Which type of tax would you prefer?

[Auremena]

Aggressive, of course. It's more equal, so it's better.

How the hell is it equal? Why should you pay less if you lake less? A tax is the charge for having a government, and prices shouldn't change just because you make a different amount.

It's equal, though. My view is that those who are more important to the working of the nation, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. should have lower taxes, and more useless ones have higher taxes.

[Kreanoltha]

Aggressive, of course. It's more equal, so it's better.

How the hell is it equal? Why should you pay less if you lake less? A tax is the charge for having a government, and prices shouldn't change just because you make a different amount.

It's equal, though. My view is that those who are more important to the working of the nation, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. should have lower taxes, and more useless ones have higher taxes.

That's bullshit. As I said, taxes are the fee for living in the country and must be flat-rate. Otherwise it theft. The government would be taking as much as they could from anyone.

[The Adrian Empire]

Aggressive, of course. It's more equal, so it's better.

How the hell is it equal? Why should you pay less if you lake less? A tax is the charge for having a government, and prices shouldn't change just because you make a different amount.

It's equal, though. My view is that those who are more important to the working of the nation, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. should have lower taxes, and more useless ones have higher taxes.[/quote
Frankly, I'm at the point of rage over that comment. How utterly ignorant and obtuse it is to believe that the people who make more money are by definition useless

I dare you to try to run a nation without doctors, scientists, businessmen and managers, there is a reason they get higher pay...

Here is a hint, they contribute more!

To further explain, lets be frank here, if every single factory floor assemblyman who was working at the local tire plant dropped dead left their job, would we be in mortal distress? No, there is plenty of people that should tires become exceptionally needed would be capable and willing to become tire makers.
However if that happened at a hospital, the community would be crushed, and why? Because there is a limited supply of doctors, nurses and medical staff they are in demand, they by necessity should earn more.

Now, if the local tire companies managers all left their job then the factory workers would be left jobless, again the skills of a business manager are more in demand then a tire maker. The same rings true for inventors or scientists, they make more because they're skill is needed more.

That is why they make more money, not because they are ebul bourgeois swine, because they are in limited supply and are high in demand. They are anything but useless....

[Auremena]

Aggressive, of course. It's more equal, so it's better.

How the hell is it equal? Why should you pay less if you lake less? A tax is the charge for having a government, and prices shouldn't change just because you make a different amount.

It's equal, though. My view is that those who are more important to the working of the nation, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. should have lower taxes, and more useless ones have higher taxes.[/quote
Frankly, I'm at the point of rage over that comment. How utterly ignorant and obtuse it is to believe that the people who make more money are by definition useless

I dare you to try to run a nation without doctors, scientists, businessmen and managers, there is a reason they get higher pay...

Here is a hint, they contribute more!

To further explain, lets be frank here, if every single factory floor assemblyman who was working at the local tire plant dropped dead left their job, would we be in mortal distress? No, there is plenty of people that should tires become exceptionally needed would be capable and willing to become tire makers.
However if that happened at a hospital, the community would be crushed, and why? Because there is a limited supply of doctors, nurses and medical staff.
If the local tire companies managers all left their job then the factory workers would be left jobless, again the skills of a businessman are more in demand then a tire maker.

That is why the make more money, not because they are ebul bourgeois swine, because they are in limited supply and are high in demand. They are anything but useless....

No, doctors are useful. just they wouldn't get payed $25,000 an operation. By useless, I mean lawyers. They defend people who could defend themselves.

[Andaluciae]

Personally...I like consumption taxes and Pigovian taxes.

Consumption taxes have reduced economic distortionary effects--so, whereas income taxes decrease people's incentives to engage in income seeking behavior (working, investing) and thus reduce overall economic output, consumption taxes reduces people's willingness to spend, while inducing incentives for greater income seeking behaviors. Specifically, I like a Value Added Tax because it's hard to cheat, it's simple to administer and the costs are visible to consumers.

I also like Pigovian taxes, although they should be applied sparingly, intelligently and strategically. By increasing the private costs to increase the overall social costs of some sort of activity, then you create a more efficient allocation, and limit the negative activity.



There are, certainly virtues to progressive income taxation--but the distortions that result are pretty fucking real and without complex tax rebate structures tend to serve as a disincentive to work on the open market for lower income individuals.

Both a sales tax and an income tax would reduce people's incentives to engage in income-seeking behavior: people would take out money from their saving activities to cover the cost of now more expensive goods in addition to consuming less actual goods (for instance, if I paid $500 for goods beforehand, and now there is a 10% sales tax, I could simply pay this extra $50 out of my savings, or have a mix between fewer actual goods and less saving, such as only buying $475 in actual goods and pay the extra $22.5 out of savings. After all, with the marginal utility of actual goods and services rising because of having fewer goods and services, saving becomes relatively less attractive with each unit cut back.) Also, more expensive goods could be a disincentive to work, since for working the same amount you would get less, and thereby working would become relatively less valuable.

