Originally posted by MacSwainMy scholarship is not that extravagant...
Following the dominate line of thought in this thread, wouldn’t it be [b]most equitable if these incremental steps were skipped and we dashed straight-away to the eventual conclusion:
Everyone would keep the part of their salary which would equal, as example, a dustman’s pay.
All others, such as: forkedknight, uzless, KasetNagorra, AthousandYoung, ...[text shortened]... would have their surplus turned over to the treasury. I find that plan enticing – don’t you? 😕[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainI don't see how that is the eventual conclusion. How do you go from a consumption tax, to remitting everything above a certain limit to the state?
Following the dominate line of thought in this thread, wouldn’t it be [b]most equitable if these incremental steps were skipped and we dashed straight-away to the eventual conclusion:
Everyone would keep the part of their salary which would equal, as example, a dustman’s pay.
All others, such as: forkedknight, uzless, KasetNagorra, AthousandYoung, ...[text shortened]... would have their surplus turned over to the treasury. I find that plan enticing – don’t you? 😕[/b]
Originally posted by dryhumpWhere did I include income tax in my theoretical calculation?
You are forgetting that the income tax would be gone. I also said earliear that people below the poverty line would be tax exempt for things like food and clothing. The price of goods would, ideally speaking, stay level because of the drop in taxes to the manufacturers. I don't think it is fair to tax the rich more just because they make more money. Seems awful Harrison Bergeron to me.
Originally posted by forkedknightI guess you didn't, sorry. The point still stands that people below the poverty line would be tax exempt. Without the income tax they would take home all of their pay. It's not perfect, but the system we have now is crap so why keep on with it?
Where did I include income tax in my theoretical calculation?