NationStates Jolt Archive

A common criticism levelled either at 'progressive' or graduated tax systems, or one those with higher rates for higher earners, is that they act as a disincentive to work. Why bother getting a good, highly-paying job if the government is then going to mug you and leave you in a ditch?

So how about the idea of a 'regressive' (again, graduated) tax system? I don't know if there is a real economic term for this, or if there have ever been attempts to introduce such an idea. Effectively, the base rate of direct income taxation would decrease as salary increased. That's not to say other forms of taxation would change - one could, for example, keep an inheritance tax at a highish bar, to ensure there were other ways of ragging on rich people - but it would create a definite encouragement to work.

Working harder and thus gaining more profitable employment would be a definite contribution to the state of the economy, and it would be promoted by a regressive tax system.

Now, I haven't yet thought about a viable economic model - clearly, one can't tax the uber-poor at 99% and the uber-rich at 1% - but it's a principle I quite like. Are there any obvious moral objections that people have? That it penalises the poor is not one in itself: if people are incapable of profitably contributing to society through means of employment, then it is only fair that they do so otherwise.

Of course, it makes some assumptions, and I agree that there would need to be some sort of pay re-appraisal so that doctors and teachers either earned more or were exempted. But, basically, I think it's an interesting idea. (And sorry if it's been done before: I'm new here, and I hadn't noticed anything obvious batting around.)

Wouldn't work. You'd either stave people or create hyperinflation to dodge the tax situation.

With the amount of subsidizing our government does, that is very close to what the US is doing now. The real estate developer I work for earns a rather substantial amount of money, but due to the tax write-offs the government offers him, it would be possible for him report negative income every year.

Wouldn't work. You'd either stave people or create hyperinflation to dodge the tax situation.

But how can you say that, given that I haven't yet presented any numbers? And, granted, even when I do, there must be at least a possibility of it working.

If we set a reasonable enough personal allowance, then there's no reason why the graduation has to be especially steep...but it would nonetheless promote economic activity. Clearly, I don't want to introduce a system that would lead to a budget deficit: just one that taxes people more fairly than many present systems do.

But how can you say that, given that I haven't yet presented any numbers? And, granted, even when I do, there must be at least a possibility of it working.

If we set a reasonable enough personal allowance, then there's no reason why the graduation has to be especially steep...but it would nonetheless promote economic activity. Clearly, I don't want to introduce a system that would lead to a budget deficit: just one that taxes people more fairly than many present systems do.

WTF?!?

So it's fair to tax a janitor who works his arse off and can barely feed his family as it is whilst letting a footballer who earns 1000s per game pay little?

WTF?!?

So it's fair to tax a janitor who works his arse off and can barely feed his family as it is whilst letting a footballer who earns 1000s per game pay little?

Well, clearly it's fair to tax a janitor. If you mean, is it fair to tax a janitor at a higher rate than a footballer...well, I don't like the example, but yes. The footballer is being paid because his perceived contribution to society is greater than that of the janitor. The living arrangements of the janitor do not concern us. But if he wants a better-paying job, he should get a better job. If he can't, so be it, but he should then make up for his contribution in tax terms. And I'm not talking about taxing him highly, at all - there'd be no point. My main point concerns the lowering of tax levels for higher-rate earners, not the raising of them for lower-rate earners.

I appreciate the imbalance is stark in this example. Doctors earn shitty pay, and footballers ridiculous amounts. I'm not saying that's right: but equally, I don't really think it's my place to judge how much others should be paid.

If a system of fairer pay distribution existed then, yes, I believe this would be a fairer tax system.

The answer is to forget about taxing income. Tax consumption. A retail sales tax with safeguards to prevent overpayment by low income folks is the best replacement for the income tax. Look at www.fairtax.org and be converted.

The first two perspectives on this that come into my head:

Leftist perspective:
Surely it can't be fair to take money from the poor, who actually need it, and let the rich who have money to spare keep more of it?

