This is pedantic, but I don’t think an equal tax would be fair at all. I take equal to mean everyone pays the same absolute amount, eg $10 a year. It wouldn’t be fair to make a newborn baby with $0 to their name pay $10. Similarly, it wouldn’t be fair to make a multi billionaire only pay $10, because they relatively cost more and benefit more from the infrastructure, institutions, economy and every other part of society; taxes of course contribute to funding that society.
Sorry the paragraph where a sentence might’ve sufficed. Think that all the semantics I’m allowed to argue about on the internet for this week.
Our friend below details this fairly well, but in a society where “my” taxes are a sign of ownership of debt, do you really think that’s healthy? How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services? Feel free to double down, but I just don’t see the point of people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system. It’s weird and has the aire of Stockholm Syndrome.
I disagree with his point, but to be fair, I think he is envisioning the communist utopia, where everyone has equal access to everything and there is no inequality of ownership. So the baby would have exactly as much as the billionaire (making them no longer a billionaire).
If we had a mandated wage that everyone got, regardless of job, that would mean a flat tax makes sense, in his defense.
Do I think a society where everyone gets paid the same regardless of job would actually function though? No.
Thank you for giving a real world example of a rational human who can disagree with the premise while also understanding its intent and origin. All these other numpties downvoting me didn’t bother to do the 2 minutes of critical thinking, so good on you mate!
This is pedantic, but I don’t think an equal tax would be fair at all. I take equal to mean everyone pays the same absolute amount, eg $10 a year. It wouldn’t be fair to make a newborn baby with $0 to their name pay $10. Similarly, it wouldn’t be fair to make a multi billionaire only pay $10, because they relatively cost more and benefit more from the infrastructure, institutions, economy and every other part of society; taxes of course contribute to funding that society. Sorry the paragraph where a sentence might’ve sufficed. Think that all the semantics I’m allowed to argue about on the internet for this week.
Our friend below details this fairly well, but in a society where “my” taxes are a sign of ownership of debt, do you really think that’s healthy? How about the alternative where everyone has the same investment and therefore the same access to public goods and services? Feel free to double down, but I just don’t see the point of people arguing the necessity to own debts incurred on them from a structurally unsound social and economic system. It’s weird and has the aire of Stockholm Syndrome.
I disagree with his point, but to be fair, I think he is envisioning the communist utopia, where everyone has equal access to everything and there is no inequality of ownership. So the baby would have exactly as much as the billionaire (making them no longer a billionaire).
If we had a mandated wage that everyone got, regardless of job, that would mean a flat tax makes sense, in his defense.
Do I think a society where everyone gets paid the same regardless of job would actually function though? No.
Thank you for giving a real world example of a rational human who can disagree with the premise while also understanding its intent and origin. All these other numpties downvoting me didn’t bother to do the 2 minutes of critical thinking, so good on you mate!