The Fair Tax

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

You still pay more for the same or less services. How is that "fair"? It's certainly not equal. It's just an arbitrary reason to call it "fair". I've made up another one. Why is that one not fair?

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

This is what you wrote:

A fair tax should be the same for everyone, once you start making it better for some than others you have broken the level playing field and are no longer messing with a fair tax.
Kelly

(emphasis mine)

A flat tax is not the "same for everyone." In fact, it "makes it better for some" (the poor) and worse for others (the rich). It is an income progressive tax. Why? Because the income rich pay more taxes!

Fair enough, you think that a flat rate tax is "fair" for arbitrary and unfounded reasons. Not unlike most of your views actually. Whatever. I'm not getting paid to teach you so I'm done. Have a Happy Holidays.

Originally posted by telerion
You still pay more for the same or less services. How is that "fair"? It's certainly not equal. It's just an arbitrary reason to call it "fair". I've made up another one. Why is that one not fair?

Percentage taxes have been viewed as fair for a very long time -- the Catholic church used to tithe off 10% of each individual's wealth.

Saying that each person should pay a fixed amount is unworkable. If you make it low enough that everyone can pay it, the amount will be too low to support the national government. If you make it high enough, then 90% of the people won't be able to pay it -- so what do you do with them? Deny them government services?

If you live in a country and benefit from it -- i.e. you have income, the most generally accepted notion is that you pay to defend, police, and rule that country in proportion to how much you have benefitted.

So Bill Gates forking over several millions in tax makes sense because growing up in Russia or Egypt, things would likely have been very diffferent for him.

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

Toll roads are a dumb idea -- not just because booths get jammed up. Everyone benefits from roads directly or indirectly -- goods are shipped, tourists come, business is carried out. Even if you never drive on a road yourself, stuff you profit from moves along those roads.

Originally posted by uzless
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.🙄

It probably makes no difference whether you tax at the income or outflow. But the problem with consumption tax is it raises prices which has a dampening effect on the economy. Someone determined not to pay taxes buys less -- but still benefits from all government services.

If you want to live in a nice country with good defense, good police, good infrastructure, and good services, you need to be ready to pay for that. If you don't like how the government spends your money, vote them out and put in a better crew.

I would be for lowering sales tax, raising property tax, and flattening and simplifying the income tax (e.g. with a negative income tax).

I think too little has been done with the property tax. It is one of the best ways of ensuring that individuals who live in an area support that area's infrastructure, schools, roads, police, etc. There are problems with assessing value, it is true -- seen especially in the recent house-price run-up. But I would also tax second and higher homes more vigorously (I dislike landlords -- parasites, in my view!)

Originally posted by spruce112358
Toll roads are a dumb idea -- not just because booths get jammed up. Everyone benefits from roads directly or indirectly -- goods are shipped, tourists come, business is carried out. Even if you never drive on a road yourself, stuff you profit from moves along those roads.

Well the people that travel on the many hundreds of thousands of miles of toll road with mileages mounting well into the trillions, must disagree with you. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Also the technology is here to do away with booths, there are already numerous systems in place where the driver dosen't even slow down.

Not everyone benefits to the same degree from roads, so it is unfair that they contribute the same amount or more than those that do. So since we are looking at 'fair' taxes, tolls are about as fair as it gets.

thank you and good night.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
So as much as I like my fancy-shmansy plan for a fair tax... it kind of stinks. Just another utopian bit of non-sense that looks good until you put it up against human greed.

Well... at least we're agreed on the fact that we need a tax system.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Well... at least we're agreed on the fact that we need a tax system.

Shav...you're one of the few reliable voices of sanity on this otherwise insane site. Nods to Telerion too.

Keep it up.



And now, we turn to a demonstration on How not to be Seen

YouTube

Originally posted by telerion
You still pay more for the same or less services. How is that "fair"? It's certainly not equal. It's just an arbitrary reason to call it "fair". I've made up another one. Why is that one not fair?

The more you make the more you pay but just the same percentage.
Bottom line we are going to pay one way or another, what is the 'fair'
thing to do? In my opinion touch everyone equally, and the only way
to do that is by taxing everyone with the same percentage since the
same amount strait up isn't going to work for all the reasons already
given. Outside of stating the obvious meaning the more you make
the more you pay what do you think is unfair about a system that
treats everyone the same way? Sliding scales do not treat everyone
the same way they lay more of the tax burden upon a select number
of people for whatever reason you create the sliding scale.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The more you make the more you pay but just the same percentage.
Bottom line we are going to pay one way or another, what is the 'fair'
thing to do? In my opinion touch everyone equally, and the only way
to do that is by taxing everyone with the same percentage since the
same amount strait up isn't going to work for all the reasons already
given. Outsi ...[text shortened]... rden upon a select number
of people for whatever reason you create the sliding scale.
Kelly

Yes, and you can see how the progressive system happens, the rich folk are a minority so the poor folk just vote for which ever pollies are promising to dip deepest into that minorities pockets. Democracy ain't what it's cracked up to be, especially if you happen to belong to a minority.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Democracy ain't what it's cracked up to be, especially if you happen to belong to a minority.

Waj you continually surprise me standing up for the minorities in this world, and there was me thinking that your libertarianism didn't have a heart.😀

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yes, and you can see how the progressive system happens, the rich folk are a minority so the poor folk just vote for which ever pollies are promising to dip deepest into that minorities pockets. Democracy ain't what it's cracked up to be, especially if you happen to belong to a minority.

That is the power of that system, and if that were broken how many
promises do you think those in power would be willing to make if
everyone felt the same pain when they said they were give money
away to one group over another? That give away program better
be well worth the tax dollar spent if you are going to tell the rich and
the poor we are taking more of everyone's money to do this or that.

As it is now it is a shell game that is played right in front of everyone
and we keep buying into the 'get the rich' to the point some believe
the rich are all evil.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
This is what you wrote:

A fair tax should be the [b]same for everyone, once you start making it better for some than others you have broken the level playing field and are no longer messing with a fair tax.
Kelly

(emphasis mine)

A flat tax is not the "same for everyone." In fact, it "makes it better for some" (the poor) and worse for others ally. Whatever. I'm not getting paid to teach you so I'm done. Have a Happy Holidays.[/b]

I disagree it isn't better or worse for anyone, if the tax rate was
10% everyone keeps 90% of their own money. That remains true
no matter how much you make; little or much it is equal.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The more you make the more you pay but just the same percentage.
Bottom line we are going to pay one way or another, what is the 'fair'
thing to do? In my opinion touch everyone equally, and the only way
to do that is by taxing everyone with the same percentage since the
same amount strait up isn't going to work for all the reasons already
given. Outsi ...[text shortened]... rden upon a select number
of people for whatever reason you create the sliding scale.
Kelly

A flat tax also places more of the burden on the income wealthy.

You are calling a flat system fair because the fraction of income taken is the same. I'm asking why that type of "sameness" is "fair" when other types of "sameness" (like the same exponential base) are not?

Originally posted by telerion
A flat tax also places more of the burden on the income wealthy.

You are calling a flat system fair because the fraction of income taken is the same. I'm asking why that type of "sameness" is "fair" when other types of "sameness" (like the same exponential base) are not?

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 and over to you and make you see it if you cannot
see treating everyone the same way isn't fair.
Kelly