NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering what people think is better: progressive taxation, i.e. a tax system in which people are taxed a small amount at first, but more as their income goes up: or flat tax, with one tax percentage rate no matter how much you earn.

Interested to see what poeple think, especially from different countries, since its in the papers & on news quite a lot over here (UK) at moment, and aparently other countries the debate has been on for some time now.

Please give reasons: would prefer more of a reason than 'duh, obviously:rolleyes:'.

PS I would have a poll but im not sure how to

Fair Tax is easily preferable to them both.

www.fairtax.org

Fair Tax is easily preferable to them both.

www.fairtax.org

I am very, very unsure about that. Taxing consumption is a notoriously shaky proposal, because consumption shifts wildly from year to year, meaning no stable income base for government to depend upon. Moreover, it's incredibly regressive, as it will hit those who are just above the poverty line the hardest.

Put simply, its a recipe for a state government like Nevada. That isn't very complimentary.

Well, just look at the two extremes. The bottom end that can barely afford to put food on the table simply can't afford a flat tax. The m/billionaires can obviously afford higher taxes; they might have to settle for a 82 foot yacht instead of the 96 footer, but I think they'll get by.

The idea that flat taxes are fair because they tax the same proportion of income isn't true. The rich tend to save far more than the poor, who are therefore hit disproportionately by VAT, etc. The result is that in the UK, despite a progressive tax, the poorest pay more in taxes as a % of their income than the richest.

I am very, very unsure about that. Taxing consumption is a notoriously shaky proposal, because consumption shifts wildly from year to year, meaning no stable income base for government to depend upon. Moreover, it's incredibly regressive, as it will hit those who are just above the poverty line the hardest.

Put simply, its a recipe for a state government like Nevada. That isn't very complimentary.
Consumption does not vary that much from year to year. Besides, it's not like governments these days are concerned with money...:D

As far as the regressive part goes, I agree. Paying a 10% (for example) tax on a loaf of bread is much different from paying the same 10% on a corperate jet. Would it not be possible to tax different items at a different percentage. Such as 2% for that loaf, and 17% for that jet?

Flat tax rate.

The staggered incremental form of taxation rates has acted as a disinsentive for many people to strive to earn that extra money -because most of it will be lost in tax. With EMTRs -effective marginal tax rates- factored into the equation, a hypothetical $10 a week increase in the wages of a lower income earner, can cost them $21 a week in welfare support, leaving them $11 worse off per week, which is compounded by being in a higher tax bracket where one needs to spend an additional percentage of the extra earnings on tax.

With some upper tax brackets as high as 45cents in the dollar, many people question the value of working longer, or putting in extra time, as a significant proportion of those hours' earnings will be collected and added to the government's coffers, and there are many doccumented cases of this.

The best, and fairest way to tax a populous, is to regard everyone's earnings equally, and tax them at the same percentage. This will encourage productivity, instead of fostering complacency in the workplace. I certainly aspire to earn a large wage one day, and I loathe the idea of losing 45% of a significant proportion of it, in taxes.

Progressive all the way. In this way we take least from those who can afford to give little and we take more from those who can afford to give more.

Greater Pacific States']Flat tax rate.

The staggered incremental form of taxation rates has acted as a disinsentive for many people to strive to earn that extra money -because most of it will be lost in tax. With EMTRs -effective marginal tax rates- factored into the equation, a hypothetical $10 a week increase in the wages of a lower income earner, can cost them $21 a week in welfare support, leaving them $11 worse off per week, which is compounded by being in a higher tax bracket where one needs to spend an additional percentage of the extra earnings on tax.

With some upper tax brackets as high as 45cents in the dollar, many people question the value of working longer, or putting in extra time, as a significant proportion of those hours' earnings will be collected and added to the government's coffers, and there are many doccumented cases of this.

The best, and fairest way to tax a populous, is to regard everyone's earnings equally, and tax them at the same percentage. This will encourage productivity, instead of fostering complacency in the workplace. I certainly aspire to earn a large wage one day, and I loathe the idea of losing 45% of a significant proportion of it, in taxes.


