Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx ()
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:05:40 +0000 (UTC)
In article <13fqj1reqtrpj5b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fditp5$hao$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <13fps4ekn12icb2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fdii7d$gpc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <T_2dnQVAxKXy6mHbnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pete Dashwood wrote:
[snip]
None of us are ever going to be happy about paying tax (unless of course,
they brought in a fixed rate across the board and everybody paid the same,
say 15%...),
But *why* won't they do that?
It might be, Mr Summers, that 'they' won't do that because it is an
elected bureaucracy and this does not reflect the wishes of their
electorate... or maybe it is something else.
It's the ultimate in fairness - you make
$100, you cough up $15; you make $1,000, you cough up $150.
The flat tax has been called a regressive tax, Mr Summers... are you
familiar with the arguments that have been made for this? Someone who has
85% of one income is in an entirely different situation than someone else
who has 85% of ten times that income.
I notice, Mr Dwarf, a slight, perhaps unintentional change
from omitting the term "rate". I agree that a "flat tax" is
regressive because all pay the same amount without
regard to income, thus the effective tax rate decreases with
increased income. A pure "flat-rate tax" is neither regressive
nor progressive because the effective rate remains the same
with increased income.
Perhaps the terminology has changed since I last looked at such things.
[snip]
Perhaps it differs in degree of precision--"flat-rate tax",
as a specific reference to a concept, being less ambiguous.
Since I am a stickler for precision, I dug into my closet
and pulled out the book that introduced me to the concept;
"Low Tax, Simple Tax, Flat Tax" by Robert E. Hall and
Alvin Rabushka, 1983. A quick thumbing-through of the
book showed that "flat tax", "flat-tax", and "flat-rate tax"
were regarded as synonymous, within the context of a tax
on income assessed at a flat rate. (All three variations
found on the same page! And there are other reasons to
beleive the book was rushed to press!)
Well... how curious that I echo your source so precisely, even unto the
synonymous use.
Advocates of "flat-rate tax" call their plans progressive
because their proposals include an exemption before the
rate is applied, thus the effective tax rate increases with
increased income.
If there are variations in its application then the rate is not, by
definition (http://www.m-w.com, flat, adj, def'n 6b(1): not varying: FIXED
<a flat rate>), flat.
Page 21 of the book, last paragraph, "The flat tax can ....
Also, a flat-rate tax is progressive when a personal
allowance for adults and dependents is granted, ...."
My apologies, Mr Smith... but I have trouble taking this seriously,
perhaps it is the geometry I studied.
Mr Summers original conditions, quoted above, were 'It's the ultimate in
fairness - you make $100, you cough up $15; you make $1,000, you cough up
$150.'; no allowances, deductions, protected investments or deferred
interest... a rate of taxation that is 'not varying, FIXED' as per the
definition I cited.
What Hall and Rabushka seem to be proposing is not that; they are
proposing that certain income(s) are exempt and others will be taxed at a
rate not to exceed (n)%.
While the statutory rate is flat (not varying, fixed); the
effective rate does vary by increasing with increased
income.
Exactly. This reminds of me 'cash is fact, profit is opinion'... because
once the barn door is opened to income exemptions one may, rather easily,
wind up with a tax system which approaches the current one.
[snip]
It may be, Mr Smith, that some see the word 'flat' and assume, perhaps
incorrectly, that it is being used in a manner which reflects a definition
found in a commonly-accepted source... and that others see that calling
something which has variations in it 'flat' as valid.
Or, that some may see or use the word "flat" and fail to
recognize when its use is ambiguous and clarity depends on
context.
My situation appeared to be the reverse... I saw the word 'flat' and
realised that the use being made of it seemed to be outside of the
accepted definitions; this is sometimes called 'idiosyncratic use'.
There's nothing wrong with such use, of course... but it helps to cut down
confusion when it is made clear, up front, that the definitions found in
commonly-accepted references no longer apply.
[snip]
Given the immediate context of "The flat tax has been
called a regressive tax" and my knowing that a "flat-rate
tax" can not be a regressive tax, my mind appears to have
jumped to examples of "flat tax" which are regressive.
And, with that jump, could not determine your intended
use of "flat tax".
Glad I was able to help clear that up by - completely unintentionally,
mind you - sticking with the definitions (the ones equating flat tax and
flat-rate tax') used in a book with which you were familiar.
DD
.
- References:
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From:
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- From: Rick Smith
- Re: [OT] Iraq
- Prev by Date: Re: Religian (was:Iraq
- Next by Date: Re: [OT] Iraq
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Iraq
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Iraq
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
