NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering but which would be more equal (equal between people of different incomes) form of tax , a sliding (progressive) tax) or flat (proportional) tax?

EDIT: This is about income tax, just to be specific.

Just wondering but which would be more equal (equal between people of different incomes) form of tax , a sliding (progressive) tax) or flat (proportional) tax?
Depends what you mean by 'equal'.

Depends what you mean by 'equal'.

That's actually the part I'm having trouble with myself. I'm not exactly sure whether equal means identical by tax rate or through taxes designed to take disposable income so that people will have enough to get at least necessities...

So the question is more of, what does it mean to be equal? We gonna reduce the rich-poor divide or treat everyone the same?

That's actually the part I'm having trouble with myself. I'm not exactly sure whether equal means identical by tax rate or through taxes designed to take disposable income so that people will have enough to get at least necessities...
Well, if you're striving for the same amount of money beng payed for each person, then obviously the flat-tax is what you're after. But many people would not say that's a fair 'equality'.

So the question is more of, what does it mean to be equal? We gonna reduce the rich-poor divide or treat everyone the same?

Well, if you're striving for the same amount of money beng payed for each person, then obviously the flat-tax is what you're after. But many people would not say that's a fair 'equality'.

Yeah, that's pretty much the dilemma I'm in. I don't suppose there's a system that has both properties?

Just wondering but which would be more equal (equal between people of different incomes) form of tax , a sliding (progressive) tax) or flat (proportional) tax?
Personally, I wouldn't prefer either. I'd rather see taxes shifted off income tax and onto sales tax. This way, people are taxed for consuming, rather than for earning money.

Also, I'd rather see higher taxes on things that are harmful in a sense that indirectly harms others... for example, have public healthcare, but have the sales tax on food vary with respect to how healthy or unhealthy the food is, such as to have higher taxes for higher levels of saturated trans fats or lower taxes for higher levels of vitamins and minerals. This way, the ridiculous claim by people opposed to public healthcare that "public healthcare is a license to people to f*** up their own body" is ADDRESSED, and the benefit of it giving people medical treatments for problems that aren't their fault is retained.

Yeah, that's pretty much the dilemma I'm in. I don't suppose there's a system that has both properties?

Well it's pretty hard as they do practically the opposite thing. I can't think of anything. I think you just need to decide which you consider more important -- and by that, I mean which idea of equality.

Personally I'm all for sliding tax rates.

I just wish I didn't have to pay them.

Have a flat tax on consumer goods, and like a 1% tax on income if you make over $250k.

I like the food tax idea too, never hear or thought of anything like that... Also take a bigger portion of tobacco and alcohol taxes and put them towards health care as well.

It's the problem between equity and equality. On an equality stand, a flat tax is the only equal measure, it taxes everyone equally.

But on an equity scale, not even close.

most equal would be a head tax where each person is assessed the exact same tax burden.

not a particularly good idea though.

most equal would be a head tax where each person is assessed the exact same tax burden..
What do you mean by this?

I think people should be taxed on purchases, not on income and the taxes on the necessities could be little or none, while the taxes on luxuries(extra homes, certain kinds of cars, large stock or commodities purchases) could be taxed heavily.

I think people should be taxed on purchases, not on income and the taxes on the necessities could be little or none, while the taxes on luxuries(extra homes, certain kinds of cars, large stock or commodities purchases) could be taxed heavily.
Trouble is, who gets to decide what are "necessities" and what aren't? Some people think using gas to fuel their cars is a "necessity" but if public transit is available that assumption is questionable at best.

Again, as I said earlier, I believe in shifting things onto sales tax and the differences in taxation within that being based on how harmful something is...

Just wondering but which would be more equal (equal between people of different incomes) form of tax , a sliding (progressive) tax) or flat (proportional) tax?A progressive tax based on prospect theory ;)

Trouble is, who gets to decide what are "necessities" and what aren't? Some people think using gas to fuel their cars is a "necessity" but if public transit is available that assumption is questionable at best.

