Harvard's new aid plan

[jtwcornell91]

The key thing is that net income remains a monotonic function of gross income.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Scersk '97] We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.[/quote]

That's right... lets simplify people's taxes by going from 6 tax brackets to 37. That'll make people happy! Or better yet, make it so people can't even begin to calculate their rate, with math they haven't ever seen, nevermind the dollars they owe.

While I wouldn't generally defend the tax system, the number of brackets is probably in the right ballpark. Its the complex, numerous, counterintuitive, and contradictory rules on deductions, credits, and penalties that are the issue. Lets leave well enough alone on the one part that's least screwed up.

[KeithK]

[quote Scersk '97]Well, no, continuous and continuously differentiable aren't the same thing.  I do want smooth functions...  We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.  

Why don't we just choose some nice exponential function and be done with it...  ::whistle::[/quote]
How about we go with one bracket?  That has the virtue  the simplest thing you're going to come up with and also treating everyone fairly. Unless, of course, you define fair as "let's soak the rich to pay for everything we want".

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK]
How about we go with one bracket?  That has the virtue  the simplest thing you're going to come up with and also treating everyone fairly. Unless, of course, you define fair as "let's soak the rich to pay for everything we want".[/quote]

Fair in taxes is a meaningless term. It is entirely of personal opinion, values, and priorities.

Is it 'fair' that someone who can barely afford to feed and house their kids on their retail salary be taxed away part of the money needed to feed their kids? And someone who's deciding which yatch to buy next be taxed much less than current? You may think I'm saying its not, but I could see how some would think that an even rate is fair. Indeed that's one definition. But its not the only definition.

About the only thing even vaguely measure is level of simplicity or confusion.

People can argue fair or day and night, but its an argument of opinion, to which there is no one answer.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote Scersk '97] We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.[/quote]

That's right... lets simplify people's taxes by going from 6 tax brackets to 37. That'll make people happy! Or better yet, make it so people can't even begin to calculate their rate, with math they haven't ever seen, nevermind the dollars they owe. [/quote]

But the vast majority of people don't calculate their federal taxes; they use tax tables.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote DeltaOne81][quote Scersk '97] We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.[/quote]

That's right... lets simplify people's taxes by going from 6 tax brackets to 37. That'll make people happy! Or better yet, make it so people can't even begin to calculate their rate, with math they haven't ever seen, nevermind the dollars they owe. [/quote]

But the vast majority of people don't calculate their federal taxes; they use tax tables.[/quote]

I didn't say calculate their taxes, I said calculate their tax rate. For instance knowing you're in the 25% tax bracket so for every $1000 you send on mortage interest and real estate taxes, you get $250 back (insert all sorts of disclaimers here which means that number is really anything from $0 to $250). Or that a $100 charitable deduction will save you $25 in taxes (ditto). Or that for ever $20 of interest you earn you'll pay $5 in taxes. Etc.

[KeithK]

[quote DeltaOne81][quote KeithK]
How about we go with one bracket?  That has the virtue  the simplest thing you're going to come up with and also treating everyone fairly. Unless, of course, you define fair as "let's soak the rich to pay for everything we want".[/quote]

Fair in taxes is a meaningless term. It is entirely of personal opinion, values, and priorities.

Is it 'fair' that someone who can barely afford to feed and house their kids on their retail salary be taxed away part of the money needed to feed their kids? And someone who's deciding which yatch to buy next be taxed much less than current? You may think I'm saying its not, but I could see how some would think that an even rate is fair. Indeed that's one definition. But its not the only definition.

About the only thing even vaguely measure is level of simplicity or confusion.

People can argue fair or day and night, but its an argument of opinion, to which there is no one answer.[/quote]
fair:
6 a: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

That's the definition of fair that I use in this context (source: m-w.com). A progressive tax system is by definition not impartial ("treating or affecting all equally").  It says that we need to favor those at the lower end of the spectrum with lower taxes.  It's based on a subjective determination of how much a tax payer can afford to pay given his income.

When people say (and many do) that a tax system needs to tax the wealthy at higher rates in order to be fair they are either using a different definition of fair (e.g. "pleasing to the eye or mind") or they are really thinking of the net results.  But the fact that someone may have trouble paying their bills on a retail salary is the fault of life, which certainly is not fair.  You can't make it so no matter how hard you try.  Better to have institutions that do in fact treat everyone equally.

