Let's see if this make it clearer. My first comment was not an argument against taxes but was in response to your statement:
Only problem is that percentage of poor people's income spent on buying goods (necessary goods like food, clothing, etc.) is MUCH higher than rich people's income spent on buying goods (even when you factor in $35 million for Gulf Stream Jet).
Why should poor people pay more (in relative scale) than rich?
I suggested two ways to alleviate that situation, one of which was to index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car.
Somehow, you found that to be an argument against taxation and called it idiotic.
You then proceeded to talk about taxation again, and stated:
Do you think the guy who is making the minimum wage and barely making by will be happy to know that he paid exactly same amount of money (as the rich people)...
The second part of my first paragraph was to comment on that position (If all were taxed at a flat rate of, say, 10%, then one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000), and I can see that I could have made the connection clearer.
Perhaps the point you were trying to make in your first posting was that the FairTax would be more burdensome on the poor than the rich since it is levied on purchases. The FairTax supporters claim this will not be the case, for a number of reasons. See http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html/.
Under a rigid flat tax, the poor won't pay as much as the rich. Under our current, highly flawed, system the poor don't pay as much as the rich, but many rich people pay less than most of the middle class. The flat tax could prove to have the same flaws if all the current loopholes were carried over.
No matter what system of taxation or what system of government is established, there will be those who take advantage of the system to the detriment of others. Mankind does not have the moral capacity to govern fairly.
What is idiotic is your taking my comments to be an argument against taxation. Read it again! I was commenting on your absurd position that it is apparently wrong for poor people to pay more (on a relative scale) than rich people for things. If all were taxed at a flat rate of, say, 10%, then one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000. What math whiz would say that they were each paying exactly the same?
It was never suggested, nor would I agree, that government should charge exactly the same tax to all citizens. Truly a non sequitor.
And as for your statements, "If I only have $50 in the bank and am going hungry, I wouldn't care about the government and a stable society as much as the guy with $100 million in the bank account. The poor schleps would be perfectly fine if the social order broke down so they can just take stuff that they need.", then what? After the poor schleps steal what they want, and chaos reigns, someone will move in and fill the void to become the oppressing class, like the Bolshevics in Russia.
Why should poor people pay more (in relative scale) than rich?
Hmm. Maybe we could index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car. That might seem fair to you, but I bet the auto dealers would scream loudly. Unless of course you charge the $100,000 guy $300,000 for the car.
But that gets complicated, so perhaps the government should take all the income, keep what they need, and then redistribute what's left evenly to all people - level the field. Perhaps that is what Karl had in mind when he said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
How does teaching known errors as absolute fact open minds to the principles of science? Unless the principle to be learned is that scientists are deceptive? Perhaps the purpose is not to open minds to the principles of science but to close the minds to any influence of religion.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggested two ways to alleviate that situation, one of which was to index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car.
Somehow, you found that to be an argument against taxation and called it idiotic.
You then proceeded to talk about taxation again, and stated:
The second part of my first paragraph was to comment on that position (If all were taxed at a flat rate of, say, 10%, then one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000), and I can see that I could have made the connection clearer.
Perhaps the point you were trying to make in your first posting was that the FairTax would be more burdensome on the poor than the rich since it is levied on purchases. The FairTax supporters claim this will not be the case, for a number of reasons. See http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html/ .
Under a rigid flat tax, the poor won't pay as much as the rich. Under our current, highly flawed, system the poor don't pay as much as the rich, but many rich people pay less than most of the middle class. The flat tax could prove to have the same flaws if all the current loopholes were carried over.
I am not yet convinced that the FairTax proposal will work, but as it is written, overall the poor will not pay the same as the rich. For some interesting views against the FairTax, see http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax. htm/ and
http://www.mises.org/story/1814/
No matter what system of taxation or what system of government is established, there will be those who take advantage of the system to the detriment of others. Mankind does not have the moral capacity to govern fairly.
What is idiotic is your taking my comments to be an argument against taxation. Read it again! I was commenting on your absurd position that it is apparently wrong for poor people to pay more (on a relative scale) than rich people for things. If all were taxed at a flat rate of, say, 10%, then one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000. What math whiz would say that they were each paying exactly the same?
It was never suggested, nor would I agree, that government should charge exactly the same tax to all citizens. Truly a non sequitor.
And as for your statements, "If I only have $50 in the bank and am going hungry, I wouldn't care about the government and a stable society as much as the guy with $100 million in the bank account. The poor schleps would be perfectly fine if the social order broke down so they can just take stuff that they need.", then what? After the poor schleps steal what they want, and chaos reigns, someone will move in and fill the void to become the oppressing class, like the Bolshevics in Russia.
Oh wait. That didn't work out very well, did it?
Hmm. Maybe we could index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car. That might seem fair to you, but I bet the auto dealers would scream loudly. Unless of course you charge the $100,000 guy $300,000 for the car.
But that gets complicated, so perhaps the government should take all the income, keep what they need, and then redistribute what's left evenly to all people - level the field. Perhaps that is what Karl had in mind when he said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Oh wait. That didn't work out very well, did it?
How does teaching known errors as absolute fact open minds to the principles of science? Unless the principle to be learned is that scientists are deceptive? Perhaps the purpose is not to open minds to the principles of science but to close the minds to any influence of religion.