Again, as I said earlier, I believe in shifting things onto sales tax and the differences in taxation within that being based on how harmful something is...

There are degrees of necessity. Though it's true that for many, personal transportation isn't a necessity, for many it is. Doctors can't exactly ride the bus on housecalls. As a clown, I would have a very difficult time trying to use public transportation to people's houses for birthday parties. So taxes on that might be higher than on milk or eggs, but not unreasonably so.

So who gets to decide what are the degrees of necessity? The same people who decide our taxes now: The government we choose to represent us.

As for harmful, well cigarettes are FAR from a necessity, as is alcohol. Tax the shit out of em.

There are degrees of necessity. Though it's true that for many, personal transportation isn't a necessity, for many it is. Doctors can't exactly ride the bus on housecalls. As a clown, I would have a very difficult time trying to use public transportation to people's houses for birthday parties. So taxes on that might be higher than on milk or eggs, but not unreasonably so.

So who gets to decide what are the degrees of necessity? The same people who decide our taxes now: The government we choose to represent us.

As for harmful, well cigarettes are FAR from a necessity, as is alcohol. Tax the shit out of em.
Ok fair enough, my opinions were more similar to yours than I thought they were. Though for what it's worth, public transportation should be improved to make it more practical for other uses...

Ok fair enough, my opinions were more similar to yours than I thought they were. Though for what it's worth, public transportation should be improved to make it more practical for other uses...

I'm holding out for teleporters. ;)

What do you mean by this?
you take the federal budget of.... oh lets say $3trillion for the sake of making it easy and divide it by 300milllion people and assess each person in the country $10,000 in taxes.

thats equal.

A progressive tax based on prospect theory ;)
What do you mean?

you take the federal budget of.... oh lets say $3trillion for the sake of making it easy and divide it by 300milllion people and assess each person in the country $10,000 in taxes.

thats equal.

If only life were that simple...

I don't think equality should be the most major concern in regards to taxation. I think optimization should.

What do you mean?It has to do with how people value losses (which for the moment I'll assume how they perceive tax; rather than, say, as a limitation on gains). For example, loosing twice as much money isn't perceived as being quite twice as bad. And of course it depends on how much you have in the first place.
So my suggestion would be to progress taxes in such a way that all people perceive the same loss. (Of course you have to weed out individual peculiarities a bit. You can't send everyone to a shrink to determine how they perceive their loss; which would also unfairly benefit the innately stingy. You'd have to base it on empirical research.)

It has to do with how people value losses (which for the moment I'll assume how they perceive tax; rather than, say, as a limitation on gains). For example, loosing twice as much money isn't perceived as being quite twice as bad. And of course it depends on how much you have in the first place.
So my suggestion would be to progress taxes in such a way that all people perceive the same loss. (Of course you have to weed out individual peculiarities a bit. You can't send everyone to a shrink to determine how they perceive their loss; which would also unfairly benefit the innately stingy. You'd have to base it on empirical research.)
I doubt you could determine specifically how others percieve their loss; let alone make everyone "perceive the same loss"; I don't think taxes should be based on such uncertain estimates as that. As I said earlier I'd much rather it be shifted off income and onto sales...

If only life were that simple...
it would be more like a badly written novel then eh?

Just wondering, but isn't sales a form of discrimination against people of limited income? Although I kinda like the idea of putting higher sales tax on products deemed to be necessities, but the definition of "necessities" is objectionable.

Just wondering, but isn't sales a form of discrimination against people of limited income? Although I kinda like the idea of putting higher sales tax on products deemed to be necessities, but the definition of "necessities" is objectionable.

the more you buy the more you pay. most places don't tax food. and some places don't taxes clothes.

If an income tax is necessary (and I disagree on that premise), a flat rate across the board is the most equitable.

Taxes should be as low as possible, and "progressive" taxation is neither just nor progressive.

