7 ms·

> You'd still end up with the middle paying proportionally a lot more than the wealthiest. Again, everyone ends up paying proportionally the exact same on what

> You'd still end up with the middle paying proportionally a lot more than the wealthiest. Again, everyone ends up paying proportionally the exact same on what they personally benefit from: consumption. What isn't consumed regardless of income goes back into circulation in the economy via investment.

Nursie 6y ago
> Again, everyone ends up paying proportionally the exact same on what they personally benefit from: consumption. But they don't pay in proportion to what they earn or their wealth. Compared to the current system it would leave the poor paying a much higher proportion of taxes and a higher percentage of their income as tax, both compared to now and compared to those who earn more. > What isn't consumed regardless of income goes back into circulation in the economy via investment. Great, so the wealthy , who consume proportionally less, get to invest and grow their wealth unfettered, while those on low incomes get to increase their share of the tax burden. Nice. Sounds 'fair'.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  not that I really disagree with you, but "fair" isn't an argument; it's an opinion. you're clearly arguing with someone who doesn't agree with using income/wealth as a criterion for fairness.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    It was more of a dig at some of the previous attempts at mooting such taxes, the "Fair Tax" was one of them. I agree it's an alternate way to approach fairness, I just find it a bizarre one. If taxes are to stay at roughly the same gross take as they do now in, for instance, the UK, VAT would have to rise from 20% to approximately 100%, which would be utterly ruinous for the poorest, but barely noticed by others.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    This. In my opinion, fairness requires having skin in the game. Lots of people have a say in how money is spent via votes but are not feeling the burden of contributing to that pot. Contributing proportionally would give them skin in the game and they would all of a sudden discover the importance of demanding fiscal responsibility from those that are governing. The progressive taxation approach doesn't even leave those at the bottom better off. The market still uses price discovery to figure out prices. All the progressive taxation approach does is eliminate a cost and lower the price of labor to be equal to what labor is demanding. If labor had to also pay their fair share of taxes, they'd demand the amount they need plus the amount they need to pay in taxes. An alternative that achieves fairness is to have no income tax and instead only have payroll taxes. This way no individual is bilked because they were successful. I still prefer a flat sales tax because you shouldn't tax what you want to see more of in society, the labor to make society work, but only having a payroll tax would at least solve the fairness issue. The only problem with the payroll tax approach is that the skin in the game expectation has one drawback. Those that are in most demand in the jobs marketplace is at the least risk of advocating for a higher payroll tax across the board. Raising the payroll taxes could make some roles no longer profitable and companies could cut those roles to achieve a better ROI.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      > In my opinion, fairness requires having skin in the game. Everyone has skin in the game, it's called 'life'. > Contributing proportionally would give them skin in the game They do contribute proportionally, they have very little so that contribution is low. In general this is done because if you take the same proportion from the worst off as you do from the richest, the poor starve. > they would all of a sudden discover the importance of demanding fiscal responsibility from those that are governing. While they starve because of the new tax regime. I imagine the first thing they'll demand is that their taxes get lowered so that they can live, so back to square one. If there aren't just food riots first. Also it looks like you're mooting introducing some sort of unbreakable, unchangeable law so that people would demand other changes. I'm not sure that's how democracy works... > you shouldn't tax what you want to see more of in society You don't want commerce? You realise that to support your scheme, sales tax would have to go up to the region of 100%?
leetcrew 6y ago
> Again, everyone ends up paying proportionally the exact same on what they personally benefit from: consumption. this is only true under a very narrow definition of "benefit". I benefit from a lot of things that are hard to account for with a system of taxes on transactions (what I assume you mean by "consumption tax", correct me if I'm misunderstanding you). I benefit from roads when I drive on them, police when I don't get shot on my way to work, the military when my country isn't invaded by a foreign power, etc. you could certainly expand the definition of consumption to include these things, but it would become very difficult to account for.

Nursie 6y ago

> Again, everyone ends up paying proportionally the exact same on what they personally benefit from: consumption. But they don't pay in proportion to what they earn or their wealth. Compared to the current system it would leave the poor paying a much higher proportion of taxes and a higher percentage of their income as tax, both compared to now and compared to those who earn more. > What isn't consumed regardless of income goes back into circulation in the economy via investment. Great, so the wealthy , who consume proportionally less, get to invest and grow their wealth unfettered, while those on low incomes get to increase their share of the tax burden. Nice. Sounds 'fair'.

leetcrew 6y ago
not that I really disagree with you, but "fair" isn't an argument; it's an opinion. you're clearly arguing with someone who doesn't agree with using income/wealth as a criterion for fairness.
- Nursie 6y ago
  It was more of a dig at some of the previous attempts at mooting such taxes, the "Fair Tax" was one of them. I agree it's an alternate way to approach fairness, I just find it a bizarre one. If taxes are to stay at roughly the same gross take as they do now in, for instance, the UK, VAT would have to rise from 20% to approximately 100%, which would be utterly ruinous for the poorest, but barely noticed by others.
- malandrew 6y ago
  This. In my opinion, fairness requires having skin in the game. Lots of people have a say in how money is spent via votes but are not feeling the burden of contributing to that pot. Contributing proportionally would give them skin in the game and they would all of a sudden discover the importance of demanding fiscal responsibility from those that are governing. The progressive taxation approach doesn't even leave those at the bottom better off. The market still uses price discovery to figure out prices. All the progressive taxation approach does is eliminate a cost and lower the price of labor to be equal to what labor is demanding. If labor had to also pay their fair share of taxes, they'd demand the amount they need plus the amount they need to pay in taxes. An alternative that achieves fairness is to have no income tax and instead only have payroll taxes. This way no individual is bilked because they were successful. I still prefer a flat sales tax because you shouldn't tax what you want to see more of in society, the labor to make society work, but only having a payroll tax would at least solve the fairness issue. The only problem with the payroll tax approach is that the skin in the game expectation has one drawback. Those that are in most demand in the jobs marketplace is at the least risk of advocating for a higher payroll tax across the board. Raising the payroll taxes could make some roles no longer profitable and companies could cut those roles to achieve a better ROI.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    > In my opinion, fairness requires having skin in the game. Everyone has skin in the game, it's called 'life'. > Contributing proportionally would give them skin in the game They do contribute proportionally, they have very little so that contribution is low. In general this is done because if you take the same proportion from the worst off as you do from the richest, the poor starve. > they would all of a sudden discover the importance of demanding fiscal responsibility from those that are governing. While they starve because of the new tax regime. I imagine the first thing they'll demand is that their taxes get lowered so that they can live, so back to square one. If there aren't just food riots first. Also it looks like you're mooting introducing some sort of unbreakable, unchangeable law so that people would demand other changes. I'm not sure that's how democracy works... > you shouldn't tax what you want to see more of in society You don't want commerce? You realise that to support your scheme, sales tax would have to go up to the region of 100%?

leetcrew 6y ago

> Again, everyone ends up paying proportionally the exact same on what they personally benefit from: consumption. this is only true under a very narrow definition of "benefit". I benefit from a lot of things that are hard to account for with a system of taxes on transactions (what I assume you mean by "consumption tax", correct me if I'm misunderstanding you). I benefit from roads when I drive on them, police when I don't get shot on my way to work, the military when my country isn't invaded by a foreign power, etc. you could certainly expand the definition of consumption to include these things, but it would become very difficult to account for.