Harry,
Good to see you emerging from the woodwork. I
totally agree with what you have written. The
more "progressive" a tax system is the more it
will be successfully evaded by the rich because
they can always employ cleverer people than politicians or civil servants.
There's only one tax that's fair and which can't
be evaded. This is a flat tax on the value of
possessions which are publicly exhibited for
status reasons -- house, personal jewellery, car,
airplane, etc. This would even catch those who
have no provable income but are suspected of
being major criminals. If a very rich person
(e.g. Warren Buffet) wants to avoid heavy
taxation by living simply, well, that's fine. If
he isn't spending his money personally then it's
either being invested (giving jobs to others) or
it's going to a charity (for public benefit). If
someone who derives his wealth from the citizens
of country A wants to avoid taxation by living
and enjoying his personal possessions in country
B for all or part of the year, well, that's fine,
too. If X is the number of days he spends abroad
then Government A simply requisitions his
corporate possessions in country A for that
financial year (and receives income therefrom) in the ratio X/365.
Keith
At 16:37 10/04/2012, you wrote:
Progressive taxation is a terrible concept.
If you are rich because governmental actions
give you a special privilege you should pay it
all back - in other words the special deal should be removed.
If you are rich because you produce things - or
provide services - that people want, you shouldn't pay anything.
There is an economic argument that if taxation
reduces the income of someone who is needed in
the system, then taxing him, thereby reducing
his take, will make his occupation less
attractive to new prospects, thus producing a
shortage. To induce more people to undergo the
training and devote the time needed to join this
occupation, wages will rise, perhaps to a point
where after tax income will be at the required
level to keep the occupation manned (or womanned)!
In other words, the tax payment is avoided by the intended target.
So, who pays the tax? Well, the customer always
pays. This result can be noted when it is
suggested that instead of taxing the common
people, taxes on business will be increased.
(They are trying to do this in Los Angeles now.)
So, business pays the tax and promptly passes it on to their customers.
So the idiots who support a "business tax" pay it themselves.
Harry
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:12 AM, michael gurstein
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:18 PM
Subject: Progressive taxation -- what a concept!
*
<http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1149981--walkom-these-high-income-docs-want-the-rich-to-pay>http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1149981--walkom-these-high-income-docs-want-the-rich-to-pay
Toronto
Star
March 21, 2012
These high-income docs want the rich to pay
Thomas Walkom*
Hereâs a novel idea. A new organization of
well-paid doctors thinks that they â and other
high-income earners â should pay more in taxes.
âWho knows?â physician Michael Rachlis, one
of the founders of Doctors for Fair Taxation,
told me Wednesday. âMaybe weâll start a
trend. Maybe weâll see a Lawyers for Fair Taxation start up.â
Iâm not going to hold my breath. Still, itâs
refreshing to see someone stand up for a more progressive tax system.
The conventional wisdom these days is that
progressivity in taxation â the notion that
people should pay proportionally more as their
incomes rise â is counterproductive.
Most governments donât have the nerve to scrap
progressive taxation entirely. So theyâve been
doing it gradually by reducing the number of
income-tax brackets and by raising more money
through user fees and consumption levies like the HST.
Theyâve have been aided and abetted in this by
mainstream economists who argue, usually without
any proof, that taxes on income discourage people from working.
The upshot of this, as a recent study from the
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
demonstrates, is that the poor in Canada now pay
a greater share of their income to government in
the form of taxes than do the ultra rich.
Which is the antithesis of the bargain made when
governments first began to levy income taxes almost 100 years ago.
Doctors for Fair Taxation argues that a more
progressive tax system would be good for human health.
First thereâs the obvious point. Governments
almost invariably deal with their fiscal
problems by cutting back spending on health
care. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harperâs
federal Conservatives and Ontario Premier Dalton
McGuintyâs Liberals are heading down this path.
The second point, well-known since the 1970s, is
that poverty breeds poor health. The uber-rich
may not like sharing their money with the very
poor. But doing so increases the overall health
of Canadian society and, in the end, is both
cheaper and more efficient than allowing an underclass to fester.
The third point, demonstrated by history, is
that society as a whole does better when there
are fewer income extremes. Such stolidly
middle-class societies tend to be more stable,
less violent and more productive.
The suggestions by Doctors for Fair Taxation are
modest. The group recommends that the federal
and provincial governments create four new tax
brackets for those earning more than $100,000.
Someone with a taxable income of $170,000 would
pay an extra $1,400. But someone earning $7
million would pay an extra $787,400.
Rachlis figures the scheme would net Ottawa an
extra $3.5 billion a year and Ontario an additional $1.7 billion.
Thatâs not enough to wipe out the deficit for
either level of government. But it would go partway along the path.
More to the point, it would preclude the need for drastic spending cuts.
Up to now, the anti-tax movement has held centre
stage. Even leftish politicians are reluctant to
talk of taxing the wealthy. In Ontario, New
Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath focuses
instead on taxing anonymous corporations, in the
hope that this wonât spook voters.
Yet, thereâs nothing wrong with having the
well-to-do pay more. Itâs fair. It works. Weâve done it successfully.
So kudos to this new pro-tax bunch. Usually,
when people talk of taxing the rich, they
exclude themselves. This group may be quixotic.
But at least it doesnât employ that dodge.
The average gross income for Ontario physicians
is about $325,000. Doctors for Fair Taxation
reckon people making that kind of money can pay a little more. Theyâre right.
Thomas Walkomâs column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
