U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:22 AM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,043,990 times
Reputation: 8970

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
More fair? COMPLETELY fair would be a head tax, in which everyone pays the same amount and shares the costs, equally. Modified fair is the flat tax in which everyone pays the same rate. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT. Some will still be paying MUCH MORE than others, but the proportion would be fair.

A head tax assumes that everyone receives the same benefit or utility from government. This is clearly not the case.

Let the wealthy move their wealth or their persons from the safe haven of America to some third world hellhole, and see how safe it or they are there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:22 AM
 
40,106 posts, read 24,350,113 times
Reputation: 12619
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Work harder/smarter to earn more pie. The incentive to NOT do so is introduced by continuing to give people freebies. To wit: those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than everyone else. Why? Because they DON'T have to incur cost of caring for their children. Someone else pays. Hence, excessive over-breeding of the dependent class abounds. We're not talking about a disproportionate system, which is what we now have. We're talking about a flat tax. Everyone pays the same rate. Earn very little; pay very little. Earn A LOT; pay A LOT. Paying one's fair share is an ethical responsibility.
Earning more pie is hard to do when you're homeless, hungry, and can't afford transportation.

Yes, we have a disproportionate system now.

Yes, the flat tax has a disproportionate impact.

Neither is fair.

I prefer the unfair one that helps people who are poor provide food and shelter for themselves.

You prefer the unfair one that helps rich people get richer, that allows more and more money to be in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Of course, this is also the one that leads to greater economic and social INSTABILITY. Hint: rich people like to live where there is more economic and social stability, they have the means to move there. The unfair system that you support, in the long run leads to an impoverished nation where it's wealth hasn't been squandered, but has simply moved elsewhere.

The incentive to earn more is always there. There are no welfare queens. There are some people who live on welfare and who don't know how to get off of it, who are lazy, who are stupid because they think they are getting ahead but really they don't live well and aren't secure in any way. There are many more people who find themselves needing assistance because they or a family member had a devastating illness, or they unexpectedly lost their job, or something terrible happened that threw them off track.

But a system that is designed to give further advantages to those who already have most of the advantages, and punishing those who are already down, is inherently the most unfair system. That's the unfairness that you are advancing. Kick the person who's down, because that supposedly will give him an incentive to get up, to stand on his own feet. That person who's down, that's not my enemy. I don't want to kick him. I want to lend him a hand, pull him to his feet. Then he won't think of me as his enemy, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:32 AM
 
66,447 posts, read 30,309,848 times
Reputation: 8662
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
A head tax assumes that everyone receives the same benefit or utility from government. This is clearly not the case.
True, the no/lower-income receive FAR more federal government benefits and services than anyone else. Many social welfare spending programs benefit them, exclusively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:35 AM
 
66,447 posts, read 30,309,848 times
Reputation: 8662
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Earning more pie is hard to do when you're homeless, hungry, and can't afford transportation.
And yet many do exactly that.

Quote:
the flat tax has a disproportionate impact.
Completely false. The flat tax is, by definition, proportionate.

We all know you prefer the completely unethical 'someone else pay for me' tax system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 11:39 AM
 
1,460 posts, read 1,670,716 times
Reputation: 1400
Envy is a hell of a drug, and frankly very immature....

When these flea party kids leave their parents basement and get into the real world they will look back and laugh at their stupidity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,825 posts, read 20,222,014 times
Reputation: 6487
Everyone seems to be hung up on the word "fair." "Fair" is like "justice," both are highly subjective, and no two people will have the exact same definition for either. All government can be is "equal." As in the 14th Amendment where is says that no State may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [emphasis added]

Tax law is still law, and therefore must be applied equally to everyone. Taxation that is either progressive or regressive is not equal. Equal taxation can only be achieved when everyone pays the exact same rate. To some that may not be fair, but it is equal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2011, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,825 posts, read 20,222,014 times
Reputation: 6487
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
A head tax assumes that everyone receives the same benefit or utility from government. This is clearly not the case.

Let the wealthy move their wealth or their persons from the safe haven of America to some third world hellhole, and see how safe it or they are there.
Not necessarily. A head tax is the only equal form of taxation, it makes no assumptions as to need or who gains the most benefit. To paraphrase Marx "From each equally, to each according to his need."

Regardless of what the total cost may be for funding government, that grand total cost has to be divided equally among every citizen. There should not be anyone specifically targeted for either more or less tax, such as the "rich," or the "poor," or "consumers," or "non-consumers."

When economic times were better, and government spending much less, I read a series of interesting articles concerning the flat tax. In order to fund the federal government at that time (1996) economists estimated between a 19% and 21% flat tax would be required. Obviously, a smaller federal government would reduce the tax burden, while a larger one increases the tax burden. Tax increases and tax cuts would be automatic, depending upon the total cost of funding the federal government. There would be no more pandering to the voters, promising something they are incapable of delivering. There would also be no more deficit spending or surpluses. Regardless of what government does, increases or reduces, it will be paid for by every citizen equally.

At the very least it should provide sufficient incentive to keep the federal government as small and as efficient as possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top