What would "FAIRSHARE_ISM" and its policies look like...Or is it just an impossibility?

Traditional Political & Economic Models (including taxation) have historically and continue to fail to address the needs of all a nation’s people whilst ensuring prosperity and stable steady growth in line with prevailing economic conditions.

Is there room or a need for a new model, call it “FairShare-ism” whereby the better elements of Capitalism & Socialism/Other are in some way merged into a model that somehow ensures that everyone gets a fairer share of the cake and tax contributions are based on the more you make the more you pay and the less you make the less you pay, thus still ensuring that those who are more productive still do far better than those that are less productive but nonetheless contribute effectively to the needs of society as a whole, and are adequately provisioned for in terms of income, education, healthcare and opportunity.

Any tax system operating on a 6 tier system e.g. 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10% tax rate. With tax payers at the lower end of the scale also paying less VAT than those at higher levels to help reduce the number of people caught in the poverty trap.

Similarly, is there a way to ensure that banking institutions and corporations contribute more back to the society and environment in which they operate.

What elements of Capitalism should form one half of the “FairShare-ism” model?

What elements of Socialism/Other should form the other half of a “FairShare-ism” model?

Could “FairShare-ism” actually function and how would it work?

How much would greed still be a factor and how could it be reduced?

What should be the top 12 or more policies of a “FairShare-ism” model?

Or is it that a “FairShare-ism” model is just plain impractical and a mere empathic impossibility?

I have been thinking along these same lines. I don't know about the framework you purpose but I think it's time for a new system. My belief is that eventually a change of this type will happen, but the old model won't go away without a fight.

Coming up with a better system will be easier then convincing people that it is a better system. Just using the term "socialism" in your OP has already turned a number of people against your thoughts. It has nothing to do with the validity of the plan but everything to do with people beliefs. That will be the hardest thing to change.

To help inject more common sense into the political processes I see something like this increasing the fairness www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Fairshare_ism" would look like, the government having all the wealth and the people being poor and downtrodden, like Cuba or North Korea.

I know people don't want to recognize this fact, but most people that decide to be politicians are after the power and wealth that it brings.

reply to post by RoguePhilosopher


Fairshareism is a great name. Well done for bringing up such an important topic, especially as we stand on the brink of total economic collapse. I have read somewhere that 30% capitalism/70% socialism is the best proportion to have in mind, although numbers by themselves are meaningless. Also , at the moment, trying to get my head round the idea of "positive money", a kind of a banking system reform proposal. Very interesting idea. Raj Patel is an economist I admire (notice for nutters only: no, he is not a messiah) and would rather have him as a Prime Minister than clueless Cameron.

Any system that taxes production or "work" is completely unfair imo. Best to tax consumption. Why punish people for working? Why punish people who go out and build things or make things or do stuff that needs doing? This has never made sense to me. Taxation is punitive by it's very nature. Punishing work encourages non-work or "laziness".

Aside from that, your "fairshare-ism" is just communism by another name; like when communists changed their name to progressives. Who decides what is fair? Who decides how much of my life I have to spend supporting your laziness? From each according to his ability, why work more to get less? To each according to his need, what are needs? Who determines how much is needed? NO THANKS!

Just out of curiosity, where would you place the incremental brackets in said 6 tier system? Would there be a 0% bracket and how low would you place it?

Why not just flat income tax with no loopholes? Thats fair.

If you want progressive tax, at least it should be continuous formula, not income brackets.

answers.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Maslo
Why not just flat income tax with no loopholes? Thats fair.

It would still be an income tax. Income taxes punish work and thus discourage working.

why not just implement a federal sales tax? that way everybody pays, those who make more will pay more, and the conservatives won't be able to complain that the folks who recieve benefits do not pay anything...

sounds like a win for everybody if taxes are blind. plus you would recieve income from foreign tourist as well as the american consumers. then tax the corperate bottom line just as they do now. sounds like a pretty quick way to get our budget back in the black and get rid of all the deadbeat non taxpayers

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
why not just implement a federal sales tax? that way everybody pays, those who make more will pay more, and the conservatives won't be able to complain that the folks who recieve benefits do not pay anything...

sounds like a win for everybody if taxes are blind. plus you would recieve income from foreign tourist as well as the american consumers. then tax the corperate bottom line just as they do now. sounds like a pretty quick way to get our budget back in the black and get rid of all the deadbeat non taxpayers

Agreed! The Fair Tax is the only fair way to tax. It has the added benefit of encouraging work and saving while discouraging consumption.

reply to post by sonofliberty1776


Yeah I didn't even think about the consumption reduction, the green movement benefits too, who exactly opposes this?