Seconded, if we can't have the Fair Tax, then give us the Flat Tax!

Progressive is definitely fairer in my view.

Not sure about that 'Fair Tax' system mentioned - would be a double whammy for people irrelevant of their income. Even with the poverty line feature, some less well-off people would be hit hard by that system.

you should include a head-tax, where every citizen pays the same amount, as an alternative in your survey too. then you have
1) flat, absolute amount taxation
2) relative taxation with a constant percentage
3) progressive taxation


a nice idea imo would be a negative head-tax and positive consumption tax.

Just because the well off and the rich are able to pay more in taxes, doesn't mean they should be forced to.

Just because the well off and the rich are able to pay more in taxes, doesn't mean they should be forced to.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

So stated from the enemy of the Market economy. And taxation, for that matter!

Greater Pacific States']
The best, and fairest way to tax a populous, is to regard everyone's earnings equally, and tax them at the same percentage. This will encourage productivity, instead of fostering complacency in the workplace. I certainly aspire to earn a large wage one day, and I loathe the idea of losing 45% of a significant proportion of it, in taxes.

Disagree. What is fair, to quote JS Mill, is "Equality of Sacrifice" among taxpayers. When you earn more, it is less of a sacrifice to start paying a higher % of your income in taxes.

Besides, it would do way more to encourage productivity to decrease tax rates in the lower brackets, which is where most of the taxpayers are.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Yea, too bad we're a capitalist country, not socialist, or communist.

Yea, too bad we're a capitalist country, not socialist, or communist.

Yet... ;)

Yet... ;)

Ehh, keep dreaming. The Red Scare and the Cold War will have everlasting effect on our economy. We kicked ass during the Space Race and the Cold War. So we're feeling pretty good about our capitalist economy.

I definitely support a very progressive tax for three major reasons (and a lot of more minor ones):

- since under capitalism, the more wealthy you are, the more money you can earn with the same amount of work (through interests, stocks, ...), it only makes the situation closer to "the same amount of money for the same work" which is more fair

- it contributes into making the society less inequal, which is a very fundamental goal

- the human cost, for someone, to give out 10% of his wealth is much higher when this person is poor. When you're couting every cent, chosing between food and healthcare (as, saddly, many do), every single cent paid as huge costs. When you earn a lot of money, giving a bigger share of it will not cripple you as much.

Ehh, keep dreaming. The Red Scare and the Cold War will have everlasting effect on our economy. We kicked ass during the Space Race and the Cold War. So we're feeling pretty good about our capitalist economy.

Meh, the rich-poor gap is growing, ghettoisation is spreading, I think there might be a socialist revival in the next decade. In America it'll probably be led by left-wing Christian preachers.

*eats popcorn and waits for 2016 in anticipation*

Yea, too bad we're a capitalist country, not socialist, or communist."from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is only the communist motto, the socialist motto is: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work."

Meh, the rich-poor gap is growing, ghettoisation is spreading, I think there might be a socialist revival in the next decade. In America it'll probably be led by left-wing Christian preachers.

*eats popcorn and waits for 2016 in anticipation*

ROFL! Thanks, I needed that.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

And may crazy notions such as that stay in the trashbin of history

And may crazy notions such as that stay in the trashbin of history

Yes, damn those mad notions of charity and respect for your fellow man.

Ehh, keep dreaming. The Red Scare and the Cold War will have everlasting effect on our economy. We kicked ass during the Space Race and the Cold War. So we're feeling pretty good about our capitalist economy.

Who was the first man in space?

Both taxes are good ideas, but the main problem with progressive taxation is that the system becomes incredibly complex due to attempts by the wealthy to eschew their tax burden, with the result that the real burden falls on the middle and lower classes. Not to mention the human and managment costs of the tax.

ROFL! Thanks, I needed that.

I admit that I don't have much hope for the US but South America is certainly heading that way. Capitalist countries across the world are seeing a growing rich poor gap and an increase in poverty. It's only a matter of time until they start looking for alternatives to Capitalism.

