reply to post by Valhall
BUT, everybody is clipped for the same REASONABLE rate and the majority of the taxes come off the top of society and pro rate down in absolute
value as you go toward the lower income working class.
This is reasonable. Though by what metric would you "prorate" taxes for the working class? Sounds quite a bit like the current tiered system that
ASSUMING, that flat taxes only begin above the proverty level, 10% is still just...10%.
Okay, so there's another a condition ("...that flat taxes only begin above the [poverty] level"). How long before you start adding more? No different
from how current tax code works.
Unlike my comment, the purchasing power of money (irregardless of CPI) is
$1*10^1 = lunch
$1*10^2 = groceries for several weeks
$1*10^3 = international flight / low to mid-end rent (depending on location)
$1*10^4 = cheap or used car
$1*10^5 = basic house
$1*10^6 = start a business
with cash to spare
$1*10^7 = luxury house, furniture, swimming pool, the works (and then some)
$1*10^8 = Airbus AS320neo
$1*10^9 = Hawaiian island
$1*10^10 = opulent artwork
of money has a vertical asymptote as you approach zero. Then it decreases as you accrue more money up to the point where it's never
quite valueless, but there is a maximal point where it no longer increases a person's happiness or comfort of living (at about
). So basically, for flesh-and-blood people, the
multiplicative value of money follows the behavior of 75000/x (in a domain of $0 to $75k). Meaning that a single dollar is about 4 times more valuable
to a person who makes $18,750/yr than it is to someone who makes $75,000/yr.
So, in reality a tax code needs to take into account that those below this magic number have a harder time making ends meet. Thankfully tax brackets
are roughly designed with this in mind (as a step function).
Moreover the reason taxes increase dramatically towards the higher end of the scale is largely due to a problem of assets no longer being available
for the public good. As Raj Patel describes in "The Value of Nothing,"
One doesn’t need to be a Marxist to see how property is social. To take one example, consider how governments deal with broadcast spectrum. The
airwaves are owned by the government, and the right to broadcast on a particular frequency is sold to media companies subject to their fulfilling
certain social purposes. If broadcasters transmit material that’s considered lewd or inappropriate, they will be fined, and if they continue to
violate those sanctions, their right to use that bit of spectrum can be taken back. The laws that govern how animals can be treated provide another
example. Most countries have laws that permit animals to be owned as property, but there are nonetheless restrictions—cruelty to cats and dogs is
prohibited in most countries. Under the Napoleonic Code, there are similar provisions when it comes to other private property. Land, for example,
can be privately owned as long as it’s being put to use, but the moment it is left derelict, or if the land is owned purely for speculative
purposes, ownership rights to the land are forfeit, and it becomes available to anyone who will put it to greater use. Property rights, in other
words, can be far more flexible and elastic than we currently imagine them. (p.103)
Vast sums of money used primarily for luxury, e.g. purchasing a Hawaiian island, is a public waste. Applying a higher taxation rate is a mechanism to
recapture those resources.
edit on 19-7-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)