5 ms·

I'd like to see a change in society* where we talk about remuneration in terms of buying power and fair comparisons rather than focusing on what we now perceive

I'd like to see a change in society* where we talk about remuneration in terms of buying power and fair comparisons rather than focusing on what we now perceive as being taken. If I earn minimum wage at say $10 an hour, that's $500 a week ($26k salary) at 40 hours a week. If I pay 10% tax, I get $450 a week in the hand. If I earn $50 an hour ($100k salary) and am taxed at 30% I get $1400 a week in the hand. So the minimum wage worker as 70% less buying power than me: making it fair that I contribute more. We look at taxes of our salary like "you can't take 30% of my pay! I work hard!" instead of "I'm going to make a contribution to the society I live in by a fair percentage". If we saw our tax bills and payslips this way, and talked about it to our kids and in the media like this, we'd all feel a lot kinder towards what we would consider as giving. Maybe technology will allow future transparent societies to be governed with full transparency and this will come to pass. * (This presumes a fair society without corruption, which I'm aware many of us do not live in)

andrewmcwatters 9y ago
You could simply state what you're describing: a true flat rate income tax.[1] Which a lot of people do not agree with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
- r00fus 9y ago
  Flat tax is the opposite of what he's suggesting.
  - telesilla 9y ago
    She.. and thanks for clarifying the comment! Appreciated.
ric2b 9y ago
> So the minimum wage worker as 70% less buying power than me: making it fair that I contribute more. I don't think you can assume that it's fair based only on the income. Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. > we'd all feel a lot kinder towards what we would consider as giving. Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not.
- telesilla 9y ago
  >Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. >Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not. A transparent society can show that sharing a fair portion of your income has a greater benefit to you than keeping it to yourself. The point of my original comment is that it would be something I hope to see, where society moves in the direction of seeing sharing a portion of income with your community/country as giving, rather than as a tax to be taken. Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted.
  - ric2b 9y ago
    > I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. Not at all. Many (non-criminal) scammers probably make more than the two of us combined, and their value to society is most likely negative. It's actually pretty easy to come up with examples of professions that are harmful to society but still have very good incomes due to one or more of the following: - Their societal costs are externalities - They abuse political power to get unfairly rewarded - They make their income by taking money in small slices from other people in a way that people don't care much (lots of payment providers/intermediaries do this) or by scamming people. > Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted. I didn't comment on whether it is wanted, only on whether it is voluntary.
Chris2048 9y ago
Can you tell me what buying power is? And how it means more tax should be paid?

andrewmcwatters 9y ago

You could simply state what you're describing: a true flat rate income tax.[1] Which a lot of people do not agree with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

r00fus 9y ago
Flat tax is the opposite of what he's suggesting.
- telesilla 9y ago
  She.. and thanks for clarifying the comment! Appreciated.

ric2b 9y ago

> So the minimum wage worker as 70% less buying power than me: making it fair that I contribute more. I don't think you can assume that it's fair based only on the income. Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. > we'd all feel a lot kinder towards what we would consider as giving. Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not.

telesilla 9y ago
>Maybe their job is useless or even harmful to society while yours is useful and helpful. I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. >Giving implies that it's voluntary. It's not. A transparent society can show that sharing a fair portion of your income has a greater benefit to you than keeping it to yourself. The point of my original comment is that it would be something I hope to see, where society moves in the direction of seeing sharing a portion of income with your community/country as giving, rather than as a tax to be taken. Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted.
- ric2b 9y ago
  > I think it's completely correct that income reflects this. Not at all. Many (non-criminal) scammers probably make more than the two of us combined, and their value to society is most likely negative. It's actually pretty easy to come up with examples of professions that are harmful to society but still have very good incomes due to one or more of the following: - Their societal costs are externalities - They abuse political power to get unfairly rewarded - They make their income by taking money in small slices from other people in a way that people don't care much (lots of payment providers/intermediaries do this) or by scamming people. > Your statement confirms that taxes are currently completely unwanted. I didn't comment on whether it is wanted, only on whether it is voluntary.

Chris2048 9y ago

Can you tell me what buying power is? And how it means more tax should be paid?