Classic liberal/libertarian perspective:
What's with all this "contribution to society" stuff determining taxes? Surely I shouldn't be made to pay more taxes just because others think I contribute less to society? And why should I be made to contribute in the first place?

Problem is that Pay levels are rarely an indication of worth to society or even percieved worth to society. Nor even a reflection on how hard someone is working.

Lets take truck drivers as an example. Rarely the best paid workers in society.. however they are absolutely vital to the functioning of society as we know it. Don't believe me look at what happened in the UK when just tanker drivers went on strike. The country ground to a halt. No fuel making it to service stations.. no fuel making it to transport vehicles.. no food making ti to supermarkets. Society falls flat on its face. If you stopped paying futures traders do you think you could say the same thing. But who do you think earns the most money or works the longer hours.

More incentive to work is rarely to do with more money past a certain level and more to do with work conditions. If you are making 1 million a year.. or 2 million a year do you think your standard of living is going to be substancially different? How about 10,000 a year or 20, thousand.. think that would make a difference. The incentive to work harder needs to be at the bottom of the scale to encourage people to work harder. It needs to be worth your while to climb up to the next rung of the ladder at the bottom... besides thats where most of the population is.. so thats where most of the benifit of less tax will be felt towards working harder...

Well, clearly it's fair to tax a janitor. If you mean, is it fair to tax a janitor at a higher rate than a footballer...well, I don't like the example, but yes.

That is what I meant, yes.

The footballer is being paid because his perceived contribution to society is greater than that of the janitor.

Open a window. I smell bullshit.

The living arrangements of the janitor do not concern us. But if he wants a better-paying job, he should get a better job. If he can't, so be it, but he should then make up for his contribution in tax terms.

What? This suggests that people in low-paying jobs are too lazy to get better ones.

And I'm not talking about taxing him highly, at all - there'd be no point. My main point concerns the lowering of tax levels for higher-rate earners, not the raising of them for lower-rate earners.

Well if you lower high-rate-earner taxes whilst not raising low-earner-rate taxes, how does this help the economy?

I appreciate the imbalance is stark in this example. Doctors earn shitty pay, and footballers ridiculous amounts. I'm not saying that's right: but equally, I don't really think it's my place to judge how much others should be paid.

Yet you feel you are in a position to decide their tax rates?

The answer is to forget about taxing income. Tax consumption. A retail sales tax with safeguards to prevent overpayment by low income folks is the best replacement for the income tax. Look at www.fairtax.org and be converted.

I agree. And eventually (ideally) one could move to the extreme libertarian stance of a land tax.

Well, clearly it's fair to tax a janitor. If you mean, is it fair to tax a janitor at a higher rate than a footballer...well, I don't like the example, but yes.

That is what I meant, yes.

The footballer is being paid because his perceived contribution to society is greater than that of the janitor.

Open a window. I smell bullshit.

The living arrangements of the janitor do not concern us. But if he wants a better-paying job, he should get a better job. If he can't, so be it, but he should then make up for his contribution in tax terms.

What? This suggests that people in low-paying jobs are too lazy to get better ones.

And I'm not talking about taxing him highly, at all - there'd be no point. My main point concerns the lowering of tax levels for higher-rate earners, not the raising of them for lower-rate earners.

Well if you lower high-rate-earner taxes whilst not raising low-earner-rate taxes, how does this help the economy?

I appreciate the imbalance is stark in this example. Doctors earn shitty pay, and footballers ridiculous amounts. I'm not saying that's right: but equally, I don't really think it's my place to judge how much others should be paid.

Yet you feel you are in a position to decide their tax rates?

How the hell can you ever argue a progressive tax system is a disincentive to work? You'll still be earning more, it's not like you hit a hundred thousand and the government take it all away ffs

The idea also shows blatant disregard (ignorance?) for basic ideas that I thought were generally accepted since Rowntree's report almost a hundred years ago.

The idea also shows blatant disregard (ignorance?) for basic ideas that I thought were generally accepted since Rowntree's report almost a hundred years ago.

