(October 8, 2021 at 3:19 pm)tackattack Wrote: I'm open to changing my mind on it. I agree that a 15% on 30k/year is more impactful than 15% on 30k/week. However if we actually enforced a system holistically it could be easily reduced to 5%. If, instead of income + withholdings, inheritance, wealth, property, etc. taxes.... what if it was just everyone needs to pay their part, which is 5%, of what they have available for spending, no shelters or loopholes. That's the type of flat tax I would support. What if, all of your bank accounts (offshore or not), income sources, pay, dividends, etc. were factored in. All of your available spending monies, minus credit, were the factor of your 5%. Then the 5% of the billionaire and 5% of the coal miner was equivalently contributing, IMO. I don't think the laws could get there, I don't think the high end of the parejto distrib. would allow it either. Conceptually though I'd prefer equanimity of opportunity to contribute, rather than equanimity of outcome for the variable taxes based on brackets.
I respectfully disagree. 5% of a coal miner’s income may mean new shoes and school supplies for his kids. 5% of a billionaire’s income might mean he has to downgrade his solid gold toilets to gold plate.
The percentage (and hence the dollar amount paid) doesn’t matter. ANY flat tax will always be more of a burden on the working poor than on the rich. Since the wealthy are better able to access the benefits of a society, it makes sense that they should pay proportionately more to support that society.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
