UKIP poster boy is a racist immigrant, film at 11

[Tamas]

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.

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

[Martinus]

I just don't see what kind of internally consistent axiology could claim that progressive taxation is unfair but at the same time maintain that flat taxation is fair.

If you think that "punishing people for success" is wrong, then you should support poll tax (or, simply, out of pocket payments for all public services), rather than flat tax.

[frunk]

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

I never said anything about raising taxes, just about how to pay for the government funding specified.  Complexity in the tax code as we are talking about now is hardly anything.  Deciding what is income, even in a flat tax system, is where the real difficulties lie. 

I think you are also assuming that all problems are equal.  For example I would consider a tax that is guaranteed to bankrupt people to be a really terrible problem.  A tax that causes there to be a wage jump is much less serious.  We shouldn't avoid making policy decisions just because it might introduce other problems, if they are less serious then the problems we started with.

[Razgovory]

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.

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

And of course, you are one of those talented people, right?

[mongers]

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

Tamas, you should get on the next airplane to Texas; I don't know what you're doing living in the socialist republic of London.   

[grumbler]

Romans never practiced democracy. 

  Laws could only be passed by the People's Assembly or the Tribal Assembly, both of which were democratic institutions.  The leaders of the republic were elected by the People's Assembly, Centuriate Assembly or the Tribal Assembly, all of which were democratic institutions.  Dunno where you get the idea that the "Romans never practiced democracy."

[Admiral Yi]

I just don't see what kind of internally consistent axiology could claim that progressive taxation is unfair but at the same time maintain that flat taxation is fair.

It's easy: the value to the individual of government services does not increase per dollar of income as income increases.

[frunk]

It's easy: the value to the individual of government services does not increase per dollar of income as income increases.

The value to the individual of having a functional government that follows the rule of law goes up as their income increases.  Yes, if you are wealthy enough you could set up your own security forces, currency, company store, but not as efficiently as the government does.  High income individuals have more to lose from a dysfunctional government.  In Russia it was the businessmen outside the oligarchy that got taken down first.

[Martinus]

Romans never practiced democracy. 

  Laws could only be passed by the People's Assembly or the Tribal Assembly, both of which were democratic institutions.  The leaders of the republic were elected by the People's Assembly, Centuriate Assembly or the Tribal Assembly, all of which were democratic institutions.  Dunno where you get the idea that the "Romans never practiced democracy."

Republic is not the same as democracy.

[Martinus]

I just don't see what kind of internally consistent axiology could claim that progressive taxation is unfair but at the same time maintain that flat taxation is fair.

It's easy: the value to the individual of government services does not increase per dollar of income as income increases.

It also doesn't increase as income increases, period. You should support poll tax.

[grumbler]

Republic is not the same as democracy.

Correct.  Republic is a title, democracy is a method.  Apples and oranges.  A republic can be a democracy, like Republican Rome, or an oligarchy, like the Republic of Venice.

The Roman Empire (post-Augustus) was not a democracy, though it still called itself a republic.

[Tamas]

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.

First of all you cannot avoid having poor people. Only option you have is make sure everyone is poor. Apart from that, inequality is a reality you need to accept to have a healthy economy and the right given to the talented citizens to excel and lift others with them.

As you just pointed out, the more rules you have, the more problems you are creating. You solve one, and two others are put in their place. There was actually a recent article about this somewhere, how complexity just keeps creeping in to legislation in the developed world.
There is a necessary minimum of laws and such of course, but tax is one area where simplicity could be achieved. The only barrier is the never-ending increase to state spending.

And of course, you are one of those talented people, right?

It is telling that's the point you couldn't resist bringing up.

[Admiral Yi]

The value to the individual of having a functional government that follows the rule of law goes up as their income increases.  Yes, if you are wealthy enough you could set up your own security forces, currency, company store, but not as efficiently as the government does.  High income individuals have more to lose from a dysfunctional government.  In Russia it was the businessmen outside the oligarchy that got taken down first.

Yes, yes, and yes.  But you missed the "per dollar" in my post.

[Admiral Yi]

It also doesn't increase as income increases, period. You should support poll tax.

That's also internally consistent.

[Sheilbh]

Two things I'm confused by. First, how can you want a flat tax and the reduction of government spending to subsistence level and simultaneously decry the Tea Party as populist extremists?

Second, what democracies have fallen to welfare spending populism? Possibly, maybe Hungary if things keep going, based on what Tamas says. But I can't think of another example.

I think economics is the single least important part of politics. Just behind environmentalism and the protection of the Cornish language. It's all about identity and social and cultural make up. That's what makes people vote the way they do.

There's no reason why the poor would automatically vote for someone promising lots of giveaways, in fact very often they don't. The modern left especially isn't very successful with the poor or the working class (not least because a lot of the workers got stolen by Maggie and Reagan). Economic policy is always, always trumped by identity whether you're a pensioner who wants to cut the top rate of tax and is sick of scroungers on benefits, or a green tea sipping wealthy lawyer who'll vote for a mansion tax.