Explain, please.

But how can you say that, given that I haven't yet presented any numbers? And, granted, even when I do, there must be at least a possibility of it working.

If we set a reasonable enough personal allowance, then there's no reason why the graduation has to be especially steep...but it would nonetheless promote economic activity. Clearly, I don't want to introduce a system that would lead to a budget deficit: just one that taxes people more fairly than many present systems do.
All that it would promote is people getting more and more money to get out of the lower tax brackets, driving up and up inflation. Like it or not, there is a sizable underclass that simply can not move up without destroying the capitalistic system (a number of reasons). These people would either be destroyed due to the high taxation for no good cause, or they would demand wage increases (which would then ripple up the line), causing massive price inflation.

Explain, please.

The poor aren't poor because they are lazy simply. Of course, other social and economic conditions are discussed but whilst they were new at the time of writing they should, a century later, be now taken as obvious. Suggesting that we should reward those who are rich for being rich and strive to make them richer is so backwards that bringing back feudalism would be a more workable suggestion.

Open a window. I smell bullshit.

Well why else is he being paid more? You yourself made the comparison: there must be a reason for it.

What? This suggests that people in low-paying jobs are too lazy to get better ones.

No, it doesn't. It suggests that there are some people who deliberately undercut jobwise to avoid graduate taxes and the like. If one is capable of working more, then it only seems reasonable to do so.

Well if you lower high-rate-earner taxes whilst not raising low-earner-rate taxes, how does this help the economy?

Because it provides an incentive to work harder, get promoted, and contribute more to the economy. Insofar as it is the case that there is some correlation between pay and economic contribution, then the ability to enter a lower tax-bracket would definitely encourage some.

Yet you feel you are in a position to decide their tax rates?

Not me, obviously. But the government, yes. That's one of their roles. I merely meant the government can't interfere in private sector wages.

How the hell can you ever argue a progressive tax system is a disincentive to work? You'll still be earning more, it's not like you hit a hundred thousand and the government take it all away ffs

I'm not arguing a progressive tax system disincentivises work. But many do. Look at the response to the Lib Dems' plans for a 40% tax on higher earners, for example. Furthermore, the idea that one could reach a lower tax barrier would definitely provide positive encouragement to work.

Well why else is he being paid more? You yourself made the comparison: there must be a reason for it.

Being paid more =/= greater contribution to society.

No, it doesn't. It suggests that there are some people who deliberately undercut jobwise to avoid graduate taxes and the like. If one is capable of working more, then it only seems reasonable to do so.

And if one can't?

Because it provides an incentive to work harder, get promoted, and contribute more to the economy. Insofar as it is the case that there is some correlation between pay and economic contribution, then the ability to enter a lower tax-bracket would definitely encourage some.

Leaving those who can't hung out to dry.

The first two perspectives on this that come into my head:

Leftist perspective:
Surely it can't be fair to take money from the poor, who actually need it, and let the rich who have money to spare keep more of it?

Classic liberal/libertarian perspective:
What's with all this "contribution to society" stuff determining taxes? Surely I shouldn't be made to pay more taxes just because others think I contribute less to society? And why should I be made to contribute in the first place?

Yeah, but I'm not either. Whether or not it's right to contribute at all, it is a plain fact that under present financial arrangements most national governments are dependent on direct taxation to some degree. My rhetoric may have been a bit off in terms of 'contribution' - I agree - but my point stands that if one were to have a regressive tax system, it would provide a greater economic stimulus than other models.

I'm not arguing a progressive tax system disincentivises work. But many do. Look at the response to the Lib Dems' plans for a 40% tax on higher earners, for example. Furthermore, the idea that one could reach a lower tax barrier would definitely provide positive encouragement to work.

Firstly, that's selfishness/self-intrest depending on your viewpoint - its simply not a reasonable argument (btw, I think you mean 50%, 40% is already in place). Secondly, a lower tax bracket means more money, yes? Earning more money also means more money. There's no new incentive there.

