New Rule: no more complaining about unfair taxation unless you can explain what fair is

The Coffee Shop
1

Me paying the same multiplier of my income as you is NOT by any common definition of the word “fair.” One of us is still paying a different amount of money than the other person.

I challenge you to find any scenario where you would apply the same math and call it “fair.”

I can design 50 different tax systems and apply a constant multiplier to create the illusion of “fairness,” and each tax system would look radically different. They can’t all be “fair” if they look absolutely nothing like each other.

The only “fair” system is for every person to pay exactly the same amount.

Once you accept that, then you have to answer the next question; why don’t we have a fair system in which everyone pays the same amount? When you have the answer to that, whatever that answer is, you have to accept that you, in fact, don’t support a “fair” tax system, but rather you support a system where people who have/make more money pay more into the system.

After you have reached that conclusion, you then decide, again for what ever reason, how much more people with more money should pay. Arbitraily applying the same multiplier to everyone in order to genrate more money out of rich people, though it may convince you otherwise, is simply not a fair system. It is no more fair than applying the same graduated system to everyone equally.

2

Dude I like this… Everyone pays the same amount, makes it really easy.

I thought about the questions you were posing on the way home from work the other day and figured out that a fair system of taxation would be one that taxed the amount of government services you utilize. We all get the same amount of government protection from the military so thats one amount. We all get similar police protection, add a lil more at the state/local level. I guess people that drive a lot more should pay more than a lil old lady that drives only on Sundays, she doesn’t create anywhere near the wear on the roads.

I think a LR Symposium could have this worked out in a week or so.

3

I agree, that would be a fair system. I don’t think it would be a very effective system, however. In a few posts I may reply on exactly why.

4

Dude I like this… Everyone pays the same amount, makes it really easy.

I thought about the questions you were posing on the way home from work the other day and figured out that a fair system of taxation would be one that taxed the amount of government services you utilize. We all get the same amount of government protection from the military so thats one amount. We all get similar police protection, add a lil more at the state/local level. I guess people that drive a lot more should pay more than a lil old lady that drives only on Sundays, she doesn’t create anywhere near the wear on the roads.

I think a LR Symposium could have this worked out in a week or so.

Do you prorate police protection costs by home location, amount of bling you wear, the quality of your home security, etc.? If you are a victim of a crime, do your taxes go up as you’ve used that service much more than the typical taxpayer? Does how much you benefit from the FDA or the EPA depend on how much medication you use, what food you eat, or how much air you breathe?

That’s not the brightest idea I’ve seen on this forum.

5

Perhaps not as effective. I could see where the amount per person might be a lot higher than many people in poverty could afford. But looking at it a different way, our current tax system sounds a lot like communism to me…

6

What do you suggest Ken??

The prima facie case that I see says that my neighbor who makes twice as much as me and pays higher taxes gets the same police protection and fire protection. Why should he pay more?

7

its unfair as long as government is wasting money and stealing money, no matter what distribution scheme of collection

Me paying the same multiplier of my income as you is NOT by any common definition of the word “fair.” One of us is still paying a different amount of money than the other person.

I challenge you to find any scenario where you would apply the same math and call it “fair.”

I can design 50 different tax systems and apply a constant multiplier to create the illusion of “fairness,” and each tax system would look radically different. They can’t all be “fair” if they look absolutely nothing like each other.

The only “fair” system is for every person to pay exactly the same amount.

Once you accept that, then you have to answer the next question; why don’t we have a fair system in which everyone pays the same amount? When you have the answer to that, whatever that answer is, you have to accept that you, in fact, don’t support a “fair” tax system, but rather you support a system where people who have/make more money pay more into the system.

After you have reached that conclusion, you then decide, again for what ever reason, how much more people with more money should pay. Arbitraily applying the same multiplier to everyone in order to genrate more money out of rich people, though it may convince you otherwise, is simply not a fair system. It is no more fair than applying the same graduated system to everyone equally.

