The Off Topic Topic

[Razgovory]

Wait, what?

[Tamas]

Wait, what?

Don't you call the multi-layered income tax "proportional" in your barbaric language?

[Zoupa]

Fair is subjective and irrelevant. Social order is more important than your extra 200 $ (yearly).

And anyways....


TRIANON! TRIANON! TRIANON!

[Eddie Teach]

Don't you call the multi-layered income tax "proportional" in your barbaric language?

Progressive.

[Razgovory]

Wait, what?

Don't you call the multi-layered income tax "proportional" in your barbaric language?

I think it's called "Progressive" and "Graduated".  Generally it does not cause increased social stratification.  It also makes sense.  You take more money from the rich cause they have more money to take.

[Tamas]

You take more money from the rich cause they have more money to take.

With a flat tax, yes. With progressive, you take more because poor people's jealousy make the government entitled to steal more.

[Eddie Teach]

With a flat tax, yes. With progressive, you take more because poor people's jealousy make the government entitled to steal more.

Better than the government staying out of it so the poor have to take the money themselves.

[Zanza]

No. I am saying that flat tax is the fair income tax. If you earn 1000x more than poor John Smith the factory worker, you pay 1000x more taxes than him. Everything else is socialist BS.

Proportional is already halfway to ability-to-pay regarding tax incidence. Why aren't you consequent and just make everybody pay the same absolute amount? That's a really flat tax.

No it is not.

I assume that you think "proportional" (what a silly name, the flat tax is proportional, BEING A PERCENTAGE. What we call proportional is actually punitive) is good because if you were to get the same tax income via flat tax it would result in a percentage raise for the poor.

I think you confused some words here. Proportional tax is a better name for what you call "flat tax" as the tax incidence you propose still proportionally scales tax with income, just with a flat rate. What you think about is called progressive taxation.
Anyway, proportional taxes are already accepting the general idea of ability-to-pay as higher incomes have a higher tax incidence. However, if you accept that basic tenet, why not go for a progressive system, which focuses stronger on this concept? If you really believe that fairness is in equal tax incidence, shouldn't you then go for an absolute flat tax? That's really flat and not just a flat tax rate.

Well, perhaps, as a weird concept, we should scale the state to it's income, and not it's income to the state.

It is weird to me. You confuse two things here: The definition of the state's goals, values and reason for being on the one hand and its revenue generation on the other hand. First we should agree on the former, then on the latter. If we agree that the state should fund free education for everybody, then we should raise the appropriate revenue. We should not - as you suggest - raise revenue without a clear goal in mind and then see what we can pay for.

Now, I know there are a lot of states with "proportional" taxes which 1) operate normally, and 2) have spendings which would be kinda tricky to cover with a flat tax, and 3) citizens are generally  okay with the whole thing.

There are actually not that many states with proportional taxes, most have progressive taxes as far as I know.

That's fine with me. Just don't go around claiming that "proportional" is actually fair.

You claim it's fair. I think that it is a half-assed way to implement ability-to-pay and thus a progressive system is better. However, I question why you go for the half-assed way and not full-scale flat tax?

[CountDeMoney]

Top Topic Starters

jimmy olsen     1259
Martinus    424
Syt    372
CountDeMoney    298
garbon    252
viper37    196
Caliga    196
MadImmortalMan    145
Slargos    132
Sheilbh    129

Somebody, make him stop.

[Razgovory]

You take more money from the rich cause they have more money to take.

With a flat tax, yes. With progressive, you take more because poor people's jealousy make the government entitled to steal more.

No, you take more cause they got more.  Can't get blood from a turnip.  Or a beet.  I thought you would know the different between "stealing" and "taxing".

[katmai]

Top Topic Starters

jimmy olsen     1259
Martinus    424
Syt    372
CountDeMoney    298
garbon    252
viper37    196
Caliga    196
MadImmortalMan    145
Slargos    132
Sheilbh    129

Somebody, make him stop.

I've tried, but since he has Neil in his pocket....

[Caliga]

So we have 424 threads on gay-related issues.  Good to know.

[Grey Fox]

Top Topic Starters

jimmy olsen     1259
Martinus    424
Syt    372
CountDeMoney    298
garbon    252
viper37    196
Caliga    196
MadImmortalMan    145
Slargos    132
Sheilbh    129

Somebody, make him stop.

Like you'll pick up the slack. Slacker.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Top Topic Starters

jimmy olsen     1259
Martinus    424
Syt    372
CountDeMoney    298
garbon    252
viper37    196
Caliga    196
MadImmortalMan    145
Slargos    132
Sheilbh    129

Somebody, make him stop.

Tim has 2.5 times more topic starts than I have total posts.

[Lettow77]

 Filling out applications to Japanese summer programs right now. Nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs, and bitterly unhappy. It's horrible to pin your happiness on an uncertainty. Typically I confine my desires to things already around me I can reliably obtain, but in the case of the holy sacred isles it can't be helped.