Every dollar taxen by tax is a reason not to work. There must always be enough earnt for every hour for a person to bother working

I am currently of government welfare as a student. one i earn over $233.90 (last number i heard) a fortnight the government takes away half of every dollar I earn for a while then they take 60%. This is before normal tax and GST

I work in retail. Due to the lowish wage of $19 per hour i really dont feel like woking once the limit has been reached. Suddenly my wage drops to about $9

If the number was lower I may be working more these holidays but really there is no reason to if I only earn $9 per hour

I think people should be taxed on purchases, not on income and the taxes on the necessities could be little or none, while the taxes on luxuries(extra homes, certain kinds of cars, large stock or commodities purchases) could be taxed heavily.
I disagree strongly. Sales tax works out great, IF people are in a buying mood. You end up tying your government funding to a boom and bust cycle. Nevada, which is sales tax only, is currently experiencing massive cuts in service due to the fact that no one is coming in and buying anything because of the bad economy. That might sound wonderful, but what it is actually doing is cutting off needed government services at a time when people need them the most (And we're talking cuts in health, welfare, education, and public safety. Not to mention the current proposed state layoffs when Nevada's unemployment rate is at an all time high).

Now try to put this on the current situation where the US has to fund two wars and try to pull itself out of the current fiscal crisis. Do you think people are actually going to be buying enough stuff to fund this? Not to mention that a lot of state and local taxes are sales taxes, meaning the cost of everything is going to be a whole heck of a lot higher with everything piled on.

the more you buy the more you pay. most places don't tax food. and some places don't taxes clothes.
See Vimes' Boots for an answer to this idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes#Vimes.27_Boots

you take the federal budget of.... oh lets say $3trillion for the sake of making it easy and divide it by 300milllion people and assess each person in the country $10,000 in taxes.

thats equal.

Yes lets charge people who make less than $20,000 a year $10,000 in taxes. While charging bill gates the same amount. Yea, that's fair.

I prefer the fair tax proposal myself. I don't believe in an income tax simply because it only taxes half the population while dumping most of the load on the people who have to live paycheck to paycheck. A national sales tax would be much better. After all, people always have to buy things, while they don't always have work. And when you include illegal immigrants and the black market. You'd pretty much have a much larger tax base than now, at least double perhaps more. Not to mention tourists.

Sales tax works out great, IF people are in a buying mood. You end up tying your government funding to a boom and bust cycle.

Sales taxes are actually less prone to fluctuations during the business cycle than the income tax, generally. This is, of course, in areas that do not rely on tourism for much/most of their income.

Sales taxes are actually less prone to fluctuations during the business cycle than the income tax, generally. This is, of course, in areas that do not rely on tourism for much/most of their income.
Sales tax are less prone if you tax everything. Since everyone has been talking about heavily taxing luxury items and leaving necessities alone...

How many luxury items get sold right now?

I think a progressive tax takes away entreprenurial incentive. It is, in essence, the government kicking you back to everyone else's real wage level when you work really hard for an annual pay increase or start your own business. It doesn't make it impossible to get ahead, but it makes people who do more resentful of the system. It's easy to go along with taxing billionaires disproportionately because it won't affect most people if a minority suffers at the hands of the government, but there are only so many billions we can loot from the rich before the government will turn it's eyes toward the middle class again. And the smart rich will find a way around taxation.
A better incentive for drawing capital from the wealthy is a new class of bonds with a better return - but that would probably drive inflation.

Per national sales tax, I don't think this would work as well in my country, the U.S., although I agree with one of it's leading proponents (Mike Huckabee) on many other issues. Initially it would generate huge revenue, but the increase would probably not offset the implementation fees. It would generate a huge smuggling/black market where people who actually have the spare money would buy certain goods overseas and smuggle them back in on their person to save on tax revenue. So, it would benefit Coast Guard funding and the airline security/border security sectors of big government, but they still would not be able to catch everything.

Sales tax are less prone if you tax everything. Since everyone has been talking about heavily taxing luxury items and leaving necessities alone...

