Everyone who earns the same income pays the same tax, and thus everyone is treated equally.
The inequality comes from their pre-tax income. Do you want to equalize that?
Universal basic income
- Thread starter terley
- Start date
The inequality comes from their pre-tax income. Do you want to equalize that?
Argumentum ad nauseam now. We have already discussed your attempt at separate but equal and why it is wrong.
Are we going for another lie or another personal insult next?
Not really when the cost of a utility is a flat rate for me the same as it is a millionaire. If they charged bills via a percentage of what you earned that would be equality according to your assertion.
what does the cost of a utility have to do with income tax?
It was just an example regarding comparitive wealth.
I'm not really sure what you were trying to highlight - rich people can afford things more easily because they're rich?
That's obvious. I don't agree that a flat tax % means equality when that % will be a varying amount.
It's probably be lost in the myriad of other posts, but I don't advocate a flat rate tax in isolation, but as part of a negative income tax implementation of a ubi.
Everyone received the same payment from the state (which should be broadly in line with covering the cost of basic essentials in an average area), and is subject to the same tax rate on all income.
Thanks for that clarity. To my shame I didn't read every single post in the thread. I ought to really before responding out of context
Doesn't this just shift the burden of taxation on to middle income families?
Thanks for that clarity. To my shame I didn't read every single post in the thread. I ought to really before responding out of context
There's nearly 300 posts in this thread, and it was a good way back that I put the details in.
Depends what combination of payment and tax rate you choose, and probably what you class as middle income.
I don't see how this couldn't do anything but shift the burden of tax lower down the tax bands. Any flat rate tax system will benefit those that currently pay higher rate unless it is set to the higher rate, then it will penalise anyone not on higher rate unless the UBI is significantly higher than covering "basic needs".
That isn't a reason not to do it though, if the only reason some people contribute more is because they are being treated differently.
The other change is to tax all sources of income the same, so dividends, capital gains and so on are all subject to the same flat rate, which significantly reduces the opportunities for tax avoidance.
It seems a pretty good reason to me if by implementing a new tax system you make a whole lot of people significantly poorer just so you can feel ideologically pure. Not to mention the impact it would have on the economy by removing so much income that would otherwise have been spent.
Progressive tax systems exist because the value of money changes the more you earn. If you earn £10k a year, £5k is a significant amount of money, if you earn £150k it isn't anywhere near as significant. Just because you earn 15 x the amount doesn't mean you spend 15 x the amount.
As to being treated differently, surely that is a subjective point too? Technically no one is treated differently, everyone is under the same tax regime after all. If I suddenly start earning £150k a significant part of my income will be taxed at 40%, just like everyone else earning £150k.
Thanks for that.
I haven't read The Spirit Level so I'll check it out. I've read a few others that discuss the theme: "Capital in the 21st Century" by Thomas Piketty, "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz and "Utopia for Realists" by Rutger Bregman (Who's a big proponent of UBI).
The reason I asked earlier is; Capital suggest that although a certain level of inequality is good for productivity and growth, when inequality reaches a certain threshold (which is pretty close to the level that can currently be seen in the US and isn't far off in the UK) bad things tend to happen, either in terms of war or revolution. Obviously, there are other sociopolitical factors that may determine whether or not something bad does happen but high levels of inequality combined with other factors increase the likelihood.
If your system isn't perceived as "fair", even though it may be "equal" (and it does nothing to combat inequality) it's likely to cause conflict — just look at the Poll Tax.
Given the massive simplification of the taxation and benefit system, it isn't just about ideology. You remove the benefit trap, you remove the adversarial benefits setup, no more sanctions, no more waits for money if your circumstances chsnge.
As for the act that should be considered for equality, the act that should be considered is earning an income, not earning income x, otherwise the state can do whatever it likes as long as it does it defines the situation and then applies the rules to everyone in that situation, even if it is massively unfair in a wider context.
As an alternative example, should we consider the act of having consensual sex with a partner as the point of equality, or is it acceptable to treat consensual sex with a same gender partner differently to an opposite gender partner, as long as it is consistent within those groupings? Note it's specifically the act (which is a choice) not the attraction (that isnt) that is under consideration.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
The reason you're wrong has been explained to you on more than one occasion. Since you've ignored it, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it again for you to ignore again.
I'll watch this thread to see if you come up with any counter-argument to anything. If not, I won't waste any more time replying to your posts.
Fair enough ditto for your views... I'm not the only person that has made the point to you that you are wrong.... I'll leave you to prepare for the impending mass murder of the peasantry that you believe is a necessary condition of the current political/ economic system
Which could be done with a UBI system and a progressive tax system. Your insistence on a flat tax system despite the obvious harm it would do does seem ideological.
As you haven’t really addressed the point I made about the differing value of money you haven’t done anything to convince me that earning income x means more tax on additional earning isn’t “fair”.
It doesn’t really equate so is a fairly meaningless comparison.
I see a greater harm in state sanctioned discrimination than in making people contribute equally.
I haven't addressed the point because it's not relevant to the point, arbitrary and subjective. If you want to measure value in this way, you would need to start looking at individual circumstances, commitments, expectations and so on, but then you're going to be offsetting people's spending choices against their tax liability. The value of £5k to me isn't just based on my income, but my commitments as well. someone on £10k living at home with parents can have more free cash in their budget than someone on £50k with a mortgage and a family. Given that it isn't practical to assess this, a simple and equal approach is the fairest alternative.
It does equate, it's a simple idea, at what point do we consider treatment to be equal. Is it acceptable to treat people doing the same general activity differently based on subgroups, as long as we treat anyone in that subgroup the same, or not?
I don't believe it is, and I apply that position consistently.