From: mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some views on Scientology (taxes)
Message-ID: <1991Aug16.041644.32768@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 16 Aug 91 04:16:44 CDT
References: <1991Jul24.140607.32251@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>  <1991Aug9.235304.27205@fxgrp.fx.com>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 83

In article <1991Aug9.235304.27205@fxgrp.fx.com>, raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
> christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Christi) writes:
>>raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
> 
>>   And what is *right* with the sales tax is:
> 
>>   2) The progressive income tax discourages people from making money, by
>>   reducing the link between how productive you are and how much take-home
>>   pay you end up with. This is bad for the economy as a whole, including
>>   the poor.
> 
>>faulty logic.  the progressive income tax does not discourage people
>>from making money, but rather distributes the tax to those who can
>>handle it.
> 
> *Any* tax discourages people from making money. The higher the tax, the
> less the incentive to work. A progressive tax discourages rich people
> more. Look, if you want to buy a really cool stereo for $1000, you can
> either structure your lifestyle so you: 
> 
> (1) work harder and make $1000 a year more, or
> (2) be thrifty and spend $1000 a year less.
> 
> Either way, you come up with the extra money you need. In the absence
> of a tax, those two are equivalent. But in the current system, if you
> work hard enough to make an extra $1000, you only get $660 of it and
> have to give the rest to the state. This might tip the balance for you
> so that working for it is no longer practical. You *don't* get the
> extra job and work nights. The GNP is reduced by $1000 because you
> didn't work. Your labor fails to improve the general standard of living.
> 

Of course, you COULD put the sales tax through the same strainer:

Look, if you want to buy a really cool stereo for $1000, you can either
structure your lifestyle so you:

 (1) work harder and make $1000 a year more, or
 (2) be thrifty and spend $1000 a year less.

Either way, you come up with the extra money you need. In the absence
of a tax, these two are equivalent. But in your system, if you work
hard enough to make an extra $1000, you have to pay $150 more in taxes 
anyway, which goes straight to the state.  This might tip the balance
for you so that working for it is no longer practical.  You *don't* buy
the stereo.  The GNP is reduced  by $1000 because you didn't work.
Your labor fails to improve the general standard of living.

(NOTE: The 15% tax mentioned above was mentioned in an earlier rebuttal by
Glen Raphael.  I figured that Glen's example could stand for a new system)

>>the flat rate tax that appears to be proposed would discourage poor
>>people from owning anything.
> 
> No more than it would discourage rich people.
> 

Ahhh, but you forget: Rich people have the option of buying or not buying, and
having their general situation not changing much.  Say a rich person has only
made $100,000, and a poor person has made $12,000.  They both want a $1000
stereo.  After current income taxes, the rich person has $66,000, and the poor
person has $12,000.  Divided into monthly budgets, the rich person has $5,500,
and the poor guy has $1000, each per month to spend.  After rent (lets say,
$400), food ($200), and utilities ($100) (using local standards), the poor guy
has only $300, while the rich guy (assuming they both live in the same
building, and remember: rich guy is skimping) has $4,800.  The poor man can 
save for 10 months to get his stereo, and get it right then, because the 
sales tax is low enough to permit it (5% or so).  The rich guy can afford it 
right away.  So much for the restrictions of income tax on productivity...

Using Sales tax:  Rich man keeps all $100,000, gets about $8,400 per month. 
Poor man keeps all $12,000, same as the old system.  However, the system now
garners its income off of a 15% sales tax, no deductions, no loopholes.
Poor man now has to skimp and save for all 12 months to afford his dream
stereo, or else reduce the GNP and the labor quality you hold to so dearly.
Rich man can still buy right away, and still get that vacation in New England,
plus that new stereo TV, plus monthly cable, etc.  Is this tax fair?  I think
not! 

> Glen Raphael

Leo