Ding Dong, the witch is dead

Originally Posted by DanaC

The trouble with a flat tax, as I see it, is that 10% of $400,000 per annum, is a significantly lower burden in terms of living standards as 10% of $30,000.

A sliding scale of tax takes account of the fact that the higher the income (and face it, most people with high incomes also have significantly higher holdings than those on lower incomes also) the lower the impact of the tax, despite the fact they are paying more.

This works particularly well, if the income brackets are set so that you are only paying the higher rate on the money you earn above the threshold. Then the majority of that $400,000 gets taxed at the normal rate, but the amount over $300,000 (random figures:P) gets taxed at say 40% or 50%. The person earning, still comes away with a big wage cheque.

The impact of 10% on wage of $30,000 is still higher than the impact of that supertax on the $400,000 earner. But, to me it seems a great deal fairer. Yes, that person earning the high wage has done so with their own work.....but they've done so in a country that belongs to you all. They've benefitted from the particular set of circumstances provided by that country and if they're earning such a high wage, likely they've also benefited from the labours of someone earning considerably less.

Shawnee, don't let Noodle get to you. You know how the world works, pity him, he is blind.

I am not trying to make taxes punitive... just equal and fair.
The way it works now, the very rich don't have to pay any... you think that is better?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The way it works now, the very rich don't have to pay any... you think that is better?

This is nonsense, rkz. You seriously believe that the very wealthy pay ZERO taxes? Any evidence to back that up? Do you even know any wealthy people who claim to pay no taxes?