The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Butterfly · 12-07-2006, 10:40 AM

^ long term ? who cares !!! it's all party time for now as long as it lasts

Marmite the Dog · 12-07-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Where is the money to build the roads to speed along in your Jag gonna come from, then?

Err, taxes. Can't you read?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

President Bush's chief budget official says . . . . Rob Portman

A nice unbiased view then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family.

Gates said that he wasn't going to leave all his wealth to his kids. They're still going to get more than all of us put together will make in a lifetime.

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ I think a progressive tax system is not that bad. I mean how many yacht or houses do you need ? It's just a question of scale, maybe a 10% difference in tax between rich and poor would be sufficient. However politically it doesn't look good, and that's difference is much bigger. Let's face it, everyone hates the very rich, so we shouldn't feel sorry for them. They have more than enough.

But how can a society treat one person unfairly based on wealth? A prosperous and just society should treat all the same. The person buying those additional houses, yachts, etc. is still going to pay a lot of tax but at least is the same percentage as everyone else. If the person spends more then it's not the fault of anyone else, so, no complaints. I disagree with graduated tax schemes as it's not fair to those at the bottom of a tax bracket since they end up paying more than those at the top of the bracket below them.

Make it fair and make everyone over a certain amount pay the same percent on purchases.

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I think the problem is that the rich find to may loopholes to exploit ... and both the Democrats and Republicans let them get away with it.

I must admit though I'm intrigued by Buffet and Gates who say they aren't going to leave their wealth to their family. I kinda think estate tax should be very high for the rich ... I'm not sure on that one.

Loopholes exist for one reason: to lower the burden of an unfair tax system. And the loopholes aren't good unless one earns enough to use them. So the loopholes themselves are unfair. Couple that with homefare (the condition where the government subsidizes home purchases by allowing tax write-offs of interest on home loans) and you end up with an unbalanced system.

I think estate taxes are immoral. If I'm poor (which I was when I was born) and work hard and save money for my children why should the government take part of that? I already paid tax on my income so why should it be taxed again when I die?

Storekeeper · 12-07-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Couple that with homefare (the condition where the government subsidizes home purchases by allowing tax write-offs of interest on home loans) and you end up with an unbalanced system.

This is kind of not true. Many people with mortgages don't qualify for the tax write off if it's less than the standard deduction. Speaking from experience.

Butterfly · 12-07-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

A prosperous and just society should treat all the same

but there is a logic flaw here in your argument. You assume we should all be treated equally. If we were, we would all be rich and pay the same amount of tax. Since this is not the case, to equalize everybody, the rich pay more to pay for social benefits for those unlucky ones. The alternatives would be to throw all those poors out in the forrest, but I don't think it would work.

It's not about being "treated" fairly, but about "contributing" fairly.

Marmite the Dog · 12-07-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

but there is a logic flaw here in your argument. You assume we should all be treated equally. If we were, we would all be rich and pay the same amount of tax.

That is simply not true. Some people are not going to get 'rich' because they are not as intelligent, lucky, driven, have the right aquaintances or many other reasons. We deserve to be treated equally and given equal opportunities, but at the end of the day, people are not equal in their abilities, their desires or their drive.

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

Couple that with homefare (the condition where the government subsidizes home purchases by allowing tax write-offs of interest on home loans) and you end up with an unbalanced system.

This is kind of not true. Many people with mortgages don't qualify for the tax write off if it's less than the standard deduction. Speaking from experience.

That illustrates my point. You can't get it because you don't earn enough, but, someone else does because their income is higher.

So, get rid of the deduction all together. There's no excuse why a tax form should be large than a postcard.

stroller · 12-07-2006, 12:50 PM

^
^
That's right. So why should people be assumed to be equal when it comes to taxation?
Income-based taxation is a straightforward way to treat people according to their different status and abilities etc. to get the money to pay for those public amenities etc. (well, that's the theory of it).

Otherwise you may as well move to Nigeria, for example. The state won't bother too much to "steal" from your income, you'll be able to spend it all on the latest mercedes - pity there aren't any roads suitable for anything but a 4-wheel drive, every car owner with enough land is free to build their own roads with their low-taxed income.

stroller · 12-07-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

I think estate taxes are immoral. If I'm poor (which I was when I was born) and work hard and save money for my children why should the government take part of that? I already paid tax on my income so why should it be taxed again when I die?

I believe the non-taxed allowance is quite high for this?
It's taxed as it becomes someone else's income when it is passed on.

Almost all money is taxed every time it changes hands. For example, when you buy something, this money has been taxed already when you received it, now there's a sales tax (VAT) on it, the profit the storeowner keeps will be taxed again as their income.

Marmite the Dog · 12-07-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

That's right. So why should people be assumed to be equal when it comes to taxation? Income-based taxation is a straightforward way to treat people according to their different status and abilities etc. to get the money to pay for those public amenities etc. (well, that's the theory of it).

Are you having trouble reading today?