Both taxes are good ideas, but the main problem with progressive taxation is that the system becomes incredibly complex due to attempts by the wealthy to eschew their tax burden, with the result that the real burden falls on the middle and lower classes. Not to mention the human and managment costs of the tax.

Then the solution is too simplify progressive taxation and close up the loopholes, not to flat tax.

Who was the first man in space?

Ahh, but who was the first one to land on the moon? And who copied who Space Shuttle design?

I admit that I don't have much hope for the US but South America is certainly heading that way. Capitalist countries across the world are seeing a growing rich poor gap and an increase in poverty. It's only a matter of time until they start looking for alternatives to Capitalism.

There might have to be a consensus emerging in order for that to happen, otherwise countries probably won't want to risk scaring away big business.

Then the solution is too simplify progressive taxation and close up the loopholes, not to flat tax.

Ideally, a progressive "flat tax" (i.e. limited number of deductions, simple percentage rates for each bracket) would be best. However, a flat tax might also work if it was only applied to incomes of a certain amount or higher, with incomes below it cut off. Either way, we'd save billions in time and effort.

There might have to be a consensus emerging in order for that to happen, otherwise countries probably won't want to risk scaring away big business.

Fair point but I don't think it'll be a radical take over. It'll start with a trend towards more lefist states, with more welfare and regulation of business. I would actually oppose a group that tried to make an instant transition to Socialism because I suspect it would end badly one way or another.

I definitely support a very progressive tax for three major reasons (and a lot of more minor ones):

- since under capitalism, the more wealthy you are, the more money you can earn with the same amount of work (through interests, stocks, ...), it only makes the situation closer to "the same amount of money for the same work" which is more fair

- it contributes into making the society less inequal, which is a very fundamental goal

- the human cost, for someone, to give out 10% of his wealth is much higher when this person is poor. When you're couting every cent, chosing between food and healthcare (as, saddly, many do), every single cent paid as huge costs. When you earn a lot of money, giving a bigger share of it will not cripple you as much.
Agreed, Progessive tax is better. Though, we should close the loopholes the rich use to pay less than their fair share.

I am also against health care costing so much. I don't it for that reason (can't afford).

Ahh, but who was the first one to land on the moon? And who copied who Space Shuttle design?
The Americans won one stage of the space race only: first man on the moon. The Soviets kicked their ass in everything else.

The Americans won one stage of the space race only: first man on the moon. The Soviets kicked their ass in everything else.

Yes, but that was the most psychologically valuable one, which is why it is so important. Plus, the cost of the space race meant that even if the Soviets got the man on the moon, they still would have lost economically.

I admit that I don't have much hope for the US but South America is certainly heading that way. Capitalist countries across the world are seeing a growing rich poor gap and an increase in poverty. It's only a matter of time until they start looking for alternatives to Capitalism.
Or they could actually, you know, try Capitalism, instead of dicking about with all this "Mixed Market"/Corporatist crap.

Anyways, I'm in favor of either a flat tax, or something along the lines of the Fair Tax (Although it would be preferrable if they abandoned their rebate system and simply exempted food and FDA approved medications from taxation). Such a system would minimize tax evasion, among other things.

I admit that I don't have much hope for the US but South America is certainly heading that way. Capitalist countries across the world are seeing a growing rich poor gap and an increase in poverty. It's only a matter of time until they start looking for alternatives to Capitalism.

The rich-poor gap has a lot to do with government intervention in the economy; honestly, if they let the market work rather than bail out politically sensitive companies or grant huge tax subsidies to favored industries, the rich-poor divide would probably fall.

However, at the same time capitalist globalization is providing a new way to close the rich-poor divide; it seems that may be the alternative we need to get to work on the disparity.

The rich-poor gap has a lot to do with government intervention in the economy; honestly, if they let the market work rather than bail out politically sensitive companies or grant huge tax subsidies to favored industries, the rich-poor divide would probably fall.



Why is the solution to problems created by capitalism always "more capitalism"?

Why is the solution to problems created by capitalism always "more capitalism"?

