5 ms·

> It's not a terrible solution. It's precisely a terrible solution. Yes, taxes are hard, but a solution that punishes the poor (or the not rich) by not recogn

> It's not a terrible solution. It's precisely a terrible solution. Yes, taxes are hard, but a solution that punishes the poor (or the not rich) by not recognizing the marginal utility of money is terrible in any form.

maratd 11y ago
> punishes the poor by not recognizing the marginal utility of money What does this have to do with the poor? Are you under the impression your federal tax dollars get redistributed to the poor? Government contractors aren't poor. Do you have any idea what percentage of government proceeds are redistributed to the poor? Do not include social security. That money was taken from them to begin with.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > What does this have to do with the poor? Look up what regressive means and what marginal utility means; nothing I'm saying has anything to do with how taxes are redistributed. Flat taxes are inherently unfair, they ignore the marginal utility of money; they are regressive.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  About 20% goes to 'income support'. There's a slightly partisan-but-fair breakdown here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spe...
Mikeb85 11y ago
There's pretty much always a minimum amount you need to make to pay taxes, most flat tax schemes are still progressive on the low end. Very few 'flat tax' proponents want to tax the poor (not much money in it anyway). The idea with a flat tax isn't to punish the poor, but to reduce tax evasion on the higher end, and to reduce to burden on the middle class.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Taxes should be progressive at all levels, setting a floor to exclude the poor from the unfairness doesn't make it more fair for the guy in the middle income ranges. All flat tax solutions are bad as they are all inherently unfair.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Depends what your definition of 'fair' is. Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate. Progressives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays what they can afford. 'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively defined.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate. Which is a position completely ignorant of the marginal utility of money. No, it isn't fair that for one guy 10% could be the difference between getting by and not getting by while for the other guy 10% means no change to his lifestyle all. No, progressives think it's fair that the burden is felt equally and that requires understanding how money works. > 'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively defined. Fair does depend on beliefs, but some people's beliefs are objectively stupid. Anyone who denies the marginal utility of money and insists a flat percentage is fair, doesn't understand money and doesn't belong in the conversation just as anyone who believes vaccines cause autism is objective stupid and doesn't belong in that conversation. Everyone has opinions, that doesn't make them equal.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        Some people also thought "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fair. Most seemingly disagreed, given how history has unfolded. For the record, I agree with Piketty, Marx, and others of that particular persuasion. I'm all for progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance tax, all of it. But I'm also not ignorant of history...
afarrell 11y ago
> taxes should be progressive at all levels Are you proposing replacing the tax bracket system with an algebraic equation? I wonder if that would be more or less confusing. I guess if you just showed people "this is what the tax curve looks like", it would be obvious that: 1) They need to use a calculator or look up in the tax table. 2) You don't actually lose money when your income goes from $37,449 to $37,451.

maratd 11y ago

> punishes the poor by not recognizing the marginal utility of money What does this have to do with the poor? Are you under the impression your federal tax dollars get redistributed to the poor? Government contractors aren't poor. Do you have any idea what percentage of government proceeds are redistributed to the poor? Do not include social security. That money was taken from them to begin with.

gnaritas 11y ago
> What does this have to do with the poor? Look up what regressive means and what marginal utility means; nothing I'm saying has anything to do with how taxes are redistributed. Flat taxes are inherently unfair, they ignore the marginal utility of money; they are regressive.
anigbrowl 11y ago
About 20% goes to 'income support'. There's a slightly partisan-but-fair breakdown here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spe...

Mikeb85 11y ago

There's pretty much always a minimum amount you need to make to pay taxes, most flat tax schemes are still progressive on the low end. Very few 'flat tax' proponents want to tax the poor (not much money in it anyway). The idea with a flat tax isn't to punish the poor, but to reduce tax evasion on the higher end, and to reduce to burden on the middle class.

gnaritas 11y ago
Taxes should be progressive at all levels, setting a floor to exclude the poor from the unfairness doesn't make it more fair for the guy in the middle income ranges. All flat tax solutions are bad as they are all inherently unfair.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Depends what your definition of 'fair' is. Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate. Progressives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays what they can afford. 'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively defined.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate. Which is a position completely ignorant of the marginal utility of money. No, it isn't fair that for one guy 10% could be the difference between getting by and not getting by while for the other guy 10% means no change to his lifestyle all. No, progressives think it's fair that the burden is felt equally and that requires understanding how money works. > 'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively defined. Fair does depend on beliefs, but some people's beliefs are objectively stupid. Anyone who denies the marginal utility of money and insists a flat percentage is fair, doesn't understand money and doesn't belong in the conversation just as anyone who believes vaccines cause autism is objective stupid and doesn't belong in that conversation. Everyone has opinions, that doesn't make them equal.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      Some people also thought "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fair. Most seemingly disagreed, given how history has unfolded. For the record, I agree with Piketty, Marx, and others of that particular persuasion. I'm all for progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance tax, all of it. But I'm also not ignorant of history...

afarrell 11y ago

> taxes should be progressive at all levels Are you proposing replacing the tax bracket system with an algebraic equation? I wonder if that would be more or less confusing. I guess if you just showed people "this is what the tax curve looks like", it would be obvious that: 1) They need to use a calculator or look up in the tax table. 2) You don't actually lose money when your income goes from $37,449 to $37,451.