Ideas on how to properly tax and spend

You seem to have things reversed...we, the people created government which derives all its power and legitimacy from those people...

- - - Updated - - -

Government DOES issue car titles..if you doubt it, try to sell the thing without the title...

 

This is so dumb I don't even know where to begin. I'll just have to address each stupid point in turn.
1. You should look up the meaning of adequate. At best, your hypothetical demonstrates that income is not a perfect indicator of economic well-being. It's adequate, or "good enough," because your extreme example almost never exists in the real world. Besides, I have already said that economic well-being is an adequate - though not perfect - indicator of economic well-being. I think you're conscious of your own error. It would explain why you've omitted the "not perfect" part of my original statement.
2. "General falsity?" Let's explore the stupidity of this remark. You claim to have demonstrated that it is "generally false" that net income is an adequate indicator of economic well-being based on a hypothetical that you have admitted is an extreme example. In other words, because income is clearly not an adequate measure of economic well-being to the billionaire netting no income, it must generally be the case that net income is not an adequate measure of economic well-being for everyone else. Speaking of non sequitur…

Where did I argue that net worth is an inadequate indicator of economic well-being? I simply said net income is an adequate indicator. And that it is better than asset taxation because it doesn’t have the valuation and liquidity problems. But I see that you must resort to straw men in your desperate attempt to save face here.

It is true that net income does not indicate the total amount that one can afford to pay at a given time. Assets definitely provide a better picture for that purpose. But net income does show what one is able to pay in a given year. Since taxes are collected annually, net income is an adequate measure of economic well-being for the purpose of taxation.

Except this only proves the point I made earlier:

Yet once again, you re-characterize my argument in your desperate grasping for straws. You claim that when I say net income is an adequate – though not perfect – indicator of economic well-being, I am actually saying that if citizen A earns more than citizen B in one year, citizen A necessarily has greater economic-wellbeing than citizen B even if it turns out that citizen B has greater net worth than citizen A. This merely demonstrates how income taxation is not a perfect indicator of economic well-being. In order to show that it is an inadequate measure of economic well-being, you have to show that the disparity in your above example occurs consistently and frequently. I don’t think you’re prepared to do that.

Again, I fully admit that the disparity in your example does happen. I never intended to deny that. And it is also true that this disparity could be avoided entirely by switching to an asset-based taxation system. However, an asset-based taxation system is so flawed that it isn’t worth the effort. In my previous posts, I was more concerned with explaining why income-taxation is superior (or less inferior) than all other method of taxation. Now I will focus specifically on the relationship between asset taxation and income taxation to explain why the former would be undesirable. I’ll ignore valuation and liquidity for now and address them later on in this post.

1. Double-taxation – An asset-based taxation system would inevitably result in double-taxation. An income-based taxation system does not result in double-taxation (except for corporate shareholders). If you think I’m wrong, please explain how an asset-tax regime would not result in double-taxation.
2. Consumption – An asset-based taxation system would give taxpayers an incentive to spend their income on consumption rather than saving or investing. Increased consumption isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But reduced saving and investing is. Say a taxpayer gets a bonus and has a choice between buying stock in Corporation A or spending that money on a family vacation? He would have a strong tax incentive for choosing the latter.

Actually, you’ve either intentionally (and quite dishonestly) re-characterized my claims or you don’t understand the difference between “adequate” and “perfect.”

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they were logical fallacies. What do I get out of making them? Do you think that I somehow enjoy greater benefits in an income-based tax regime than I would in a wealth-based tax regime?

You provided a little more substance in this post. But your previous post consisted mostly of you repeating the same thing over and over again.

You have in fact utterly demolished the straw men you set-up in place of my arguments. I’ll give you that. But you went overboard attempting to equate perfection with adequacy.

This assumes that gambling necessarily results in reducing everyone’s economic well-being. To a professional gambler who wins more than he loses, that tax has the effect of reducing his economic well-being.

In addition, I said that all taxation discourages attainment of economic well-being. I did not say that all taxation reduces one’s ability to retain economic well-being.

It is true that encouraging consumption isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But when it comes at the cost of discouraging people from investing or saving, it is too pricy.

Do you really think we want to discourage people from buying a home and building equity?

For all of your faults, at least you are not an advocate of the fair tax.

Yet you will refrain from explaining why that matters and just hang your hat on the thought that somebody out there probably once wrote something about it. Got it.

Though I’m curious to know exactly which proposition you are challenging:
1. Taxation reduces one’s inclination to acquire income, regardless of when they are taxed.
2. That they’re taxed the same amount in the end.

If that is the case, then asset taxation is an illogical method of taxation because it punishes people for obtaining wealth. Does it not punish people for obtaining wealth?

I’m curious to know why that is a controversial statement. Can you honestly come-up with a form of taxation that does not affect wealth?

Even a consumption tax affects wealth. If you’re paying more to consume the good, that’s more money being channeled from your net wealth.

I assume you are referring to real property taxation by municipalities and other local governments. But your reliance on that system is misguided.
1. The administrative costs are in fact very high for property taxes. Local governments must keep track of home values by employing assessors who inspect the properties, study market trends and determine the added value of a new addition or home renovation.
2. A wealth-tax would not only require assessing the value of real property. It would require assessing the value of all nonwasting assets. To claim that all nonwasting personal property can be valued easily is just plain silly.

Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of net worth. It includes more than just real property. It incomes all nonwasting assets (assets lasting more than a year).

