This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Progressive tax is unfair. Discuss.

ineedtorevise127

Where do you stand on this issue? Why?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Asklepios

No. Those with larger disposable incomes should be expected to pay a larger % of it as tax contributions.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

demx9

Original post by ineedtorevise127

Where do you stand on this issue? Why?

by definition it is fair

Reply 3

Rakas21

Original post by ineedtorevise127

Where do you stand on this issue? Why?

In principal i agree, your giving these people a penalty for their success. In practice though it's logical given that not only do the wealthier have more disposable income while the poor have actual needs but the wealthier also have a higher propensity to save which in the short term is ultimately not benefiting the economy to any real degree and could be better distributed.

Of course my statement above raises the question of whether government makes wise spending decisions.

Reply 4

Jammy Duel

Original post by demx9

by definition it is fair

How is saying "You're more successful, so we will take more away from you than the idiots" fair by definition?
It can only really be argued as fair when you start looking at the averages for large portions of the population and start considering all other taxes too.

Reply 5

demx9

Original post by Jammy Duel

>poor ppl idiots
>implying most rich didn't inherit their money/success

Reply 6

Jammy Duel

Original post by demx9

>poor ppl idiots
>implying most rich didn't inherit their money/success

The majority don't, it isn't 1832 any more.

Reply 7

demx9

Original post by Jammy Duel

The majority don't, it isn't 1832 any more.

well rich people obviously had more opportunities in their life to reach their status .. only very few are like Zuckerberg ..
if you're richer you must pay more its the only way to make society work.

Reply 8

gr8wizard10

I'm against it. But it's 'equitable'.

Reply 9

Jammy Duel

Original post by demx9

well rich people obviously had more opportunities in their life to reach their status .. only very few are like Zuckerberg ..
if you're richer you must pay more its the only way to make society work.

Last I checked `10% of 20 is more than 10% of 10.
To say that only the ones with wealthy parents and good upbringings can be wealthy, if we define "wealthy" as being in the 40% tax band (after all, the purpose is to tax the wealthy and leave the working class out of it) it then makes it quite hard to explain how in the region of 25% of people are in the band including 25% of policemen and a third of teachers (those may be the other way around, can never remember) and 10% of nurses. But anyway, let's pull ourselves away from the bottom and look at the top since you decided to go there with Zuckerberg. Of the 1645 billionaires in the world recognised by forbes, only 1 in 8 inherited all their wealth, and about two thirds of them are entirely self made.
Hmmmmm

Reply 10

Rakas21

Original post by demx9

well rich people obviously had more opportunities in their life to reach their status .. only very few are like Zuckerberg ..
if you're richer you must pay more its the only way to make society work.

An empty statement. A mother earning £20k may give her child more opportunities than a mother on £10k. She may privately rent near a good school rather than accept council housing, she may buy the child books to read.

You have to better define what you consider these opportunities to be.

70% of billionaires today are actually considered 'new money' and that figure is growing.

Reply 11

demx9

Original post by Jammy Duel

I think you are talking about shifting the 40% tax rate .. that's fine but you will still have a progressive taxation..
what would be your plan instead of progressive tax ?

Reply 12

demx9

Original post by Rakas21

70% of billionaires today are actually considered 'new money' and that figure is growing.

and the question is should they pay progressive taxes ? obviously yes.

Reply 13

tomfailinghelp

I see significant problems with justifying any involuntary tax

Reply 14

Jammy Duel

Original post by demx9

I think you are talking about shifting the 40% tax rate .. that's fine but you will still have a progressive taxation..
what would be your plan instead of progressive tax ?

You know, a flat tax rate? That thing that people generally propose in place of a progressive system.
But in the case of keeping progressive the thresholds need moving since, just like most things labour do to punish the sucessful, it hits the [relatively] poor too.

Reply 15

demx9

Original post by Jammy Duel

flat tax is retarded, sorry.. only the higher classes would gain in tax cuts .. the middle class would probably save little if not nothing .. and we would probably have to cut services .. for what end ? Only so the well of can be even more well off..

Reply 16

anarchism101

Original post by Rakas21

In principal i agree, your giving these people a penalty for their success.

You could say that about Al Capone or Bernie Madoff.

Reply 17

Jammy Duel

Original post by demx9

Which just makes it sound like you're sour because you aren't earning as much as some people. If you're going to argue that progressive tax should be kept for it's fairness then the 45% rate should be dropped and a combination of the following should happen:

change the tax free allowance

change the higher rate threshold

increase the base rate slightly

decrease the higher rate slightly

in that in the current system the average tax for the bottom 20% and top 20% is about the same as a proportion of their earnings, however, upon looking at the other portions and upon greater refinement this starts to break down.

There is no real way you can argue that a progressive system is fairer than a flat rate, especially if you remove all other taxes (which is what makes the system an approximation to fair now). You can hardly argue that taxing somebody, let's take this to the extremes, 100% because they're more successful and somebody else 0% because they're a retard who can barely make it out of the gutter fair. The only way it can be called fair is if you are one of the many people that dislike anybody more successful than themselves and believe that everybody should be yanked down to your level rather than aspiring to rise to theirs.

Reply 18

SerLorasTyrell

I'd say it's fair, it's just selfishness not to want to help improve the lives of the other people in the country.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 19

demx9

Original post by Jammy Duel

There is no real way you can argue that a progressive system is fairer than a flat rate, especially if you remove all other taxes (which is what makes the system an approximation to fair now).