Tax Bill

[SunOfBeach]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, everyone should be guarenteed enough substance for a minimally flourishing life.


[/ QUOTE ]

why? what gives you the right to morally justify taking from me to give to someone else? why dont YOU just give something to him, and get your hand out of MY pocket?

anyway, getting to the tax issue - what about a REGRESSIVE income tax, with the marginal tax rate going DOWN as incomes go up. instead of an incentive to be a lazy bum and live off of the labor of others, it would create an incentive to actually get to work and produce something.

PS i talked to the real noam on 4 occasions while i was up there, and while hes obviously a pompous buffoon, the more annoying point is what a PHONY and FRAUD he is. whats up with all the talk of the common man and living a meager life from a guy with a $1.2 million beach house in cape cod (as his SECOND home)? or how about the bashing of the DOD that he has cashed checks of over THREE MILLION DOLLARS FROM over the last 30 years?

[SunOfBeach]

finally, a voice of reason. hallelujah.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually if this passes you'll see less money paid in dividends

[/ QUOTE ]

What is your reasoning?

[adios]

There will be more tax effecient ways to distribute profits to shareholders.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at this concept of distributive justice and the transfer of wealth from one angle, a similiar concept to the tournament chips being more useful in a short stack than a big stack (gold / copper).

If you have 1000 bananas and I have 0, 10 of those bananas are going to have much more use to me (fighting off starvation) than they will to you.

With money this is true as well. To a millionaire, $50 is not a lot, to someone with no money what-so-ever this is a significant amount that will bring them great happiness and has a much higher value to that person. In short, everyone should be guarenteed enough substance for a minimally flourishing life.

This costs very little for one party to provide, and gives alot to the party receiving it.

Is it "right"? For me the concept of right and wrong do not exist. What simply exists is functionality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether he misses the bananas or not is moot. They're his bananas to do with what he chooses. To think otherwise is to be pro-theft and pro-slavery. Forcing me to provide for the subsistence others against my will is nothing more than economic slavery.

You say right and wrong do not exist, then talk about justice and and that everyone should be guaranteed a minimal subsistence. Why? In saying this you're making a statement about what you find moral or immoral (right or wrong), whether you choose to admit it or not. Certainly the world would be more "functional" without a bunch of deadbeats.

[ QUOTE ]
There will be more tax effecient ways to distribute profits to shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following you. If dividends aren't taxed, they would be a more efficient way to distribute profits. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There will be more tax effecient ways to distribute profits to shareholders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following you. If dividends aren't taxed, they would be a more efficient way to distribute profits. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say dividends aren't taxed??????????????????????

Where did I say that if dividends aren't taxed that it's a necessarily a less efficient way to distribute profits to shareholders?

Dividends aren't necessicarily the most effecient way to distribute profits even if the current 15% on dividend distributions was removed but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that a higher tax rate that 15% on dividend distributions could very likely lead to less revenue tax revenue to the government from dividend distributions.

[ QUOTE ]
Dividends aren't necessicarily the most effecient way to distribute profits even if the current 15% on dividend distributions was removed but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that a higher tax rate that 15% on dividend distributions could very likely lead to less revenue tax revenue to the government from dividend distributions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Settle down, big guy. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that if dividend taxes remained low or were lowered that vcompanies would distribute less. I thought that was what your statement that I quoted in my above post meant.

But now you've peaked my curiosity as to what methods you would feel are more efficient than simply returning the excess profits in the form of cash to its owners.

[Khern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In short, everyone should be guarenteed enough substance for a minimally flourishing life.

[/ QUOTE ]




"Minimal flourishing life" seems to be an oxymoron. Where do you draw the line? And, maybe more important, who draws the line?


Even F.A. Hayek, in The Road to Surfdom, comments that our society should be able to meet that basic needs of people. This surprised me and prompted me to consider what level might represent those basic needs, and whether or not society is reasonably able to provide that. I'm interested in Libertarians feelings about Hayek in that instance. (If I can find a quote I will, but I'm not exactly sure where it was at the moment.)

John

[ QUOTE ]
Disagree. In the case of dividends, its an example of double-dipping by the government. First they tax the corporations, Then they tax the after-tax distributions. Either make dividends tax exempt, or eliminate the corporate income tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about my income that I get from working at the corporation? The corporation's income is taxed, and then the money they give me for working there is taxed. That's double-dipping too, right?

I don't see a big difference between the investors in a corporation and the workers in the corporation (from a tax perspective, that is).