madmax Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 It is not for, say, a partner at KPMG who advises Joe Blow to take advantage of the same laws for the same effect. Since when does KPMG talk to Joe Blow??? Quote
benny Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Change the law if it is so "unethical." Law is at its core unethical. To know why clic here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14590 Quote
msj Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Law is at its core unethical. To know why clic here:http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14590 Sorry, I'm not taking the bait and going off on some crazy philosophical discussion that is so devoid of reality as to be utterly pointless. It would be like trying to argue about the legality of income taxes with Pliny: a complete waste of time. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
benny Posted July 30, 2009 Report Posted July 30, 2009 Sorry, I'm not taking the bait and going off on some crazy philosophical discussion that is so devoid of reality as to be utterly pointless. It would be like trying to argue about the legality of income taxes with Pliny: a complete waste of time. In no time, I will convince Pliny of the futility of libertarianism. Quote
Pliny Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 Anyway, as for your math above, and your "logic," yes, the government clearly did cut taxes/increased transfers to offset the carbon tax. The logic is about this being "revenue neutral" from the governments' point of view. On a net basis it was revenue neutral. Understanding transfers (i.e a return of tax dollars) as a "contra" revenue amount is the source of the problem here. Draw it out on paper - on a net basis the carbon tax was certainly neutral. I did and I explained why it was not a revenue neutral account. The "contra" revenue amount you are referring to is a cost to government and thus a cost to taxpayers. Inferring there is a problem of understanding transfers is a diversion a bit of a diversion. With the new harmonization of the PST, however, things will get so complicated so fast that I don't know how (other than to compare tax revenues against GDP, ex post facto) the BC Liberals will be able to sustain any detailed argument as to its neutrality. This perhaps indicates a problem with understanding "revenue neutrality". Of course, I like both the carbon tax and the harmonziation of tax and will gladly look forward to better times after the economy recovers and we start seeing new income tax cuts. The harmonization tax is not a negative move for most, I think, excepting those who previously had no dealings with PST, such as Restaurateurs. It is a cost they don't relish passing on to their customers but other than that it won't make much difference in their business administration. In my business it means less in administrative costs and an increase to some of my customers' costs. The provincial government should reduce the amount of PST by 1 or 2% to offset the fact that parts of the economy will be remitting higher taxes as a result of the harmonization. I don't think they will bring it up as an option unless it is made an issue. The economy is not going to recover by the looks of things. Our biggest trading partner has an economic idiot at the helm who believes that government should entirely control the economy. The failure of his policies is inevitable and consequently our economy will suffer, especially in Ontario, the financial and manufacturing centre of Canada. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 Look at KPMG for instance, the richest accountants are those "producing" loopholes. They don't produce "loopholes". They employ lawyers to find them. The men in government produce the "loopholes", generally for their own benefit but the tax code is so complicated they don't even back their own advice to citizen inquiry. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Posted August 3, 2009 In no time, I will convince Pliny of the futility of libertarianism. I was going to suggest you start a thread but on second thought your processes are so circular it would not be worth the time to engage in discussion. You have to understand there are differences in Libertarians as well. Some are anarchists and some aren't. I am not. Government has it's place and I don't believe it is in engineering society. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 3, 2009 Report Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) They don't produce "loopholes". They employ lawyers to find them. The men in government produce the "loopholes", generally for their own benefit but the tax code is so complicated they don't even back their own advice to citizen inquiry. The tax code is complicated because it means big business for accountants and lawyers. When the government is a revolving door, the distinction between private and public sectors is meaningless. Edited August 3, 2009 by benny Quote