People want to be rich, that's not new, you have to do a lot more than try to increase the attraction of wealth. People don't choose to be poor on the whole.

A common misconception about the federal tax system in the United States is as follows:

Assume the divide between the 10% and 15% tax brackets is $30000. Many people believe that it is better to make $29999 than it is to make a few thousand dollars more, because the government takes 50% more of your money above $30000.

This is incorrect. How the system works is the first x amount of dollars up to $30k (for this simplified example) is taxed at 10%; then x - 30000 (assuming x > 30000) is taxed at 15% or higher. This means there is no disincentive to make $30001 rather than $29999.

Now that the misconception has been cleared...

The only tax I can think of that is remotely close to being completely fair is property tax. The best ways of thinking about it involve defense and city services. On a regional scale, you are paying property taxes to finance the government's defense of your land from foreign invaders. On a local scale, you are paying property taxes to finance the fire department that puts out the fire on your property, thereby saving you from a totaled house. Albeit, for the second one, you could argue that with a full homeowners insurance policy, you would make more money than you would have with an intact house, but that creates suspicion of insurance fraud.

Lets look at the other types of taxes:

The following taxes fall under consumption taxes: tobacco, alcohol, general sales, gasoline.

Among those four, there are morality issues involved with the first two that I do not believe the government should try to impact (i.e., try to stop you from drinking and smoking). The third is clearly better than taxing income, but it has the problem of potential double taxation at various value-added steps in production. The fourth is the best, as it is likely to benefit the transportation infrastructure on which the gasoline is used, unless the government uses it to partially finance Commie :mad: mass transit.

Then there is the estate tax, also known as the death tax, which taxes what you leave to your heirs. This tax is simple to avoid: make sure you spend all your money, either on yourself or through gifts to your heirs, before you croak.

Then there is income taxes, which cannot be fair no matter how they are applied. If they are regressive, income will drop because the rich are not getting taxes enough, and the poor will be even poorer. If they are progressive, you have the situation where you get more of your money taken for presumably working harder/working smarter/being more of an economic superstar. Even with the flat tax, a person who works harder, etc. is penalized for doing so.

Will common sense prevail in the real world? All we know is whenever the Democrats regain power in Washington, your taxes are going up.

Firstly, that's selfishness/self-intrest depending on your viewpoint - its simply not a reasonable argument (btw, I think you mean 50%, 40% is already in place). Secondly, a lower tax bracket means more money, yes? Earning more money also means more money. There's no new incentive there.

People want to be rich, that's not new, you have to do a lot more than try to increase the attraction of wealth. People don't choose to be poor on the whole.

Seconded. Especially the last sentence.

Being paid more =/= greater contribution to society.

I'm not saying it is. But there is a reason the footballer is paid more than the janitor. Since you refuse to provide an explanation, I will: the footballer's services are rarer, and as such his perceived contribution is greater. Maybe that's hideously unfair...but it's the way things are.

And if one can't?

Then don't. To repeat, I'm not talking about taxing lower-earners anything like enough to endanger their standard of living. I already mentioned having a sensible personal allowance: I fail to understand your continued objection to this section.

Leaving those who can't hung out to dry.

...how are they 'hung out to dry'? Clearly, if they don't meet the personal allowance requirements, they won't be taxed. I'm talking about everyone beyond this.

Yeah, but I'm not either. Whether or not it's right to contribute at all, it is a plain fact that under present financial arrangements most national governments are dependent on direct taxation to some degree. My rhetoric may have been a bit off in terms of 'contribution' - I agree - but my point stands that if one were to have a regressive tax system, it would provide a greater economic stimulus than other models.
Surely, not everybody can become rich and earn enough money to get out of the low-income tax brackets? Surely, we can't suddenly have more CEOs and high-ranking officials without companies behind them, and we can't have more companies without more workers?
While it would be true that in a regessive system, there would be more of an incentive to earn more, it would seem impossible for the ratio of high earners to low earners would change any. That would seem to me to mean that everything would end up roughly the same as a mildly progressive tax system or flat tax system.

