[AlexdeLarge]

With April 15th approaching, you might enjoy this little video.............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv4OeKmWjOI&feature=player_embedded

Now come on and do the Patriotic thing on the 15th. Attend a tea bag party on Tax Day!

[vision-master]

Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers, 1980-2006 ($ Billions)

1980 - top 1% $138
2006 - top 1% $1,792

You fellers been maken out like bandits.

[3aidlillahi]

Doesn't make my head explode. It's pretty basic. Even if we had a flat tax, the richest 1% would still pay a massive amount in taxes compared to the rest. The richest 10% make nearly half of the income. They make even more when you factor in things like capital gains. Thus, that they pay 70% of the income taxes is not that outrageous.

Not to mention, there are taxes that affect the lower and middle classes more so than upper classes such as cigarette and gasoline taxes. If you spend $100 on gasoline taxes making $20,000 a year, it's a much greater burden on you than if you spend $200 on gasoline taxes (driving a Lexus) making $200,000 a year.

Alex, are you one of the top income earners?

Anyway, this is why we should go to a Shari'ah income tax system. No income tax. Only a tax on your assets of 2.5%, across the board. Any income taxes are considered bid'ah and thus illegal - grounds for removing the government.

[vision-master]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.

Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years.

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

[Ludi]

Alex, are you one of the top income earners?.

Yes, he is. He doesn't need our sympathy or protection. He'll be fine.

Until the mobs come with the pitchforks, of course.

[dinopello]

Doesn't make my head explode. It's pretty basic. Even if we had a flat tax, the richest 1% would still pay a massive amount in taxes compared to the rest. The richest 10% make nearly half of the income. They make even more when you factor in things like capital gains. Thus, that they pay 70% of the income taxes is not that outrageous.

Not to mention, there are taxes that affect the lower and middle classes more so than upper classes such as cigarette and gasoline taxes. If you spend $100 on gasoline taxes making $20,000 a year, it's a much greater burden on you than if you spend $200 on gasoline taxes (driving a Lexus) making $200,000 a year.

Alex, are you one of the top income earners?

Anyway, this is why we should go to a Shari'ah income tax system. No income tax. Only a tax on your assets of 2.5%, across the board. Any income taxes are considered bid'ah and thus illegal - grounds for removing the government.

You can make the case for many ways of taxation. There is a lot of sense in taxing accumulated wealth rather than income. Would that encourage high wage owners to mostly spend their incomes on non-durable goods and services (good food, wine, "massages" etc ?). Sounds interesting! .

[AlexdeLarge]

Anyway, this is why we should go to a Shari'ah income tax system. No income tax. Only a tax on your assets of 2.5%, across the board. Any income taxes are considered bid'ah and thus illegal - grounds for removing the government.

Yeah....there is an idea, its worked so well in the middle east. While we are at it we can wrap our women in burqas and treat them like second class citizens and stone homosexuals.

[Quinny]

I was initially attracted by the idea of wealth tax and I think it still has it's application. George Bernard Shaw puts up some pretty strong arguments against, basically the means of production/tools are accumulated wealth (or capital) and if you taxed them, where does the money come from. I


Much simpler to just take ownership and use them for useful social production.!

Doesn't make my head explode. It's pretty basic. Even if we had a flat tax, the richest 1% would still pay a massive amount in taxes compared to the rest. The richest 10% make nearly half of the income. They make even more when you factor in things like capital gains. Thus, that they pay 70% of the income taxes is not that outrageous.

Not to mention, there are taxes that affect the lower and middle classes more so than upper classes such as cigarette and gasoline taxes. If you spend $100 on gasoline taxes making $20,000 a year, it's a much greater burden on you than if you spend $200 on gasoline taxes (driving a Lexus) making $200,000 a year.

Alex, are you one of the top income earners?

Anyway, this is why we should go to a Shari'ah income tax system. No income tax. Only a tax on your assets of 2.5%, across the board. Any income taxes are considered bid'ah and thus illegal - grounds for removing the government.

You can make the case for many ways of taxation. There is a lot of sense in taxing accumulated wealth rather than income. Would that encourage high wage owners to mostly spend their incomes on non-durable goods and services (good food, wine, "massages" etc ?). Sounds interesting! .