Very true.

The problems with the fair tax(national sales tax) are few and the ones that exist can easily be fixed. Just set tariffs barely high enough that the costs of importing overseas plus the tariff itself is more than the actual tax at home. It wouldn't be that high of a tariff maybe a few percent. As for the black market, no matter how you look at it they will get taxed at some point. As long as you live in the U.S. You have to buy at least SOMETHING here. Where are the smugglers going to spend their dough? Probably half in the US and half wherever they are smuggling from. That's my guess.

Sales tax are less prone if you tax everything. Since everyone has been talking about heavily taxing luxury items and leaving necessities alone...

How many luxury items get sold right now?

you shouldn't heavy tax luxury items. all it does it make the rich go buy them overseas and destroys domestic production and sales of luxury goods.

Well, if you're striving for the same amount of money beng payed for each person, then obviously the flat-tax is what you're after. But many people would not say that's a fair 'equality'.
Flat taxes don't make everyone pay an equal amount. They make everyone pay an equal portion of their income - in dollar terms those can be very different from person to person.

That accounts for the whole "the richer you are, the more you owe to society" argument. There is however no argument whatsoever to actually justify progressive taxation, other than that the government needs it to buy votes, and it is more politically expedient to take the extra cash from a wealthy minority.

That's the thing about these taxation arguments on NSG. People say something along the lines of "taxation is theft". That's then countered by the usual arguments and the debate gets stuck in details at that point. But I have never actually seen anyone justify the taxation system as it actually exists. So ultimately I could claim "the taxation system I am subjected to is at least partially theft", right?

That accounts for the whole "the richer you are, the more you owe to society" argument. There is however no argument whatsoever to actually justify progressive taxation, other than that the government needs it to buy votes, and it is more politically expedient to take the extra cash from a wealthy minority.

There are a number of arguments for progressive taxation. There's the automatic stabilizer argument. The belief that those in poverty shouldn't have to pay what Vittos the Apathetic called the "right to live tax". The idea that the wealthy can afford to pay more than the nonwealthy.

That's the thing about these taxation arguments on NSG. People say something along the lines of "taxation is theft". That's then countered by the usual arguments and the debate gets stuck in details at that point. But I have never actually seen anyone justify the taxation system as it actually exists. So ultimately I could claim "the taxation system I am subjected to is at least partially theft", right?

I don't think I have ever heard anyone justify property law as it now stands. Therefore is property at least partially theft?

as long as the poor are robbed to pay the rich, some sort of proportioned scale is needed to counteract this.

the concept of a flat rate is romantically attractive, or would be, IF, those most able to hide from it could ACTUALLY by compelled to pay their share, could actually be prevented from in any way weasilling out of doing so.

nearly every proponent of a flat tax seems to take it as a given that this would and could be done. personally i'll believe THAT when i see it. (and i damd sure ain't holding my breath until i do!)

There are a number of arguments for progressive taxation. There's the automatic stabilizer argument. The belief that those in poverty shouldn't have to pay what Vittos the Apathetic called the "right to live tax". The idea that the wealthy can afford to pay more than the nonwealthy.
Yes, but none of these actually answer why it is right for the government to do this. There are pragmatic arguments for the progressive taxes, certainly. But there are pragmatic arguments for people who are good with money to take control of the finances of people who don't understand money as well - but income quarantining is probably not up on the list of demands of compassionate advocacy groups.

