The Fair Tax

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Hey Kelly,

It would take a lot of computers to figure out the logic, but what would you think of a voluntary program that would go outside of the norms?

What if one could elect to pay more with the caveat that THAT proportion would be donated to a designated set of funds... controlled by the donor?

I could then elect to support whichever funds ...[text shortened]... except broader -- with various charities taking the role of the stocks and bonds etc...

Mike

"It would take a lot of computers to figure out the logic,..."

What is hard about that logic?
The part where everyone pays the same percentage?
The part where we do not want the poor to be hurt by a large
percentage? I think we are in such a mess now is because we do not
see the government hurting the tax payer now, all we hear about is
the government (those that promote tax hikes) going after the
rich not the poor as we give the government more and more of
our income. I know someone came up with a day of the year
where they track how much of our income goes to taxes. From
the beginning of the year till (whatever that day is) all your income
is gone for taxes, once that day is reached you keep it all, but
that day is slowing getting closer to December 31 all the time it
seems. 🙁 Sort of like the frog in the pot of boiling water that is
getting hotter and hotter as time goes by, you just don't feel it
as it gets turned up slowly.
Kelly

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
For several years now, I have espoused a national sales tax as the best way to get an equitable tax going.

In my mind, I keep tweeking it and twisting it and adjusting it and IN THEORY it sure seems like the way to go.

Then I started to think about the psychology of it and I have what I think MIGHT be a killer to the notion.

Firstly, we have to opian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.

We have such a tax in Canada. It's called the GST (goods and service tax) that is applied to almost everything you buy.

Many economists here believe it is a better form of taxation than income tax since it taxes consumption rather than employment.

Stupidly, our current conservative government recently announced a reduction in the gst, not income tax, despite the fact not many here think it is a smart move.🙄

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Man, you got a rambleon! I liked the first part about minimalising
class differences but how does it address controlling a population
explosion amongst the working classes when conditions improve?

lol,

most rich people have fewer kids than poor folks.

So as the poor folks get richer, what do you think happens...they have even more kids???

History would suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Work out how much it's going to cost to run the gummint for one year and then divide that evenly amongst the population, a poll tax. Yes, imagine it, we'd see a different guvamint if people couldn't vote money out of other peoples pockets. There would be a massive reduction in the size of guvamint and gummint spending, hoorah. In election year the pollies ...[text shortened]... Nup, that don't sound right.

That leaves: You use it - You pay for it. aka Fair Tax.

who'd pay for roads? Just the people in that state? Just the people in that city? just the people on your street? Just the people who have cars?

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"It would take a lot of computers to figure out the logic,..."

What is hard about that logic?
The part where everyone pays the same percentage?
The part where we do not want the poor to be hurt by a large
percentage? I think we are in such a mess now is because we do not
see the government hurting the tax payer now, all we hear about is
the g ...[text shortened]... otter and hotter as time goes by, you just don't feel it
as it gets turned up slowly.
Kelly[/b]

Another rax idea no income tax rill 18 years old.
Kelly

Originally posted by uzless
who'd pay for roads? Just the people in that state? Just the people in that city? just the people on your street? Just the people who have cars?

Toll roads are common now all over the world, the technology is there to extend this system with out having booths.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
For several years now, I have espoused a national sales tax as the best way to get an equitable tax going.

In my mind, I keep tweeking it and twisting it and adjusting it and IN THEORY it sure seems like the way to go.

Then I started to think about the psychology of it and I have what I think MIGHT be a killer to the notion.

Firstly, we have to ...[text shortened]... opian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.

well a new tax will make people spend less

raise minimum and student wageshigh income tax for high earners

open more farms so more food will be available so food would be cheaper 🙂

Originally posted by Wajoma
Work out how much it's going to cost to run the gummint for one year and then divide that evenly amongst the population, a poll tax. Yes, imagine it, we'd see a different guvamint if people couldn't vote money out of other peoples pockets. There would be a massive reduction in the size of guvamint and gummint spending, hoorah. In election year the pollies ...[text shortened]... Nup, that don't sound right.

That leaves: You use it - You pay for it. aka Fair Tax.

. . . so a consumption tax.

Originally posted by KellyJay
One size fits all, the same rate. That does away with the class envy
that we find ourselves in too by design when those in power want to
make promises with someone else's money. When it is everyone's
money the promises are felt by everyone the same way so the cost
would not be so easy to hide when they want to spend more for
this that or the other thing.
Kelly

A flat rate isn't equal though. A person with more income than you pays more than you do for the same amount of government services (or probably less). How did you come to decide that fairness means equality of proportion and not equality of value? It seems arbitrary to me. After all we could have an exponential progressive tax rate. A person's tax rate would be some base number raised to the power of that person's income. Everyone's base would be the same. Why wouldn't that be fair?

I also don't see how a flat tax solves "class envy." Despite the clearly progressive structure of the income tax brackets, when researchers have looked at data on income and income tax payments, they find that the [i]effective[i] tax rate* is progressive only at a very low income level, after that the effective rate is essentially flat. Nevertheless many people on this board still claim that "class envy" exists. Personally, I suspect that people, rich, poor, or in-between, will always find some reason to b!tch about money.


