National Sales Tax to Replace Income Tax

[MRT144]

kuci, profit is an unfair tax.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

However, a flat % tax would make it impossible for the government to collect the income it needs (at least, without causing enormous economic strain). Thus, a progressive tax is better, because it does less damage

How would unifying all the taxes we now pay into 1 flat tax cause any more of a strain then unifying them all into a sin tax?

How much money does the government need?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That depends on how much utility you get from the good and your income.

It's a sin tax. There is NO element of coercion in buying a luxury. At least SOME can be argued for buying necessities.

There certainly is. You are forced into some action or inaction. The goal of the govt is to either make you stop consuming something or collect a tax. Is that not coercion?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

No. The point is to make them fair.

That's impossible, because it's only fair to have a flat tax. It's not fair to tax some people at a greater proportion of their income than others.

However, a flat % tax would make it impossible for the government to collect the income it needs (at least, without causing enormous economic strain). Thus, a progressive tax is better, because it does less damage

Flat tax It doesn't have to be perfectly fair, but tax should be made as fair as possible. You can't tax someone into starvation just so some rich jerks can make more money for example.

[Kuciwalker]

A flat % of income doesn't allow the government to collect as much money, because there's only so much money you can collect from poor people (without creating intense strain on society and the economy). Progressive taxation allows the government to collect more money.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A flat % of income doesn't allow the government to collect as much money, because there's only so much money you can collect from poor people (without creating intense strain on society and the economy). Progressive taxation allows the government to collect more money.

if we suppose what you say is true,that brings us to my second point, how much money does the government need?

[Kuciwalker]

That depends on what you think it needs to do.

[Ramo]

Non sequiter,

I didn't say that I was addressing his point. See the statement before it, that was addressing his point.

and it's NOT coercive, because the poor don't have to be hurt at all by the sin taxes if they don't want to.

Why do you keep trotting out this fallacy? Again, no one has to have a taxable income either if they don't want to.

[Kuciwalker]

A sin tax is a tax on luxuries. An income is a necessity.

[notyoueither]

People have to smoke and drink to survive?

You think it is as necessary to life to have beer as it is to have money or an income of some kind?

[Ramo]

A taxable income is a luxury. I don't have a taxable income, and I'm not in danger of starving.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's how you coerce people. You make certain actions more desirable for them. Specifically, some action that benefits you. You can say **** you I will do something irrational because I'm pissed that you are coercing me, but then you can do that anytime someone is coercing you.

I don't think that's exactly coercion. Coercion exists only if there's no realistic alternate choices.

If your boss is going to fire you if you don't do overtime work, that's coercion. If your boss pays you 2x for overtime work, that's not coercion.

[notyoueither]

Well damn. Everyone should be you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
A taxable income is a luxury. I don't have a taxable income, and I'm not in danger of starving.

Well, then, that's only because of welfare. In which case an income tax is just as uncoercive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo

Some tax is more coercive than other tax.

Obviously, we have to have tax. Duh.

So what's the point of complaining?

Sin taxes disproportionately take away money from the poor, who have less to spend, i.e. they more greatly constrain the actions of the people. Thus, they're more coercive than income taxes (if tax rates are set such that the two levies are comparable).

That seems to imply that high prices are coercive, which doesn't make sense.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Well, then, that's only because of welfare. In which case an income tax is just as uncoercive.

Work or welfare?

You should really try living a while before you assume you know it all.