Because the only other solution that doesn't involve more economic freedom leads to corruption and economic collapse. The government should only provide basic support to those who have lost a job, retired, or need the money to get by even with a job. Other than that, they need to let the market work.

Globalization will lead to greater economic parity, although it will take a long time unless we move faster on real free trade.

Anyways, I'm in favor of either a flat tax, or something along the lines of the Fair Tax (Although it would be preferrable if they abandoned their rebate system and simply exempted food and FDA approved medications from taxation). Such a system would minimize tax evasion, among other things.I'm not so sure... I was thinking that it might, but then I'm sure rich consumers would be able to resort to all sorts of under the table deals, like currently goes on with the stamp tax in the UK (UK house sales tax). I'd see them participating in deals that aren't classed as sales and all sorts of corporate 'gifts'.

And www.fairtaxes suggestion that spending below the poverty line would not be subject to tax is completely unenforcable. How do you know a certain sale is being paid for by money below the poverty line? Maybe use a rebate system. But then the onus is on the tax payer to claim back, but if they're below the poverty line then they might not be the most adept at filling in the necessary forms.

Because the only other solution that doesn't involve more economic freedom leads to corruption and economic collapse. The government should only provide basic support to those who have lost a job, retired, or need the money to get by even with a job. Other than that, they need to let the market work.

Globalization will lead to greater economic parity, although it will take a long time unless we move faster on real free trade.I can't remember who said it. But it was something like "The only difference between corruption in the West and in Africa is that the West is better at hidding it."

And Friedman would slap you for even advocating basic support for the unemployed or the retired or... anyone? Because by doing that you're intervening in the market from thus unbalanencing it.

And Friedman would slap you for even advocating basic support for the unemployed or the retired or... anyone? Because by doing that you're intervening in the market from thus unbalanencing it.

Problem there though is that if people get no assistance at all in unemployment, they would starve to death, and that would hinder the economy. People aren't very good consumers if they're dead.

Or they could actually, you know, try Capitalism, instead of dicking about with all this "Mixed Market"/Corporatist crap.

Anyways, I'm in favor of either a flat tax, or something along the lines of the Fair Tax (Although it would be preferrable if they abandoned their rebate system and simply exempted food and FDA approved medications from taxation). Such a system would minimize tax evasion, among other things.

The solution to tax evasion isn't reducing the tax load of the people doing the evading, any more than the solution to those pesky murderers evading our police forces is to decriminalize murder. In either case, crime will still continue, you've just set the bar lower for what can legally be enforced. Tax evaders will still evade in the newer system, just for less dollars than before.

Moreover, I strongly question whether you can avoid a system based on mixed market/corporatist crap. Doesn't it occur to anyone else that there has never been a truly pure, Adam-Smith-style capitalism for the very same reason that there has never been a truly pure, Karl-Marx-style communism; i.e. because they are incompatible with human nature? In the same way that it seems natural for me to want to hijack a system in transformation to make it into a personal power base (which is essentially what the Soviet leaders did to the Soviet Union, what Mao did to China, etc.), it also seems natural for people who want to make money to band together and create a joint collective to pool money and reduce risk, which is essentially what a corporation is.

Problem there though is that if people get no assistance at all in unemployment, they would starve to death, and that would hinder the economy. People aren't very good consumers if they're dead.Good lord, man! Haven't you heard of charity? And besides, if you knew were going to starve then that'd just provide a real and immediate incentive to work. There'd be none of this lounging about on sofas all day. Besides, don't you know if they're unemployed then it's their own fault. (Who said that... Jevons I think. Can't be sure)

*BURNS EFFIGIES OF FRIEDMAN*:mad:

"Progressive taxation vs Flat tax"

A flat tax would be the most fair IF ( and ONLY if ) all the various loopholes and exemptions and exclusions were eliminated ... permanently! Not likely to happen.

Good lord, man! Haven't you heard of charity?

Yes, thankfully no-one in the world is starving anymore thanks to charity. Wait a minute...

And besides, if you knew were going to starve then that'd just provide a real and immediate incentive to work.

