Two excellent reasons to OPPOSE gay marriage in the UK

[Tiberius]

Apparently, Divi Tiberio, you fail to see the irony in this comment of yours.

I simply don't understand how anyone can think that an unequal society is a good society. Please explain it to me.

http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Why...Inequality

In other words, although the incomes grow by orders of magnitude, human needs (food, water, shelter, heating, medical care) do not. So all that extra money left over after our basic needs are taken care of, which is normally spent on luxury items, can be tapped safely without worrying about the physical wellbeing of the higher earner. They can afford it.

This does not justify excessively taxing the rich just because they are rich, and just because they have lots of "unnecessary" money. But it does mean that increasing taxes on the rich is more reasonable than increasing taxes on the poor, other things equal.

*sigh*

There was no irony. Please read the entirety of my post before you respond to it. I clearly stated:

"That said, I'm actually more of a fan of taxes on spending rather than on income these days."

A tax on spending is fairer than a tax on income. The "extra money" you speak of is still taxed if it is spent on luxury items (or any items). In essence, nobody is taxed for what is given to them, but they are taxed on what they spend. This encourages savings and frugality.

The poor don't spend much in the first place, so their tax burden is still low. The rich do spend a lot, so their tax burden is higher. A spending tax system has the added benefit of not relying on specific tiers of tax that have to readjusted according to inflation, etc. Instead of saying 10% tax if you earn above £10k, 20% if you earn above £20k, etc. you have a flat rate tax across all purchases, and it's the amount of purchases that is the only factor (a person who spends twice as much as another is taxed twice as much, independent of the amounts being spent).

One of the reasons I'm against progressive tax in the first place is because there is no justification for where the tiers are set. They are numbers that are pulled out of politicians asses. Why are people who earn £49k a year fine, but if you make £50k, suddenly you need to be taxed more?

Besides, in the UK, the first £8k or so of your income is non-taxable, so it can be used to pay for your basic needs. This is the only justifiable "tier" you can have, because basic needs can be calculated quite well. It's still a little flaky, and I think it should be based on location (for instance, a person living in London spends far more on their basic needs than a person living on the outskirts of Manchester).