[DeltaOne81]

Keith, in your comments there - as intelligent as they are - you quoted 3 different definitions of fair - each of which has a different perspective and leads to a different result. And I could probably pick another 3 or 4 from that page which could also apply:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fair

So I feel you've made my point wonderfully

[jtwcornell91]

Why not argue that everyone pay the same dollar amount?  After all, that would be "fair". ::rolleyes::

[KeithK]

[quote DeltaOne81]Keith, in your comments there - as intelligent as they are - you quoted 3 different definitions of fair - each of which has a different perspective and leads to a different result. And I could probably pick another 3 or 4 from that page which could also apply:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fair

So I feel you've made my point wonderfully [/quote]
I quoted two, one that I used (6a) and one that I rejected (1).  The other quote was from the definition of impartial. I'm arguing that the other definitions are not appropriate in this context.

If all we can really measure is simplicity then we really should have a flat tax with no exemptions or deductions.  It's hard to come up with anything simpler.

[KeithK]

[quote jtwcornell91]Why not argue that everyone pay the same dollar amount?  After all, that would be "fair". ::rolleyes::[/quote]
A constant tax would in fact be fair and impartial.  It wouldn't necessarily be desirable.  Current receipts of $2.4 trillion split among 300 million people would mean $8000 tax per capita, which would certainly be ruinous.  

Fair and impartial doesn't necessarily equate to good.  But it's hard for government action to be good when it isn't fair and impartial.

[Scersk '97]

[quote Robb][quote Scersk '97]
Well, no, continuous and continuously differentiable aren't the same thing.  I do want smooth functions...  We've got, what, six tax brackets now?  I guess that's a bit smoother than three, but it still seems screwy to me.  

Why don't we just choose some nice exponential function and be done with it...  ::whistle::[/quote]

I know they're not the same thing.  That's why I said "Sure (meaning I agreed with DeltaOne's statement that it was a continuous function), but (meaning in contrast) it's not continuously differentiable."

When I said that DeltaOne and I had said the same thing, I was referring to his comment that the rates were discontinuous, which is the same thing as saying the function isn't continuously differentiable.[/quote]

Well, now that you've explained to which parts of the previous message you were referring, sure, I get that it was a "joke"[/i] rather than just ambiguity. ::rolleyes::

[DeltaOne81]

[quote KeithK]
I quoted two, one that I used (6a) and one that I rejected (1).  The other quote was from the definition of impartial. I'm arguing that the other definitions are not appropriate in this context.[/quote]

Well then, the one you rejected was of "fair" as in "fair skies" or "fair beauty".

So let me point out some other that are...
How about the other half of 6a for starters? "free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism". By that interest, no taxation proposal can ever be fair, as everyone has a distinct self-interest and that colors everyone's view.

How about 6b? "(2): consonant with merit or importance : due ". That's pretty wide open, and seems to have plenty of option for one person's fair share to be a higher percentage than another, right? Especially if what we aim to truly tax is not total income, but discretionary income.  Income not needed to be used for things like housing, clothing, food, basic transportation, and the like. In that case, it makes perfect fair, impartial sense that the same percentage of discretionary income is your fair share - and that's not the same thing as a flat percentage of total income.

I understand your point and priorities, Keith, but you're trying to make things into fact ('what is fair') that are only opinion.

If all we can really measure is simplicity then we really should have a flat tax with no exemptions or deductions.  It's hard to come up with anything simpler.

I said its all we can measure (not measure exactly, but roughly). I didn't say its the only goal/point/consideration.

A constant tax would in fact be fair and impartial. It wouldn't necessarily be desirable. Current receipts of $2.4 trillion split among 300 million people would mean $8000 tax per capita, which would certainly be ruinous.

I think this says a lot. A flat tax (rate) would be pretty ruinous too, for those on the lower end of the income scale. If you were going to keep a revenue neutral route, the dollars lost by the people at the top end dropping from 35% to ~25% would need to be made up at the bottom. Why is that not important for a flat tax rate, but it deserve mentioning for a flat tax dollar amount?

[Chris '03]

No way they could match Harvard and Yale obviously but it's something:
http://cornellsun.com/node/26757

I'm not sure I'm in love with the idea of capping loans for families making 120k and under and passing that loss on to families making more with more tuition hikes. Seems like fuzzy math.

[Robb]

[quote Chris '03]No way they could match Harvard and Yale obviously but it's something:
http://cornellsun.com/node/26757

I'm not sure I'm in love with the idea of capping loans for families making 120k and under and passing that loss on to families making more with more tuition hikes. Seems like fuzzy math.[/quote]

It's not fuzzy math.  It's welfare, pure and simple.  You can debate the merits or lack thereof of such policies, but call a spade a spade.