In the end, no matter how you tax, you're going to screw something up.

I'm not saying that consumption taxes aren't distortionary--rather that they are less distortionary and therefore preferable.

[The Adrian Empire]

Aggressive, of course. It's more equal, so it's better.

How the hell is it equal? Why should you pay less if you lake less? A tax is the charge for having a government, and prices shouldn't change just because you make a different amount.

It's equal, though. My view is that those who are more important to the working of the nation, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. should have lower taxes, and more useless ones have higher taxes.[/quote
Frankly, I'm at the point of rage over that comment. How utterly ignorant and obtuse it is to believe that the people who make more money are by definition useless

I dare you to try to run a nation without doctors, scientists, businessmen and managers, there is a reason they get higher pay...

Here is a hint, they contribute more!

To further explain, lets be frank here, if every single factory floor assemblyman who was working at the local tire plant dropped dead left their job, would we be in mortal distress? No, there is plenty of people that should tires become exceptionally needed would be capable and willing to become tire makers.
However if that happened at a hospital, the community would be crushed, and why? Because there is a limited supply of doctors, nurses and medical staff.
If the local tire companies managers all left their job then the factory workers would be left jobless, again the skills of a businessman are more in demand then a tire maker.

That is why the make more money, not because they are ebul bourgeois swine, because they are in limited supply and are high in demand. They are anything but useless....

No, doctors are useful. just they wouldn't get payed $25,000 an operation. By useless, I mean lawyers. They defend people who could defend themselves.

Doctors get paid 25,000 dollars because that is what they market is willing to pay and it covers the cost of their business.

Sure Lawyers are thieves and tricksters but if we don't need them why then do they exist?
Why because most people don't have a clue how best to defend themselves in court, or how best to make legal arguments against another, legal rhetoric too is a skill that is demanded. One can go without legal representation, but unless you are a highly intelligent skilled and charismatic individual you are putting yourself at a great disadvantage. Modern law is highly complicated, full of loopholes, and important caveats, terms that go over the head of the average person. Who do you expect to stand in for murder victims, or those mentally disabled in accidents?

If you can really give me an example of a person who is paid exceedingly for not contributing to society, aside from politicians (which go without saying but that is what you get when they vote for their own salaries), I will stand corrected.

[Andaluciae]

Aggressive, of course. It's more equal, so it's better.

How the hell is it equal? Why should you pay less if you lake less? A tax is the charge for having a government, and prices shouldn't change just because you make a different amount.

It's equal, though. My view is that those who are more important to the working of the nation, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. should have lower taxes, and more useless ones have higher taxes.[/quote
Frankly, I'm at the point of rage over that comment. How utterly ignorant and obtuse it is to believe that the people who make more money are by definition useless

I dare you to try to run a nation without doctors, scientists, businessmen and managers, there is a reason they get higher pay...

Here is a hint, they contribute more!

To further explain, lets be frank here, if every single factory floor assemblyman who was working at the local tire plant dropped dead left their job, would we be in mortal distress? No, there is plenty of people that should tires become exceptionally needed would be capable and willing to become tire makers.
However if that happened at a hospital, the community would be crushed, and why? Because there is a limited supply of doctors, nurses and medical staff.
If the local tire companies managers all left their job then the factory workers would be left jobless, again the skills of a businessman are more in demand then a tire maker.

That is why the make more money, not because they are ebul bourgeois swine, because they are in limited supply and are high in demand. They are anything but useless....

No, doctors are useful. just they wouldn't get payed $25,000 an operation. By useless, I mean lawyers. They defend people who could defend themselves.

By that logic, doctors are useless, as they operate on people who could operate on themselves. Sheesh.

[Seleucas]

Personally...I like consumption taxes and Pigovian taxes.

Consumption taxes have reduced economic distortionary effects--so, whereas income taxes decrease people's incentives to engage in income seeking behavior (working, investing) and thus reduce overall economic output, consumption taxes reduces people's willingness to spend, while inducing incentives for greater income seeking behaviors. Specifically, I like a Value Added Tax because it's hard to cheat, it's simple to administer and the costs are visible to consumers.

I also like Pigovian taxes, although they should be applied sparingly, intelligently and strategically. By increasing the private costs to increase the overall social costs of some sort of activity, then you create a more efficient allocation, and limit the negative activity.



There are, certainly virtues to progressive income taxation--but the distortions that result are pretty fucking real and without complex tax rebate structures tend to serve as a disincentive to work on the open market for lower income individuals.