How would the system deal with disabled people for example?

The solution to tax evasion isn't reducing the tax load of the people doing the evading, any more than the solution to those pesky murderers evading our police forces is to decriminalize murder. In either case, crime will still continue, you've just set the bar lower for what can legally be enforced. Tax evaders will still evade in the newer system, just for less dollars than before.
I wasn't refering to setting the bar lower, I was refering to using a simpler system. Under the current tax code, one can dodge their duties to Ceaser in an unending stream of exciting new ways, provided they have the money/time/desire (all of which are possessed by the rich) to play around with it.
Moreover, I strongly question whether you can avoid a system based on mixed market/corporatist crap. Doesn't it occur to anyone else that there has never been a truly pure, Adam-Smith-style capitalism for the very same reason that there has never been a truly pure, Karl-Marx-style communism; i.e. because they are incompatible with human nature? In the same way that it seems natural for me to want to hijack a system in transformation to make it into a personal power base (which is essentially what the Soviet leaders did to the Soviet Union, what Mao did to China, etc.), it also seems natural for people who want to make money to band together and create a joint collective to pool money and reduce risk, which is essentially what a corporation is.
Yes, but the forming of corporations isn't the problem. The problem is when those corporations are allowed to buy political assistance and power, as well as dance around the rules. By minimalising government (no more subsidies/hand-outs for corporations, reduce the legal boundries that hold new companies back, etc) you make buying political power meaningless.
To wit, corruption is meaningless without big government.

This issue in a way annoys me. It does so because of the way people defend the rich, oh yeah they got it rough. Quit whining about how bad the rich have it. When deciding which car to take to work is on the same level as deciding whether its food or medicine this month, come talk to me, til then progressive taxes are the only just and moral system.

This issue in a way annoys me. It does so because of the way people defend the rich, oh yeah they got it rough. Quit whining about how bad the rich have it. When deciding which car to take to work is on the same level as deciding whether its food or medicine this month, come talk to me, til then progressive taxes are the only just and moral system.
Why? You've never heard the phrase "individual responsibility?" :confused:

Yes, thankfully no-one in the world is starving anymore thanks to charity. Wait a minute...



How would the system deal with disabled people for example?You are certainly are a queer fellow. I'm sure even someone of your standing must have heard of things like eugenics and sarcasm.

You are certainly a queer fellow. I'm sure even someone of your standing must have heard of things like eugenics and sarcasm.

Of course, but there are some people out there who really do believe in what you mocked.

Yes, thankfully no-one in the world is starving anymore thanks to charity. Wait a minute...
You're right! I mean, charity was doing absolutely nothing for starvation until governments started the global War on Poverty. Thank God that mission has been accomplished.

Why? You've never heard the phrase "individual responsibility?" :confused:
Well hell, Why live in a civilized society at all? I think should just start killing people who arent smart because its my "individual responsibility" Im also going to take all your money because its my "individual responsibility" to get as much wealth as possible with as little reguard for others as possible. That would be a great place to live:rolleyes:

Of course, but there are some people out there who really do believe in what you mocked.
I know... and it scares me. I'd blame it on being rich... but every economist I can think has come from a rich background... Marx, Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, Friedman, Walras, Marshall, etc...

No tax. The government should plunder nations which disobey the international community and use the spoils to fund vital government works.

I'm kidding, of course.

Real Answer: Very progressive tax is awesome for us layabouts, but it's always a game of "how much can we tax them before they run away to other countries or become layabouts too". It works kind of like a reverse Atlas Shrugged (possible spoiler ahead).

In that novel all the producers gave up producing and fled to the hills when the lazy people made the government rob them. I'm banking on them(the rich) not fleeing to the hills until I die or accrue enough of their wealth.

Economically I would vote for whatever government wants to give me the most of other people's wealth whilst letting me do as much of what I want as possible. I understand that this kind of idiocy ruins entire nations and economies, but I operate completely on enlightened self-interest. This is no joke. I WANT TO BE a freeloader.

