Quote:
Let's start with flat. Pick your number, doesn't matter. Let's say, 20%, ok? If it were 20% for everyone, for **all** "income", then I contend that it's not fair. Because the poorest, as others have already pointed out, will be paying their one-fifth out of the food and rent money. Not good, certainly not fair.........BigV
|
The number, the percentage,
does matter. As a matter of fact, it is one of two numbers that are crucial variables. This one should be as
low as possible.
Quote:
So, you offer to provide a floor. Right away it's not flat anymore. It's got a big honkin' step right there at the beginning, can't you see that? I mean, if you're devoted to the strict concept of flat, then someone who's income is $100 less than the floor will pay nothing, and someone whose income is $100 over the floor will pay 20%. How is that flat? It's not.......BigV
|
The initial portion of the curve
is flat, or straight if you will, except it is simply vertical. As you stated later, we are accustomed to floors.....minimum drinking age, voting age, driving age. Contributions by those "at the border" would balance statistically, in that few would (even if they could) suppress their income to be forever below the minimum. This minimum, this floor should be as
high as possible.
Quote:
Which brings us to fair. I believe a progressive system where people with higher incomes pay higher rates is more fair than a single rate.
It really hinges on how you define fairness. The proponents of a flat tax are using a simple mathematical definition of "fairness". That's ok, I understand the reasoning, but I do not agree that 20% of $100,000 of income is the same as 20% of $25,000 of income is the same as 20% of $1,500,000 of income. It *is* the same percentage, but how does that make it "fair"?......BigV
|
This time I will select a few numbers. 10% of $30,000 is $3,000. 10% of $300,000 is $30,000, or
ten times more. Your argument suggests that
thirty times more is fair. Oh yeah ?
The reality of the precious progressive taxation system is that, above a certain income, individuals take advantage of techniques and loopholes that are economically out of reach for those below that certain level of income. The table states that they should pay 30% of income when in reality many, many, many pay
glatt's "little or nothing". You're being fooled into thinking that this system justly and fairly redistributes wealth. Those that know how to take advantage of the ridiculously complex U.S. tax code laugh at you all the way to the bank and are the ones that fight the concept more fiercely than you.
The two above mentioned variables are what I am toying with, with the premise that the floor must absolutely maximal, the percentage rate absolutely minimal. I'm convinced that a
fair combination exists.