Both a sales tax and an income tax would reduce people's incentives to engage in income-seeking behavior: people would take out money from their saving activities to cover the cost of now more expensive goods in addition to consuming less actual goods (for instance, if I paid $500 for goods beforehand, and now there is a 10% sales tax, I could simply pay this extra $50 out of my savings, or have a mix between fewer actual goods and less saving, such as only buying $475 in actual goods and pay the extra $22.5 out of savings. After all, with the marginal utility of actual goods and services rising because of having fewer goods and services, saving becomes relatively less attractive with each unit cut back.) Also, more expensive goods could be a disincentive to work, since for working the same amount you would get less, and thereby working would become relatively less valuable.

In the end, no matter how you tax, you're going to screw something up.

I'm not saying that consumption taxes aren't distortionary--rather that they are less distortionary and therefore preferable.

Right. I suppose that there might be some benefits in letting your money grow until you actually spend it, instead of it being nibbled away throughout the process, kind of like a tax-deferred retirement account.

[Andaluciae]

Personally...I like consumption taxes and Pigovian taxes.

Consumption taxes have reduced economic distortionary effects--so, whereas income taxes decrease people's incentives to engage in income seeking behavior (working, investing) and thus reduce overall economic output, consumption taxes reduces people's willingness to spend, while inducing incentives for greater income seeking behaviors. Specifically, I like a Value Added Tax because it's hard to cheat, it's simple to administer and the costs are visible to consumers.

I also like Pigovian taxes, although they should be applied sparingly, intelligently and strategically. By increasing the private costs to increase the overall social costs of some sort of activity, then you create a more efficient allocation, and limit the negative activity.



There are, certainly virtues to progressive income taxation--but the distortions that result are pretty fucking real and without complex tax rebate structures tend to serve as a disincentive to work on the open market for lower income individuals.

Both a sales tax and an income tax would reduce people's incentives to engage in income-seeking behavior: people would take out money from their saving activities to cover the cost of now more expensive goods in addition to consuming less actual goods (for instance, if I paid $500 for goods beforehand, and now there is a 10% sales tax, I could simply pay this extra $50 out of my savings, or have a mix between fewer actual goods and less saving, such as only buying $475 in actual goods and pay the extra $22.5 out of savings. After all, with the marginal utility of actual goods and services rising because of having fewer goods and services, saving becomes relatively less attractive with each unit cut back.) Also, more expensive goods could be a disincentive to work, since for working the same amount you would get less, and thereby working would become relatively less valuable.

In the end, no matter how you tax, you're going to screw something up.

I'm not saying that consumption taxes aren't distortionary--rather that they are less distortionary and therefore preferable.

Right. I suppose that there might be some benefits in letting your money grow until you actually spend it, instead of it being nibbled away throughout the process, kind of like a tax-deferred retirement account.

That's an excellent analogy.

[Dazchan]

Flat tax is the only rational tax. The others are stupid.

Well, that's a convincing argument

The only way a flat tax would work is if it were so low that it didn't disadvantage the lower class, but then it wouldn't be high enough to generate the income needed to run the country. Hence why progressive taxes are used by most of the economic powers of the world: it works.

[Dazchan]

Again, how is it fair? And people will only fall into poverty if they choose to live on welfare (which is where a lot of tax money goes) instead of work for more money.

As someone who used to be a welfare recipient (and now is quite well off), I would like to point out that the number of people who "choose" to live on welfare is incredibly small.

[Mystic Skeptic]

I am in the top 5% of earners, and libertarian, but I prefer a progressive tax. (Though I refuse to indicate I like an 'aggressive' tax)

I do think that the US tax code isn't adequately progressive. For example; going from 0% to 1% isn't progressive taxation - it is simply selective taxation - and right now roughly 50% of US adults pay no federal income tax. As a libertarian I believe that it is the responsibility and privilege for ALL Americans to pay tax - though at progressive rates. I LIKE that my secretary pays less tax than I. I like that I can deduct her pay from my income and that it nets out to me that the government essentially pays part of her salary for me (via the difference in tax rates) I think that is fair and good business for all. I would MUCH rather give her the money than the government.

What I DON'T like is single-column accounting - which is where when deficits exist raising taxes is perceived as the only solution. Cutting government spending is a much more favorable solution. Comparable to a business which isn't profitable; they can raise prices or they can cut expenses - most will look to cut expenses first. Governments seldom do this.

I'm reminded of a recent vacation I took to a theme park where I saw a booth selling ice-cream. They were asking $5.50 for a large. I ashed to see a large container and it had a capacity of almost 6 oz - working out to about $1/oz for ice cream. I'm sure some nimrod probably thought that by raising prices they would make more money - but instead I walked away - and what do you know - nobody else got in line behind me... I didn't see a single person buy ice cream that day. Not a very profitable plan.