Realistic Answer: It is best for the economy to tax income as lightly as possible so that people strive to work hard and produce a lot. Flat taxation achieves this well, but it means comparitively less money for everyone except the super-rich, which sucks.

I can't remember who said it. But it was something like "The only difference between corruption in the West and in Africa is that the West is better at hidding it."

Pretty much...which is what makes it all the more dangerous.

Friedman would slap you for even advocating basic support for the unemployed or the retired or... anyone? Because by doing that you're intervening in the market from thus unbalanencing it.

Those things are politically valuable...got to take it one step at a time if I want to get my ideas in place. First you get in to office, secure power in the Congress, and then get to work.

I have an ominous pre-monition about the following, but as follows. I would advocate a flat rate of 10-15%, with drastic curtailments of welfare and public healthcare to facilitate the above, the poor given no welfare, but a sliding scale of government subsidized medical insurance compensating for those otherwise unable to acquire it.

Just a simple flat tax. Makes the taxation system so much easier.
If I had a tax form it would pretty much all read as this:

Your income: $XXX,XXX
Now multiply that by *insert percent here*
Your taxes due to government: $XXX,XXX

It would save people a lot of time and money by simplifying this so much.

Just wondering what people think is better: progressive taxation, i.e. a tax system in which people are taxed a small amount at first, but more as their income goes up: or flat tax, with one tax percentage rate no matter how much you earn.It's called graduated, not progressive.

We should have low income tax on poor and middle class, moderate-high on the rich and high on luxuries(alcohol, tobacco, expensive clothing/jewelry, petrol).

Just a simple flat tax. Makes the taxation system so much easier.
If I had a tax form it would pretty much all read as this:

Your income: $XXX,XXX
Now multiply that by *insert percent here*
Your taxes due to government: $XXX,XXX

It would save people a lot of time and money by simplifying this so much.
Awww, that's so cute, you put the put the salary in as a 6 figure sum. Probably says a lot about your bias in this debate.

Those things are politically valuable...got to take it one step at a time if I want to get my ideas in place. First you get in to office, secure power in the Congress, and then get to work.How very... political of you. :eek:

But anyway, giving the market more freedom, seems to me, just to be a way to legitimise corruption (It's only a crime if we say it is).

I agree with the idea that the poor are much better consumers than the rich, and that rich, by market speculation cause the crisises of capitalism. So progressive taxes have a two-fold effect of redistributing a little more wealth to the poor, which they will undoubtably spend, and taking away from the rich - reducing that capacity to speculate and thus stabilsing the market.

Seconded, if we can't have the Fair Tax, then give us the Flat Tax!

thirded

progressive tax system punishes success by increasingly appropriating the fruits of ingenuity, hard work, risk-taking, etc.

"Hey, good for you, you created a thousand jobs and a company that serves consumers and investors well. Now give us 50% of your money."

The problem with a flat tax is that it would likely be too high for the working poor... and imo we should be trying to help those who are really trying to work and earn their own way in life.

the fair tax sounds okay... that, or a reduced progressive tax... capped at something like 33%

At the moment, in the UK, and most other nations, rich people pay a lower, yes, get that, a lower proportion of their income on taxation than poor people.

This is because of things like VAT (sales tax), fuel duty, etc.

If you replaced the _entire_ taxation system with a flat tax, even without putting in a minimum income cutoff, you would make things fairer for the poorest people.

The government will never do it, cos it's easy to see that taxation is rising when it translates directly into a higher percentage on your payslip.

You can make things even fairer by stipulating a minimum annual salary beneath which tax doesn't apply. Make it something like £5000, as it is now. That's a significant amount of tax saved for the poorest people, not much for the richest.

If you did the same for corporate tax etc, bingo. No loopholes. No tax evasion/avoidance. And the richest would pay more, while retaining the incentive to earn more.


So yeah, I'm all for flat tax.

Consumption should be taxed. People should be taxed on what they take out society, not what the contribute.

However, if forced to use an income tax, I would prefer a graduated progressive income tax to a flat tax.

At the moment, in the UK, and most other nations, rich people pay a lower, yes, get that, a lower proportion of their income on taxation than poor people.