* - effective tax rates are essentially the fraction of income paid after all exemptions, tax breaks, etc. Basically, it's what you really pay rather than what the basic tax structure says you should pay.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"Why does "fair" have to be "equal"? "

To make it fair thats why. it has to be equal or it isn't fair. Play with
the numbers you punish one group over another.
Kelly[/b]

Again, a flat tax isn't equal. Why is that fair? If fairness = equality, then a fair tax should be a head tax. Everyone pays exactly the same amount. I don't agree with that definition of course. I'm just taking your statement at face value.

Originally posted by telerion
A flat rate isn't equal though. A person with more income than you pays more than you do for the same amount of government services (or probably less). How did you come to decide that fairness means equality of proportion and not equality of value? It seems arbitrary to me. After all we could have an exponential progressive tax rate. A person's tax ra ...[text shortened]... t's what you really pay rather than what the basic tax structure says you should pay.

It is a non-changing percentage that does not help or hurt you
any more or less no matter how much you make. They take whatever
X% out of your earn income be it 20K or 200K, no surprises no class
war fare it is the same period for everyone. The same pain no matter
what, what again is unfair about that? The way you seem to be looking
at it, the people who are for whatever reason are making more should
not get to keep what they make they deserve to have more of their
money by a greater percentage taken away from them. I’m not sure
why you think that is more of a fair way to looking at it, if it isn’t
the same for everyone it favors one group over another that does not
make for a level playing field so anything else isn’t fair.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
Again, a flat tax isn't equal. Why is that fair? If fairness = equality, then a fair tax should be a head tax. Everyone pays exactly the same amount. I don't agree with that definition of course. I'm just taking your statement at face value.

Your view of equal isn't the same as mine it seems, you lose 10%
of a 100 is 10, you lose 10% of 1000 is 100, you lose 10% of
10000 is 1000. It affects everyone the same way, you make more
you pay more but not a greater percentage than anyone else.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
Again, a flat tax isn't equal. Why is that fair? If fairness = equality, then a fair tax should be a head tax. Everyone pays exactly the same amount. I don't agree with that definition of course. I'm just taking your statement at face value.

No you are not taking what I say at face value you are changing it
to create a stand you want to bash. I have not said everyone pays
the same amount I said they pay the same percentage, if you cannot
see the difference I doubt anything I say will change your view.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"It would take a lot of computers to figure out the logic,..."

What is hard about that logic?
The part where everyone pays the same percentage?
The part where we do not want the poor to be hurt by a large
percentage? I think we are in such a mess now is because we do not
see the government hurting the tax payer now, all we hear about is
the g ...[text shortened]... otter and hotter as time goes by, you just don't feel it
as it gets turned up slowly.
Kelly[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day

Tax freedom day was the day I was thinking about.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is a non-changing percentage that does not help or hurt you
any more or less no matter how much you make. They take whatever
X% out of your earn income be it 20K or 200K, no surprises no class
war fare it is the same period for everyone. The same pain no matter
what, what again is unfair about that? The way you seem to be looking
at it, the people w ...[text shortened]... p over another that does not
make for a level playing field so anything else isn’t fair.
Kelly

I haven't said anything to you about what I want. I've just pointed out that a flat tax is not truly equal. Instead you've chosen a tax system in which everyone pays a different amount of taxes. It's fair according to you because the proportion of income seized is the same, but why should that make it fair? We could think of all sorts of different tax systems in which people's income tax is determined by some common number. These could be marginal rate progressive, flat, or even regressive. By your logic, one could argue that they're all fair. As an example, I made up a tax system where some one's tax was determined by a common (i.e. equal) base number raised to that person's income. Now why isn't that fair? And please try to answer some of these questions (Yes, those are question marks so don't play the same games you do in evolution threads. Discussing anything with you is like pulling teeth).

One reason you think a flat tax solves "class war fare" is that there are "no surprises." How are there surprises in a progressive or regressive code? Do you think people so dim that they can only understand a flat tax rate? If I know that I'll be taxed at 30% if my income is greater than X and at 15% if it is less than X, why should I be surprised when tax season comes around?

You also have this misconceived notion that a proportional tax makes the "pain" of paying the tax proportional. There's no reason to think that taking $1,000 from a poor family of four that makes $10,000/year causes the same "pain" as taking $100,000 from a single 25-year-old male making $1,000,000/year. Basically, your argument is true only if "utility" (or whatever you want to call the opposite of "pain"😉 is a linear function of income. There's a great deal of research to suggest that that is not the case. As income grows the utility from an extra dollar (or disutility from losing a dollar) diminishes.

So let's go over this one more time . . .

You wrote this:

The way you seem to be looking
at it, the people who are for whatever reason are making more should
not get to keep what they make they deserve to have more of their
money by a greater percentage taken away from them. I’m not sure
why you think that is more of a fair way to looking at it, if it isn’t
the same for everyone it favors one group over another that does not
make for a level playing field so anything else isn’t fair.

I'm not "looking" at it in anyway. I'm just taking the position for the moment that your proposed "fair" tax violates the definition of fairness that you set forth, namely that it be "equal." It does so because it makes the rich pay more tax than the poor. For this reason, in the study of taxation, even a flat rate tax is called income progressive (as opposed to "marginal-rate progressive" which you are thinking of).

Dang, KJ, you need to learn how to read. I thought it was just your rage over evolution that made you a careless reader. Apparently, you are always like this. Find where I advocate in this thread that "the people who are for whatever reason are making more should
not get to keep what they make they deserve to have more of their
money by a greater percentage taken away from them." Christ, KJ, try a little bit.