[msxoin]

From a point of view, progressive taxation policy isnt fair because it "punishes" the most productive one in terms of liberal economy. But on the other hand, the gap between the wages of an average employee and the earnings of the board of a Transnational Corporation, is too big to ignore. Therefore, a progressive tax system, that doesnt exceed the 30% of one's total income in order to maintain a meaning in the word "productivity", is a right approach to stabilize and support the so needed ciclulation of money. I dont think we must focus on whether we use progressive or flat taxation systems, but we must definetely focus on how the percentages in the progressive tax system scale are defined.

[PBVBROOK]

Its called an example zero. It was obviously to complicated for you to understand. Never mind.

[Stormsmith]

Mszoin:

With respect, all governments require money. The UShas a pretty big debt to service. Failure to meet the budgetary needs will result in more borrowing. I have, on this forum, heard concerns from |Americans over the public school system, over a need for health reform, the on-going wars and so on. I think all the cuts that have been made for the good of the system have been made, and possibly are now working against you.

I suspect it might be a better thought to consider the budget before saying a cap of 30% is necessary or revenues will be low enough that the middle class, endangered species that it is, will be paying more in taxes because the start point for the 30% will be lowered by 10s of thousands of dollars.

This will reduce spending. If consumer spending is cut, you'll lose even more jobs, and I don't think thats a good thing.

[Hot Choco]

Since when has the Federal government imposed sales or property taxes to any significant degree?

I was talking generally, not about the USA specifically.

[msxoin]

I dont think you realised what i stated (maybe it is my english bad). I strongly agree with what you say about no money to spend --> no market activity --> job losses --> social wars. In fact this is my moto in order to stop liberal policies that concentrate in the wage and pensions freezing in order to get over the financial crisis. So, a MAXIMUM of 30% tax in one's annual income serves two causes:

First, it is a low percentage, meaning less tax, meaning more money to spend, meaning market warmup. Of course tax system must be adjusted according to MID TERM budget needs. But assuming that a country has a tremendous debt, this is subject to external factors, other than the taxing system itself. If the taxing system and the money collection mechanisms are working right, economy will be back on positive levels sooner or later, so money borrowing consequences will not be so crucial.

The second cause, is that when you have a relatively low percentage of maximum taxation such as 30% (Greece has 40%), you give a chance to big corporations to continue their bussiness activities without being scared so much by the financial crisis, a fact that creates a more stabilized economic environment, which is good for both emplyment and future country investments.

[Zerogouki]

Its called an example zero. It was obviously to complicated for you to understand. Never mind.

Understand? I'm not the one who sucks at basic math.

[hannigaholic]

30% of a $5.00 ph wage means a great deal more than to a million ph.

Except $5/hour wages give you only £10,400 a year, and my suggestion (which you quoted) was for the first $20,000 to be tax-exempt. Somebody on that income would pay no Income Tax at all.

[Huntster]

The purpose of government is not to protect either your money or mine.

Please inform us what "the purpose of government is".

I know of no method of taxation that is not unfair to either the rich or the poor.

I do.

A flat tax base upon a percentage of one's wealth.

Churches have used this basic formula for, literally, thousands of years.

All are simply redistributions of wealth.

Not if government gets out of the business of wealth redistribution and focuses on appropriate government services like infrastructure, the common defense, emergency response, criminal law enforcement, etc.

[Arie]

Do you think there should be a personal allowance? I think there should be, that way you have the best of both worlds; a fair tax with an element of progressivity. Let's say, 10% of all money earned over $20,000 a year.

Since the government in a democracy is supposed to be the people, and "all men are created equal", etc., any amount collected above the basic administrative and protective needs of the country [and I know this is subjective...] should simply be distributed equally among all the citizens. This includes the effect of an exempt "personal allowance" but separates its determination from what the basic tax should be (if any): I.e. the "personal allowance" is the equal dividend of excess tax revenue. That leaves only one free parameter, the tax rate, which can vary from minimal (no redistribution) to 100% (complete redistribution), and allows for a simple transparent expression for the level of redistribution we support, whatever it might be.

Because you have ten times as much to lose and therefore you depend on your government ten times as much to keep your hard-earned money safe.

Yes, you are paying for protection (taxes are "protection money", after all...). Perhaps it should even be voluntary -- i.e. chose not to pay taxes, which means your ownership of the property you consider yours is not legally recognized, and therefore not to be protected by law: Pay only for what you wish to legally protect, which suggests a "flat rate". I see no reason to make it more complicated, especially for the sake of transparency.

The other issue is what exactly should be taxed: Ideally, it should be land and raw natural resources that are in principle not "the fruits of anyone's labor", but in practice to be determined by your actual wealth: I don't believe, as many libertarians seem to, that your wealth is purely the result of your labor.