I understand the argument that we consume certain services and enjoy certain benefits associated with the government or society. Since some of these services costs money, it is only right that the user pays. But this line of argument would mean that there is a theoretical fair tax that one should pay, and any cent above or below it would be wrong. None of the points you just mentioned relate to this - the actual thing a taxation system should be striving for, and the only thing that distinguishes taxation from theft.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone justify property law as it now stands. Therefore is property at least partially theft?
Well, firstly the claim that property is theft is conceptually false. But even beyond that, as far as I can think right now the only differences between property, the concept and property law are various violations of the concept - eminent domain and so on. It's not like property law goes beyond what the theoretical justification for property rights prescribes, unlike with taxation.

as long as the poor are robbed to pay the rich, some sort of proportioned scale is needed to counteract this.
You have provided no evidence. You never really do.

the concept of a flat rate is romantically attractive, or would be, IF, those most able to hide from it could ACTUALLY by compelled to pay their share, could actually be prevented from in any way weasilling out of doing so.

There are two ways of getting out of paying taxes The first is actually hiding your income, which all taxation systems will have a problem with and which is basically unrelated to the rate you would pay on this income (except perhaps that higher tax rates increase the incentive to hide income). The second is through loop holes, being able to claim all sorts of things with some creative accounting. And that's purely what the taxation system allows by virtue of being complicated.

Flat. It creates equality for the more prosperous in the fact that everyone must pay the same amount of tax. It doesn't make sense to punish people who happen to work hard and get higher pay with higher taxes.

Personally, I wouldn't prefer either. I'd rather see taxes shifted off income tax and onto sales tax. This way, people are taxed for consuming, rather than for earning money.

Also, I'd rather see higher taxes on things that are harmful in a sense that indirectly harms others... for example, have public healthcare, but have the sales tax on food vary with respect to how healthy or unhealthy the food is, such as to have higher taxes for higher levels of saturated trans fats or lower taxes for higher levels of vitamins and minerals. This way, the ridiculous claim by people opposed to public healthcare that "public healthcare is a license to people to f*** up their own body" is ADDRESSED, and the benefit of it giving people medical treatments for problems that aren't their fault is retained.

Then it becomes harder for the poor to afford stuff.

I, personaly, support a flat tax due to the simple equal amounts all must pay, proportion-wise.

A man that pays 10% from his 1,000,000 gives $100,000. A man that pays 10% from his 100,000 gives 10,000. A man that pays ten percent from his 10,000 gives 1,000.

The proportions are still the same.

Granted, the drop from 1,000,000 to 900,000 is not as detrimental to a person's financial security as is a drop from 10,000 to 9,000.

These things must be worked out. But for now, a flat tax is the best option.

Yes, but none of these actually answer why it is right for the government to do this.

The justifications are vary. All are ideological.

I understand the argument that we consume certain services and enjoy certain benefits associated with the government or society. Since some of these services costs money, it is only right that the user pays. But this line of argument would mean that there is a theoretical fair tax that one should pay, and any cent above or below it would be wrong. None of the points you just mentioned relate to this - the actual thing a taxation system should be striving for, and the only thing that distinguishes taxation from theft.

The argument that since everyone enjoys certain benefits from society they owe something is only one reason why taxes are considered necessary. There are others. Also, I don't see how one could ever fully and accurately calculate these benefits. Hell, one could say that the government/benevolent society has the right to take 100% since without it we'd have less than subsistence without any stable property rights.

Well, firstly the claim that property is theft is conceptually false.

The claim is more of one that since actual property differs from any one person's belief what should be/is the "true" then all property is theft because all property law differs from the ideal one true law system.


But even beyond that, as far as I can think right now the only differences between property, the concept and property law are various violations of the concept - eminent domain and so on.

Eminent domain is not necessarily a violation of the concept of property.
It's not like property law goes beyond what the theoretical justification for property rights prescribes, unlike with taxation.

Can you elaborate? I'm no sure what you mean.

The argument that since everyone enjoys certain benefits from society they owe something is only one reason why taxes are considered necessary. There are others.
But they're not the ones that I get to hear were I to claim that taxes are theft. My point isn't so much about the actual right and wrong of the issue, but about the way it is treated on NSG.