This is because of things like VAT (sales tax), fuel duty, etc.

If you replaced the _entire_ taxation system with a flat tax, even without putting in a minimum income cutoff, you would make things fairer for the poorest people.

The government will never do it, cos it's easy to see that taxation is rising when it translates directly into a higher percentage on your payslip.

You can make things even fairer by stipulating a minimum annual salary beneath which tax doesn't apply. Make it something like £5000, as it is now. That's a significant amount of tax saved for the poorest people, not much for the richest.

If you did the same for corporate tax etc, bingo. No loopholes. No tax evasion/avoidance. And the richest would pay more, while retaining the incentive to earn more.


So yeah, I'm all for flat tax.
No, it wouldn't. Flat taxes are by their very nature regressive, as the poor simply can not afford to save, and as such are hurt more by taxes (per percentage of income) then the wealthy. They simply lack the disposable income to pay for taxes, which the wealthy have. Someone earler had mentioned that the perfect system would balance the ability of a person to pay with their tax rate. An excellent idea. That is, after all, one of the points of an income tax (Wilson instituted the first real income tax as an inequality reducing measure), and is quite fair.

Awww, that's so cute, you put the put the salary in as a 6 figure sum. Probably says a lot about your bias in this debate.
Awww, so cute, you drew completely asinine conclusions and launched an ad hominen attack based on an insiginifigant detail. Probably says a lot about your intellectual capacity in general.

This is a much bigger response than I expected. Thanks all. Also pretty much focused on the question (apart from the side debate about the space race... :) )

My own feelings on this are that certainly, the tax system as it stands does have far too many loopholes, especially for the very rich. Also some have pointed out that e.g. VAT rates, sales tax varies a lot. Everyone says the tax on petrol in UK is very high: however i haven't been able to find any documents saying what the rates actually are.
Anyway, for anyone who doesn't know - non-UK res are unlikely to - our tax bands are (all approx. figures) 10% for income from £5,000-7,000, 22% from there up to £36,500, 40% above this. 22% seems a strange figure to have, rather than 20 or 25. If anyone could explain why this is so I'd be grateful.

What would seem fair to me is:
1. A much clearer system of VAT, sales tax and so on. Actually I like the idea of either having a pretty high tax on luxuries - alcohol, tobacco, expensive clothing/jewelry, petrol (thanks Sel Appa) - or no taxes on goods at all.
2. Not a flat tax rate, but different boundaries and maybe different rates. I would think a pretty substantial chunk below which no taxes levied. Say £10,000? That'd give those in low paid jobs a pretty good amount guaranteed. It seems pointless to have the 10% rate apply to a couple of thousand, so if that was also shifted higher... I don't know how many different rates would be workable without causing even more trouble. I'm thinking if the top rate was 50% for all above £100 grand? Maybe like this:
<£10,000 = 0%
£10,000-25,000 = 10%
£25,000-50,000 = 25%
£50,000-99,999 = 35%
£100,000+ = 50%

Too many different grades? Obviously this is all very arbitrary, and I'm no economist. I'd like somone who is, if possible, to comment on how this might work out.
Also, I have to say - as many others have on this thread - that beyond a certain point, the more money a person has, then the more they can afford to pay in taxes.

"Terror Incognitia: ...At the moment, in the UK, and most other nations, rich people pay a lower, yes, get that, a lower proportion of their income on taxation than poor people.
This is because of things like VAT (sales tax), fuel duty, etc.
If you replaced the _entire_ taxation system with a flat tax, even without putting in a minimum income cutoff, you would make things fairer for the poorest people."

Although I disagree with the flat tax, I think doing away with sales tax altogether might make the whole system more transparent and fairer. Again, no economist I, so if someone with knowledge could comment on what effects this might have on the economy it would be much appreciated.
[This is a stupidly long post] well, let's keep it going!

PS if someone could tell me how to set up a poll, i'd be much obliged, even if its too late to do it for this thread. Thanks for your time and patience.

You are all, in your own ways, lovely people. :)