Perhaps a flat sales tax? Or something fair? Why is there an attempt to punish the rich here? We need some taxes, but this shouldn’t be a blank check. At what point do you think the government should stop taking taxes? By your logic should we not just give 100% of our pay to the gov and start issuing cars, houses and other needs? Also why is anything good simply because it’s progressive? Is there no other factor?
It seems better to just have an actually progressive tax system. Effective tax rates on the rich are really low in the US right now. If there is an income limit there really is no incentive to make any more money so a progressive tax will probably give you a lot more taxes.
What exactly is "fair"? There are lots of ways we could tax people, that some or other people would declare to be fair.
Sure, we could tax all sales at 20%, or 45%. That would be fair. Can you see any problems?
We could tax everyone a flat amount - $10k or something. That would be fair. Can you see any problems?
We could tax everyone a flat percentage - 15%, say. That would be fair. Can you see any problems?
We could tax everyone such that we all have the same income - $50k perhaps. That would be fair. Can you see any problems?
The idea that higher taxes "punish" the rich doesn't make sense to me. We have the money! Of course that's where taxes should come from. What, we're going to shake down the people making $12 /hour? They don't have any money.
Here is my thinking: we should decide, as a society, what is essential. Defense, roads, fire departments, schools, etc. And then we figure out the best tax system to pay for that. We should aim for that system to:
1) Gather as much money as we need to pay for the essentials.
2) Cost as little to administer as possible.
3) Discourage harmful societal behaviour and/or encourage beneficial societal behaviour (generally, the more you tax something, the less of that thing you get).
4) Impact people's lives as little as possible. This is where progressive taxation wins - if you tax a poor person, that's money they really, really need. They were going to spend that on essentials. If you tax a rich person, their quality of life isn't meaningfully impacted. If Jeff Bezos has to pay more taxes, that impacts his day-to-day life exactly not at all.
5) Be conceived from behind the 'veil of ignorance', as much as possible. (This is where the 'fairness' argument comes in)
A progressive sales tax not based on purchasers income, but the type of good. For example, luxury goods should be taxed higher and basic staples very low to none. This the wealthy could not avoid tax by simply shifting money around political jurisdictions. This system would encourage transparency, encourage wealth creation as well as thrift in lower and middle income earners.
Also, a side benefit (not that I entirely agree with it) is this is a way to enforce social policy like healthy eating. Tax unhealthy items like sugary food and tobacco highly (up to a point). This is done already in the United States successfully. And if you want more tube riders and less drivers in a city, have a very high toll and vehicle purchase tax. Singapore does this successfully.
Some countries that have no income tax already employ this to an extent by taxing certain sales and imports. I think this type of system is worth experimenting with at least on the city-state or state level (canton / province / state). If it does not work, you can always go back.
There's been talk of this type of system in the US but it's not likely to gain traction. The real reason for progressive income tax is not good policy, but divide and conquer class politics. Something all sides of the political probably spectrum agree with: governments need to be good stewards of tax revenue no matter the collection method.
The whole point of a progressive tax system is to distribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor. A very small percentage of the population controls the vast majority of the wealth in this country. I'd argue that the wealthy (myself included) should be paying _more_ taxes.
With that said, in California, there's a lot of problems that can't be solved by simply throwing more money at it -- for instance, homelessness.
Progressive taxation is more fair from the standpoint of society at large. You're being myopic in only considering it from your point of view. How is it "fair" to force someone who is barely making ends meet and struggles to sometimes put food on the table to pay the same exact tax rate as someone who is rich, and whose biggest economic struggle is wondering whether to upgrade to a bigger yacht this year or next year? That extra $1,000 you'd be forcing the poor person to pay in tax would feed their kid for a year, but the rich guy doesn't even notice paying that much extra. Money does not have constant utility across all people. Maximizing the total utility across society -- now that's fair.
Taxes should be progressive at all levels, setting a floor to exclude the poor from the unfairness doesn't make it more fair for the guy in the middle income ranges. All flat tax solutions are bad as they are all inherently unfair.
IMO, I should be able to spend a zillion dollars on whatever I want, as long as I'm not buying people it's none of anyone's business.
The way to make sure everyone pays taxes is to tax property, or sales, or do a value added tax. Want a progressive tax? Higher taxes on second properties, or luxury items. Now you don't have any reason to need to know what everyone in the world has or does with their money.
The problem isn’t the progressive tax system, the problem is the heaping pile of exceptions and special rules that take forever to wade through. All a flat tax would do is make it even easier for the ultra-wealthy to pay less.
YES, like tax brackets. Everyone should pay 30k$ per year to the government, no matter how rich or poor, for the services they get, and it would be the literal individual fair share.
The percentage-based taxes are already an unfair distribution of cost for the rich, and the progressive taxes amplify it even more. After all, who costs more at school, a Jeff Bezos, or an unruly one?
I wholly disagree with 'progressive' taxing. Taxing should be like voting, everyone gets the same whether they want it or not.
Problems arising from taxation shouldn't be solved by complicating the taxation process, they should be resolved after taxation. If you take 10% of everyone's wages then the top 20% will be paying 80% of the nations income tax. Distribution to people below the poverty line can be implemented (as in most countries it is) after taxation.
I get one vote, I should be getting one tax, just like everyone else.
reply