[Vision2020] WARREN E. BUFFETT: A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy

[Art Deco]

I partially agree with Gary on the flat tax, except that it would be a
sliding, not bracketed, graduated tax where those below the poverty line
would pay none and the rest of us an amount calculated on our income up to
a highest level tax rate of X%.

In addition, all exemptions from taxes would be eliminated:  REITs, mineral
depletion allowances, non-profits, etc except for income credits needed to
insure that all could have the basics of food, clothing, and shelter.

Reducing total spending presents a real problem.  There are some programs
that could go, but what about realistically funding our huge infrastructure
deterioration problem, and the need for new infrastructure, relocation, etc
in the face of climate change.

Further, some changes in tax law structure and some spending reductions
need to be phased in over time to allow readjustments to take place in a
more orderly manner.

I also refer you to previous posts showing that increasing income tax does
not lead to rich people not investing.  In fact it seems to lead to them in
general to investing more and working harder to maintain or increase their
wealth.  The tax increases on the wealthy passed during the Clinton
administration provide concrete evidence of this.

w.

w.


On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:

> In addition to agreeing basically with Ken, I agree with one statement of
> Paul's, namely the wealthy should pay more because they can without
> affecting there ability to enjoy the basic needs of life -- food, clothing,
> shelter.
>
> Further, the deficit spending that has led to our horrendous national debt
> appears to have benefited the wealthy more than others.  When money goes to
> the poor and middle class, they basically spend it on goods and services
> that benefit the wealthy economically more that others.  And then there's
> military spending -- who do you thinks benefits the most economically from
> this from this?  Who benefits the most from spending on healthcare?
>
> w.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com>wrote:
>
>>  On 11/26/2012 11:37 AM, Donovan Arnold wrote:
>>
>>  I don't get it!
>>
>>
>> That's correct.
>>
>>
>>  How can you tax the people that control the prices of everything and
>> not expect prices to rise?
>>
>>
>> First, since very few people operating as sole proprietors have
>> monopolist or near-monopolist pricing control, one doesn't tax the
>> "people", one taxes the business organizations they control.
>>
>> Second, not all prices are equally controlled. In markets where there are
>> many buyers and sellers meeting regularly, and often electronically, such
>> as in the commodities markets, price control by any one individual is
>> difficult. (Not impossible, if they have a lot of money, but usually
>> difficult.) On the other hand, in markets where there are just a few major
>> major suppliers, supplier sensitivity to other suppliers' pricing
>> activities may well lead to effective price controls at levels that would
>> not occur were there more effective competition in those markets.
>> Encouraging competition by various means would have the effect of lowering
>> prices.
>>
>>  If you tax business owners and stock holders, they will simply make up
>> for their loss in revenue by increasing the price of their goods and
>> services.
>>
>>
>> Businesses engaged in competitive markets will be restrained from raising
>> prices too much because they will lose market share to their competitors.
>> It matters not whether costs for employees or for raw materials or for
>> interest on borrowed money, or taxes increase, the effect is the same. In
>> less-competitive, monopolist-controlled, or in oligopolist-managed markets,
>> cost increases can be passed on to consumers with profit margins
>> maintained. Competition is what keeps consumer prices reasonable.
>>
>>
>>  This means the poor and middle classes absorb the tax increases by
>> rising costs of their goods and services they need and consume.
>>
>>
>> Poorer classes do have more difficulty avoiding higher prices containing
>> higher costs because a larger portion of poorer classes consumption
>> consists of required expenditures. They have less disposable income, and
>> therefore fewer actual choices concerning on what to spend income.
>> Competitive and efficient markets are more important for people of more
>> modest means because they have to rely on markets to present them with the
>> best products for them, not the products that are most profitable for the
>> products' suppliers. Quite obviously, many less-rich people are
>> disappointed by that reliance when their choice of suppliers is limited,
>> and managed-oligopoly decisions, for all practical purposes, make their
>> choices for them.
>>
>>
>>  Further, it doesn't change the quality of life at all for the poor or
>> middle classes if you tax rich people out of existence.
>>
>>
>> No one is suggesting taxing anyone out of existence. On the other hand,
>> incremental property taxes on very large, and especially on otherwise inert
>> and very large capital accumulations, would keep money in circulation that
>> could be used, prudently and competitively, for a variety of public
>> purposes.
>>
>>
>>  What matters is the cost of living, the price of goods and services
>> that we need or consume. The price of food, clothing, shelter, health care
>> and medicine, transportation, and education need to be as low as possible.
>>
>>
>> Yes, costs of living are important considerations. However, income
>> statements and balance sheets are two different, and interacting, points of
>> view. Each needs to be considered with both economic as well as ethical
>> lenses.
>>
>>
>>  We should reduce taxes on the wealthy if the price of these needed
>> goods and services is less than 60% of family income, and raise their taxes
>> for entitlement programs when it goes above 75%  to subsidize the loss in
>> quality of life. There would be a strong motive for businesses to keep the
>> cost of living affordable while getting rich.
>>
>>
>> Your economics is confused. Businesses have some, but not overwhelmingly
>> controlling, incentives to "keep the cost of living affordable" in the face
>> of market competition. Generally, it is the business of business to earn
>> money, to satisfy stockholders and other stakeholders. Businesses don't
>> control the macro-economy, they are only the formative basis of it.
>>
>> It is the business of consumers, of citizens, and of governments to
>> provide assistance and guidance to businesses for their benefit, and for
>> the benefit of the societies that allow the businesses to exist and to
>> operate. Society generally should not concede control over our economic
>> lives to unelected, and often unaccountable, in the markets or otherwise,
>> managers, officers, and directors of private capitalist corporations.
>>
>> Governments have many uses, and they are even more useful if they are
>> controlled by the people whose sovereignty created them and allows them to
>> exist. When Benjamin Franklin told a woman at the Constitutional Convention
>> that they had given "a Republic, if you can keep it," that idea certainly
>> encompasses keeping control of its commerce and fiscal affairs in the
>> interests of all of the parties involved.
>>
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
>
>


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121126/5cfe7861/attachment.html>