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


I personally dont know but a more balanced tier system would be somewhat fairer. This would need to be defined as part of the model.

From the posts made so far it is clear how difficult it would be to define a new much fairer model that was both empathic and sustainable.

FAIRSHARE-ISM or whatever name given to a new model that was much more balanced and fairer would need be drafted by someone who had the knowledge and understanding to be able to present an unbias definition.

However, one is never going to get full agreement on each of the elements/policies of such a definition. The posts so far are a testament to this and the difficulty of ever agreeing on a new and fairer model.

Defining a fairer and more effective tax system is on its own an Everest!!

Is this why Governments stick to what they know that continues its cycles and fails peoples of most nations rather than work towards radical change. It would be a breath of fresh air if one day one party stood up and had the courage to make one of its policies to research, consult, debate, define and refer to the people a new and fairer model for all.

Maybe if Ron Paul made this one of his policies he would get elected? or maybe not?

reply to post by RoguePhilosopher


Why exactly would you say that some paying more taxes per dollar than others, some paying no taxes because they don't report their cash income (which happens very often, btw), and some being able to write off everything from their cars to personal vacations to dinner at applebees as "business expenses"? Do you not like the fact that they aren't raping doctors, lawyers, small business owners alongside the billionaire CEOs that will find a way to pay the IRS anything remotely close to what should because they have the money and power find and exploit all the loopholes?

How exactly is the tier system not screwing the middle class? It seems to me that the only people who benefit from it are the poor and the mega rich (who pay the people who write the tax law leave a loophole that they can sqeaze through).

reply to post by RoguePhilosopher


Well, why not just make it SIMPLE.

Consumption tax, everything purchased by individuals or companies has a National Sales tax.... No Exemptions (exemptions leave room for political bribes to exempt your product).

Rich buy more or more expensive than poor. The more you spend the more you get taxed.

No More Income Tax. If you really want to have an additional "flat" income tax, then tax 5% after 500K (NET) and 10% after a million (Net). Done.

EASY.

On another note..... Freeloaders.... We will always have freeloaders gaming the system for a free ride if it exists. Workfare would replace welfare and "SSI Disability" for those not truly disabled (yes, you can take phone calls and type if you have a weak back).

Replacing income tax and "Business Tax" where today only small/medium businesses only get stuck paying it with a consumption tax would solve multiple problems.

Then turn the power of the IRS onto Medicade / Medicare fraud with a % reward commissioned when true fraud is found and proved. Watch how fast that fraud goes away!

reply to post by infolurker


also think about the money saved when you no longer have to employ IRS auditors, ect... no reason to audit anyone if they have no way to cheat at the cash register

reply to post by TheThirdAdam


Some good points and yes I dont have the answers. One would hope that any new model definition would close all loopholes.

Tax should be directly tied to persons ability to pay them for optimal spread of tax burden (equal marginal taxation) - which is income. Altrough FairTax has the advantage of foreigners income taxing, it will also encourage the rich to spend outside the country wont it? Instead of decreasing incomes, it increases prices of products sold at home.

There is also a debate that sales tax is actually degressive (it dispropotionally affects the poor and middle class who spend greater part of their income than the rich, and cannot spend it abroad easily).

Income tax can also be combined with negative income tax welfare (which is far superior to current welfare) into one continuous system. You must know the total income of a person for the NIT welfare anyway, so why not use this information also for taxation and eliminate more bureucracy and possible loopholes?

Why not this?

Altrough both FairTax (with rebates) and Flat Tax on all income (with NIT) would be far better than the status quo. What matters the most is closing the loopholes.

reply to post by Maslo


I see where you are going and in theory it sounds pretty good but im not sure that would not put us further in the red. 4 hrs per day is not much to exchange for a full workweek... Not sure how you would go about getting people who are just lazy and would rather go do 20 hrs a week to earn a full weeks pay. You are saying that the nit earners will make min wage no matter what? if that is it, what would be the incentive to go work to find a job when they know that they can always just do 4 hrs a day instead of 8 doing c/s yet still get paid for 8hrs?

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, it nit unemployment compensation put simply, do 20 hrs of community service to receive income proportional to the standard minimum pay for full 40 hr work week? That would put the taxpayers paying those who didn't have a job twice the minimum wage hourly for debatablely unnecessary work.