Would a "luxury" tax work? - Page 2

Freedom for All · 07-01-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

What does everyone else think?

I think it's a great idea if your goal is to increase the unemployment of middle and lower class people who build and service boats, airplanes, and the other toys the rich people own, and won't do a thing to increase revenues because the people with money will just hold off buying them for a while, or do without.

Just like they did when that liberal Bush raised taxes on ummmm....boats and airplanes the last time.

Freedom for All · 07-01-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

lol, I wasn't asking for anyone's ideology, but to ask if this could work. It seems like that they have worked then, so I will support them more now.

There will obviously be harm to the economy with icreased taxes, but if the alternative is taxing the poor and middle classes more, I would tax the rich instead. It isn't a scheme to get more money, but to alter who it is taken from.

The alternative is to reduce tax rates on everyone, which increases the take home pay, which gets spent and grows the economy, which results in more revenue to the government.

The goal is to increase treasury revenue, isn't it, not punishing success, right?

Freedom for All · 07-01-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justoneman

Let me get this straight. If a man makes 20,000 a year and has to pay 15% of his income or $3,000 and another man makes 300,000 and has to pay more than 32% or $96,000, that the richer man is not paying his share already?? He is paying a higher rate than the poorer man! Why should he have to pay a higher rate?

He's paying more money. Why should he have to pay more money? What crime is he guilty of to be punished so?

Nerv14 · 07-01-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

I think it's a great idea if your goal is to increase the unemployment of middle and lower class people who build and service boats, airplanes, and the other toys the rich people own, and won't do a thing to increase revenues because the people with money will just hold off buying them for a while, or do without.

Just like they did when that liberal Bush raised taxes on ummmm....boats and airplanes the last time.

You don't understand. A luxury tax would be used to lower taxes in other areas, so it wouldn't have an overall negative effect on the economy because taxes would be lowered in other areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

The alternative is to reduce tax rates on everyone, which increases the take home pay, which gets spent and grows the economy, which results in more revenue to the government.

The goal is to increase treasury revenue, isn't it, not punishing success, right?

No, its to keep treasury revenue the same. It isn't really punishing success because the tax will only be off of what they buy, and not what they put into the economy by investing in themselves.

Let me give an example, someone will be taxed more if they buy a mansion, but they will not be taxed more if they invest in their oil corporation to drill in Alaska. It is similar to the reason why the income tax should be elliminated and replaced with the "fair tax."

Anyway, a few more taxes on the rich are worth lowering taxes on the poor and middle class, especially if the regressive fair tax is used. I don't think I would recommend this tax if the progressive income tax is still used.

JaneDoe · 07-02-2008, 12:54 AM

You do pay a luxury tax for what you own.. at least here you do, for Semi's and RV's and big Boats ect.. Hell man, I even pay taxes on my dogs. It's pathetic !

Nerv14 · 07-02-2008, 02:49 PM

I have some links about a luxury tax that was tried. I got the links from another forum.

Luxury tax. (Federal Taxation)
Luxury Tax Under Attack - New York Times

One of the problems with this tax is that when it was enacted it was done very quickly and the law was not very specific, which is an almost inherent problem with a luxury tax. But if more time was put into the specifications then it could of worked out better.

Only 5 industries were taxed extra which meant that the scope of the tax was inherently unfair. However, that was just to make it easier to mannage which would be even more of a problem if more items were included in the tax.

Even if the tax was thought out more I can think of no way to prevent the problems with people who use "luxury" items for their bussines and they want to use those items in their spare time. Even if companies were allowed exceptions that could be used at any time, that would just create a black market for the exception, and the tax would not work.

But I can say that when the tax harmed companies in those industries a large amount of that could of been from the luxury tax being 10% when if this tax was really tried it could begin at only 5% to test it out more.

Even though a tax will harm the companies that sell the luxury items i am just bringing up a luxury tax as a way to make sales tax more progressive. So if a luxury tax was used it would just reduce the normal sales tax and increase business activity throughout the rest of the economy.

Despite that, the problems with luxury items in companies seems like an unfixable barrier in making a luxury tax work...

If anyone has any ideas to fix that I would like to hear them...

Libre · 07-02-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

The rich have the money to buy their luxury products even if they are more expensive.

So because "they have the money" that gives you the right to steal it? How about this, tell me what you make and I'll find someone who makes less and can't afford the "luxuries" you can afford and I'll send them to your house to "tax" you.

You won't mind because it's not stealing, right?

Nerv14 · 07-02-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libre

So because "they have the money" that gives you the right to steal it? How about this, tell me what you make and I'll find someone who makes less and can't afford the "luxuries" you can afford and I'll send them to your house to "tax" you.

You won't mind because it's not stealing, right?

Correct you are, I don't care that it is "stealing" but if it is impractical then I will be against it.

A normal house wouldn't be considered a "luxury" but I admited that one of the problems was that what is a luxury and what isn't is subjective, and would need to be clarified incredibly well.

Anyway, the tax would only be added on after someone buys it, so isn't like a property tax on wealthy items if that is what you are thinking. It is similar to a normal sales tax.

Oftencold · 07-02-2008, 05:47 PM

The fix, IMO is to raise the GDP, not to further cannibalize it through taxation.

We are supposed to be a nation of free industrious people.

I don't understand how we ever reached the point of expecting government to solve
so many problems, and to try to fund it for those dubious purposes.

paddys4anarchy · 07-06-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

What right do you have to punish success? The property of the rich is their property, keep your hands off!

Unless you'd like to justify someone poorer than your self taking your belongings? After all compared to some people, you are rich.

And their property is their theft, theirs by inherited wealth, be it money or ability. I'd like to justify someone poorer than me taking my belongings, there's no justification for some having more than others. The only even slightly impressive justification is that some try harder than others, and even that is a useless distinction once you get over the meaningless obsession with bettering society and producing things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

The fix, IMO is to raise the GDP.

... but clearly you haven't yet