08 Jun 12
Originally posted by BartsInflation doesn't discriminate. The richer you are, the better you are able to continue your life style in spite of it. The wealthy always have more options, including leaving, or using other currencies. Inflation is just a circuitous and deceptive method of taxation, taking value from people's money instead of just taking their money.
How does Hunt explain this ? Inflation hits savings, money loses value. Generally, inflation will push wages up as well, so someone who lives from his wages as opposed to from saved capital should be hurt less by inflation.
Those who favor "progressive taxation" ought to be aghast about intentional degradation of money.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by normbenignThe richer you are, the better you are able to continue your life style in spite of it.
Inflation doesn't discriminate. The richer you are, the better you are able to continue your life style in spite of it. The wealthy always have more options, including leaving, or using other currencies. Inflation is just a circuitous and deceptive method of taxation, taking value from people's money instead of just taking their money.
Those who favor "progressive taxation" ought to be aghast about intentional degradation of money.
That is exactly why taxes are and should be progressive.
09 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is not inherent logic in your conclusion.
[b]The richer you are, the better you are able to continue your life style in spite of it.
That is exactly why taxes are and should be progressive.[/b]
Single people also probably find it easier to make adjustments. Ought they be taxed "progressively"? How many other groups do you wish to discriminate against?
And you appear to have skipped over the relevant part to this discussion, that degradation of currency, just like any other tax, hits the lower classes harder.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by normbenignAnything other than a progressive income tax hits the lower classes harder; that's why they are not popular among rich people and their supporters.
There is not inherent logic in your conclusion.
Single people also probably find it easier to make adjustments. Ought they be taxed "progressively"? How many other groups do you wish to discriminate against?
And you appear to have skipped over the relevant part to this discussion, that degradation of currency, just like any other tax, hits the lower classes harder.
09 Jun 12
"Single people also probably find it easier to make adjustments. Ought they be taxed "progressively"? How many other groups do you wish to discriminate against?"
A) please explain why single people who by definition are on single incomes are better able to adjust?
B) The plan is usually to tax everyone progressively; it refers to a system whereby those with the highest incomes pay a greater proportion of their income than those on lesser incomes, it is not meant to be a punishment it is meant to ensure fairness in the distribution of the overall tax burden in both concrete and proportional respects.
09 Jun 12
Originally posted by normbenignThe lower classes don't have money. What do we care?
There is not inherent logic in your conclusion.
Single people also probably find it easier to make adjustments. Ought they be taxed "progressively"? How many other groups do you wish to discriminate against?
And you appear to have skipped over the relevant part to this discussion, that degradation of currency, just like any other tax, hits the lower classes harder.
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57a. Single persons lack dependents. They are only responsible for their own subsistence. Deductions on Federal income taxes reflect the notion that singles are taxed progressively regardless of financial status.
"Single people also probably find it easier to make adjustments. Ought they be taxed "progressively"? How many other groups do you wish to discriminate against?"
A) please explain why single people who by definition are on single incomes are better able to adjust?
B) The plan is usually to tax everyone progressively; it refers to a system whereby tho ...[text shortened]... ss in the distribution of the overall tax burden in both concrete and proportional respects.
b. More successful people (higher earners) will pay proportionately higher taxes on income without progressive rates. When people at the bottom pay a rate of zero or less than zero, they lack incentive to monitor and reject tax increases or government irresponsibility. They are in effect disenfranchised.
When people at the top, are taxed marginally higher, there is incentive at some point to minimize activity, and to stop earning. This harms not their life style but that of those they typically employ.
10 Jun 12
Originally posted by normbenignSingle people lack dependents? 🙄
a. Single persons lack dependents. They are only responsible for their own subsistence. Deductions on Federal income taxes reflect the notion that singles are taxed progressively regardless of financial status.
b. More successful people (higher earners) will pay proportionately higher taxes on income without progressive rates. When people at the b ...[text shortened]... , and to stop earning. This harms not their life style but that of those they typically employ.
You take the rich way too seriously.