The Taxation Flip Trick - Making Taxation More Efficient.

  • Thread starter Thread starter morganist
  • Start date Start date
morganist said:
It is a small loss to make in terms of income, when the overall portfolio value is taken into consideration. Look at the points I make below. In a highly geared economy if economic growth is not maintained and national debt is not repaid it will punish you badly. See below.

The taxation has to be taken to repay the debt. All I can think of your response is you believe governments should not take taxation. The debt they owe is made up of people's life savings and pensions.

If the money is not paid back then they will lose some of their stock investments. You say you don't want taxation, which means you don't want national debt but then you might as well say you don't want government bonds or even private banks the government had to bailout.

You would lose a lot if the government did not take taxation especially in terms of what you already own. Your overall stock value savings, pensions, capital investments, property value, car value, paintings etc.

There is also the currency value issue, where the currency value falls, meaning you can't purchase goods from abroad at the same low price leading to inflation. This happens when banks collapse and national debt is not repaid.
More...
Don't conflate me with caveman, please. I worked for the government for 20 years, of course I understand the need for taxation!
The rough "sides" on this are do you relatively lower taxes on the rich which will grow the economy more than the loss of revenue, leading to net increase in tax receipts. Or do you relatively raise taxes on the rich because the poor contribute more of the money they saved not paying taxes to growing the economy. Both sides are dogmatic and like everything in life the answer is more nuanced and open to debate.
My personal view as an entrepreneur is that you have to be careful when you decide what "rich" to tax. I own a company which makes me one of the "rich". However the vast majority of my wealth is tied up in that company and I put nearly 100% of the profits of the company back into it. I drive a 15 year old car with 150,000 miles on it, not a lot of fat to trim there. So arbitrarily taxing me more because I'm "rich" simply means I'll employ fewer people and my company will be less productive, the money has to come from somewhere and that's the only place someone like me has extra money. This is my second company, I started it immediately after a successful exit of the first. Again, taxing me at more significantly that point means I may not have even been able to start my current company, so probably not what you want. When I cash out at 65 and am sitting on the beach sipping mai tais with all that wealth in a bank account, by all means I'm a "rich" person who your logic applies very well to. Present situation, not so clearly the case. Much of the wealth of "rich" people in the U.S. is tied up in a manner similar to my own, so you have to be careful about broad generalities and unintended consequences.
I actually think the current tax system by and large does a very good job of incentivizing economic growth. If it were up to me I'd eliminate the requirement to depreciate, which disincentivizes investment in equipment, and pay for that with reduction in interest deductions which encourage financial engineering, that's about all. (Nothing wrong with financial engineering, pretty good at it actually, but don't feel it contributes much to the real economy.) Otherwise we're doing just fine. The national debt as a ratio to GDP has no impact at all on my business or any other at current levels. In fact much of it was incurred building the infrastructure, rule of law, and educated workforce that allow me to be successful, so I'd be pissed if my parents had scrimped 40 years ago to somehow "protect" me from that debt and I was left with low debt and commisurate lack of the things that debt bought. Could have done without a couple wars of course, but all in all our economy is on a pretty good run since about 1945.
 
Sig said:
Don't conflate me with caveman, please. I worked for the government for 20 years, of course I understand the need for taxation!
The rough "sides" on this are do you relatively lower taxes on the rich which will grow the economy more than the loss of revenue, leading to net increase in tax receipts. Or do you relatively raise taxes on the rich because the poor contribute more of the money they saved not paying taxes to growing the economy. Both sides are dogmatic and like everything in life the answer is more nuanced and open to debate.
My personal view as an entrepreneur is that you have to be careful when you decide what "rich" to tax. I own a company which makes me one of the "rich". However the vast majority of my wealth is tied up in that company and I put nearly 100% of the profits of the company back into it. I drive a 15 year old car with 150,000 miles on it, not a lot of fat to trim there. So arbitrarily taxing me more because I'm "rich" simply means I'll employ fewer people and my company will be less productive, the money has to come from somewhere and that's the only place someone like me has extra money. This is my second company, I started it immediately after a successful exit of the first. Again, taxing me at more significantly that point means I may not have even been able to start my current company, so probably not what you want. When I cash out at 65 and am sitting on the beach sipping mai tais with all that wealth in a bank account, by all means I'm a "rich" person who your logic applies very well to. Present situation, not so clearly the case. Much of the wealth of "rich" people in the U.S. is tied up in a manner similar to my own, so you have to be careful about broad generalities and unintended consequences.
I actually think the current tax system by and large does a very good job of incentivizing economic growth. If it were up to me I'd eliminate the requirement to depreciate, which disincentivizes investment in equipment, and pay for that with reduction in interest deductions which encourage financial engineering, that's about all. (Nothing wrong with financial engineering, pretty good at it actually, but don't feel it contributes much to the real economy.) Otherwise we're doing just fine. The national debt as a ratio to GDP has no impact at all on my business or any other at current levels. In fact much of it was incurred building the infrastructure, rule of law, and educated workforce that allow me to be successful, so I'd be pissed if my parents had scrimped 40 years ago to somehow "protect" me from that debt and I was left with low debt and commisurate lack of the things that debt bought. Could have done without a couple wars of course, but all in all our economy is on a pretty good run since about 1945.
More...