I said that there should be income tax, but at ONE RATE FOR EVERYBODY because those who earn more automatically pay more.

stroller · 12-07-2006, 02:05 PM

I was referring to progressive taxation, sorry if this wasn't clear.
I doubt there'd be enough tax-income with the same rate for everyone to keep a high quality of services. Even most conservatives agree with progressive taxation, but squibble about the percentages.

Storekeeper · 12-07-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surasak

That illustrates my point. You can't get it because you don't earn enough, but, someone else does because their income is higher.

In most cases it would (might) prove your point. But in many cases the mortgage is so low it's less than the standard deduction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the standard dedection isn't based on income ... it's factored on whether you're single, married and how many dependents you have ?

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 02:40 PM

But itemized deductions are based on income. Standard deductions usually apply for those whose income level is too low to itemize because you can't get back more than you pay unless it's a credit (like child care, EIC, etc.)

Marmite the Dog · 12-07-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

I was referring to progressive taxation, sorry if this wasn't clear.

No. It wasn't clear at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

I doubt there'd be enough tax-income with the same rate for everyone to keep a high quality of services.

I believe in less services anyway (see the ism thread I think).

I believe that those who can afford it should have to pay for their own healthcare and contribute to private pensions.

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 04:33 PM

^ I agree as well, there are far too many roles that the government assumes and should not, thus, resulting in higher spending than necessary. Take social security schemes, for one.

man with no head · 12-07-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

^
^
That's right. So why should people be assumed to be equal when it comes to taxation?
Income-based taxation is a straightforward way to treat people according to their different status and abilities etc. to get the money to pay for those public amenities etc. (well, that's the theory of it).

Otherwise you may as well move to Nigeria, for example. The state won't bother too much to "steal" from your income, you'll be able to spend it all on the latest mercedes - pity there aren't any roads suitable for anything but a 4-wheel drive, every car owner with enough land is free to build their own roads with their low-taxed income.

Consumption tax is a better idea. For example, taxes on gasoline or diesel pay for road construction and maintenance. Taxes on land pay for fire, police, and schools. Etc.

There's no need for income tax. Raise the revenue elsewhere. Taxing income is akin to slavery if part of your earnings automatically go to the government.

Covertjay · 12-07-2006, 04:38 PM

Especially if you get fuck all for it.

stroller · 12-07-2006, 05:20 PM

Consumption tax is not a bad thing, another option I'd favor is that you may decide in which section your (income)tax-money is spent.
A combination of the two would put a severe damper on military overspending, for example. Why should the hard-working US tax-payer finance SK getting his arse tanned in Thailand?

I also like to point out, that in some countries, Germany for example, a sizable portion of wage deductions are for the pension scheme and health insurance, and are listed as such. You have the choice to opt for the state insurance or for private cover, but as an employee one must be covered for both.
That's hardly robbery or slavery, is it?

12-07-2006, 05:20 PM	#159 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	Consumption tax is not a bad thing, another option I'd favor is that you may decide in which section your (income)tax-money is spent. A combination of the two would put a severe damper on military overspending, for example. Why should the hard-working US tax-payer finance SK getting his arse tanned in Thailand? I also like to point out, that in some countries, Germany for example, a sizable portion of wage deductions are for the pension scheme and health insurance, and are listed as such. You have the choice to opt for the state insurance or for private cover, but as an employee one must be covered for both. That's hardly robbery or slavery, is it? Last edited by stroller : 12-07-2006 at 05:23 PM.

12-07-2006, 10:40 AM	#141 (permalink)
Butterfly Suspended Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 11,645	^ long term ? who cares !!! it's all party time for now as long as it lasts

12-07-2006, 12:50 PM	#149 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	^ ^ That's right. So why should people be assumed to be equal when it comes to taxation? Income-based taxation is a straightforward way to treat people according to their different status and abilities etc. to get the money to pay for those public amenities etc. (well, that's the theory of it). Otherwise you may as well move to Nigeria, for example. The state won't bother too much to "steal" from your income, you'll be able to spend it all on the latest mercedes - pity there aren't any roads suitable for anything but a 4-wheel drive, every car owner with enough land is free to build their own roads with their low-taxed income.

12-07-2006, 02:05 PM	#152 (permalink)
stroller Kraut Last Online: 01-07-2008 11:03 AM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: under the headphones Posts: 17,181	I was referring to progressive taxation, sorry if this wasn't clear. I doubt there'd be enough tax-income with the same rate for everyone to keep a high quality of services. Even most conservatives agree with progressive taxation, but squibble about the percentages.

12-07-2006, 02:40 PM	#154 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	But itemized deductions are based on income. Standard deductions usually apply for those whose income level is too low to itemize because you can't get back more than you pay unless it's a credit (like child care, EIC, etc.)

12-07-2006, 04:33 PM	#156 (permalink)
man with no head Somewhere Travelling Last Online: 11-08-2007 07:39 PM Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,424	^ I agree as well, there are far too many roles that the government assumes and should not, thus, resulting in higher spending than necessary. Take social security schemes, for one.

12-07-2006, 04:38 PM	#158 (permalink)
Covertjay Petchabun Last Online: 26-08-2007 01:27 AM Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bangkok Posts: 174	Especially if you get fuck all for it.