8

The only “fair” system is for every person to pay exactly the same amount.

Actually the only “Fair” tax system is one where everyone pays for what they use.

Once you accept that, then you have to answer the next question;

I don’t accept that, but I’ll play along anyway.

why don’t we have a fair system in which everyone pays the same amount?

Because someone who has no income has no money to pay any tax. Thus in order for us to pay the same amount we would all have to pay the lowest common denominator which would be zero.

When you have the answer to that, whatever that answer is, you have to accept that you, in fact, don’t support a “fair” tax system

No I have to except the fact that a tax system that YOU think is fair can not exist.

but rather you support a system where people who have/make more money pay more into the system.

Which I don’t I support a system that if a person uses 1$ of government services they pay for 1$ of government services.

After you have reached that conclusion, you then decide, again for what ever reason, how much more people with more money should pay.

Well that would be true under your system. Under my system the individual would pay for what they wanted to.

My system is clearly more complex, but would be radically less complex if the government was not involved in dominating areas of the market that would be better left to the market.

Remove those areas and the individual would be forced to pay for government services like Judicial, penal, police, military etc etc. At that point you could figure out a less complex way to pay for those necessary systems thru a “Use tax”.

Even considering today’s governmental system and simply implementing a policy of “If you don’t pay for it you don’t get it” you could still implement a system where you pay for what you get.

Clearly this would result in “The rich” paying for more because they use more. However isn’t that fair?

~Matt

9

“Everyone pays the same amount, makes it really easy.”

So the guy who makes $25,000 pays the same as the guy who makes $250,000.

People, if you want to drive on paved roads then get over the fact that taxes are going to be a fact of life. If the US really wants to save money, cut back on military spending.

11

What do you suggest Ken??

The prima facie case that I see says that my neighbor who makes twice as much as me and pays higher taxes gets the same police protection and fire protection. Why should he pay more?

The answer lies in the acknowledgment that the tax system does more than fund services: it implements policy. Want to encourage home ownership? Toss in a mortgage interest deduction (not fair, as not everyone has a mortgage, nor are all mortgages the same size). Want to discourage driving inefficient cars? Raise gas taxes (not fair, as not everyone drives the same amount). Want to avoid a society dominated by ever-concentrated wealth among a very few? Use a progressive tax plan and an estate tax.

12

Do you prorate police protection costs by home location, amount of bling you wear, the quality of your home security, etc.?

Sure why not, isn’t this exactly what insurance companies do? I get a discount on my homeowners insurance for having a deadbolt and a fire extinguisher, why shouldn’t I get a “Police tax break” if I have a home in an area with low crime that is protected by ADT?

If you are a victim of a crime, do your taxes go up as you’ve used that service much more than the typical taxpayer?

Why would it? Isn’t paying for police similar to paying for homeowners insurance? If my house get’s the siding ripped off by wind my insurance rates don’t automatically go up. Why would me “Police tax” go up if I get broken into?

Does how much you benefit from the FDA or the EPA depend on how much medication you use, what food you eat, or how much air you breathe?

All depends on where and what functions those bodies are performing. Just like insurance or any other business there should be some correlation between the consumer of the product and the seller of the product. If there is not connection or correlation maybe it makes more sense to establish one. Once one is established then the consumer can make a decision on how much of the product they want to consumer and then pay for it.

It doesn’t sound like a good idea because our government is operating way outside of it’s bounds under conditions that have no cause and effect relationship outside of the polling booth. If the government operated under conditions closer to market conditions then charging for their services would not be an issue at all.

~Matt

13

While these things may work they don’t make sense to me as a fair system. I know, I know, life’s not fair. Still doesn’t mean I have to like it. I just think its a flawed system in that if I scrimp and save and work my butt off to earn 200k a year, I pay a heck of a lot more for services that I am not using more of.

Cut defense spending?!?! No way, I like my paycheck and the freedom the front-liners ensure.

