Sexuality? - Page 4

Amen Brother.

There is a equitable way of doing this. I say, all income under $50K taxed not at all, all income above, Scandanavian level income taxes, such the change in the total internal revenue from income taxes doesn't effectively change. It'll give the poor and middle class a break, and hey, the rich or merely affluent are hardly going to be destitute. Nor, I suspect, will it impact the economy particularly negatively. In fact, I would like to see a study about this, with the only constraints being that: 1) there is a minimum cost of living; 2) the economy is not adversely affected on a longer timescale than one or two years; and 3) the total internal (income tax) revenue remain the same.

I just meant 'institute the flat tax' as in 'get rid of marriage tax breaks.' I know there's other benefits of marriage, and those should be stopped, too. As much as I agree with the flat tax, I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked any further. But... Allow me to disagree on one point. 50k is too high of a salary to start taxing people at. If we use a flat 14% income tax, a man making 50k would take home 43k, while a man making 45k would take home 45k. You don't start to break the 50k mark until you're making about 60k. Lots of people would seek lower salaries. Start taxing at, say, 25k, and the middle class knows that when they make more money than their neighbor, they take home more money than their neighbor.

Hi Ken, Sorry for the further hijack, but... I think that you misunderstood my point. I think that income under a certain amount should be completely exempt, (sort of like the standard exempt amount you are allowed on your return) and that only income above that should be taxed. So a guy making 50K would get 50K take home, but a man making 60K and using a 50% flat tax would be taking home 55K, and the man making 100K would be taking home 75K. A guy making 3 M would be taking home about 1.5 M. So if you make a higher salary, you will never end up taking home less than a guy making a lower salary. It's not really a flat tax, but pretty close to. Seems fair to me, but then, I am unlikely to make a bundle of money over my lifetime.

That's closer to a flat tax than some of the other proposals I've seen. If you do a search and find the various bills that have been written, they resemble a flat tax about as much as my neighbor resembles Elisha Cuthbert (sadly, very little). There's enough precedent in them to allow a gradual mutation into the exact tax system we have now. Something is very wrong when the radicals are not at all radical.

This is what troubles me -- who's to say what "fair" is? Just make it 14% flat tax on every dollar made, no exclusions, no nothin' (I think this is the way it is in Switzerland). The more money you strive to make to better yourself financially, the more you keep (as you very well deserve since you are the one that went out and earned it.) No offense LA Guy, but I don't want anyone from Harvard determining what "fair" means.

Certainly, a focus on dressing well (or a lack of interest) has never been limited by one's sexuality. I know straight men and women who dress very well, and those that do not. I also know gay men and women who do not focus at all on appearance. There evidently is no casual link. However, I also note that "gay" is not a lifestile and, by and large, people do not "choose to live it." All available evidence indicates that sexuality is genetically pre-determined. Sexual attractiveness is much more a matter of bilology and not "preference." The fact that it is not something one picks to be renders the discrimination many exhibit to gays and lesbians particularly ridiculous. As silly as discrimination based on gender or skin color.

Quit straying from the friggin topic. This thread is about the Swiss tax code.

I've heard people talking about flat income taxes in Switzerland but all of my personal research on the internet points out that the country has progressive tax rates, even for corporations. Eg: http://www.estv.admin.ch/data/sd/e/system/fremd/3.pdf The rates at which the Federal Direct Tax is levied are progressive; a zero rate on the first income bracket is followed by nine brackets with progressive rates, reaching a maximum of 13,2% and then declining to 11,5%. Brackets as well as deductions are subject to formal indexation entering into force when the inflation rate has risen by at least 7,0% since the last adjustment. http://www.henleyglobal.com/swisstax1.htm Due to the interrelation of Federal, Cantonal and Communal taxes, the complex tax rate mechanism as well as the different deductions available, it is extremely difficult to give a precise indication of tax rates applicable in Switzerland. Federal income tax rates are progressive. They range from 0% to 11.5 %. However, Cantonal and Communal tax rates vary depending on the Canton and the Community involved. On average, they are generally twice as high as Federal rates, so the total final combined tax rate may exceed 30% for high income earners. Effective tax brackets across different cantons, the rates are all progressive: http://www.estv.admin.ch/data/sd/e/system/fremd/5.pdf Also spouses could aggregate their income for tax purposes (ie. income splitting), not a very good example of tax neutrality. Last but not least, major tax reforms should be required if we'd like to adopt flat income taxes. Economics 101, thou should not distort relative prices. Perhaps we could start by making capital gains fully taxable.

This is what bothers me. It is hardly unfair to ask those who have derived wealth by leveraging capital, which has a disproportionate amount of weight in our capitalist economy compared to the other elements of production, to give some of that wealth back to society - a price for the privilege, if you will.

And now, to be completely flippant: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I need a Kiton black, single breasted, one button, peaked lapel dinner suit, preferably MTM, but I'll take RTW if it comes to that. You know what, I'll even go for Brioni. I do not have the resources to purchase said suit. So c'mon now. One of you fat cats out there can hook me up, right?

You must be right because I have no idea what you are talking about. Diminishing marginal utility has to do with the consumption of goods and how each incremental one after a certain point brings less and less utility to the consumer of said good. I don't recall saying anything about consumption. I was just talking about making money.

I stand corrected then. Thanks for the insights.

Sure it's "unfair". Why punish someone for being smarter and using a more efficient element of production? The efficiency provides greater value to society in and of itself -- that is why the individual is being rewarded with wealth in the first place. You provide value to society, you get paid. Rewarding people for using relatively inefficient elements of production would be counter-productive to society's progress. The wealthy can keep there wealth as far as I'm concerned -- they've earned it. But, then again, I don't live my life being envious of the wealthy like a large part of the populace does. I earn my keep and keep to myself. If I don't get rich, that's my own fault, not anybody else's.