5 ms·

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' prop

by 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...
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        Nor am I, and implying progressives are communists is quite intellectually dishonest.
        Mikeb85 11y ago
        Nor are you what? I said I agree with Piketty and Marx. Anyhow, the example was just rhetoric. The point is that communism started because people thought it was unfair that there was a rentier class who essentially monopolized wealth because they had inherited wealth. And communism fell because people thought it was unfair that people who were lazy made the same as people who worked hard. Studies have shown that most people in western societies prefer inequality as long as someone has less than them. They think inequality is 'fair'. Why do you think people value celebrities and rich people? People are happy with our 'lottery' system, where anyone can become rich, even if the majority don't, and even if the average struggles...
        gnaritas 11y ago
        And we're back to communism again. This thread has nothing to do with communism. That you keep going there shows you can't have a serious conversation; goodbye.
        Mikeb85 11y ago
        Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place. It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness. I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purged an entire century of socialist philosophy from their collective thoughts.
  - harryh 11y ago
    While it's true that fair is hard to define objectively progressive tax rates are easy to support from quite a few underlying premises: 1) utility maximization 2) Rawlsian justice 3) fee for service model based on benefits received from government It's actually pretty hard to justify a flat tax from most underlying axioms. I think you'd actually have an easier time justifying a flat fee where everyone pays the same $ value regardless of income. I also contest your assertion that "Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate." While that might be true for some conservatives, political support for progressive tax rates go much beyond Democrats.
muzz 11y ago
In theory, the AMT exists to prevent the affluent from using too many deductions

by Mikeb85 11y ago

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...
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      Nor am I, and implying progressives are communists is quite intellectually dishonest.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        Nor are you what? I said I agree with Piketty and Marx. Anyhow, the example was just rhetoric. The point is that communism started because people thought it was unfair that there was a rentier class who essentially monopolized wealth because they had inherited wealth. And communism fell because people thought it was unfair that people who were lazy made the same as people who worked hard. Studies have shown that most people in western societies prefer inequality as long as someone has less than them. They think inequality is 'fair'. Why do you think people value celebrities and rich people? People are happy with our 'lottery' system, where anyone can become rich, even if the majority don't, and even if the average struggles...
        gnaritas 11y ago
        And we're back to communism again. This thread has nothing to do with communism. That you keep going there shows you can't have a serious conversation; goodbye.
        Mikeb85 11y ago
        Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place. It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness. I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purged an entire century of socialist philosophy from their collective thoughts.
- harryh 11y ago
  While it's true that fair is hard to define objectively progressive tax rates are easy to support from quite a few underlying premises: 1) utility maximization 2) Rawlsian justice 3) fee for service model based on benefits received from government It's actually pretty hard to justify a flat tax from most underlying axioms. I think you'd actually have an easier time justifying a flat fee where everyone pays the same $ value regardless of income. I also contest your assertion that "Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate." While that might be true for some conservatives, political support for progressive tax rates go much beyond Democrats.

muzz 11y ago

In theory, the AMT exists to prevent the affluent from using too many deductions