3 ms·

> Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us I am. Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when s

> Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us I am. Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. Some states agree with me; I would rather see the standard move toward a model free of income taxation than toward universal taxation. Doubly so when the tone of your comment seems to point to the motivation being largely spite.

shkkmo 7y ago
> Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. While I can understand opposing income based taxation, I don't understand why opponents of income based taxation would support specific industries evading existing income based taxation laws rather than working to change the taxation laws for everyone.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  We are coming to the same point from different angles. For a lot of people it's easier to adhere to eye-for-an-eye than to stop and advocate for an end to violence, as it were. I was only taking issue with what seems to be cheering a step backwards ("I would be richer without income tax too"). Technically, given the way you put it, I suppose I would advocate for more and more specific industries not being subject to income taxation until no industries were paying it. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have realized this situation by one means or another. But I agree that, in general, consistent tax laws for everyone is a preferred outcome.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    I am not particularly opposed to income based taxation. While I think asset based taxes are usually better than income based taxes, income based taxes are better than sales taxes or state run lotteries. I personally think that how we handle unemployment and food stamps do more to disincentivize work than our income taxation. Taxation is complex and tricky to do well. Unfortunately it is treated as a wedge issue and this prevents productive discussion and effective policy making.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

shkkmo 7y ago

> Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. While I can understand opposing income based taxation, I don't understand why opponents of income based taxation would support specific industries evading existing income based taxation laws rather than working to change the taxation laws for everyone.

ultrarunner 7y ago
We are coming to the same point from different angles. For a lot of people it's easier to adhere to eye-for-an-eye than to stop and advocate for an end to violence, as it were. I was only taking issue with what seems to be cheering a step backwards ("I would be richer without income tax too"). Technically, given the way you put it, I suppose I would advocate for more and more specific industries not being subject to income taxation until no industries were paying it. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have realized this situation by one means or another. But I agree that, in general, consistent tax laws for everyone is a preferred outcome.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  I am not particularly opposed to income based taxation. While I think asset based taxes are usually better than income based taxes, income based taxes are better than sales taxes or state run lotteries. I personally think that how we handle unemployment and food stamps do more to disincentivize work than our income taxation. Taxation is complex and tricky to do well. Unfortunately it is treated as a wedge issue and this prevents productive discussion and effective policy making.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]