Also, I don't see how one could ever fully and accurately calculate these benefits. Hell, one could say that the government/benevolent society has the right to take 100% since without it we'd have less than subsistence without any stable property rights.
I don't know, I'm reasonably confident in my abilities. Anyways, obviously it's a utopian idea that we could calculate the truly fair tax burden and charge accordingly. It would also spell doom for most income redistribution programs. But as far as the argument goes, if we pay taxes because we owe something to society, then it follows directly that we should be trying to bring tax amounts into line with this debt. As such the idea that taxes are justified because we have such debt can't really be applied to pretty much any practically feasible system.

The claim is more of one that since actual property differs from any one person's belief what should be/is the "true" then all property is theft because all property law differs from the ideal one true law system.
Which means that property law is theft, not property as a concept. I'd say that's a pretty significant distinction, but probably not one useful to those who would use arguments like this to justify massive amounts of wealth redistribution.

Can you elaborate? I'm no sure what you mean.
Well, say you use an idea of property rights based on deserving an exclusive right to one's produce, including the right to sell it as one sees fit. Our current system doesn't impose any property rights that would go beyond what this idea would hold to be property, does it? There are of course redistribution policies which basically declare something your property without you having earned it, but that goes hand in hand with violating the property right of the person who did. All the differences between this aforementioned idea of property and RL property law involve violating the former - there aren't more legal property rights than moral ones.

Taxation on the other hand goes in the opposite direction. Beyond a certain amount of taxes paid, it becomes basically impossible for me to still be paying my rightful dues. Even not knowing precisely how much the government has done for me, once I pay hundreds of thousands a year, the probability has it that I am paying more than the moral argument for taxation would have me. And to the extent that this argument includes my dues to the government rather than to random recipients of transfer payments, every dollar of my taxes that goes not to financing the cost of services as incurred by me (including the obligatory expected value of unemployment benefits etc to me), but to other people, would also not be justified by the moral theory on why I should pay taxes.

To clarify, according to the Australian government a little less than half my taxes go to paying for welfare services. Even accounting for the likelihood that I will need these services at some point, or they provide some other benefit to me right now, you'd have to say chances are that I'm paying a reasonable chunk of that in order to help other people in hard times. Which is a very different argument from "you have to pay back the government for the services it provides you with".

But they're not the ones that I get to hear were I to claim that taxes are theft. My point isn't so much about the actual right and wrong of the issue, but about the way it is treated on NSG.

I'm guessing that you hear it the most because its relatively self evident and the least idealogical justification of taxation.


I don't know, I'm reasonably confident in my abilities. Anyways, obviously it's a utopian idea that we could calculate the truly fair tax burden and charge accordingly. It would also spell doom for most income redistribution programs. But as far as the argument goes, if we pay taxes because we owe something to society, then it follows directly that we should be trying to bring tax amounts into line with this debt. As such the idea that taxes are justified because we have such debt can't really be applied to pretty much any practically feasible system.

So you can estimate the loss of wealth if the government imploded along with finding 100% of all externalities(mutually agreed to by everyone) that would unanimously accepted by all mainstream economists because if you could the I think you'd win numerous awards as well as make Warren Buffet look like a pauper.

Which means that property law is theft, not property as a concept. I'd say that's a pretty significant distinction, but probably not one useful to those who would use arguments like this to justify massive amounts of wealth redistribution.

Since the calculations for benefits have not been produced taxation even based the the debt argument has been proven to be excessive. It could be much higher than what is taken. So as a concept taxation is not at least partially theft.

Well, say you use an idea of property rights based on deserving an exclusive right to one's produce, including the right to sell it as one sees fit. Our current system doesn't impose any property rights that would go beyond what this idea would hold to be property, does it? There are of course redistribution policies which basically declare something your property without you having earned it, but that goes hand in hand with violating the property right of the person who did. All the differences between this aforementioned idea of property and RL property law involve violating the former - there aren't more legal property rights than moral ones.

