Re: Will anyone stop the rise of Britain's super-rich?

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. there are
only two logically defensible tax systems: ...

"Tim" wrote
I think it's actually easier to defend a "flat-rate % for everyone"
system : then there isn't any silly artificial threshold, above which
you either start (your option 2) or stop (your option 1) paying tax.

Everyone simply pays (say) 20% of all their income/gains.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
So how do you justify that on the basis of EITHER everyone
pays their whack, or else everyone pays what they can
afford (i.e. everything over what they need to live).?

I don't. Why should I have to?
I could justify it on the basis that it's the same proportion for everyone.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
I mean why should someone earning £1m a year pay
100 times as much for their garbage collection (or road
building or whatever) than someone earning £10k a year?

If you think that, then why suggest one possibility
as "everything over what they need to live"?

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
1) The state takes £x from everyone who can afford it,
based on their share of what it takes to run the country (or
based on their demands on the country, if you prefer). A
'poll tax'. Anything they earn over that they get to keep.
And yeah, an 'if you don't pay you don't vote' is fine by me.

2) The state allows you to keep £x of your income (and if you
don't earn that much they give it to you, if you like). Anything you
earn over that, THEY keep. ('from each according to their means').

All the others systems, whether progressive
or regressive or whatever are a political fudge.

"Tim" wrote
What about the "fudge" of the artificial threshold
in each of your suggestions above?

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
I see no arbitrary thresholds. One number is 'cost of running
the country divided by number of taxpayers' and the other is
'cost of staying alive', neither of which is an artificial threshold.

There is not *one* number for "cost of running the
country" -- it depends on what you consider is required.

There is not *one* number for "cost of staying alive"
-- again, it depends on what you consider is required.

Different people have different ideas for what should be
included, and this means different levels can be suggested.
To pick just one of those levels would be an artificial threshold.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will anyone stop the rise of Britains super-rich?
    ... only two logically defensible tax systems: ... Everyone simply pays 20% of all their income/gains. ... based on their demands on the country, ... One number is 'cost of running the country divided by number of taxpayers' and the other is 'cost of staying alive', neither of which is an artificial threshold. ...
    (uk.finance)
  • Re: Winning elections is not good enough
    ... being this "American" to save the country from eventual currency based ... you have no say in what happens in this great country. ... higher order predators on this planet, and by luck being born in North American and by getting off my arse, I didn't pretty good. ... Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: The end is in sight
    ... pays for itself--as opposed to being subsidized by, say, a North Sea ... So who can tell us what burdens they manage to support with that ... Subsidizing some things can be beneficial to society and IS necessary. ... The only question is how much is just right and that varries from country ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Olymp-exes: trains required
    ... On 30/09/2010 19:47, Philip wrote: ... How all this money spent ever pays back I never understand. ... And the country is in a fantastic condition since poverty was abolished, anyone can see a doctor the same week, the potholes were filled and the trains started running on time, so how can anyone possibly suggest that our money might have been better spent? ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: World Population and the World Cup
    ... The amount of money a country will pay for broadcast rights is not ... The US already pays more than any other country to broadcast the WC. ... more to FIFA than any other country, but it could be a lot more if the ...
    (rec.sport.soccer)