1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI understand (very well in fact) how a flat tax works, as well as it's relationship to income. I just think that you've arbitrarily decided that share of personal income should be the dimension along which we measure equality. I know a lot of rich people who would say that it's not fair for them to pay so much money for things they don't use (e.g. means-tested programs). You've asked me why I think those that who make good choices and earn high salaries should be forced to pay more money. Again, I never suggested such a thing, but ironically you do. You do think that people should pay more in taxes simply because they earn more income. I'm just inquisitive as to why you've chosen this standard.
When the current system as some paying over 30% and others paying
not even 1% that is not fair. The point is you treat everyone the same
way for the same thing, the amount of tax burden grows as income
grows. It will only grow only as the income grows, and if your income
decreases so does your tax burden. I do not know how to say the
same thing over an ...[text shortened]... to you and make you see it if you cannot
see treating everyone the same way isn't fair.
Kelly
It seems that it is partly based upon the assumption that taking a proportional share of income inflicts a proportional share of "pain." But research into people's preferences (as revealed by their behavior) suggests that the "pain" of a proportional share decreases with income so that the income rich are not as put out by a 10% tax as the income poor. While the percentage taxed is the same, the harm inflicted would not. Assuming for the moment that this is true, would you still consider the flat income tax fair?
Originally posted by telerionI believe it is fair, because we are in a country where we can earn
I understand (very well in fact) how a flat tax works, as well as it's relationship to income. I just think that you've arbitrarily decided that share of personal income should be the dimension along which we measure equality. I know a lot of rich people who would say that it's not fair for them to pay so much money for things they don't use (e.g. ...[text shortened]... for the moment that this is true, would you still consider the flat income tax fair?
more by the rules we place upon ourselves and the benefits our
country affords us. The more you get out of it the more you pay but
you do not have to a greater percentage than the next guy, so if
making more means you have to give more it will always be the same
percentage as the next guy to increase the tax burden tips the
scales against those who make more in favor of those who make less.
We can only have a fair system if it is a level playing field, to keep it
fair the pain should be the same no matter where you are
economically, now our system plays favorites.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionI understand 10%, no matter what the size of a income will hurt some
I understand (very well in fact) how a flat tax works, as well as it's relationship to income. I just think that you've arbitrarily decided that share of personal income should be the dimension along which we measure equality. I know a lot of rich people who would say that it's not fair for them to pay so much money for things they don't use (e.g. for the moment that this is true, would you still consider the flat income tax fair?
more than others, but that is always true no matter what system is
in place, and why I said we move up or down the percentage by what
the least of us can handle. The real work should be what is so
important that we would take away from those earning less, now there
isn't any concern there, because the poor are getting drilled by taxes,
fees, and other means the government has for reaching our bank
accounts. I also like the idea of not taxing anyone 20 and under, when
they hit 21 welcome to real world.
Kelly
1 edit
Personally, if we are going to tax income, then I lean toward a flat tax of about 20-25% with a moderate exemption of about 12-15K. I'm not so much concerned about "fairness" which is in my opinion a nebulous concept. Instead, I would be looking for a balance between raising the sufficient amount of revenue for transfers and other spending against the disincentive to save. The wealthy do most of the savings in an economy. That savings becomes investment in production which creates growth which helps pretty much everybody*. Decrease the exemption level too much and you place a too large a burden on the poor**. Make it too large and you decrease the tax base so that the flat rate must be increased to generate the same revenue, placing a stronger disincentive for savings on the income rich.
* - We could have a long, interesting, and most likely ultimately fruitless discussion about the inequality of returns from growth, but I'd like to avoid that here.
** - Keep in mind that the costs of poverty on not born by the poor alone. Not only do we all pay direct financial costs (e.g.,increased health and incarceration costs), but also indirect ones (e.g., increased risk of crime, lost future productivity of income poor children).
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat's the argument for making the 20-and-under crowd exempt from paying taxes?
I understand 10%, no matter what the size of a income will hurt some
more than others, but that is always true no matter what system is
in place, and why I said we move up or down the percentage by what
the least of us can handle. The real work should be what is so
important that we would take away from those earning less, now there
isn't any concern t ...[text shortened]... ike the idea of not taxing anyone 20 and under, when
they hit 21 welcome to real world.
Kelly
Also, isn't that yet another violation of your definition of a "fair" tax?
Originally posted by telerionMost start up jobs take place during those years in someone’s life.
What's the argument for making the 20-and-under crowd exempt from paying taxes?
Also, isn't that yet another violation of your definition of a "fair" tax?
Actually I like the idea of people seeing a full pay check and seeing
it go away too. Sort of does away with the "I don't see it so it isn't
really mine" concept. We could do it till 18 too, I just think having
that in play highlights what happens when taxes are taken out of
the pay check.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionI'd take your idea over the current one in play.
Personally, if we are going to tax income, then I lean toward a flat tax of about 20-25% with a moderate exemption of about 12-15K. I'm not so much concerned about "fairness" which is in my opinion a nebulous concept. Instead, I would be looking for a balance between raising the sufficient amount of revenue for transfers and other spending against the dis ...[text shortened]... rect ones (e.g., increased risk of crime, lost future productivity of income poor children).
Kelly