This is, however, the first time where I have been presented with the idea of regressive taxation, so I may be misunderstanding something fundamental here.

-snip-

I admit you may have a point (first time said in an NS General debate). However, the idea of taxing the poorer whilst taxing the rich to a lesser extent seems fundamentaly wrong.

There is defianately a better solution out there.

Firstly, that's selfishness/self-intrest depending on your viewpoint - its simply not a reasonable argument (btw, I think you mean 50%, 40% is already in place). Secondly, a lower tax bracket means more money, yes? Earning more money also means more money. There's no new incentive there.

People want to be rich, that's not new, you have to do a lot more than try to increase the attraction of wealth. People don't choose to be poor on the whole.

Look, please, I've already stated that I don't consider a progressive system to be a disincentive. BUT SOME DO. My sentence in that regard was aimed at those people: not, seemingly at you. Also, we're talking about personal income tax: of course it's selfishness. I assume you'll be following that up with something approaching a point.

People do not choose extreme poverty. They may well choose to work for lower wages if they know that doing so will actually leave them with more cash in hand, as a result of a progressive system.

I'm not trying to recreate the feudal system. I'm merely trying to work out a reasonable, fair tax system. If we increase the general income of the populace, then more tax revenue will be created, even through a regressive system.

Surely, not everybody can become rich and earn enough money to get out of the low-income tax brackets? Surely, we can't suddenly have more CEOs and high-ranking officials without companies behind them, and we can't have more companies without more workers?
While it would be true that in a regessive system, there would be more of an incentive to earn more, it would seem impossible for the ratio of high earners to low earners would change any. That would seem to me to mean that everything would end up roughly the same as a mildly progressive tax system or flat tax system.

This is, however, the first time where I have been presented with the idea of regressive taxation, so I may be misunderstanding something fundamental here.

It's a mistake to focus on the extremes, I feel. Clearly, the number of millionaires may not fluctuate that much. I'm more talking in the borderline low graduate level to high skilled labour sections. Specifically, it might well encourage more people to seek better paid skilled labour rather than seeking less well paid lower level graduate employment, rejecting the social concerns in favour of financial ones.

And yes, of course, I haven't discussed a regressive tax system before, so I don't really know what I'm talking about either. But it just struck me as interesting.

But it just struck me as interesting.

And it is. It's a topic I've never seen discussed. Anywhere.

However, the title sounds like an arguement dissenters would use against it and is therefore misleading. Just thought I'd mention it.

However, the idea of taxing the poorer whilst taxing the rich to a lesser extent seems fundamentaly wrong.

Why, though? Despite the title, I'm not actually proposing placing constricting financial ties on the poorer. Why should people be paying more to the government simply because they earn more in their job? Potentially, working harder and contributing more to the economy leads to a relatively harsher level of taxation. That seems wrong.

There is defianately a better solution out there.

Show me: I'm quite willing to discuss a different system.

But how can you say that, given that I haven't yet presented any numbers? And, granted, even when I do, there must be at least a possibility of it working.


The rich people would have so much money that it would create hyper inflation

The rich people would have so much money that it would create hyper inflation

That wouldn't necessarily be the case. To repeat, I'm not talking about anything drastic - just a slowly graduated scale. Furthermore, it hasn't, historically, been the case that low taxes on the rich has always led to hyperinflation.

I agree that various economic problems, including this one, would be presented. But they are with any tax system. This is just a different idea on how to get by. And given that many people have refuted the suggestion that general income would increase markedly, the inflationary crisis you mention seems unlikely.

