3 ms·

> If we want a truly flat tax, everyone would pay the exact same amount. . . . Obviously, that's absurd. Is a flat amount unjust or just impractical? I'm not p

> If we want a truly flat tax, everyone would pay the exact same amount. . . . Obviously, that's absurd. Is a flat amount unjust or just impractical? I'm not proposing we go to flat-amount tax. I'm just considering one question and nothing else: what would be just? A flat amount seems more just to me. Is tax not to pay for services rendered? Did a millionaire really use ten times the government services that a middle-class person did? Or take a milder example. Jim is a computer programmer, making $100,000 a year; Joe is a carpenter, making $50,000 a year. Jim pays twice as many dollars in taxes as Joe. Does Jim really use twice the government resources that Joe does? There will be some people who can't pay any tax, no matter how small, because they're out of a job or whatever. Sure, the government can decide to forgive the debt based on certain circumstances. But that's different than saying you never owed it. Is a variable tax expedient? Yes. Could we afford to run even a sliver of our current government with a fixed tax? No, but before the Civil War the United States had no federal income tax at all. Again, I'm not advocating it, just trying to understand.

mgoetzke 9y ago
On your point about millionaires. I was once thinking along the same lines (that was my starting point), but I come to the conclusion that it is just not correct. A millionaire almost definitely used way more government services than a middle-class person. Rich people become rich because of many things, but one large part of that is the government and infrastructural services provided for all people that gave them the money in the first place. A government is not a company with services rendered. Adam Smith said "To ensure its wealth, the government would regulate trade and maintain a strong government control over the economy" They provide services to level the playing field and keep companies and individuals from growing out of control.
- combatentropy 9y ago
  > A millionaire almost definitely used way more government services than a middle-class person Thank you for responding. Can you give some examples? I'm having a hard time picturing it. And is it not at least partly paid for by (1) sales tax, (2) corporate tax, (3) the jobs and products they brought about? And the milder example seems easier to think about, someone making $100,000 versus another making $50,000. > A government is not a company with services rendered Can you please go into this a bit more?

mgoetzke 9y ago

On your point about millionaires. I was once thinking along the same lines (that was my starting point), but I come to the conclusion that it is just not correct. A millionaire almost definitely used way more government services than a middle-class person. Rich people become rich because of many things, but one large part of that is the government and infrastructural services provided for all people that gave them the money in the first place. A government is not a company with services rendered. Adam Smith said "To ensure its wealth, the government would regulate trade and maintain a strong government control over the economy" They provide services to level the playing field and keep companies and individuals from growing out of control.

combatentropy 9y ago
> A millionaire almost definitely used way more government services than a middle-class person Thank you for responding. Can you give some examples? I'm having a hard time picturing it. And is it not at least partly paid for by (1) sales tax, (2) corporate tax, (3) the jobs and products they brought about? And the milder example seems easier to think about, someone making $100,000 versus another making $50,000. > A government is not a company with services rendered Can you please go into this a bit more?