msj Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 I did and I explained why it was not a revenue neutral account.The "contra" revenue amount you are referring to is a cost to government and thus a cost to taxpayers. Inferring there is a problem of understanding transfers is a diversion a bit of a diversion. This perhaps indicates a problem with understanding "revenue neutrality". Yes, it certainly does. And I'm through trying to explain it further. The harmonization tax is not a negative move for most, I think, excepting those who previously had no dealings with PST, such as Restaurateurs. It is a cost they don't relish passing on to their customers but other than that it won't make much difference in their business administration. In my business it means less in administrative costs and an increase to some of my customers' costs. Restaurant meals, hair cuts, many services will go up by 7%. Then there's new real property..... So, no, it will effect a lot of people. The provincial government should reduce the amount of PST by 1 or 2% to offset the fact that parts of the economy will be remitting higher taxes as a result of the harmonization. I don't think they will bring it up as an option unless it is made an issue. I hope they keep it at 12%. I know most people would tolerate 10% (if only because it would be easy to do the math in one's head - yeah, like it's so much harder ). I'd much prefer, when the time comes, a generous HST tax credit for the "poor" and income tax cuts across the five tax brackets (a combination of raising the bracket thresholds and lowering rates). We'll have to wait and see what type of legacy the 2010 games leave for us and how much further damage this recession hits tax revenues. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
benny Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) I hope they keep it at 12%. I know most people would tolerate 10% (if only because it would be easy to do the math in one's head - yeah, like it's so much harder ). A round number like 10% would make very unpopular a government that would come afterward to increase this rate. Edited August 4, 2009 by benny Quote
Pliny Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Posted August 4, 2009 The tax code is complicated because it means big business for accountants and lawyers. When the government is a revolving door, the distinction between private and public sectors is meaningless. If you have any money at all, say several million, and if you don't want the government to take it all, you need a barrage of accountants and lawyers. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 4, 2009 Report Posted August 4, 2009 If you have any money at all, say several million, and if you don't want the government to take it all, you need a barrage of accountants and lawyers. Goldman Sachs has another solution: sending its CEOs to become Secretary of Treasury. Quote
Pliny Posted August 9, 2009 Author Report Posted August 9, 2009 Goldman Sachs has another solution: sending its CEOs to become Secretary of Treasury. Obama's best pick for the job! Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 9, 2009 Report Posted August 9, 2009 Obama's best pick for the job! W. Bush's pick (Henry Paulson) was the last of a series. Quote
Pliny Posted August 9, 2009 Author Report Posted August 9, 2009 W. Bush's pick (Henry Paulson) was the last of a series. From bad to worse. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 9, 2009 Report Posted August 9, 2009 From bad to worse. Timothy Geithner is not having fun in the revolving door (in conflict of interest) like Paulson. Quote
Pliny Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Posted August 12, 2009 Timothy Geithner is not having fun in the revolving door (in conflict of interest) like Paulson. You'll have to explain this one to me. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 12, 2009 Report Posted August 12, 2009 You'll have to explain this one to me. Geithner has almost never work in the private sector. Quote
Pliny Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Posted August 13, 2009 Geithner has almost never work in the private sector. Sorry. I am not making the connection. Timothy Geithner is not having fun in the revolving door (in conflict of interest) like Paulson. What other information am I missing? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 13, 2009 Report Posted August 13, 2009 Sorry. I am not making the connection. What other information am I missing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) Quote
Pliny Posted August 14, 2009 Author Report Posted August 14, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) Good. I get it, now. You see definitions and labels are important. Giethnor may not be suffering from revolving door syndrome but he is probably more in tune with and susceptible to regulatory capture from special interests of a "progressive" nature and thus a conflict of interest is no less likely. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 14, 2009 Report Posted August 14, 2009 Giethnor may not be suffering from revolving door syndrome but he is probably more in tune with and susceptible to regulatory capture from special interests of a "progressive" nature and thus a conflict of interest is no less likely. It's easier to capture something that is slowly regressing than rapidly progressing. Quote
Pliny Posted August 16, 2009 Author Report Posted August 16, 2009 It's easier to capture something that is slowly regressing than rapidly progressing. My turn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
benny Posted August 17, 2009 Report Posted August 17, 2009 My turn.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture My specialty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking Quote
Pliny Posted August 17, 2009 Author Report Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) My specialty:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking Usually brought about by government granted privilege or monopoly, I see. Do you mean your good at rent seeking or that you understand and detect it's prevalence in society? I would think that carbon taxes are an excellent example of rent seeking. Edited August 17, 2009 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.