It's a mistake to focus on the extremes, I feel. Clearly, the number of millionaires may not fluctuate that much. I'm more talking in the borderline low graduate level to high skilled labour sections. Specifically, it might well encourage more people to seek better paid skilled labour rather than seeking less well paid lower level graduate employment, rejecting the social concerns in favour of financial ones.
But isn't there a limit as well to the number of skilled-labour-types we can have too? The unskilled labourers are rather important, I'd say.
One question I'd ask is, "Do we have comparatively many unskilled labourers and comparatively fewer skilled labourers, as compared to the number of each that there is a market for?" (Err, that might not make sense, I might need to try to complain that differently.) It could drive people upwards into skilled labour, perhaps, if there actually were a market for that skilled labour.

I'd think it would be difficult to change the actual ratio of possible-skilled-labourers to possible-unskilled-labourers with a taxation system change alone. So, I'd also think whether regressive taxation would drive more people upwards would depend on at what point we are at with those ratios.


Most of my post is probably drivel, what with my not having studied economics, but hopefully it is interesting drivel.

Why, though?

Because from what I'm reading, the low-earners would earn slightly less and the high earners would earn slightly more.

Low earners need all the money they can get. High earners can live without 5 Sports-cars.

Show me: I'm quite willing to discuss a different system.

Hey, I'm not an economist. If you want a good idea, ask one of them.

But how's this for an idea:

The value of your house affects your income tax. Rich people live in rich houses. Poor people live in poor houses. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

And even if it meant paying more, I'm sure most rich people would still live in mansions. Human nature being ego-centric and all, they'd do it to show off.

However, common sense needs to be applied. A low earner who lives in an area where house prices have suddenly risen (for whatever reason) should not have to pay amounts they cannot afford.

(Ok, I think we both got confused with our terms. By 'skilled', I meant primarily technical - though not necessarily manual - jobs. By 'lower level', I didn't mean 'unskilled', but rather more vacuous administrative work, usually in the public sector, of the sort that is increasingly becoming an obvious drain in Britain, the EU and, I can only assume, the USA.)

But isn't there a limit as well to the number of skilled-labour-types we can have too? The unskilled labourers are rather important, I'd say.
One question I'd ask is, "Do we have comparatively many unskilled labourers and comparatively fewer skilled labourers, as compared to the number of each that there is a market for?" (Err, that might not make sense, I might need to try to complain that differently.) It could drive people upwards into skilled labour, perhaps, if there actually were a market for that skilled labour.

But there is. The fall in the numbers of those in technical employment compared with the growth of the public sector in the UK is well-documented. There is a demand for this sort of employment, which is generally better-paid, and as such the regressive system would promote its uptake.

I'd think it would be difficult to change the actual ratio of possible-skilled-labourers to possible-unskilled-labourers with a taxation system change alone. So, I'd also think whether regressive taxation would drive more people upwards would depend on at what point we are at with those ratios.

Of course. But the point at which ratios is set is a key factor in any tax system. (Yes, I take the point: but it's 1 am. Tomorrow, I'll try for some numbers.) Also, I'm not aiming at social upheaval; just a fairer distribtion of the tax burden.

Most of my post is probably drivel, what with my not having studied economics, but hopefully it is interesting drivel.

It is, and I don't think it's drivel either. I haven't ever formally studied economics, as well.

(Ok, I think we both got confused with our terms. By 'skilled', I meant primarily technical - though not necessarily manual - jobs. By 'lower level', I didn't mean 'unskilled', but rather more vacuous administrative work, usually in the public sector, of the sort that is increasingly becoming an obvious drain in Britain, the EU and, I can only assume, the USA.)
Well, that might explain a bit.
But there is. The fall in the numbers of those in technical employment compared with the growth of the public sector in the UK is well-documented. There is a demand for this sort of employment, which is generally better-paid, and as such the regressive system would promote its uptake.
I suppose you have a point with that then.
Of course. But the point at which ratios is set is a key factor in any tax system. (Yes, I take the point: but it's 1 am. Tomorrow, I'll try for some numbers.) Also, I'm not aiming at social upheaval; just a fairer distribtion of the tax burden.
*is shocked and surprised*
You mean there are actually statistics out there that have something to do with the stuff I was talking about?
Whoa.