In this very same post you were defending the net worth tax. You used the words “net worth.” A net worth, or “wealth” tax, typically includes all household assets.

Your attempt to narrow your intended meaning of the net worth tax to “real property” is suspicious. One can’t help but assume that this is your way of retracting a losing argument.

Didn’t you say before that a net worth tax wouldn’t present a liquidity problem because the people could just sell some of their taxed assets and pay the tax liability? So you meant that selling one’s home to pay a tax liability doesn’t present a liquidity problem. L O L.

What if their home is their only asset? That seems plausible in an asset tax regime. You have said that an asset tax would not create a disincentive for people to earn income because they could simply spend that income on consumption instead of assets (including stock) to avoid the asset tax. So what if, as a result of this regime, someone’s only asset is his home. He must sell his home in order to avoid the tax.

This is the dumbest thing you have said:
1. Liquidity is defined as

When someone is forced to sell property to pay a tax liability, do you think that affects price? And just how liquid do you think real estate is? Are you not aware of the current market?
2. The worst part is where you claim that this somehow makes the market “more liquid.” Wow. Just wow. How exactly does a property transaction make the market more liquid? Is there more money in the market as a result of the sale? Or is there exactly the same amount of money in the market that there was before because that money is just in someone else’s hands? Or perhaps you are saying that putting a piece of property on the market makes similar properties more liquid (easier to sell). How does having more competition on the market make property more liquid?

Ah yes. Now the ad ad hominem. If I disagree with you, I must be defending the rich.

What good does it do for lawyers to “be on the side of property?” I don’t even know what that means. I assume it means that they’re against an asset tax.

What subsidies? They are probably already paying real property taxes to the local government. What federal subsidies are they receiving?

I won’t deny that there is a good utilitarian argument for taxing real property. Whoever has the highest-valued use for the property is more likely to purchase it and put it to that highest valued use. But the downsides are too great.

True. Arguing with the mentally challenged is somewhat embarrassing.

What an absurd mischaracterization. How many of those pages do you think are used to calculate the average person’s income?

I won’t argue that the tax code is not complicated. But it is easier to apply a tax code to determine one’s liability based on his income and the sources of that income than it is to determine one’s liability based on the theoretical FMV of a piece of property. The theoretical value of property will always be contested because it is subjective. That value will depend on the assumptions used by the appraiser. The value of one’s net income is derived from objective, though albeit complicated, rules.

And I find it laughable that you now claim that people would own stock under your asset tax regime when you previously claimed that people will not be disincentivized from acquiring income because they will devote their income to consumption instead of acquiring assets. You seem to want it both ways. When it suits your argument, you claim that valuation will be easy because this will apply to stock, and stock is easily valued. But when it hurts your argument, you claim that people won’t buy stock because they’ll just consume all of their income to avoid paying the wealth tax.

I can just taste your desperation. I said you receive income every year in a certain dollar amount. From this, you pretend to infer that I’m saying that all people take income solely in dollars every year, and that someone can avoid taxation by taking payment in kind. This is a classic straw man. You’re re-writing my argument so that someone with your limited facilities can defeat it.

It is true that someone can take payment in kind under the income taxation system. It’s unavoidable. And it does present valuation problems. But this doesn’t make the whole income tax system crumble because the vast majority of income is not in kind. And when it is in kind, it is most often publicly traded stock, which as you keep pointing out, is easy to value. The problem is that you are advocating a scheme that would require taxation not only for publicly traded stock, but real property as well. I’m not sure what else you would include in your hybrid system of the wealth tax as you seem to be making it up as you go along.

It’s generally a matter of answering the questions on the IRS form. You don’t have to sort through the code.

Except what you propose would be terrible for the taxpayer. If you weren’t already aware, when property is seized by a local government for failure to pay tax, the property is subject to a tax sale. The government is only concerned with selling the property for the balance of the liability. Thus, in tax sales, the property often sells for less than its fair market value. The proceeds of the sale, if any, go back to the owner. The owner basically gets (*)(*)(*)(*)ed by your solution. Whereas someone subject to withholding under an income tax regime does not face a similar penalty.

Non sequitur.

Are you familiar with the term hyperbole?

I don’t know about the cost of stock broker fees. It may very well be that low. But once again, you aren’t talking about simply taxing stock. You’re talking real property as well. After all, you did say a net worth tax. Are you going to retract even further now by claiming that you only meant a tax on stock? Moreover, as you have said before, few people will buy stock. The asset tax won’t be a disincentive for them to acquire income because they’ll spend much of their income on consumption to avoid the asset tax. Remember saying that?

Real property broker fees are typically 5%.

And to say that the burden of the income tax is solely on the poor is patently stupid. But I’m so used to seeing the stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) that you write that I’m now desensitized.

Laughable. First you say there’s no liquidity problem because they can just sell the assets. Now you say asset taxation rarely results in liquidation, so it does not result in greater transaction costs than income taxation. Your inconsistencies are intolerable.

Speaking of making (*)(*)(*)(*) up….

I’m finished arguing with the disabled.

 

Hehe. A government created not by the people but by land"owners" who permitted only land"owners" to vote...

Wrong again. The title is issued by the maker. Government just registers it. But no one ever got a land title from land's maker.

 

I don't have time today to demolish this stupid, dishonest garbage as comprehensively and conclusively as I've demolished your previous stupid, dishonest garbage. Believe it or not, I'm moving. But I'll try to get to it next week.

 

You really do live in a fantasy world of magic land realities...

 

What a gracious concession of defeat...