[3aidlillahi]

Yeah....there is an idea, its worked so well in the middle east

Actually when it was used, the Middle East was the largest Empire on the planet. It was Arab Economists who came up with the idea that lower taxes increases tax revenue (up to a point) and that after a certain point, tax increases will produce less tax revenue. That's been the basis for the modern tax-cutters yet it's largely a principle discovered by Arabs, 600+ years ago.

While we are at it we can wrap our women in burqas and treat them like second class citizens and stone homosexuals.

That's one of the major reasons for the descent of the Muslim world. Prior, when Shar'iah law reigned supreme, women were a dominant force in the economic field, becoming majority players in fields like textiles, which were very lucrative and a large portion of the exports. Women in the Middle East had some of the greatest economic influence of all-time and it was washed away over time as the region became less dominant militarily and accepted more European secular ideals.

[3aidlillahi]

George Bernard Shaw puts up some pretty strong arguments against, basically the means of production/tools are accumulated wealth (or capital) and if you taxed them, where does the money come from.

That's a pretty weak argument.

1) If you tax income, then you reduce your ability to accumulate wealth. Thus, you're still left with the same problem. If you tax income at 2.5% rather than wealth at 2.5%, then you're left with the same amount of 97.5% left.

2) This is still a tax of just 2.5%. That leaves 97.5% left.

Further, this is only a tax at the end of the year. The more money that you spend, the less you have, but the less the tax burden is. Thus, this is a motivator to spend. Now, with an income tax, we have a motivator to not work. Thus, on one side, you have an increase in economic activity as expenditures and expansion of businesses drive the economy and on the other hand you have a system which punishes those who work.

[SeaGypsy]

There are a whole lot of things Mohammed learned at Medina which could help the world in the current time and future. Also the Burkha is NOT ISLAMIC it is tribal. The Koran says that in the interests of modesty a woman should veil (cover) her breasts. This is pretty standard in every modern culture.
Before criticising Islam, best actually read the Koran.

[careinke]

3aidlillahi,

As you know I am no fan of Sharia Law, (although I like the prohibition against interest), I have a few questions about how "Wealth" is determined for tax purposes. Is your house counted as "wealth" how about your car? What about your other possessions? Or, is "wealth" just the cash you have on hand at the end of the year?

If "wealth" was defined as possessions, such a tax would encourage spending on consumables, and discourage spending on durable goods and appreciating assets. In any event, a tax based upon wealth would encourage consumption. To my way of thinking, over consumption along with over population is exactly why we are in overshoot today.

On the other hand, the present tax on income is not the way to go either. Punishing a person for generating wealth is just plain silly.

I would like to see taxes based on all consumption over the poverty level of spending. HR 25 (The Fair TAX) comes close to my way of thinking.

Seagyspy,

Although you are correct about the Burkah being a tribal custom, I know plenty of Mattawa who would argue that Islam only restricts exposing the breasts. I believe hair is also to be covered. However, I'm not sure if that restriction comes from the Koran or the Hadith.

[EnergyUnlimited]

George Bernard Shaw puts up some pretty strong arguments against, basically the means of production/tools are accumulated wealth (or capital) and if you taxed them, where does the money come from.

That's a pretty weak argument.

1) If you tax income, then you reduce your ability to accumulate wealth. Thus, you're still left with the same problem. If you tax income at 2.5% rather than wealth at 2.5%, then you're left with the same amount of 97.5% left.

2) This is still a tax of just 2.5%. That leaves 97.5% left.

Further, this is only a tax at the end of the year. The more money that you spend, the less you have, but the less the tax burden is. Thus, this is a motivator to spend. Now, with an income tax, we have a motivator to not work. Thus, on one side, you have an increase in economic activity as expenditures and expansion of businesses drive the economy and on the other hand you have a system which punishes those who work.

I think, with assets tax at 2.5% you would deliver either dismantling of large proportion of infrastructure (many businesses are working on very slim profit margin) or alternatively you would make most of assets close to worthless by means of market forces.
You would also cause a substantial spike of value of class of assets which are reasonably easy to hide from taxman.
Precious metals come to mind.

[3aidlillahi]

Is your house counted as "wealth" how about your car? What about your other possessions? Or, is "wealth" just the cash you have on hand at the end of the year?

There are differences between each school, but according to Shafi'i (2nd largest, which I follow), only cash (PM's, currencies) and agricultural gains are taxed. So I guess that is an income tax, if you're a farmer. There are minimums that you need - such as like 40 animals or 650 kg of net dry production. This is only if they graze on unowned land.