Or say you use the idea of property rights based on other criteria than above which is what actually occurs. One does not have the absolute right to one's property or to do with it anything as one please in any

Taxation on the other hand goes in the opposite direction. Beyond a certain amount of taxes paid, it becomes basically impossible for me to still be paying my rightful dues. Even not knowing precisely how much the government has done for me, once I pay hundreds of thousands a year, the probability has it that I am paying more than the moral argument for taxation would have me. And to the extent that this argument includes my dues to the government rather than to random recipients of transfer payments, every dollar of my taxes that goes not to financing the cost of services as incurred by me (including the obligatory expected value of unemployment benefits etc to me), but to other people, would also not be justified by the moral theory on why I should pay taxes.

Probability has it? You have no proof. There is no evidence either way. I would think that depending to one's criteria for benefit calculation hundreds of thousands of dollars could be incredibly excessive or whoafully inadequate.

To clarify, according to the Australian government a little less than half my taxes go to paying for welfare services. Even accounting for the likelihood that I will need these services at some point, or they provide some other benefit to me right now, you'd have to say chances are that I'm paying a reasonable chunk of that in order to help other people in hard times. Which is a very different argument from "you have to pay back the government for the services it provides you with".

You are not excluded from getting welfare at some point. Call it the price of being in the risk pool. What does "welfare" mean in this case?

Whatever you have the power to keep from anyone else. In effect, regressive. Just continue to be useful and you can keep whatever you are deemed worthy of having left over.

Just wondering but which would be more equal (equal between people of different incomes) form of tax , a sliding (progressive) tax) or flat (proportional) tax?
Sliding.

Whatever you have the power to keep from anyone else. In effect, regressive. Just continue to be useful and you can keep whatever you are deemed worthy of having left over.
Don't be stupid, then we'd have no money left for participation in the economy, which is, after all, how economies work.

Don't be stupid, then we'd have no money left for participation in the economy, which is, after all, how economies work.

I didn't say "no one should have any money." I just say that if you can't hold on to it, you don't deserve it. Of course, probably not everything will be taken, just like no one would deprive their sheep of food, but that's only for later benefits in not taking all of one's stuff.

I didn't say "no one should have any money." I just say that if you can't hold on to it, you don't deserve it.
What do you mean by "if you can't hold onto it?". You honestly want heavily armed PMCs guarding the private banks and for the government to steal from the undefened poor?

Only cowards steal from the poor, you ought to know that.

What do you mean by "if you can't hold onto it?". You honestly want heavily armed PMCs guarding the private banks and for the government to steal from the undefened poor?

Only cowards steal from the poor, you ought to know that.

*Shrugs* I don't think there's any good to stealing from the poor. They don't have very much to take. And I think that it would be realized that it would be better to avoid a looting rampage for short-term gratification since the cost would be a reduction to a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle or something close. Nevertheless, one's supposed 'rights' are really only a grant from those more powerful, who are the ones that shape the world to their design and who have the strength to do as they wish, and it would be best to be more accomodating to them so as to avoid raising their formidable ire.

*Shrugs* I don't think there's any good to stealing from the poor. They don't have very much to take. And I think that it would be realized that it would be better to avoid a looting rampage for short-term gratification since the cost would be a reduction to a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle or something close. Nevertheless, one's supposed 'rights' are really only a grant from those more powerful, who are the ones that shape the world to their design and who have the strength to do as they wish, and it would be best to be more accomodating to them so as to avoid raising their formidable ire.
Aye at which point who are you taking money from?

Not the poor. Not the rich... so err...

I love how HK deals with taxes, though I recognise that it works mainly because it's a small city state.

First, it's 16% flat rate for all, last year we even had a 75% rebate, which means I paid about 4% tax for the year.

Second, you pay at the end of the year, this means you get paid in full each month and you need to save that 16%. For me, it means I actually tend to save 20% and when you get a 75% rebate to boot, well you've saved a lot of money to be honest.

When taxed by P.A.Y.E, I'd generally spend what I earned, now I save handily.

16% is fine in a compact city where infrastructure costs are kept low and the city has expensive land to sell, doesn't work for a full country.