon to
: shift the existing property tax to loan underwriters, instead of home owners
: . Please send the memo to my mortgage bank and my town hood. And I am going
: to go take out a home equity loan.
: plugging the mortgage deduction loop hole would have no effect on mortgage
: rate though. It may even reduce the mortgage rate by reducing the demand for
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 69 Well then make loan issuing entity subject to US tax jurisdiction, or the
loan is considered not exist for tax purpose. I agree it is difficult to
assess one's asset on a yearly basis, but I am not sure it would be that
difficult to find who is the owner / loan owner.
.
This
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: So we are talking about a 3% equity (=asset-liability) tax here, on persons
: AND corporations since the bank now must pay 3% tax on my loan, which they
: ll charge back onto me by raising my interest by 3%, which would be almost
: doubling my borrowing cost.
: To maintain the cost of ownership, municipals must get on the band wagon to
: shift the existing property tax to loan underwriters, instead of home owners
: . Please send the memo to my mortgage bank and my town hood. And I am going
: to go take out a home equity loan.
: plugging the mortgage deduction loop hole would have no effect on mortgage
: rate though. It may even reduce the mortgage rate by reducing the demand for
| a*********a
发帖数: 3656 | 70 yes, I see your stand point is you don't care what actual tax regime being
executed, as long as it approximates 3% of equity. It could be ones frequent
flyer mileage divided by 10 or the square footage of all of ones real
estate owning, for arguments sake.
Your college kid example in this context is extremely flawed. You want to
hit a target on equity, you want to tax a certain fraction of national
wealth. Yet you choose, as a representative example, some one with close to
0 equity, contributes almost 0 to the national wealth, and pays close to 0
tax in the current regime. Under either tax regime, there would be very
little impact on such a person and such a person would have very little
impact to the overall fairness and efficiency of the tax system.
As a matter of fact, according to your other opinion of no presentation w/o
taxation, this kid is irrelevant, one should not concern him in the
discussion of government taxation and services.
I, on the other hand, toyed with hypothetical proxies of those who
contribute a lot to the national wealth, an example of the dirty rich and an
example of small business owner and come to an conclusion that a tax that
approximates a low fixed percentage of equity is in fact highly
retrogressive in the income range where it matters the most.
For the working classes, your goal of taxation is going to further depress
the middle class, depress class mobility, reenforce the financial investment
class at the detriment of real manufacturing and servicing sectors.
I also reasoned that such an equity tax will increase the
mortgage rate, intuitively 1% for 1%, depress home value, thereby destroy
tremendous amount of wealth among home owners. Their homes are very often
the majority of the wealth of working class families. A tax on wealth
destroys wealth. Simple as that. By which time, you would have to increase
your tax rate to 4% and possibly start death spiral.
【在 S**C 的大作中提到】
: I hear you said nothing like that will happen, I happen to hold the same
: opinion on flat rate as we talk about practicality.
:
: persons
: to
: owners
: going
: for
| | | j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 71 110k is the median household NETWORTH, not income.
if the kid can earn more than 50k income, he already beats half of the
household. | S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 72 Before I get into some of your detail arguments, I want to firstly say any
tax regime change, spending level etc, especially something fundamental, if
done in a short period of time, will rock the system, as you said a death
spiral. But there is something called "gliding path" or "phase in".
Essentially, cap fed tax revenue to 20% GDP, slowly increase tax on asset,
and decrease tax on income. How long it takes? For reference, S-B's proposal
on SS reform will take about 60 years.
Then some detail parts
In your assumption, the college kid will spend all the income so he will pay
least amount of tax in his working life, and willing to suffer abject
poverty in retirement. I am not sure most working people are willing to take
the trade-off.
You assertion of "for the working classes, your goal of taxation is going to
further depress the middle class,", I do not buy it. For a 75% percentile
household married filing jointly, with $95,000 taxable income, they will pay
$15600 in tax. In new regime, they will pay $95,000*3%=$2,850 tax, the
break even point is they have 15600/0.03-95000=$425,000 net-worth. $425,000
net-worth is 82% percentile. A 75% income percentile get some tailwind till
they hit 82% percentile in networth, I doubt too much people will call it
depress.
Another datapoint, $150,000 put the household in 90%, they pay $29,466 in
tax, break even point is $832,200 net-worth, and it put them in 94%
percentile, the gap is closing, but still some tailwind. Depress?
Another one, $190,000, 95%, 1,165,000 net-worth, 97.7%. So I am asking you,
what is your definition of middle-class? top 2% maybe?
In terms of investment class, your assumption is they can get 10% average
annual return since they have assess to hedge fund and alike. You know what,
I am betting with old Warrent that they collectively will under-perform
SP500 LT after fees. And I am also betting with William Bernstein that
future equity return will be nothing like the past. His argument is based on
historical observation that return is negtively correlated with total
wealth. It was a quite convincing yet very depressing read, most depressing
read I ever have on investment related topics, and I wish he was wrong. But
I agree with him. I think they collectively will be very lucky to get
anywhere near 7% nominal return LT in equity, and very likely less. State
pension funds and pensioners will suffer badly because of this but that is
another topic. I admit if we end up with 6% that is depress for the
investment class as a whole. Even if 7% return, in the current regime, if
manage properly, 1.4% will be paid to tax, instead of 3% paid to tax if tax
was assess against asset and income evenly. A win for the investment class?
Finally, I want to thank you bring up the "death spiral" argument that I
admit I did not put enough thought initially. But it can be work off in
gliding path. My basic thesis is all assets need to be taxed equally, and
all incomes need to be taxed equally. I see no reason why assets and incomes
should be treated differently, but for practicality, if tax revenue comes
from income increase from, say, 3%*total_income to say, 4%*total_income and
gives assets a little break, so be it.
frequent
to
【在 a*********a 的大作中提到】
: yes, I see your stand point is you don't care what actual tax regime being
: executed, as long as it approximates 3% of equity. It could be ones frequent
: flyer mileage divided by 10 or the square footage of all of ones real
: estate owning, for arguments sake.
: Your college kid example in this context is extremely flawed. You want to
: hit a target on equity, you want to tax a certain fraction of national
: wealth. Yet you choose, as a representative example, some one with close to
: 0 equity, contributes almost 0 to the national wealth, and pays close to 0
: tax in the current regime. Under either tax regime, there would be very
: little impact on such a person and such a person would have very little
|
|
