Perry Proposes a Flat Tax

[Sheilbh]

Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.

That's worked over the past 30 years

[Admiral Yi]

But I think Neil's point is basically from the view that it's simply fairer, which is a choice.  It isn't, however, necessarily about punishing the rich.  The 90%+ top tax rate that we had a few years ago was about punishing the rich - that was a choice made by that government.  Normal tax rates aren't.

To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology.  Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.

For the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich. 

[Neil]

Perry's policies are just attempts to reduce revenue so that they have an excuse to cut services.

That's worked over the past 30 years

Alberta is very good at that game.

That said, they probably won't cut services anyways, since the Republicans don't really want to cut the expensive services.  They'll slash revenue with lower taxes, and then 'reduce' the deficit by cutting 'waste and mismanagement', which is code for 'nothing of consequence'.

[Neil]

But I think Neil's point is basically from the view that it's simply fairer, which is a choice.  It isn't, however, necessarily about punishing the rich.  The 90%+ top tax rate that we had a few years ago was about punishing the rich - that was a choice made by that government.  Normal tax rates aren't.

To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology.  Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.

War.  The UN.

[Sheilbh]

To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology.  Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.

Okay, it's perceived as fairer.  As I say in my view it's about social choice.  Most countries in the west have chosen, for whatever reason, that progressive taxation is better because, in part, they think it's fairer.

For the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.

You're right Clinton level tax rates are entirely about punishing the rich.

I've said before that I think the American left's way of talking about tax is ridiculous and does make it sound like they want to raise taxes on the wealthy just because.  That's an annoying tone, no doubt.  But the policy isn't going to punish the rich.  The motivation seems to me as honestly about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget as the right wing's desire for spending cuts or social reform. 

[Admiral Yi]

Okay, it's perceived as fairer.  As I say in my view it's about social choice.  Most countries in the west have chosen, for whatever reason, that progressive taxation is better because, in part, they think it's fairer.

Much the way two wolves could agree that having sheep for dinner is fair.

I've said before that I think the American left's way of talking about tax is ridiculous and does make it sound like they want to raise taxes on the wealthy just because.  That's an annoying tone, no doubt.  But the policy isn't going to punish the rich.  The motivation seems to me as honestly about reducing the deficit and balancing the budget as the right wing's desire for spending cuts or social reform.

Well no.  Obama's most recent proposal is to tax the rich to pay for his job's bill.  That's deficit neutral.

[Neil]

Okay, it's perceived as fairer.  As I say in my view it's about social choice.  Most countries in the west have chosen, for whatever reason, that progressive taxation is better because, in part, they think it's fairer.

But also and more importantly because their need for revenue is quite high.

[Neil]

Much the way two wolves could agree that having sheep for dinner is fair.

Not quite.  It's really much more of a compromise.  Where the wolves and the sheep come into it is a non-progressive taxation system where the poor are taxed into poverty, and then the rich are eaten in a class war.

[grumbler]

To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology.  Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.

To argue that you assume things "instinctively" smacks of bullshit rhetoric.

For the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.

You have no monopoly on bullshit rhetoric, for sure.

The arguments for and against progressive taxation have been made elsewhere, by people who are far better informed than the denizens of this board, and who have thought about the topic a lot.  Instead of raising more Yicratic faked ignorance, why not introduce some of those arguments and ask the board for responses?

[Admiral Yi]

To fall back on "it's fairer" argument smacks of tautology.  Outside of progressive tax codes I can't think of a single area of human activity in which we instinctively assume that the fair distribution of group costs is for those better off to pay a proportionally higher percentage of their income.

To argue that you assume things "instinctively" smacks of bullshit rhetoric.

For the Occupy Wall Street movement, Michael Moore, Count de Money and various other progressive elements it's very much about punishing the rich.

You have no monopoly on bullshit rhetoric, for sure.

The arguments for and against progressive taxation have been made elsewhere, by people who are far better informed than the denizens of this board, and who have thought about the topic a lot.  Instead of raising more Yicratic faked ignorance, why not introduce some of those arguments and ask the board for responses?

Damn good points, every one.  In your long storied history of posting fucking awesome points, this collection has to be the most awesome.

[Sheilbh]

Much the way two wolves could agree that having sheep for dinner is fair.

Not really.  Being eaten's rather more permanent than being taxed. 

Well no.  Obama's most recent proposal is to tax the rich to pay for his job's bill.  That's deficit neutral.

That's one specific example to pay for the jobs bill.  The restoration of Clinton tax rates - with certain exceptions - is part of the Democrats' policy on deficit reduction.

[Martinus]

Please elaborate.

Standard points about cost of living taking up a greater proportional share of lower incomes than higher ones.

Wouldn't that be served by the tax-free base amount?

[Admiral Yi]

Not really.  Being eaten's rather more permanent than being taxed. 

Being taxed is forever.  You don't get paid back after a while.

That's one specific example to pay for the jobs bill.  The restoration of Clinton tax rates - with certain exceptions - is part of the Democrats' policy on deficit reduction.

"With certain exceptions??"  Obama tried to prolongue the Bush rates for everyone except those above $200 K.  That's a hell of a lot of exceptions.  And he tried to do that as part of a larger bill that added something like $400 billion to the defict. 

[Martinus]

And Neil's argument works great if you start from the premise that all productive activity is the property of the state, less so if you start from the premise that it is the property of the individual who engaged in the activity.

Neil's argument works great because we've decided that any and all economic activities have a social component, and every citizen owes a debt to their tribe.  Those who have more can contribute more to the common good.  So long as man creates societies, people will always owe a debt to those societies.

"Those who have more should contribute more" does not really work to differentiate between flat tax and progressive tax. It's a good argument against poll tax, but that's it.

And again, this is philosophy, not practicality. In practice, progressive taxes punish the middle class, not the rich. The thing is, people argue about progressive vs. flat tax from dogmatic, ideal positions. However, practicalities of economy force flat taxes e.g. on corporate income and on capital gains. With that taken into account, progressive tax becomes a burden that can be attacked not from neo-liberal but soc-liberal positions - it punishes the "salt of the earth" part of the society (i.e. the working middle class) compared to the rich who are in practice taxed at a flat rate.

To summarise: progressive tax does not work the way its proponents say it is supposed to work.

[Sheilbh]

Wouldn't that be served by the tax-free base amount?

Could do.  It would really depend on the amount and the tax rate.  As I said earlier it does also lead to an arbitrary cut-off point that would hurt people on lower incomes as opposed to just the poor or a pure 'subsistence' amount that I think would be in your idea.