3 ms·

I found this entire piece unconvincing because I don't think that progressive taxation is fair. Why should the people at Moderna be punished with high taxes whe

I found this entire piece unconvincing because I don't think that progressive taxation is fair. Why should the people at Moderna be punished with high taxes when they're the ones that have come up with a life-saving vaccine that's bringing a global pandemic to an end? Why should the people at Tesla be punished for creating vehicles that are helping humanity rapidly transition to carbon-free energy? Instead of punishing those that are helping to make the world a better place, I think we need to transition to a system of flat taxation. It makes it easier to figure out how much to pay, because there's only one rate for everyone. Those with higher incomes pay more (at least in some cases) because there are no loopholes, and those with lower incomes are incentivized to keep government spending low, as they have skin in the game as well. It's a win-win for everyone except Intuit, lifelong government employees, politicians and the contractors used to scooping up the government money that all these programs dump into their laps.

uniqueid 5y ago
Why should the people at Moderna be punished with high taxes when they're the ones that have come up with a life-saving vaccine that's bringing a global pandemic to an end? Why not go all the way? There are people with physical or mental disabilities who contribute little of economic value to society. Whatever money these disabled people manage to scrape together, we should tax the shit out of it. /s My more sincere answer is: a dollar means less to someone who already has a million than to someone who wound up sleeping on a park bench. Well, it should mean less, at any rate.
- maxharris 5y ago
  I don't think you understood my comment. Minimizing public spending and government control over our lives is a noble goal. As things stand now, we are headed for hyperinflation, which will be followed by a terrible collapse, akin to the one that happened in Weimar Germany in the 1920s. What comes after that isn't pretty, because we've seen that movie before, a century ago in Europe... Right now the majority of voters, left-wing and right-wing alike, are perfectly fine with unsustainable public spending. They vote for things they expect others to pay for, and that's contributing to our downfall.
  - uniqueid 5y ago
    I didn't pick up that that was the thrust of the original comment. I don't have strong feelings about government control, of itself. If the government that controls my life is Denmark's, no problem. If it's North Korea's, no thanks.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    The classic answer to your question is that if income tax is flat, then overall taxation is degressive, which most people consider unfair. There are taxes (and comparable unavoidable/imposed costs) related to many expenses. VAT is often mentioned, but is far from the only one. People with low income need to spend a higher fraction of their income than people whose income allows more saving, and thus pay more VAT viewed as a share of their income. There are many others. Schooling is mandatory in most countries and generally involves a cost per child imposed on the parents (because the public financing never covers 100% of the school's needs), so the costs imposed by the state as fraction of the parents' income is degressive. BTW, regarding that "unsustainable public spending"... if the interest rate the state pays is stable and low, then what makes the borrowing unsustainable? Surely the lenders' judgment of state finances is the one that matters.

uniqueid 5y ago

Why should the people at Moderna be punished with high taxes when they're the ones that have come up with a life-saving vaccine that's bringing a global pandemic to an end? Why not go all the way? There are people with physical or mental disabilities who contribute little of economic value to society. Whatever money these disabled people manage to scrape together, we should tax the shit out of it. /s My more sincere answer is: a dollar means less to someone who already has a million than to someone who wound up sleeping on a park bench. Well, it should mean less, at any rate.

maxharris 5y ago
I don't think you understood my comment. Minimizing public spending and government control over our lives is a noble goal. As things stand now, we are headed for hyperinflation, which will be followed by a terrible collapse, akin to the one that happened in Weimar Germany in the 1920s. What comes after that isn't pretty, because we've seen that movie before, a century ago in Europe... Right now the majority of voters, left-wing and right-wing alike, are perfectly fine with unsustainable public spending. They vote for things they expect others to pay for, and that's contributing to our downfall.
- uniqueid 5y ago
  I didn't pick up that that was the thrust of the original comment. I don't have strong feelings about government control, of itself. If the government that controls my life is Denmark's, no problem. If it's North Korea's, no thanks.
- Arnt 5y ago
  The classic answer to your question is that if income tax is flat, then overall taxation is degressive, which most people consider unfair. There are taxes (and comparable unavoidable/imposed costs) related to many expenses. VAT is often mentioned, but is far from the only one. People with low income need to spend a higher fraction of their income than people whose income allows more saving, and thus pay more VAT viewed as a share of their income. There are many others. Schooling is mandatory in most countries and generally involves a cost per child imposed on the parents (because the public financing never covers 100% of the school's needs), so the costs imposed by the state as fraction of the parents' income is degressive. BTW, regarding that "unsustainable public spending"... if the interest rate the state pays is stable and low, then what makes the borrowing unsustainable? Surely the lenders' judgment of state finances is the one that matters.