14

Want to avoid a society dominated by ever-concentrated wealth among a very few? Use a progressive tax plan and an estate tax.

Or you could have government, typically controlled by those with the wealth, quite making policy that is meant to influence society.

You have the fox in the hen house making the policy that is supposed to help someone other than themselves…that typically doesn’t work to well.

~Matt

15

$1 equals 1 vote. This would create a fair balance between taxation and representation. At the federal level and state levels, you’d use income tax as the metric. At the local level, you could use property tax.

That’s an interesting approach.

So a group of rich people, say the top 1% that is currently paying 42% of the tax burden, carries 42% of the power to control government.

The problem I see is if they vote in policy that allows them to pay 100% of the tax, that means the top 1% now controls the entire policy of the government. That then gives them complete control over everything else. Which of course would result in creating FAR more wealth for them than what they would be paying out.

~Matt

16

If the US really wants to save money, cut back on military spending.

Somewhere around 2015-2017 US military spending will only be the 4th largest budget line item. It will rank behind Social security, Medicare and interest on the debt.

I believe we could cut military spending to zero in the 2010 budget and still be running a budget deficit.

~Matt

18

NO personal federal income tax. Period.

19

Matt, lets look exclusively at military and interest on the national debt.

What are you suggesting is a fair way to pay for it? I’m not sure your “oay for what you use” system could really apply.

20

If the US really wants to save money, cut back on military spending.

That’s just what you Canadians WANT us to do. We’re know what you’re up to.

21

The only “fair” system is for every person to pay exactly the same amount.

Wrong.

If we limited government revenue only to what a very poor person could afford, government wouldn’t be able to get anything done at all. Unless you’re a total libertarian kook I assume you understand that government is there for a reason and has to have significant cash flow to do anything useful.

If you’re suggesting we peg the yearly income tax at $30,000 and start throwing poor people in jail en masse for tax evasion, well, that’s different. I’m sure you see the problems there too.

22

Matt, lets look exclusively at military and interest on the national debt.

What are you suggesting is a fair way to pay for it?

Let’s look at military spending, national debt is a result of people NOT paying what they use, thus really can not be solved by the system I propose unless we go into the past and look at who didn’t pay for what under the new systems rules.

Let’s assume that the main “Mission” of the military is to protect American Citizens from external force. First thing is that every American receives this protection. Thus everyone must pay for it. The only question left is how much of it is each person using?

I think the way to approach it is similar to how insurance does.

First you have the “Life portion”. Let’s assuming that every American life is equally valuable, thus every American initially owes a base sum. In a household, you’d have to pay per person.

Next you have the protection of property. Clearly this boils down to a “Wealth” issue and clearly the “Rich” would end up paying more than the poor. Which of course I have no problem with. Personally I would rather it be based on “Wealth” rather than income and have the same rules applied across the board for individual and corporation.

You have the same thing at risk if you are invaded and loose 100K cash, 100K home or 100K in manufacturing equipment.

Clearly you still have the issue of those that do not have enough income to pay any tax whatsoever. That however does not change the fact that those with money will still willingly pay to have their property and lives protected, just as a person with a very nice car will pay for full coverage and a person with a crappy car will only pay liability.

Now as it stands the above system is not 100% fair in the sense that some will get protection without paying into the system. I honestly don’t think there is anyway to get 100% around that. However in this scenario you have two things going on that currently don’t exist.

First a direct connection between spending and the consumer paying for the spending and services. Second control over the spending via the consumer having more control over how much they are willing to pay and what for. This leads to a third item that would make the system even more fair and that would be not allowing those not paying into the system to have control or input on spending. In this case sense the “Benefit” is very intangible I don’t think 90% of the people would care anyway.

Not sure if I was very clear here but that’s a start. Clearly there are any number of ways one could work such a system and I’m not claiming the above is perfect or even the best. The real challenge is to simply make that connection of the amount paid is connected to the amount of services received.

~Matt