Because from what I'm reading, the low-earners would earn slightly less and the high earners would earn slightly more.

Low earners need all the money they can get. High earners can live without 5 Sports-cars.

That's something of a departure. So now we're death-taxing the rich? How is this fair? They've worked for their money, and have the right to use the non-taxed percentage as they see fit. Yes, the lower earners would probably keep a little less than they do at present. Yes, the high earners would keep a little more than they do at present. No, that wouldn't lead to economic destabilisation and no, under any principle that I can think of, is that fundamentally unfair.

Hey, I'm not an economist. If you want a good idea, ask one of them.

But how's this for an idea:

The value of your house affects your income tax. Rich people live in rich houses. Poor people live in poor houses. There are very few exceptions to this rule.

And even if it meant paying more, I'm sure most rich people would still live in mansions. Human nature being ego-centric and all, they'd do it to show off.

However, common sense needs to be applied. A low earner who lives in an area where house prices have suddenly risen (for whatever reason) should not have to pay amounts they cannot afford.

Didn't Abi Titmuss stay in her old nurse's flat? I take your point, though: as a general rule of thumb, house size does correlate to earnings. But it's not precise enough to the basis for a system of tax. It's unfair on the exceptions. Income is a more accessible absolute that can be easily measured, and taxed. Furthermore, what of retired people? If we're only including those eligible for income tax in this assessment, people could easily fiddle such a system by signing their deeds over to amenable non-qualified persons.

That's something of a departure. So now we're death-taxing the rich? How is this fair? They've worked for their money, and have the right to use the non-taxed percentage as they see fit. Yes, the lower earners would probably keep a little less than they do at present. Yes, the high earners would keep a little more than they do at present. No, that wouldn't lead to economic destabilisation and no, under any principle that I can think of, is that fundamentally unfair.

Who said anything about death-taxing anyone?

I didn't.

Didn't Abi Titmuss stay in her old nurse's flat? I take your point, though: as a general rule of thumb, house size does correlate to earnings. But it's not precise enough to the basis for a system of tax. It's unfair on the exceptions. Income is a more accessible absolute that can be easily measured, and taxed. Furthermore, what of retired people? If we're only including those eligible for income tax in this assessment, people could easily fiddle such a system by signing their deeds over to amenable non-qualified persons.

Who said anything about my idea being decent in any way, shape or form.

I didn't.

"The value of your house affects your income tax. Rich people live in rich houses. Poor people live in poor houses. There are very few exceptions to this rule."

Is that why council tax is so massively popular then?

I'm sure I posted something else in this thread but it seems to have disapeared :(

Who said anything about death-taxing anyone?

I didn't.

You mentioned they didn't 'need' 5 sports cars. That sounds to me like the beginnings of an excuse for imposing much heavier tax levels on higher earners, purely because they grossly exceed personal allowances. The implication of that opens the door to a death-tax.

Who said anything about my idea being decent in any way, shape or form.

I didn't.

Ok, you didn't. But I didn't suggest my idea was 'decent'; just that it was 'interesting'. And I don't mind people debating the merits of my idea. If you consider the idea not worthy of discussion, why include it as an example?

You mentioned they didn't 'need' 5 sports cars. That sounds to me like the beginnings of an excuse for imposing much heavier tax levels on higher earners, purely because they grossly exceed personal allowances. The implication of that opens the door to a death-tax.

Suppose.

Ok, you didn't. But I didn't suggest my idea was 'decent'; just that it was 'interesting'. And I don't mind people debating the merits of my idea. If you consider the idea not worthy of discussion, why include it as an example?

Actually, I couldn't think of anything to say. At all. Still can't.

Maybe I should go to bed, it's 01:27 on my clock.

Goodnight.

Maybe I should go to bed, it's 01:27 on my clock.

Goodnight.

Me too. Tomorrow, I'll try to come up with some sort of vague number system.