View Single Post
Old 02-10-2009, 10:18 PM   #28 (permalink)
semtex
A True Z Fanatic
 
semtex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Behind enemy lines
Age: 54
Posts: 5,995
Drives: People to drink
Rep Power: 32
semtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjaman370z View Post
^^ Semtex, very good point about Hong Kong. It is a system that works for them, but I just don't see it being as efficient in a large nation like ours.

Anyway, I would be happy with progressive taxation as long as the government utilizes our capital wisely, which has not been the case. Then again, we vote people into positions of power that should not be there to begin with. Maybe we the people are to blame?

Now back to your plan. The major downside regarding a static tax rate for everybody is that some may be affected more than others. A 17% across the board tax may affect someone who is a hard worker but not paid well like the next Joe. In other words, a progressive tax plan is "fair" in today's non-utopian society. Now if we all made the same, like in a socialist society, then equal taxation would be perfect.
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If I spend the time and effort to get a higher education and work 60 hours a week, only to end up with the same take-home pay as someone who didn't bother with college and only works 30 hours a week because a bigger portion is taken out of my paycheck, I don't see how that's fair. Or let me try to put it into a slightly different perspective. When I was a kid, my dad came home one day really, really pissed. I asked him what was wrong. He said he got a promotion and a raise. Okay, so why on earth would that upset him? I mean, that's something to celebrate, right? His raise pushed him into a higher tax bracket and he ended up actually taking less money home! Now tell me how that's fair. This actually happened; it's not some hypothetical.

I do see your point about 17% affecting some more than others though. Like 17% for someone only making $12k a year would be devastating. So maybe the compromise is to institute a minimum income threshold. Something like, if you make less than $15k per year, you don't pay any taxes, period. But if you make more than that, you pay the standard n% flat tax. It would be a way of recognizing that there's a certain minimum amount that we all need in this society just to survive, and we shouldn't be taxing those who are just barely surviving. Of course, I'm sure someone will point out flaws with this idea as well. Honestly, I doubt there is such a thing as a perfect tax system that is absolutely fair to everyone under all circumstances. If a perfect tax system were possible, we'd probably already be using it! (Well, one would hope.)
__________________
"There are no small accidents on this circuit." -- Ayrton Senna
316.8whp & 248 ft/lbs (Dyno Dynamics) | 319whp & 256 ft/lbs (DynoJet) (04/23/10)
Stillen G3 CAI, CBE, Pulley / F.I. LTH / GTSpec Ladder Brace / Setrab Oil Cooler / UpRev-tuned by Forged Perf.

Last edited by semtex; 02-10-2009 at 10:26 PM.
semtex is offline