3 ms·

"As it affects everyone at the same rate." That's a flat tax. A regressive tax is one that affects the poor more. However, you are right that it is probably re

"As it affects everyone at the same rate." That's a flat tax. A regressive tax is one that affects the poor more. However, you are right that it is probably regressive, since the rich normally place more of their wealth percentage-wise in non-cash assets than poor people do.

wavefunction 8y ago
A flat tax is regressive in nature since the wealthy demand a greater share of the services provided by civil society.
- SilasX 8y ago
  Even if true, you need to make that inference explicit, because that's a confusing, non-standard usage of "flat tax" and "regressive" tax. Second, can you show your basis for thinking that? I would think it's the opposite: the wealthy aren't using the public schools, free health care, etc.
- zulln 8y ago
  Do they really 'demand a greater share' in proportion with how much more they contribute?
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    Police protect assets, fire services protect assets, schools are better in wealthy districts, The IRS targets poor and middle class because it's easier. Courts give better outcomes to the wealthy. Businesses are generally started by those with money. Pretty sure that the wealthy use significantly more resources because they have more to protect.
    - mastox 8y ago
      But where's "with how much more they contribute?" part of the answer? Such as the jobs created?
- jngreenlee 8y ago
  You know, that's probably debatable. The high wealthy also spend a lot on private services above and beyond what's publically available. Private security, planes, accountant and legal teams, private doctors, etc.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  I would think that most public services, such as public schools or public transportation are consumed by lower and middle class people. The upper class has their own private version of pretty much everything.
- mrmrcoleman 8y ago
  This seems counter intuitive to me but I’m not saying you’re wrong. Could you share more?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gefh 8y ago
Utility of wealth is non linear.
clavalle 8y ago
A flat tax is regressive. It affects the poor more since each marginal dollar affects their lifestyle to a greater degree. It is the difference between not being able to afford childcare and not being able to afford a second vacation home.
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 8y ago
  > A flat tax is regressive [because what matters is utility of money]. It's fine to think that, but normally when people are talking about tax progressiveness, they are thinking about the fractional tax on dollars, not "utils". Otherwise, you'd also call our existing, progressive taxation scheme "regressive," since it still probably taxes poor people's utils at a higher rate than rich people. And there would probably not anywhere in the world be a tax scheme that can properly be called progressive. One good rule of thumb, IMO, is that when you want to change the meaning of a classifier such that all extant instances of the classified type fall into a single bucket, that's probably not a useful change. YMMV.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
rorykoehler 8y ago
That's why I included ubi in essentials. The thing this solves is tax avoidance evasion.

wavefunction 8y ago

A flat tax is regressive in nature since the wealthy demand a greater share of the services provided by civil society.

SilasX 8y ago
Even if true, you need to make that inference explicit, because that's a confusing, non-standard usage of "flat tax" and "regressive" tax. Second, can you show your basis for thinking that? I would think it's the opposite: the wealthy aren't using the public schools, free health care, etc.
zulln 8y ago
Do they really 'demand a greater share' in proportion with how much more they contribute?
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  Police protect assets, fire services protect assets, schools are better in wealthy districts, The IRS targets poor and middle class because it's easier. Courts give better outcomes to the wealthy. Businesses are generally started by those with money. Pretty sure that the wealthy use significantly more resources because they have more to protect.
  - mastox 8y ago
    But where's "with how much more they contribute?" part of the answer? Such as the jobs created?
jngreenlee 8y ago
You know, that's probably debatable. The high wealthy also spend a lot on private services above and beyond what's publically available. Private security, planes, accountant and legal teams, private doctors, etc.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
I would think that most public services, such as public schools or public transportation are consumed by lower and middle class people. The upper class has their own private version of pretty much everything.
mrmrcoleman 8y ago
This seems counter intuitive to me but I’m not saying you’re wrong. Could you share more?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gefh 8y ago

Utility of wealth is non linear.

clavalle 8y ago

A flat tax is regressive. It affects the poor more since each marginal dollar affects their lifestyle to a greater degree. It is the difference between not being able to afford childcare and not being able to afford a second vacation home.

ijpoijpoihpiuoh 8y ago
> A flat tax is regressive [because what matters is utility of money]. It's fine to think that, but normally when people are talking about tax progressiveness, they are thinking about the fractional tax on dollars, not "utils". Otherwise, you'd also call our existing, progressive taxation scheme "regressive," since it still probably taxes poor people's utils at a higher rate than rich people. And there would probably not anywhere in the world be a tax scheme that can properly be called progressive. One good rule of thumb, IMO, is that when you want to change the meaning of a classifier such that all extant instances of the classified type fall into a single bucket, that's probably not a useful change. YMMV.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

rorykoehler 8y ago

That's why I included ubi in essentials. The thing this solves is tax avoidance evasion.