This is pedantic, but I don’t think an equal tax would be fair at all. I take equal to mean everyone pays the same absolute amount, eg $10 a year. It wouldn’t be fair to make a newborn baby with $0 to their name pay $10. Similarly, it wouldn’t be fair to make a multi billionaire only pay $10, because they relatively cost more and benefit more from the infrastructure, institutions, economy and every other part of society; taxes of course contribute to funding that society.
Sorry the paragraph where a sentence might’ve sufficed. Think that all the semantics I’m allowed to argue about on the internet for this week.
I disagree with his point, but to be fair, I think he is envisioning the communist utopia, where everyone has equal access to everything and there is no inequality of ownership. So the baby would have exactly as much as the billionaire (making them no longer a billionaire).
If we had a mandated wage that everyone got, regardless of job, that would mean a flat tax makes sense, in his defense.
Do I think a society where everyone gets paid the same regardless of job would actually function though? No.
If we had a mandated wage that everyone got, regardless of job, that would mean a flat tax makes sense, in his defense.
Why would you pay tax at all in that scenario? For all salaries to be equal they basically must be doled out by the state, otherwise it implies employment, competition, markets, etc. so why would you need taxes as a system to begin with?
Thank you for giving a real world example of a rational human who can disagree with the premise while also understanding its intent and origin. All these other numpties downvoting me didn’t bother to do the 2 minutes of critical thinking, so good on you mate!
Our friend below details this fairly well, but in a society where “my” taxes are a sign of ownership of debt, do you really think that’s healthy? How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services? Feel free to double down, but I just don’t see the point of people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system. It’s weird and has the aire of Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.
Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.
I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.
How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services?
Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?
I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.
The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.
Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?
It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.
people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system.
There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.
In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.
This is pedantic, but I don’t think an equal tax would be fair at all. I take equal to mean everyone pays the same absolute amount, eg $10 a year. It wouldn’t be fair to make a newborn baby with $0 to their name pay $10. Similarly, it wouldn’t be fair to make a multi billionaire only pay $10, because they relatively cost more and benefit more from the infrastructure, institutions, economy and every other part of society; taxes of course contribute to funding that society. Sorry the paragraph where a sentence might’ve sufficed. Think that all the semantics I’m allowed to argue about on the internet for this week.
I disagree with his point, but to be fair, I think he is envisioning the communist utopia, where everyone has equal access to everything and there is no inequality of ownership. So the baby would have exactly as much as the billionaire (making them no longer a billionaire).
If we had a mandated wage that everyone got, regardless of job, that would mean a flat tax makes sense, in his defense.
Do I think a society where everyone gets paid the same regardless of job would actually function though? No.
Why would you pay tax at all in that scenario? For all salaries to be equal they basically must be doled out by the state, otherwise it implies employment, competition, markets, etc. so why would you need taxes as a system to begin with?
Thank you for giving a real world example of a rational human who can disagree with the premise while also understanding its intent and origin. All these other numpties downvoting me didn’t bother to do the 2 minutes of critical thinking, so good on you mate!
Our friend below details this fairly well, but in a society where “my” taxes are a sign of ownership of debt, do you really think that’s healthy? How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services? Feel free to double down, but I just don’t see the point of people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system. It’s weird and has the aire of Stockholm Syndrome.
Yes? My labour, my earnings, my debt to society for what society does for me. Hence why my taxes include infrastructure costs that may be different from yours, since we live in different places.
Seems perfectly fair to me. I do more than a lot of people, so I earn more, and, as a result, the aid society gives me that allows me to work and earn is also more valuable to me.
I would incur more of a loss than someone who earns less, if I suddenly could not access my job which I go to with public transit, for instance, so reasonably I also pay a somewhat higher (but not proportionally higher) share of my income.
Ah you mean la-la land where logistics don’t exist and everything is equally accessible to everyone without coercion or forced labour?
I come from a country with very uneven, complex terrain to navigate.
The towns on the mountains are small, hard to reach, even with modern technology.
Do you think they will magically have equal access to hospitals, when there is physically less space for them to be built? When there is less room for people to live, and fewer people to begin with, how are they supposed to have equal access to services that require people to deliver them?
It’s a nice fantasy, but the reality is that equal theoretical access means jack shit. I know you’re probably american and your big issue is now people don’t even have theoretical equal access but, trust me, once you get past that barrier people don’t suddenly magically get everything they need. People need to be there to provide services and, short of enslaving them, they won’t necessarily be there, and if they’re there they will be more or less competent.
There are a lot of ways society may be unsound depending on who you ask, taxes being tailored to the income of people is the one thing even commies like you should be in agreement, since it’s literally “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs”, as long as there is a functional safety net.
In fact, big safety net neoliberal countries like most of northern Europe have done more measurable good to help raise the floor of quality of life in their own borders than socialism ever did, thanks in no small part to the understanding that society’s job is indeed to help fill the gaps where markets are inefficient, and not simply to go “ew, markets” and proceed to fuck up their own economies for fun and lack of profits.