This simple premise seems beyond the grasp of the hard-line socialist thinkers.
I'm fairly liberal myself, and I'd prefer a flatter tax system, with more done to close loopholes.
The Budget™ 2009
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
I'm fairly liberal myself, and I'd prefer a flatter tax system, with more done to close loopholes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
But it won't.
Has anyone actually disputed this?
I don't understand why so many people simply can't understand that asking low paid taxpayers to pay more tax so that high paid taxpayers can pay less is unfair and unjust.
You've really missed my point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Same the other way around
I dont pay the higher tax, however my dad does so i can see both sides of the argument.
I agree that a flatter tax system needs to be implemented, however the lower earners would feel the brunt of this immediately as they would have less of their income to use, whereas the higher earners would benefit from actually keeping more of their income straight away.
You should never ever be punished or made to apologise for how much you earn or how successful you are.
I agree that a flatter tax system needs to be implemented, however the lower earners would feel the brunt of this immediately as they would have less of their income to use, whereas the higher earners would benefit from actually keeping more of their income straight away.
You should never ever be punished or made to apologise for how much you earn or how successful you are.
So being hypocritical is fair? Other then the nonsensical "they can afford more" argument, why is it fair to force higher earners to pay more tax so that lower earners can pay less, but not fair to charge (in this case) lower earners more so higher earners can pay less?
Even that is a rather flawed statement. As higher earners already pay more tax, so introducing yet another tier is just penalising them further. And on a flat rate tax system, higher earners will be paying more tax, which yes is proportionally less of their income, but as this is subsidising public services for people that earn less and use them for free..
If the problem is that people on the 'line' are left with less, then the required income level for paying tax needs to be raised.
Last edited:
Same the other way around
Not really.
Why not?
God what's with all the communists in this thread? They clearly won't be happy until anyone on a high wage has the same disposable income as some single mother dropout.
Well, sorry to disappoint you hippies but soon labour will be out of power and your golden age of "social reform" will be at an end. And my my it's done so much good for this country hasn't it?
A flat tax is fair. People should be encouraged to earn a higher wage to have more disposable income, isn't that the nature of capitalism? Remember the word "enterprise"? One of the biggest problems with this country is that the people have lost the desire to work hard and do better, and this is because they have such cushy lives before they've even passed go. Why work hard when you can get your booze, fags and sky tv on a low wage / benefits?
Got an issue with rich people? Get over it, you've got it bloody easy.
Well, sorry to disappoint you hippies but soon labour will be out of power and your golden age of "social reform" will be at an end. And my my it's done so much good for this country hasn't it?
A flat tax is fair. People should be encouraged to earn a higher wage to have more disposable income, isn't that the nature of capitalism? Remember the word "enterprise"? One of the biggest problems with this country is that the people have lost the desire to work hard and do better, and this is because they have such cushy lives before they've even passed go. Why work hard when you can get your booze, fags and sky tv on a low wage / benefits?
Got an issue with rich people? Get over it, you've got it bloody easy.
I love it when people go on about how hard they work and how they "deserve" their life style.
Simple fact is for the next twenty or thirty years we are all going to be taxed till our eyes bleed to pay for the current little financial unpleasantness.
Those with disposable incomes over the most basic financial needs are going to pay a proportionately greater share.
If this is unacceptable better leave the country. That's what I am advising my kids to do.
Incidentally I believe your assumption that most people in this country can improve their income by any means is wrong. In my experience people on low pay work very, very hard for the pittance they receive. Your attitude is insulting to these people. Many (most?) people are not capable of the academic discipline to improve their qualifications or change job/career by virtue of ability and personal circumstance, not laziness.
Last edited:
I love it when people go on about how hard they work and how they "deserve" their life style.
I do, what's your problem?
Would you rather they didn't work hard? I think it better to incentivise people to work harder and earn more. And as far as flatter taxes hittinng the lowest paid straight away, generally flatter tax systems generally implement a higher non taxable allowance so that would help with the lower paid people. A far better system than the client state that Brown seems intent on creating.
A flat tax system is basically what the US had pre 1985 reforms (give or take a few percent). It was a terrible system. It interacts terribly with a benefit system.
Also the middle class end up paying more.
In addition, a simple harberger's triangle analysis tells us that the deadweight loss will be greater. Since the average tax rate (equal weights to persons) would be higher in a flat tax system. Deadweight loss rises with the square of the tax rate while it is linear with the wage rate.
Also the middle class end up paying more.
In addition, a simple harberger's triangle analysis tells us that the deadweight loss will be greater. Since the average tax rate (equal weights to persons) would be higher in a flat tax system. Deadweight loss rises with the square of the tax rate while it is linear with the wage rate.
Last edited:
hypocrite:
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Please show me how either of those two definitions apply to me.
It is fair for higher earners to pay more tax as a proportion of their income because it shares the overall tax burden in a much more utilitarian way. It also reduces (or at least aims to reduce) income inequality, which I'm sure we'll all agree in a worthy aim.
If you check my posting history you'll see that I an anything but a communist. In fact, the fastest way to introduce communism in this country would be to introduce a tax system which gives up on the idea of wealth redistribution and promotes income inequality to such an extent that a revolution becomes a certainty.
It is fair for higher earners to pay more tax - but not as a higher percentage of their income.
Yes, otherwise you might not be able to get a nicer car
Exactly. If I strive to better myself and earn more, why should I be punished by paying a higher percentage of my incomings to the tax man? I'm already paying more by virtue of the percentage - why skew the figures even more?
Marginal diminishing utility tells us otherwise (in general). Relative measures is what matters.
The driving force behind redistribution of income is simply that a £ is worth more to a homeless person than someone earning 100k. Similarly 20% of a higher earner's income is worth less to him than 10% of someone earning 10k again in general. Therefore, if you believe (famous libertarian economists haven't) social welfare can be maximised by indirectly moving endowments (i.e. human capital), then a flat tax system doesn't make any sense.
Last edited: