UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Martinus]

Besides, Tamas, there is no such thing as a concept of "fairness" existing outside of moral judgement. There is no concept or model of fairness in the nature. In fact, the natural state is the very antithesis of fairness, and that is why humans create laws to make the natural state more fair. Such laws come from a broad range of instruments available to the legislators and are not limited to criminal law - they include tax laws, inheritance laws, contract laws etc. All laws need to answer the question of "why" (called ratio legis) - all laws have a purpose.

The classical aristotelian definition of fairness ("giving everyone his due") requires someone to pass a judgement on what is due to someone just as the blancian definition requires someone to assess someone else's abilities and needs.

[Admiral Yi]

The fact that you are expecting everyone to contribute according to their ability is the cornerstone of modern social contract.

How is this expectation manifested?  For example, what sort of policies are in place to ensure that people contribute according to their ability?

[Martinus]

The fact that you are expecting everyone to contribute according to their ability is the cornerstone of modern social contract.

How is this expectation manifested?  For example, what sort of policies are in place to ensure that people contribute according to their ability?

I already said - for example by treating people who can work but do not differently than those who are incapable of working.

The interplay between income tax, property tax and consumption tax also is informed by this expectation.

[Tamas]

I am confused. Where did I say that I want people who could work but don't want to should be treated the same way as those want but can't? What does this have to do with a flat income tax?

Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

[Syt]

Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

Because lower income strata require a higher %-age of their gross income for life necessities. That means they pay a higher %-age of income tax if you go by the share of income that they don't spend.

Let's say Gross Income of a poor person is 1000. Tax is 15%. Life necessities are 500. He pays 150 taxes. That leaves him with 350 for savings/investment or additional consumption, or 35%.

Let's say another person earns 2000. Tax is 15%. Life necessities are 800, because he lives a bit nicer, but doesn't splurge. 300 in taxes. Leaves him with 900 for savings/investment or other stuff, i.e. 45%.

Notice the difference? And that's not even taking VAT and other taxes into account.

[Tamas]

Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity.

[Martinus]

I am confused. Where did I say that I want people who could work but don't want to should be treated the same way as those want but can't? What does this have to do with a flat income tax?

Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

I am showing to you that "from each according to his ability" is already a principle espoused in the democratic West. Only someone very ignorant and dogmatic would consider it "socialist" or "communist".

[Tamas]

I am confused. Where did I say that I want people who could work but don't want to should be treated the same way as those want but can't? What does this have to do with a flat income tax?

Besides, when everyone is paying X% of their income as tax how does that NOT meN that everyone is paying according to their abilities?

I am showing to you that "from each according to his ability" is already a principle espoused in the democratic West. Only someone very ignorant and dogmatic would consider it "socialist" or "communist".

You are not getting it. "Ability" is a very arbitrary concept. What is "ability"? Income above subsistence levels?

All this rhetoric is pointing toward the communist idea of the ideal society having the same working-class level of income for everyone, and the state making sure nobody goes above (or below) that. This has been diluted in the West but the basic ideology is the same, admitted or not.

[frunk]

Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity.

That would be....zero?

[Tamas]

Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity.

That would be....zero?

No.

[frunk]

Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity.

That would be....zero?

No.

What would the flat tax rate be that would not take a greater percentage of after expenses income from poorer indviduals?

[Tamas]

Solution of course is to limit government spending to a level where discriminative taxation doesn't become a necessity.

That would be....zero?

No.

What would the flat tax rate be that would not take a greater percentage of after expenses income from poorer indviduals?

I get what you mean, of course, but you are wording it wrong. It is taking off exactly the same percentage of income.

And what is needed is minimalizing state spending to a bare minimum anyways (where that is, is up to debate, I admit).

The state should be the one establishing the same rules applying to all citizens and then ensuring those rules are kept. NOT to be the handler of "social justice" and remover of inequality. These are communist concepts adopted by states once they realised they are a great way to increase power and money intake as well as maintaining the status quo of the aristocracy.

[frunk]

I get what you mean, of course, but you are wording it wrong. It is taking off exactly the same percentage of income.

And what is needed is minimalizing state spending to a bare minimum anyways (where that is, is up to debate, I admit).

The state should be the one establishing the same rules applying to all citizens and then ensuring those rules are kept. NOT to be the handler of "social justice" and remover of inequality. These are communist concepts adopted by states once they realised they are a great way to increase power and money intake as well as maintaining the status quo of the aristocracy.

Let's say you have a country that has a minimal budget but still needs a 10% flat tax to cover expenses, it's strictly military, courts, police, infrastructure.  This minimal budget means there are no social programs whatsoever, you end up destitute that's tough on you.  The lowest levels of society make just enough money to cover their expenses if there is no tax.  Any tax whatsoever means they'll have to go hungry, homeless or skip out on utilities.  Do you consider a 10% tax on them fair and the only right thing to do?  Would you be in favor of dropping the 10% tax on the poorest if it meant the top 10% would have to pay an 11% flat tax to keep things balanced?

[Tamas]

I get what you mean, of course, but you are wording it wrong. It is taking off exactly the same percentage of income.

And what is needed is minimalizing state spending to a bare minimum anyways (where that is, is up to debate, I admit).

The state should be the one establishing the same rules applying to all citizens and then ensuring those rules are kept. NOT to be the handler of "social justice" and remover of inequality. These are communist concepts adopted by states once they realised they are a great way to increase power and money intake as well as maintaining the status quo of the aristocracy.

Let's say you have a country that has a minimal budget but still needs a 10% flat tax to cover expenses, it's strictly military, courts, police, infrastructure.  This minimal budget means there are no social programs whatsoever, you end up destitute that's tough on you.  The lowest levels of society make just enough money to cover their expenses if there is no tax.  Any tax whatsoever means they'll have to go hungry, homeless or skip out on utilities.  Do you consider a 10% tax on them fair and the only right thing to do?  Would you be in favor of dropping the 10% tax on the poorest if it meant the top 10% would have to pay an 11% flat tax to keep things balanced?

There are all kinds of assumptions there. But yes, I would prefer a system where the poorest is not paying taxes. Before Marty starts typing, yes, a 0% income tax and another % of income tax means it is technically not flat. But such a system would still mean that you are being helped if you are poor, and not punished when you are (near) middle class.

[frunk]

There are all kinds of assumptions there. But yes, I would prefer a system where the poorest is not paying taxes. Before Marty starts typing, yes, a 0% income tax and another % of income tax means it is technically not flat. But such a system would still mean that you are being helped if you are poor, and not punished when you are (near) middle class.

Where would you put the dividing line between 0 and 10%?  Obviously there's the group that would end up destitute, but there's also the groups for which "any unexpected expenses means we're toast" if they pay the tax for gradually increasing amounts (or number) of unexpected expenses.  I'm assuming any sharp dividing line of 0-10% means that there's also an incentive to stay just shy of having to pay.