Keith and Harry. You speak from a European cultural bias that directly funds its charities through the government including the Arts. I realize Harry lives in the most blessed culture in America for weather, beauty and natural resources. It's easy to draw conclusions from such plenty but hard to comprehend scarcity elsewhere. But the British and Continental support for charitables is direct and not indirect as here. California has the most productive economic resource in America in the Entertainment Industry. European support for culture and American West Coast Luxury the dream of every Okie during the depression and they are still playing it down as we enter another possible depression. Harry will have to pay to defend what he has or his kids will, when people start migrating again to the West for a job. Naturally Californians "poor mouth" themselves which pisses off Texans (remember Enron?).
A direct subsidy for culture and charitables is not what happens in the rest of America including the musical capital at Lincoln Center. That is not what happens America and is why the idea of a Flat Tax constitutes theft from the culture since the wealthy gain nothing by supporting charitables and culture if they have no tax break as in the flat tax. David Koch got his name put on the "New York State Theater" at Lincoln Center when he "donated" over a hundred million to renovate one theater. Of course the American people gave him 33 million in return as a tax break and this privateer gets to put his name on the theater funded by the people New York State and go down in history as a supporter of the Arts when in effect he is trying the kill the arts by actively pushing the "Flat Tax" structure through his foundations and the Cato Institute. What you and Harry don't seem to realize is that the American system is built on the private support for non-profits and that the tax break constitutes incentive. Without that incentive there is only the unselfish, altruistic, goodness of their heart or Christian conscience of the wealthy (remember there is less direct government support for the Arts and Charitables in America than from the City of New York's Department of Cultural Affairs) and we see how far that goes. When followers of Ayn Rand preach her sermons they rarely examine the luxurious context in Hollywood that she wrote from. She had as much of a knowledge of the real America as any other Russian Immigrant writing movie scripts about Indians that furthered genocide and prejudice and made us their stand in for the Japanese during WWII. I've fought that all of my life and Rand was definitely a minority in the religion that she refused to acknowledge and the deep springs that within her mind turned putrid. We have versions of such things in our communities as well. They create division, show no generosity and have no sense of the whole of reality beyond their own province. A fact which indicates how far they have traveled in the seven levels of their spirituality. Such people would have cut down all of the Sequoyah Redwoods long ago and opened Yosemite to private enterprise and built dams in the valley as they did once before in Yosemite and at Glen Canyon. They forgot their mother and converted to the religion of the African termite. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:26 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Harry Pollard Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Progressive taxation -- what a concept! 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 <[email protected]> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[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 Toronto Star March 21, 2012 These high-income docs want the rich to pay Thomas Walkom* Here’s a novel idea. A new organization of well-paid doctors thinks that they — and other high-income earners — should pay more in taxes. “Who knows?†physician Michael Rachlis, one of the founders of Doctors for Fair Taxation, told me Wednesday. “Maybe we’ll start a trend. Maybe we’ll see a Lawyers for Fair Taxation start up.†I’m not going to hold my breath. Still, it’s refreshing to see someone stand up for a more progressive tax system. The conventional wisdom these days is that progressivity in taxation — the notion that people should pay proportionally more as their incomes rise — is counterproductive. Most governments don’t have the nerve to scrap progressive taxation entirely. So they’ve 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. They’ve 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 there’s the obvious point. Governments almost invariably deal with their fiscal problems by cutting back spending on health care. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s federal Conservatives and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s 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. That’s 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 won’t spook voters. Yet, there’s nothing wrong with having the well-to-do pay more. It’s fair. It works. We’ve 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 doesn’t 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. They’re right. Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday. _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [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 <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
