S/he makes more money

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I were to design our tax system:
First 30K tax free, after that all share the same percentage I favor 10%.
If the taxes go up, they go up on everyone equally, no more deductions.
Simple and straight forward.
Kelly

But this is clearly a redistributive scheme, which will result in wealthy people paying much more taxes. So you do favour some form of redistribution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But this is clearly a redistributive scheme, which will result in wealthy people paying much more taxes. So you do favour some form of redistribution.

It is a fair form of taxes in my opinion. There is nothing about redistribution
in it at all. It only addresses the taking of money by the government, which
as much as I hate the idea needs to happen for any country to function. No
one is giving this freely it is by force being taken.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a fair form of taxes in my opinion. There is nothing about redistribution
in it at all. It only addresses the taking of money by the government, which
as much as I hate the idea needs to happen for any country to function. No
one is giving this freely it is by force being taken.
Kelly

I'm confused - how do you define "redistribution"?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There has been more than a few discussions on income inequality with
the view point of some being, the spread of those making less compared
to those making more is on its face, wrong, is it wrong?

If simply the difference between the top and bottom is wrong on its face
just because there is a difference between the top and bottom, why?

Why should e ...[text shortened]... making more money so that the owners do
well, and that can be thought of as wrong, why?
Kelly

There can never be income equality, fair or unfair. It is preposterous to believe that someone with the responsibility of running a multibillion dollar enterprise will earn the same as the hundreds of thousands of low level employees (production workers). Hiring the wrong person for that top job can lose the jobs of everyone below them. The wrong person on an assembly line is replaced with costs, but small relatively.

"Why should equal pay be better having everyone make the same
amount if not everyone is willing to put out the same effort?"

Even the "same effort" isn't a good measure. Same output, or same responsibility, closer. But those things are difficult to measure. As to the so called "level playing field", it doesn't exist. Even real playing fields yield home field advantages. Golf where everyone plays the same holes, but some play in the morning and others in the afternoon in different conditions, not level playing field. Football teams play in indoor and outdoor stadiums, on grass or artificial turf, and grounds keepers are know to slow a field down for a particularly fast opponent.

The real trouble in trying to create "fairness" those in power always have people they favor, so that the unfairness is just shifted around along with the income, and usually in the process the redistribution agent takes a cut.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But this is clearly a redistributive scheme, which will result in wealthy people paying much more taxes. So you do favour some form of redistribution.

My question is why any level gets to pay nothing. Even if they pay the same percentage as a high earning individual, the amount will be far less. In that way, government would have to appeal to all the population for tax increases instead of class warfare appealing to payees and or recipients.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a fair form of taxes in my opinion. There is nothing about redistribution
in it at all. It only addresses the taking of money by the government, which
as much as I hate the idea needs to happen for any country to function. No
one is giving this freely it is by force being taken.
Kelly

Clearly, in your example people earning less that $30k would receive government services at a lower cost than those above that income level. That is redistribution.

Originally posted by normbenign
There can never be income equality, fair or unfair. It is preposterous to believe that someone with the responsibility of running a multibillion dollar enterprise will earn the same as the hundreds of thousands of low level employees (production workers). Hiring the wrong person for that top job can lose the jobs of everyone below them. The wrong pers ...[text shortened]... d around along with the income, and usually in the process the redistribution agent takes a cut.

I've never tried to produce income equality, fair or unfair! I believe that the
best we can hope for is to be treated equally across the board. You get
taxed at 10% I get taxed at the same rate well as everyone else. What you
and I do with that will be up to each of us.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've never tried to produce income equality, fair or unfair! I believe that the
best we can hope for is to be treated equally across the board. You get
taxed at 10% I get taxed at the same rate well as everyone else. What you
and I do with that will be up to each of us.
Kelly

That works for me.

Originally posted by normbenign
Clearly, in your example people earning less that $30k would receive government services at a lower cost than those above that income level. That is redistribution.

Well, there would be no way that you could just cut off everyone all at once.
The great difference would be that nearly everyone will be paying into the
system, and that will without a doubt change the way money is spent.
Those that spend the money will now find that everyone who is putting into
the common pot, will not enjoy spending without restraint. It would change
things in my opinion anyway.
Kelly

Originally posted by normbenign
Clearly, in your example people earning less that $30k would receive government services at a lower cost than those above that income level. That is redistribution.

People earning under 30K will just be living tax free. What we do with
government services would be a different topic.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
People earning under 30K will just be living tax free. What we do with
government services would be a different topic.
Kelly

Any difference in tax rates has to result in some form of redistribution. Setting that kind of bar, which is actually lower than today's averages, makes people either stop earning at that threshold, or find ways of earning under the table.

Originally posted by normbenign
Any difference in tax rates has to result in some form of redistribution. Setting that kind of bar, which is actually lower than today's averages, makes people either stop earning at that threshold, or find ways of earning under the table.

If it is 10% after 30K than 30% and one dollar would be 10% of one dollar.
I'm sure there would be cheats, there are always cheats. Filling out a tax
form would be post card for everyone who earns through income. Seems
like a lot effort for that.
Kelly

Originally posted by normbenign
Any difference in tax rates has to result in some form of redistribution. Setting that kind of bar, which is actually lower than today's averages, makes people either stop earning at that threshold, or find ways of earning under the table.

Yes, I'm sure someone making $31k will do all they can to avoid paying $100 in taxes.

Any tax policy that is not a flat amount (rather than a flat rate) results in redistribution because people pay different amounts for the same government services.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, I'm sure someone making $31k will do all they can to avoid paying $100 in taxes.

Any tax policy that is not a flat amount (rather than a flat rate) results in redistribution because people pay different amounts for the same government services.

All right but I'm sure you favor not only flat rates, but graduated rates to suck more away from the higher earners. Actually, I'd prefer almost any taxation other than personal income tax, which was virtually impossible until the 16th amendment.

Originally posted by normbenign
All right but I'm sure you favor not only flat rates, but graduated rates to suck more away from the higher earners. Actually, I'd prefer almost any taxation other than personal income tax, which was virtually impossible until the 16th amendment.

I would favour a taxation system that maximizes utility. Given what we know about marginal utility this is likely to be some kind of progressive taxation system (like the one KellyJay proposed), although its details are up for debate.

Of course, if the goal is Constitution masturbation rather than effective government policies, the preferred taxation method might differ.