14 Apr 05
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is okay, I understand this.
But they propose doing this by increased rates of taxation. Currently it's around 25% for those earning under £40,000 and around 40% for those earning over (I think I am right).
But surely having a percentage based rate of tax ensures that those earning more, pay more? i.e. a flat rate of income tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBut I've seen this argument from many politicians over the years and nobody (interviewers, pundits, etc) ever questions them on it, so I had to assume I am misunderstanding something.
Your confusion derives from the fallacy of presuming that liberal economic policy is based on reason.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by Vargwhile i personally agree with higher taxation rates for the rich on an ethical basis ....
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is o ...[text shortened]... e tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
but, of course, that is not what is going on.
in reality:
the politicans aim to gain maximum support for themselves.
directly gaining votes is of course one form of support - by avoiding taxing large numbers of supportive /swinging voters.
the other type of support is money ... raising extra money enables them to go 'pork barrelling' for votes in the future.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by VargIt is called progressive taxation. Everyone has a similar basic living standard - a place to live, food to eat. For the poor, the basics take up nearly all their income. For the rich, the basics take only a small amount - and the proportion spend on luxeries - wine, holidays, large houses - increases.
The Lib Dems have announced increased income taxation of 50% for those earning over £100,000 (apparently 1% of the UK).
I've never understood this about taxation. I'm not trying to make a political point, or be sarcastic, I genuinely do not understand this:
The Lib Dems (and others) claim that is is "fairer" to tax the rich more than the poor. This is o ...[text shortened]... e tax is completely fair.
What am I not getting here? I would be grateful for an explanation.
So a person who can afford to spend a greater propertion of their income on luxeries van afford a greater proportion of tax. Just another definition of fairness.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by steerpikeI'm not sure I agree the above is fair. While I am not rich, I am also not poor (as compared to about 90% of this world's population) I consider the idea of a flat tax to be decent.
It is called progressive taxation. Everyone has a similar basic living standard - a place to live, food to eat. For the poor, the basics take up nearly all their income. For the rich, the basics take only a small amount - and the proportion spend on luxeries - wine, holidays, large houses - increases.
So a person who can afford to spend a greater proper ...[text shortened]... income on luxeries van afford a greater proportion of tax. Just another definition of fairness.
Let's say in the u.s that every dollar earned pays one cent tax to the government, one cent to the state. One cent in sales tax. I would think no write-offs or deductions. I think this would make a little bit more sense that our current structure.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieOf course it's not fair.
I'm not sure I agree the above is fair.
The only reason somebody is able to spend a higher proportion of their income on luxury is because they already have contributed proportionally more to society, for that's just what it means to have obtained a higher income. This notion of fairness says that it is fair to force those who already have contributed proportionally more to continue to contribute proportionally more as a result of thier disproportionate contributions.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesthat makes me laugh!
Of course it's not fair.
The only reason somebody is able to spend a higher proportion of their income on luxury is because they already have contributed proportionally more to society, for that's just what it means to ...[text shortened]... tionally more as a result of thier disproportionate contributions.
do you really believe that?
i believe almost exactly the opposite ... the people who do the most tiresome, and laborious jobs holding societies together normally get paid almost nothing.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleswhat about thievery?
Not in an economy of rational agents that doesn't have artificial constraints imposed upon it by a government, no, I can't.
what about scams/ deception?
selling cigarettes?
drug dealing?
destruction of massive quantities of nature for short term profit?
production of nuclear weapons and selling them to other countries?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesif someone inherits a large property fortune, and they then live off a huge ammount of rent money that is given to them by the real estate agent who does all the work.
The first two are examples of neither income nor rational behavior.
The latter two are valid examples of contributing to society.
So are the two recent edits.
do you belive this person contributes to society?