Fair Taxation

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Frogger,



No ****, yet the consumption tax has nothing to do with an income tax.

For god's sake, ask an economist. They don't limit the terms to systems where the net effect is explicitly stated in the scheme.

[David Floyd]

UR,

If it is merely about funding the government, why would you decry the so called "double taxation?"

Obviously because government could be adequately funded to perform it's proper functions without the double taxation - and indeed, without taxation at all.

MRT,

libertarians are so aggrivating with their logic shields

What's wrong with logic?

Frogger,

David, you're deliberately being dense.

No I'm not, I just fail to understand why it's more unfair for everyone to pay the same tax rate than for the rich to pay a lot more.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I notice you are using tax-related websites.

I used the first five sites to come up in a Google search. Do you want me to link to the next twenty as well? I can tell you right now that they're not much different. If I keep going down the list, will I eventually run into one of "your kind" of sites, somewhere in the thousands or so?

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.investorwords.com/r2.htm#regressivetax

A tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?3892

A tax system in which those who earn higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes. A graduated tax is one example.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The tax isn't regressive, because the percentage is the same. And again, I believe the plan listed on this thread includes a rebate system for necessities anyway.

You're talking about the sales tax rate. Of course that's the same. That has nothing to do with the fact of whether its regressive or not. To tell that you have to see the percentage of peoples incomes that they are taxed. If the poor have a higher percentage of their income taxed then the tax is regressive.

[David Floyd]

Frogger, again, that's nice, but 23% is 23%, and in any case, the taxes on necessities are being rebated, so I don't see your point.

[KrazyHorse]

Who said anything about unfair, you jackass?

This is classical economic usage, not some neomarxist hijacking of the term.

Unless you think that an investor's dictionary is a front for a worker's movement.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Frogger, again, that's nice, but 23% is 23%, and in any case, the taxes on necessities are being rebated, so I don't see your point.

[KrazyHorse]

"percentage of the income"

"percentage of the income"

"percentage of the income"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
UR,

Obviously because government could be adequately funded to perform it's proper functions without the double taxation - and indeed, without taxation at all.

Are you contending that tax is "merely used to fund the government" or not?

If you are, you should not have any problems with how the tax come about, whether the rich or the poor gets the shaft.

If not, why are you putting up that argument?

[Goingonit]

Did you read my GDP thing? Whereas income is a measure of the entire flow of economic activity, consumption is only a part of economic activity. So it's not just what do we choose to measure, it's the fact that we're taxing a flat percentage of a skewed proportion.

[DuncanK]

Are you guys talking about a flat tax or a consumption tax? Or does libertarian guy know?

[Goingonit]

consumption tax. And he knows.

[KrazyHorse]

We're discussing a consumption tax. Which has far different effects than a flat tax.