Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explanation: The higher taxes on house rents, which is the main topic of that paragraph.
Note that we already have that system in place. The higher the value of the real estate, the more tax that is assessed.
Then why does Adam Smith tack on the last sentence to that paragraph?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No, I clearly showed how that phrase refers to the higher taxes on house rents. Not sure why you're not getting it.
I'm getting at your inability to account for the last sentence. If the topic of the paragraph is that a tax rate on rental receipts results in more taxes being paid by the rich than the poor (as opposed to a poll tax) then why does Smith add the sentence, switch from talking about taxes and rents to talking about revenues and use the phrase 'something more than that in proportion'?
IMO the only thing that accounts for that last sentence is that it is the summation of the paragraph. Smith uses a specific example and then further goes on to make a general observation (right or wrong) about progressive taxation. The main point of the paragraph isn't house rents and tax rates, it's progressive taxation.
A national sales tax would increase the cost of rent and would thus make low earners worse off, many of whom spend half or more of their income for rent.
Rents contain little embedded income tax because of rental property currently enjoys favorable treatment in the tax code. Embedded property taxes are substantial and won't be affected by a national sales tax
Rent won't change. It's not a tangible good such as a pair of tennis shoes, nor is it a service.
If anything, it will actually drop, as income taxes paid by those who charge rent will decrease, however small, will also be added to the employer matching incomes taxes paid on behalf of all the employees working in all those rental offices, all the maint workers, etc etc etc.
Not sure why some of you are having a hard time understanding Adam Smith's writings. Maybe this will help:
Quote:
Smith favoured a tax system which favoured the poorest, but not through redistribution of income. He assumes that normally taxation is on consumption rather than on income or wealth, and favours higher taxes on those goods most consumed by the rich.
Give up two nights and use the second night to earn money.
(Might not be feasible, offered tongue-in-cheek.)
I agree with you that often it is not feasable for low income workers to give up two or more nights as they are already working till they are exhausted for minimum wage and after child care or medical bills or even food and utilities cannot make ends meet. Getting a bit sick and tired of the 'look at me i worked all hours to get where i am" B/S. I often find these people have extremely short memories and forget the help they got or the lack of family commitments or are talking complete garbage. People on low incomes are working LONG hours and with rising prices get deeper and deeper into debt until they need the food stamps etc which in the end cost the taxpayer far more than if they got a tax exemption under a certain amount of earnings. Not funny when someone is doing everything humanly possible to support their family and then they get the arrogant 'get another job" on here with no idea with their "look at me...i'm amazing" B/S.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.