3 ms·
A flat tax? That's a bit too socialist for my tastes... should a man making $100k per year really be forced to pay twice as much as a man making $50k per year,
by scarmig 14y ago
A flat tax? That's a bit too socialist for my tastes... should a man making $100k per year really be forced to pay twice as much as a man making $50k per year, just for being more productive? Wouldn't a head tax be better, since everyone would then pay equally? Plus you would not have the disincentive effect on marginal labor of your "make twice as much, pay twice as much" scheme.
Also, why should I be forced to pay for your military and your police force? Shouldn't it be my choice to consume what I want?
- lostlogin 14y agoWhat if your paying the way for the other guy, who is 20 years your junior, allows him to better pay your medical bills when you get sick at age 70, and have no money to pay yourself (through no fault of your own you have lost a lot when X disaster occurred)? The swings and roundabout of the system aren't ever simple. Likewise, what about the 5 year old who needs state help, has contributed nothing, has had no chance to and has done nothing wrong. Who should pay if the parents don't?
- wybo 14y agoI assume/hope scarmig is being sarcastic here? ;) But yes historically (middle-ages and before) head-based tax systems were considered fair. Anyhow, non-progressive taxation and market-based health-care is a waste of human capital, not to mention that it leads to grossly inhumane situations. People that don't get that should look at the stats and/or study some basic economics. For example, how does the UK spend only about half as much on healthcare, and still has a higher life-expectancy than the US?