The same is true of taxes - there is a threshold where the cost is so high that a person would choose to cap their productivity at their own threshold of diminishing returns. What that level is I am uncertain of, and I doubt it is a fixed point anyway; it probably varies by person and by environment. Regardless, I don't think the role of government should be to define the maximum amount they can take from citizens - but rather - the role is to determine the minimum amount they need to be efficient. Something very few modern governments are effective at.

[Carls-land]

On progressive taxation:
A flat tax is a progressive tax. The rich pay more. Under a flat tax system they just pay less then they would under a progressive one. Any income tax is, because it is an income tax, progressive.

I agree, go on...

So the only real "fair" tax system (under your definition) would be a regressive one, where everybody pays the same amount.

No. I would prefer a flat consumption tax.

Can someone explain to me how progressive tax is fair? Seems to me like it's basically taxing one type of person more than another type of person. I'm not seeing the fairness.

it's efficient. it dont have to be fair.

What the heck? Taxes shouldn't be fair? And how is it efficient? Seems more efficient to have everyone pay the same taxes than for everyone in different income brackets to pay different taxes.

the poor would not be able to survive with the tax burden neeeded to fund a state (if the tax was flat)

Well then, why don't we trim down some of those unnecessary programs and fire a few hundred gov't employees? The government's way too huge anyway.

no it's not. the government has not provided equality of opportunity.

[Mystic Skeptic]

no it's not. the government has not provided equality of opportunity.

So what? 'Opportunity' is not the domain of government.

[South-Western Dakota]

On progressive taxation:
A flat tax is a progressive tax. The rich pay more. Under a flat tax system they just pay less then they would under a progressive one. Any income tax is, because it is an income tax, progressive.

I agree, go on...

So the only real "fair" tax system (under your definition) would be a regressive one, where everybody pays the same amount.

No. I would prefer a flat consumption tax.

Can someone explain to me how progressive tax is fair? Seems to me like it's basically taxing one type of person more than another type of person. I'm not seeing the fairness.

it's efficient. it dont have to be fair.

What the heck? Taxes shouldn't be fair? And how is it efficient? Seems more efficient to have everyone pay the same taxes than for everyone in different income brackets to pay different taxes.

the poor would not be able to survive with the tax burden neeeded to fund a state (if the tax was flat)

Well then, why don't we trim down some of those unnecessary programs and fire a few hundred gov't employees? The government's way too huge anyway.

no it's not. the government has not provided equality of opportunity.

The government has already provided everybody with free schooling, a fair judicial system, and keeps us protected from outside military influence what more of an opportunity do you want?

[Seleucas]

Personally...I like consumption taxes and Pigovian taxes.

Consumption taxes have reduced economic distortionary effects--so, whereas income taxes decrease people's incentives to engage in income seeking behavior (working, investing) and thus reduce overall economic output, consumption taxes reduces people's willingness to spend, while inducing incentives for greater income seeking behaviors. Specifically, I like a Value Added Tax because it's hard to cheat, it's simple to administer and the costs are visible to consumers.

I also like Pigovian taxes, although they should be applied sparingly, intelligently and strategically. By increasing the private costs to increase the overall social costs of some sort of activity, then you create a more efficient allocation, and limit the negative activity.



There are, certainly virtues to progressive income taxation--but the distortions that result are pretty fucking real and without complex tax rebate structures tend to serve as a disincentive to work on the open market for lower income individuals.

Both a sales tax and an income tax would reduce people's incentives to engage in income-seeking behavior: people would take out money from their saving activities to cover the cost of now more expensive goods in addition to consuming less actual goods (for instance, if I paid $500 for goods beforehand, and now there is a 10% sales tax, I could simply pay this extra $50 out of my savings, or have a mix between fewer actual goods and less saving, such as only buying $475 in actual goods and pay the extra $22.5 out of savings. After all, with the marginal utility of actual goods and services rising because of having fewer goods and services, saving becomes relatively less attractive with each unit cut back.) Also, more expensive goods could be a disincentive to work, since for working the same amount you would get less, and thereby working would become relatively less valuable.

In the end, no matter how you tax, you're going to screw something up.

I'm not saying that consumption taxes aren't distortionary--rather that they are less distortionary and therefore preferable.

Right. I suppose that there might be some benefits in letting your money grow until you actually spend it, instead of it being nibbled away throughout the process, kind of like a tax-deferred retirement account.

That's an excellent analogy.

Go ahead and use it, if you like...

[Qwcasd]

Progressive regardless