|
How taxes work. | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 16:24:23 |
|
The dichotomy I would like to see resolved WRT tax | by romandas | 2007-07-03 17:30:32 |
|
How are you 'punishing' the wealthy? | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 17:33:56 |
|
Taxing someone higher than someone else | by romandas | 2007-07-03 17:43:14 |
|
Not doing that is punishing the poor | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 17:55:37 |
|
No, it's being fair. | by romandas | 2007-07-03 18:04:58 |
|
Unless the tax rate is 100% | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 18:08:51 |
|
Actually, the entire monetary system.. | by romandas | 2007-07-03 18:21:41 |
|
Without a government, you don't have a single | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 19:08:02 |
|
How is a flat tax *rate* serfdom? | by esbita | 2007-07-03 19:44:06 |
|
He was also saying that deducting more from those | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 20:02:18 |
| It's simple common sense. |
by esbita |
2007-07-03 20:45:40 |
And please note that I said "some," not many.
Take my dad, for example. He's a pharmacist. Highly skilled, highly paid profession. Not nearly enough of them, all over-worked. He just dropped back to part time work because it's no longer worth it to him to work full time.
Cost/benefit, risk/reward is going to be figured differently for each individual. But the more you lower that benefit/reward, the more people will decide not to sucker for it.
The going rate for a full time pharmacist is about $90K/year around here. That translates to about $62K takehome. Dad will probably clear around $50K/year dropping back to part time. That's around $36,800 takehome. Still quite comfortable for someone with the house and cars paid off. You're looking at $13K vs. $28K/year collected in various taxes. If you halved the tax burden, that may well be enough incentive for someone to go back to work full time. The government would collect $14K under the "new" scheme with Dad working full time...vs. $13K under the current scheme where Dad finds a bit of hammock time more valuable.
And, "the market" or "society" gets more man-hours in an under-served profession. And there are loads of early retirees in his position. You'd have people in their working years keeping more of their earnings when they would've been working anyway (horrors!), but you'd also retain more people in "valuable" professions. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
You're not looking at it system-wide. | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 20:49:34 |
|
How many of those people... | by esbita | 2007-07-03 20:58:47 |
|
That's getting perilously close to the 'trickle | by Arachnid | 2007-07-03 21:14:41 |
|
No argument the trickle-down effect isn't | by subbywan | 2007-07-03 21:18:16 |
|
Because you've been arguing... | by esbita | 2007-07-03 21:29:18 |
|
I think our conflict here... | by esbita | 2007-07-03 21:30:19 |