You might be right in America but in the UK they could use this technique at the moment, as it says in the article and is linked to in a supporting article as evidence, growth fell. This is my policy suggestion to get growth to the level it needs to be again and also ease pay disputes, which are also an issue in the UK.
 
morganist said:
You might be right in America but in the UK they could use this technique at the moment, as it says in the article and is linked to in a supporting article as evidence, growth fell. This is my policy suggestion to get growth to the level it needs to be again and also ease pay disputes, which are also an issue in the UK.
More...
I'll take your word on that, not tuned in enough to the UK's current situation especially with the Brexit impacts to support my side of an intelligent conversation on it.
 
Sig said:
I'll take your word on that, not tuned in enough to the UK's current situation especially with the Brexit impacts to support my side of an intelligent conversation on it.
More...

Not really. The article was written with my intention of compensating for the loss of economic growth that was created by Brexit. If economic growth doesn't hit its targets in a highly indebted nation then bad debt will occur due to the way debt products and the banking system are set up.
 
Tax investing class you reduce capital available for longer term processes and reduce the standard of living. Look it up... Investing in longer term capital intense processes have an exponentializing return. So you can say your in this frame where you have to solve the politicians wreakage but if you look a little deeper you will realize the system of incentives with respect to bureaucracy and the ever growing Government and it's related debt.. bottomline is your gonna have to tax it out of the working class and people's savings and as well the value creators (the entrepreneural class) and dilute the shit out of them to reduce the debt...
 
cdcaveman said:
Tax investing class you reduce capital available for longer term processes and reduce the standard of living. Look it up... Investing in longer term capital intense processes have an exponentializing return. So you can say your in this frame where you have to solve the politicians wreakage but if you look a little deeper you will realize the system of incentives with respect to bureaucracy and the ever growing Government and it's related debt.. bottomline is your gonna have to tax it out of the working class and people's savings and as well the value creators (the entrepreneural class) and dilute the shit out of them to reduce the debt...
More...

Not really. I advise the UK Government on pensions and pension tax relief. I suggested they reduce the amount of pension tax relief instead of taxing the current economy because it can be made up for in later years. I also recommended the change in the Retirement Benefits schemes, which were costing a lot of money.

You used to have UURBS and FURBS, Unfunded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Schemes and Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Schemes, that used to act as pension top ups after the life time allowance on pension saving had been exceeded. I recommended they changed it so you could only get a reitrement benefit scheme if you owned the business.

The Employer Financed Retirement Benefit Scheme replaced UURBS and FURBS and prevented civil servants gaining too high a pension payout. This is the way I have been cutting the deficit in the UK. Pension tax relief is a good way of balancing the deficit and can be made up for when the economy recovers, as long as you don't penalise those close to retirement.

Now I am looking at increasing growth to reduce the deficit by making it proportionately smaller to the size of the economy. If the economy grows and debt rates stay in the same area then you can eventually expand yourself out of debt. This is another reason why economic growth is something I am trying to achieve.
 
Oh I understand there is a buried leverage in the system that has us all depending on a economic expansion rate and a certain inflation rate such that we can inflate away the debt and as well as you referenced economic expansion would decrease the debt as a percentage of the value of the total economy . I still don't believe central economic plans is beneficial to greater society. The Government is always benefitting one group at the expense of another, then when you add the over head of government the whole transaction nets out negative .
 
cdcaveman said:
Oh I understand there is a buried leverage in the system that has us all depending on a economic expansion rate and a certain inflation rate such that we can inflate away the debt and as well as youeferenced economic expansion would decrease the debt as a percentage of the value of the total economy . I still don't believe central economic plans is beneficial to greater society. The Government is always benefitting one group at the expense of another, then when you add the over head of government the whole transaction nets out negative .
More...

Here is another mechanism I thought up a few years ago. The concept is based on a period of limited credit. The only way I could increase consumption to increase growth was to reduce the cost of housing or renting.

http://morganisteconomics.blogspot....based-rental-control.html?q=left+foot+forward
 
morganist said:
Here is another mechanism I thought up a few years ago. The concept is based on a period of limited credit. The only way I could increase consumption to increase growth was to reduce the cost of housing or renting.

http://morganisteconomics.blogspot....based-rental-control.html?q=left+foot+forward
More...
or a version of the EIC (earned income credit)....sorry, but as indicated by me and others earlier, this is not new territory. all very basic macro theory that has been debated for many years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top