A real progressive tax that favours the poor.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.
45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

My idea would work better for the economy :

10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

NSG your opinion?

[Herargon]

As another fellow Dutch..

That looks like a great idea, but the ''tax for 10.000'', isn't that a bit incorrect, if you take inflation in account?

[Laerod]

NSG your opinion?

I'm of the opinion that you need to support your hypothesis with evidence.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

As another fellow Dutch..

That looks like a great idea, but the ''tax for 10.000'', isn't that a bit incorrect, if you take inflation in account?

Heragon this was written a bit quick so the number are debateable.

[Sinas]

I can agree in principle but what accommodations do you suggest for over halving everyone's tax rate? Should the government halve everything it does.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

NSG your opinion?

I'm of the opinion that you need to support your hypothesis with evidence.

Ronald Reagan policies proved that.

[Herargon]

As another fellow Dutch..

That looks like a great idea, but the ''tax for 10.000'', isn't that a bit incorrect, if you take inflation in account?

Heragon this was written a bit quick so the number are debateable.

So if I was waiting a few minutes, would it be less debatable? That seems rather biased towards others, TBH.

[Laerod]

I'm of the opinion that you need to support your hypothesis with evidence.

Ronald Reagan policies proved that.

Go ahead and show that this statement is not another one of your delusions.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

I can agree in principle but what accommodations do you suggest for over halving everyone's tax rate? Should the government halve everything it does.

No the economy will grow and we would cut on military and subsidies if they are proven not to be beneficial.

[Tubbsalot]

We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

This is very rarely true.

33% for the lowest income.
45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

And the problem is...? How does this not benefit the poor? How is this not a progressive tax? Why does it need changing?

My idea would work better for the economy :
10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

And why would this work? How does this favour the poor vs. the current system? What's the fundamental difference? Why would this work better "for the economy"?

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

So you'd implement regressive taxes to fuck over the poor, basically. And of course, you haven't considered that you'd need to boost taxes on cigarettes by about 4000%, which would cause consumption to drop to zero, so you wouldn't make any money on it. Income taxes raise a huge amount of revenue. Good luck finding it anywhere else.

[Herargon]

I can agree in principle but what accommodations do you suggest for over halving everyone's tax rate? Should the government halve everything it does.

No the economy will grow and we would cut on military and subsidies if they are proven not to be beneficial.

The fact that Ronald Reagan was one of the people that made this a policy and that this in that case became a success does not guarantee it always will be successfull.

A famous Dutch verb:
''In het verleden behaalde resultaten bieden geen garantie voor de toekomst.''

[Empire of Vlissingen]

Ronald Reagan policies proved that.

Go ahead and show that this statement is not another one of your delusions.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics .

[Laerod]

I can agree in principle but what accommodations do you suggest for over halving everyone's tax rate? Should the government halve everything it does.

No the economy will grow and we would cut on military and subsidies if they are proven not to be beneficial.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with changing tax brackets!

[Olivaero]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.
45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

My idea would work better for the economy :

10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

No one should be taxed before they reach a certain amount in earnings. Is it completely possible to live of 9'000 Euro per anum in the Netherlands? It'd be tricky to do the same in the UK. That being said 25% is ridiculously low for high earners.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

NSG your opinion?

And then you raise other taxes that hurt poor people more than rich people! so pretty bad idea in total.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

This is very rarely true.

In the Netherland the minimum benefit is 800 euro and with other benefits like housing and healthcare it can climb up to 1300 euro.

And the problem is...? How does this not benefit the poor? How is this not a progressive tax? Why does it need changing?

Because working is not beneficial enough here.

And why would this work? How does this favour the poor vs. the current system? What's the fundamental difference? Why would this work better "for the economy"?

They would have more money in their pockets so they would spend more and pay more VAT so the lose in tax income would be low.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

So you'd implement regressive taxes to fuck over the poor, basically. And of course, you haven't considered that you'd need to boost taxes on cigarettes by about 4000%, which would cause consumption to drop to zero, so you wouldn't make any money on it. Income taxes raise a huge amount of revenue. Good luck finding it anywhere else.

We have a VAT which earns more income than income tax.

[Herargon]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.
45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

My idea would work better for the economy :

10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

No one should be taxed before they reach a certain amount in earnings. Is it completely possible to live of 9'000 Euro per anum in the Netherlands? It'd be tricky to do the same in the UK. That being said 25% is ridiculously low for high earners.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

NSG your opinion?

And then you raise other taxes that hurt poor people more than rich people! so pretty bad idea in total.

What about:

25% for low incomes
35% for medium incomes
45% for high incomes

[Empire of Vlissingen]

No one should be taxed before they reach a certain amount in earnings. Is it completely possible to live of 9'000 Euro per anum in the Netherlands? It'd be tricky to do the same in the UK. That being said 25% is ridiculously low for high earners.


And then you raise other taxes that hurt poor people more than rich people! so pretty bad idea in total.

What about:

25% for low incomes
35% for medium incomes
45% for high incomes

Why should you punish hard working people with high income taxes?

[Sinas]

I can agree in principle but what accommodations do you suggest for over halving everyone's tax rate? Should the government halve everything it does.

No the economy will grow and we would cut on military and subsidies if they are proven not to be beneficial.

I personally don't believe the economy would double due to this but as there's no way to test, I'll drop it, regardless how would you prove that military and subsidies are not beneficial.

[Republic of Coldwater]

What about

0% for low
0% for Middle
0% for High

and 8.25% for Sales, it would work much better than some insane income tax.

[Chestaan]

How exactly would decimating state services help the poor?

I'm not going to put any numbers on tax rates, but lowering them that much would never help and really to help the poor you should increase taxes. Also a level of income that does not get taxed would be a good idea.

[Chestaan]

What about

0% for low
0% for Middle
0% for High

and 8.25% for Sales, it would work much better than some insane income tax.

Please do explain why a sales tax is superior to an income tax.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

No the economy will grow and we would cut on military and subsidies if they are proven not to be beneficial.

I personally don't believe the economy would double due to this but as there's no way to test, I'll drop it, regardless how would you prove that military and subsidies are not beneficial.

We don't need the military I don't expect the Germans to come again.

We have subsidies for foreign communities which does not help integration.

[Laerod]

Go ahead and show that this statement is not another one of your delusions.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics .

As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

Reagan ultimately raised taxes more times than he cut them.

Supporters pointed to the drop in poverty by the end of his term to validate that the tax cuts did indeed trickle down to the poor; opponents noted that the rate quickly shot up even higher in the first year of his successor's term, implying that the full effect of Reagan's policies led to a net increase in poverty.

The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

What about

0% for low
0% for Middle
0% for High

and 8.25% for Sales, it would work much better than some insane income tax.

Please do explain why a sales tax is superior to an income tax.

Because it's a tax on cosumption and not on income.
A income tax hurts the poor and middle class more than a sales tax.

[Herargon]

I personally don't believe the economy would double due to this but as there's no way to test, I'll drop it, regardless how would you prove that military and subsidies are not beneficial.

We don't need the military I don't expect the Germans to come again.

We have subsidies for foreign communities which does not help integration.

Please tell me how a military is unneccessary when someone really attacks us.