4 ms·

the more you make the more you should pay, it's simple.

by kanbara 4y ago

sgregnt 4y ago
And channel it into inefficient corrupt governments, no thank you.
refurb 4y ago
Even if you no longer live in California? I don't think anyone thinks that's fair.
necovek 4y ago
Does that not hold true for a static percentage tax? Eg. 15% of 10k is 1.5k, whereas 15% of 100k is 15k ;)
- Ntrails 4y ago
  This is obviously both true and not the point. It is a mazlows hierarchy style argument. You shouldn't be taxed on the income you need to eat. You should be taxed gently on the income you need for basic comfort. You should be taxed more heavily on the income used for luxuries etc etc
  - necovek 4y ago
    If the point is that those earning more should pay more taxes, that is already achieved by using a relative measure like percentages. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what the original goals behind progressive taxes are? Is the goal to discourage employers from giving out exorbitantly large salaries? Is it to equalize salaries? Or simply to collect more taxes from those who can afford it? Or something else? I agree having better criteria around the goals we want to achieve like you suggest should drive our taxation systems. But if we say no taxes for food, is it organic food? What if someone is allergic to common food (gluten, lactose...) and price is significantly higher? How about basic comforts? By virtue of being significantly taller than average, I have to pay the premium for larger cars simply to be able to fit inside (I still drive a sedan and not a SUV: they don't get more space inside). And need custom beds, taller kitchen counters... All of this is more expensive than mass-produced furniture or smaller cars. And even for "luxury" items like flying long haul, you can't tell me it's fair that for the same price, some people get 4" in front of their knees to the backrest in front, and I get my knees stuck into that same backrest. I understand that from the sellers' perspective, but to get the same comfort, I need to pay more for premium economy. Basically, progressive tax is an attempt at some form of equalization, but I wonder which one is it, so I can have a better opinion of how we can achieve fairness. But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly.
    - Ntrails 4y ago
      > But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly. I cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or genuinely don't realise that people saying that mean: "those who earn more should pay a bigger slice of their income" The goals are literally as I have described.
      - necovek 4y ago
        The fact that I do realise what they mean does not mean that I can't oppose their incorrect wording. This incorrect wording is specifically used to influence people to think that higher earners are currently paying equal or less taxes, when they are literally paying more already! I've also literally gave counter-examples why "the goals ... as [you] described" are not sufficient to justify progressive taxation being introduced: different people have different needs (and thus costs) for any of the categories of expenditure you bring up, yet this is unsolved by progressive taxation. IOW, I am looking for a better reasoned argument than just "rich people should pay even more" (when higher income does not necessarily mean richer people: we all know how really rich people can play with accounting and get by on $1 salaries). There are taxation schemes which do take a bunch of these criteria in: eg. property taxes for a lived-in home vs rented-out home, tax benefits based on the number of dependents etc. But progressive taxation is not contextual in that sense, so I want goals to be publicly stated so we can reason about whether they are a good solution or not.
ksniwmidjd 4y ago
[dead]
sieabahlpark 4y ago
[dead]
sfmike 4y ago
why? poorer people use more of the systems infrastructure, they should pay more? why should more efficient and capital producing people pay more?

the more you make the more you should pay, it's simple.

sgregnt 4y ago

And channel it into inefficient corrupt governments, no thank you.

refurb 4y ago

Even if you no longer live in California? I don't think anyone thinks that's fair.

necovek 4y ago

Does that not hold true for a static percentage tax? Eg. 15% of 10k is 1.5k, whereas 15% of 100k is 15k ;)

Ntrails 4y ago
This is obviously both true and not the point. It is a mazlows hierarchy style argument. You shouldn't be taxed on the income you need to eat. You should be taxed gently on the income you need for basic comfort. You should be taxed more heavily on the income used for luxuries etc etc
- necovek 4y ago
  If the point is that those earning more should pay more taxes, that is already achieved by using a relative measure like percentages. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what the original goals behind progressive taxes are? Is the goal to discourage employers from giving out exorbitantly large salaries? Is it to equalize salaries? Or simply to collect more taxes from those who can afford it? Or something else? I agree having better criteria around the goals we want to achieve like you suggest should drive our taxation systems. But if we say no taxes for food, is it organic food? What if someone is allergic to common food (gluten, lactose...) and price is significantly higher? How about basic comforts? By virtue of being significantly taller than average, I have to pay the premium for larger cars simply to be able to fit inside (I still drive a sedan and not a SUV: they don't get more space inside). And need custom beds, taller kitchen counters... All of this is more expensive than mass-produced furniture or smaller cars. And even for "luxury" items like flying long haul, you can't tell me it's fair that for the same price, some people get 4" in front of their knees to the backrest in front, and I get my knees stuck into that same backrest. I understand that from the sellers' perspective, but to get the same comfort, I need to pay more for premium economy. Basically, progressive tax is an attempt at some form of equalization, but I wonder which one is it, so I can have a better opinion of how we can achieve fairness. But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly.
  - Ntrails 4y ago
    > But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly. I cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or genuinely don't realise that people saying that mean: "those who earn more should pay a bigger slice of their income" The goals are literally as I have described.
    - necovek 4y ago
      The fact that I do realise what they mean does not mean that I can't oppose their incorrect wording. This incorrect wording is specifically used to influence people to think that higher earners are currently paying equal or less taxes, when they are literally paying more already! I've also literally gave counter-examples why "the goals ... as [you] described" are not sufficient to justify progressive taxation being introduced: different people have different needs (and thus costs) for any of the categories of expenditure you bring up, yet this is unsolved by progressive taxation. IOW, I am looking for a better reasoned argument than just "rich people should pay even more" (when higher income does not necessarily mean richer people: we all know how really rich people can play with accounting and get by on $1 salaries). There are taxation schemes which do take a bunch of these criteria in: eg. property taxes for a lived-in home vs rented-out home, tax benefits based on the number of dependents etc. But progressive taxation is not contextual in that sense, so I want goals to be publicly stated so we can reason about whether they are a good solution or not.

ksniwmidjd 4y ago

[dead]

sieabahlpark 4y ago

[dead]

sfmike 4y ago

why? poorer people use more of the systems infrastructure, they should pay more? why should more efficient and capital producing people pay more?