I don't know about other schools though.

I believe hair is also to be covered. However, I'm not sure if that restriction comes from the Koran or the Hadith.

Hadith.

I think, with assets tax at 2.5% you would deliver either dismantling of large proportion of infrastructure (many businesses are working on very slim profit margin)

Infrastructure is not included in the category of the items that would be taxed. Most businesses would pay zero tax since the business owner would be inclined to invest as much as possible into new technologies, more employees, new machinery, expansion of business, etc.

alternatively you would make most of assets close to worthless by means of market forces.

That makes no sense at all.

[EnergyUnlimited]

alternatively you would make most of assets close to worthless by means of market forces.

That makes no sense at all.

It does.
Think about housing for example.

If one is to buy $ 1 million worth property and then have to pay $25000 tax every year, he will think twice.

However if the same property fallen in price to $100000, then purchaser will not find it difficult to pay $2500 tax per year.
So he will proceed with transaction.

Such tax environment would lead to accelerated asset price deflation.
Expensive assets would rarely be purchased because of tax liability, but once they went cheap, well... buyers would return.

Now go and suggest your ideas to American mortgage holders who are already struggling to pay their installments.

The other thing is that such environment is discouraging from creating high value assets, because they are just becoming to be a tax liability really, difficult to sell and immense pressure to keep their prices low (due to tax) would damage any incentive to make them.

Of course, I bet that Muslim aristocracy have found one or another way to evade such tax.
However they have definitely used all ingenuity to apply this tax rule to possible contenders.

Infrastructure is not included in the category of the items that would be taxed. Most businesses would pay zero tax since the business owner would be inclined to invest as much as possible into new technologies, more employees, new machinery, expansion of business, etc.

It seems that you are not considering intellectual property (which is often purchased), machinery, company jets, buildings resulting from expanded business to be any sort of asset.
Funny...
Then what are these?

Are you about to say that business can be run without assets?

Or may be you are suggesting that all what one would have to do to evade this tax would be transferring his wealth to his company?

Corporations uber ales?

[3aidlillahi]

If one is to buy $ 1 million worth property and then have to pay $25000 tax every year, he will think twice.

Housing isn't taxed. Read above.

Further, we already tax houses in that exact fashion that you describe. A $1 million home in NC will generally have a property tax of $10,000 or so. In many other states, it's the same. Yet around here, we have home prices increases. That's in direct contradiction to what you're saying. Any price decreases are not, largely, due to property taxes but from the inability to pay heating, electricity, mortgage payments.

You ask that I go to mortgage owners and propose this system - I'd be saving them thousands of dollars a year. Yeah, I'm pretty sure they'd go along with it.

Then what are these?

Items that aren't (theoretically) taxed.

Please read before you speak. You're going off on these tangents about how a system would cause a collapse of the economy when you are not even correctly describing the system at hand.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If one is to buy $ 1 million worth property and then have to pay $25000 tax every year, he will think twice.

Housing isn't taxed. Read above.

Then which classes of assets are taxed as per this system?

[3aidlillahi]

If one is to buy $ 1 million worth property and then have to pay $25000 tax every year, he will think twice.

Housing isn't taxed. Read above.

Then which classes of assets are taxed as per this system?

Already discussed above. Read.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Already discussed above. Read.

Found following:

There are differences between each school, but according to Shafi'i (2nd largest, which I follow), only cash (PM's, currencies) and agricultural gains are taxed. So I guess that is an income tax, if you're a farmer. There are minimums that you need - such as like 40 animals or 650 kg of net dry production. This is only if they graze on unowned land.

1. Cash is already taxed by inflation anyway...
2. It is impossible or at least very difficult for taxman to find out, how much cash you have if you don't keep it in bank.

So are you suggesting to scrap all the taxes except 2.5% annual tax on your spare cash and some small taxes on farmers?

[3aidlillahi]

So are you suggesting to scrap all the taxes except 2.5% annual tax on your spare cash and some small taxes on farmers?

Pretty much. It starves the government from becoming a State supporter of corporate welfare and wasting money that could otherwise be spent more wisely by the people.

I certainly don't know the exact details of the tax system, but it's pretty basic. I'm sure there is some other stuff but not much. Certainly a simpler system than the 10,000 page Federal Tax Code that we currently have and that so few, even those that "write" it, can understand.