Not going to quote to save space. Second point first. Reread my post. I didn't say you would disagree with my statement, I said you probably wouldn't like the results. You can agree without liking, kind of like recognizing a sports score when your team loses. At least you are honest abut agreeing, which is far more than I can say about a number of left-leaning posters on here. I think you probably did not like the results when you read my first posts on the subject, but I need to make it clearer that I am quite positively impressed by your willingness to accept the data. I don't think we are far apart on what needs to be done. Unfortunately, neither D's nor R's can seem to figure it out.

As for the first point, I totally agree on the need for an objective standard. We have those on the right saying that taxes are too high and those on the left saying that taxes are too low, and in reality there's some truth to both, but it's a far more complex and nuanced issue, as I think you are correctly suggesting. I don't think that those who say we are overtaxed, or those who say that the "rich" are not paying their "fair share," have ever looked at it with respect to any objective standard. I give you credit for admitting that we need an objective standard, just find it odd that you would argue that we need an objective standard while not providing or suggesting what one might be. I filled that gap by suggesting one. Anybody else got any other ideas?

As for your comment about whether th system is set up to overtax the "rich," I think it is set up to give the appearance of doing so for political purposes, but it fails in fact to do so because the "rich," like corporations, can find better things to do with their money than pay taxes with it.

Quote:Not going to quote to save space. Second point first. Reread my post. I didn't say you would disagree with my statement, I said you probably wouldn't like the results. You can agree without liking, kind of like recognizing a sports score when your team loses. At least you are honest abut agreeing, which is far more than I can say about a number of left-leaning posters on here. I think you probably did not like the results when you read my first posts on the subject, but I need to make it clearer that I am quite positively impressed by your willingness to accept the data. I don't think we are far apart on what needs to be done. Unfortunately, neither D's nor R's can seem to figure it out.

In the past, discussions about a flat tax rate have been coupled with a minimum income and other safety nets being employed to protect those lower and middle income earners. That we are aware of the way in which flat taxes can disproportionately affect the lowest earners is, in my opinion, extremely important to the discussion of this sort of taxation change. Going on memory, and excuse me if I'm incorrect, but I want to say you agreed with that and would just prefer more social democratic ways of taxation and corporate taxing, like Germanys (again, IIRC), and similarly, with their forms of safety nets they have available. I'm fine with the former as long as the latter is included with the changes.

Quote:As for the first point, I totally agree on the need for an objective standard. We have those on the right saying that taxes are too high and those on the left saying that taxes are too low, and in reality there's some truth to both, but it's a far more complex and nuanced issue, as I think you are correctly suggesting. I don't think that those who say we are overtaxed, or those who say that the "rich" are not paying their "fair share," have ever looked at it with respect to any objective standard. I give you credit for admitting that we need an objective standard, just find it odd that you would argue that we need an objective standard while not providing or suggesting what one might be. I filled that gap by suggesting one. Anybody else got any other ideas?

Again, I think you're taking my criticism in a direction it was never intended to go. The only point I was making was to focus on the stopping of the anecdotal-like based evidence that "if people think they're overtaxed, they're overtaxed" which is just lazy and wholly without any significant merit. Even if I have no good answer for what quantifiable metric we should use, I can absolutely point out the dangers and invalidity of using a metric that is so obviously poorly thought out. I think you can agree there is value to pointing out inherently flawed ways of thinking, and that was all I was attempting to do. I don't have to know the ins and outs of international tax code and how to best measure them to know that public perception is not a valid way to measure it, and since I don't know the former, I made it a point not to really comment on that portion of the subject.

(08-31-2015 12:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for the first point, I totally agree on the need for an objective standard.

Here is the problem with the entire issue though.

Trump made a statement that even the article says, if you look at it from the right perspective, he is accurate... and those who (for a variety of reasons, both reasonable and not) want to discount his quip choose perspectives from which he is not and claim that this makes it 'false'.

The 'objective' measure we seek is a relative one... and it is also dependent on unrelated factors... but the bottom line (imo) is a few simple questions.

Companies and 'the wealthy' can move their money/HQ/Tax home. So the simple questions are, if we lowered our rates that impact them, would we bring more of their money, and the jobs that money funds here or not? Similarly, if we raised them, would we lose them? The answer, particularly for manufacturers in a global economy (as opposed to pizza makers and other things that can only be done 'here') is yes.

Our 'labor' can't move... which is why so many focus on lowering the overall spending rate because that is the only way to reduce the impact on MOST people here as they have to 'make up' whatever shortcoming remains after corporations and the wealthy move their money around.

If you can spend less or get more from the investor class, then you can require less from 'labor'. The trick is to get more from investors without pushing them to other taxation jurisdictions.

Consumption taxes are a way to do this, and a prebate can protect the poor and much of the middle class.