Would a "luxury" tax work?

Nerv14 · 06-30-2008, 04:58 PM

I have been intereted with a tax on luxury goods, such as private boats, huge houses or expensive cars, because it would be a way to increase taxes on the rich without the income tax.

That tax may also be very helpful with universal sales tax instead of the income tax. In the best case scenario, a luxury tax would take away some of the regressive taxing that exists in a much larger sales tax.

Does anyone think that it would be practical, because I am unsure if the government would be able to determine what is considered "luxury" or not.

What does everyone else think?

Oftencold · 06-30-2008, 05:05 PM

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.

That aside, luxury taxes have been tried. The wealthy then purchase, register and hold luxuries abroad, and American workers and merchants suffer.

If you'd really like to help the government raise more money, donate to them. Better yet, produce some wealth to be taxed.

Nerv14 · 06-30-2008, 05:11 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.

That aside, luxury taxes have been tried. The wealthy then purchase, register and hold luxuries abroad, and American workers and merchants suffer.

If you'd really like to help the government raise more money, donate to them. Better yet, produce some wealth to be taxed.

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.

freckles · 06-30-2008, 07:40 PM

You interpreted his response as saying the tax worked?

'The wealthy then purchase, register and hold luxuries abroad, and American workers and merchants suffer.'

Oftencold · 06-30-2008, 08:03 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.

You have no problem I see with the term "taken from." Which of course is synonymous with "stolen from."

And as has been pointed out so often, the rich have the power to pass on their taxes.

If you say that there would be harm to the ecconomy with increased taxes, then you should recognize that there would be benefit to the ecconomy with reduced taxes, no?

By the way, I consider anything that you own and which I cannot afford a luxury. This is how most people define luxuries.

In a tyrannically governed nation, the rights of the many poor are the gauge of the severity of the repression. In a democratic form of governance, it is the rights of the few wealthy.

justoneman · 06-30-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I have been intereted with a tax on luxury goods, such as private boats, huge houses or expensive cars, because it would be a way to increase taxes on the rich without the income tax.

That tax may also be very helpful with universal sales tax instead of the income tax. In the best case scenario, a luxury tax would take away some of the regressive taxing that exists in a much larger sales tax.

Does anyone think that it would be practical, because I am unsure if the government would be able to determine what is considered "luxury" or not.

What does everyone else think?

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?

Nerv14 · 07-01-2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freckles

You interpreted his response as saying the tax worked?

'The wealthy then purchase, register and hold luxuries abroad, and American workers and merchants suffer.'

yes, taxes cause companies to avoid them, but since there is a luxury tax it would reduce taxes in other areas. The rich have the money to buy their luxury products even if they are more expensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

You have no problem I see with the term "taken from." Which of course is synonymous with "stolen from."

And as has been pointed out so often, the rich have the power to pass on their taxes.

If you say that there would be harm to the ecconomy with increased taxes, then you should recognize that there would be benefit to the ecconomy with reduced taxes, no?

By the way, I consider anything that you own and which I cannot afford a luxury. This is how most people define luxuries.

In a tyrannically governed nation, the rights of the many poor are the gauge of the severity of the repression. In a democratic form of governance, it is the rights of the few wealthy.

You are misunderstanding me, I am just using a luxury tax as a way of reducing needed taxes (what taxes are needed is another issue) from other areas. It is not a way to increase the federal or local budgets.

I think the interpretation of something luxury would be goods that truely the rich and upper middle class buy would have the added tax. It would not include middle income items, if that is what you were reffering to.

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?

My philosophy of protecting the poor, in a way that works and can be discussed, does not include that trouble.

The richer person should pay a higher rate on what he consumes because they can more easily afford it.

I am not talking about a more progressive income tax system which effectively punishes richer people finnancially for being rich. I am talking about a tax that takes more from people who buy more good for their own sake and are not investing that money back into their companies (and therefore the economy).

Someone investing in their business would not recieve this tax, but someone buying a hellicopter would.

I don't care much about charging the rich more, but I do care about the economics of it alot.

Oftencold · 07-01-2008, 04:12 AM

Perhaps I have been too strident in my responses. Since you have shown the remarkably rare trait of answering posts with which you disagree amiably, I want to apologize if I have misconstrued your character, motives or ethics in espousing this position.

If I am required to apologize twice more to you in any one year period, you will be allowed to strike my face with a pie, of no firmer consistency than a room-temperature Boston Creme specimen.

Nerv14 · 07-01-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Perhaps I have been too strident in my responses. Since you have shown the remarkably rare trait of answering posts with which you disagree amiably, I want to apologize if I have misconstrued your character, motives or ethics in espousing this position.

If I am required to apologize twice more to you in any one year period, you will be allowed to strike my face with a pie, of no firmer consistency than a room-temperature Boston Creme specimen.

Or if I desire, may I eat the pie instead? Since that time may, or may not, come in the future I will grade it on my hunger at that moment. If I am satisfied at that moment I will indeed strike your face with a pie of the designated consistency.

Pragmatist · 07-01-2008, 01:50 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?

Because the guy making $20,000 has to live on $17,000 and thats pretty difficult. The guy making $300,000 has to live on $204,000 and thats pretty easy. I am sure that if you ask the guy making $300,000 if he wants to swap with the guy making $20,000 so his tax bill would be $93,000 per year less that he would probably say no. Thats when you tell him to shut the fuck up and pay his friggin share of taxes and if he's making $300,000 a year, his share is $96,000. How bout you JOM, which one of these guys shoes would you rather be in?

There is nothing i would like to do more than pay more taxes because I know the more I have to pay, the more I end up keeping. It's called capitalism.