Arguments for and Against a Flat Tax

[Cow Poke]

Most businesses also provide non-financial rewards for their employees in the form of company cars, accommodation, travel, subsistence, phones, laptops, clothing budgets etc, the value of which often far exceeds salary, especially for business owners and executives. The immediate effect of your proposal would be that everyone who can gets their living via their business, drops their salary below the threshold, and stops paying any tax.

I don't know that you can say "most" businesses, and currently the personal use business perks is taxable. A company car, for example, is taxable for commuting to and from work, personal trips, personal errands, etc...

[Mountain Man]

In a nutshell - no. 10% paid by someone who cannot even feed/house/clothe themselves and their family because they are stuck in a minimum wage job is simply not the same as 10% paid by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. For the later, 10% is "gravy." For the former, it is potentially the difference between living and not living. This is why the same standard deduction for everyone. It makes the basic $ needed for everyday living "tax protected" for everyone, and taxes everything else the same - regardless of source. It creates a progressive tax without defining different tax classes and arbitrarily differentiating.

So something like $30K for an individual, $45 K for two people, $60K for 3, and $75K for four. It can also be adjusted to be sensitive to local cost-of-living differences (e.g., the cost of living in San Francisco is different from the cost of living in New Hampshire).

The cap at 4 is also adjustable to the current "replacement rate" for the country. It encourages enough procreation to keep the country healthy, and does not limit anyone to a particular number of children (e.g., the China model). On the other hand, if a family wants 10 children, it also does not make me responsible for picking up their tax burden because they choose to breed like bunnies.

So you would argue that a straight 10% tax would be...



Unfair?

Part of the difference in our thinking is that I'm not of the belief that a minimum wage should be a living wage. If you're stuck making minimum wage for an extended period then it's because you failed to advance your career.

[carpedm9587]

So you would argue that a straight 10% tax would be...

Unfair?

No. "Unfair" is the siren song of the emotionally stunted. I would argue that a straight 10% tax is harmful (unnecessarily) to some people, so it should not be done.

Part of the difference in our thinking is that I'm not of the belief that a minimum wage should be a living wage. If you're stuck making minimum wage for an extended period then it's because you failed to advance your career.

And this view is highly simplistic. Yes, you have "failed to advance your career." The "why" however, is important. The "poverty trap" is a very real thing. So is implicit bias. When the "failed to advance my career" is based on a lack of initiative, so be it. When it is a function of the poverty trap....not so much. And crime is directly linked to poverty and education.

Hence my belief that the income for any individual that is related to "subsistence" should be free of tax. It provides one less obstacle to escaping the poverty trap, and helps to reduce poverty, which then reduces crime. Win-win, as they say.

P.S. You'll note I said nothing about "minimum wage," so I have no idea where that came from. Separate topic.

[Starlight]

"Unfair" is the siren song of the emotionally stunted.

Eh? That seems a rather strong and wrong value judgement.

I'm reminded of this book

written by a US academic who visited my country and was struck by the differences in political rhetoric during elections, because the politicians here talked constantly about "fairness" and never about "freedom" which he felt was the opposite to what he was used to hearing in the US.

Being a historian he explored the history of this and traced it back to the different times at which the US and NZ were founded. He argues that at the time of the US founding, the dominant political philosophy in Europe which was thus adopted in the US was a focus on the idea of "freedom" that could be achieved through revolution. After achieving independence the US political philosophy then split itself off from Europe and remained focused on this idea of achieving "freedom".

Over the next couple of centuries, Europe moved on, with all countries becoming democracies and establishing human rights etc, with freedom now being taken for granted, there was no longer any focus on achieving freedom because it was felt that had been universally established, so political thinkers increasingly focused on "fairness" as the topic of political interest and Europe tended toward (in the view of US right-wingers) "socialism" and an effort to be "fair" to everyone. So, when, in a later century when NZ became one of the last countries in the world to be colonized, the colonists brought with them the European political philosophy of the latter time, taking freedom and democracy for granted and rapidly establishing it (NZ became the first country to give women the vote, never had slavery, didn't have to fight any wars for independence or anything like that), and quickly introducing the ideas of "fairness" and the more socialistic views from Europe (NZ became the first Western country to provide universal healthcare to all citizens etc).

But as a result, two English-speaking countries that are open and democratic societies colonized by Europeans have quite different political paradigms in the modern day, one focused on "freedom" and the other on "fairness".

[carpedm9587]

Eh? That seems a rather strong and wrong value judgement.

I'm reminded of this book

written by a US academic who visited my country and was struck by the differences in political rhetoric during elections, because the politicians here talked constantly about "fairness" and never about "freedom" which he felt was the opposite to what he was used to hearing in the US.

Being a historian he explored the history of this and traced it back to the different times at which the US and NZ were founded. He argues that at the time of the US founding, the dominant political philosophy in Europe which was thus adopted in the US was a focus on the idea of "freedom" that could be achieved through revolution. After achieving independence the US political philosophy then split itself off from Europe and remained focused on this idea of achieving "freedom".

Over the next couple of centuries, Europe moved on, with all countries becoming democracies and establishing human rights etc, with freedom now being taken for granted, there was no longer any focus on achieving freedom because it was felt that had been universally established, so political thinkers increasingly focused on "fairness" as the topic of political interest and Europe tended toward (in the view of US right-wingers) "socialism" and an effort to be "fair" to everyone. So, when, in a later century when NZ became one of the last countries in the world to be colonized, the colonists brought with them the European political philosophy of the latter time, taking freedom and democracy for granted and rapidly establishing it (NZ became the first country to give women the vote, never had slavery, didn't have to fight any wars for independence or anything like that), and quickly introducing the ideas of "fairness" and the more socialistic views from Europe (NZ became the first Western country to provide universal healthcare to all citizens etc).

But as a result, two English-speaking countries that are open and democratic societies colonized by Europeans have quite different political paradigms in the modern day, one focused on "freedom" and the other on "fairness".

Most of the time, I hear "that's not fair" as a whine. Most of the time, when I hear it, what the person is actually saying is "I'm not getting what I want!"

Look, for example, at Trump's perpetual whine that the trade imbalance is "not fair." What he is saying is, "it's not what I want it to be." The fact is, there is nothing implicitly unfair about a trade imbalance. The U.S. is home to 1/3 of the wealth of the entire world. If 1/3 of the wealth is here, and 2/3 elsewhere - it stands to reason that we will see a similar dynamic in the flow of goods. That is, 1/3 of the world's goods will likely flow to the U.S., and the other 2/3 will flow to other countries. This means it is highly likely that the U.S. will buy more from others than other buy from the U.S.? Why? Because we have more money than they do!

There is absolutely nothing "unfair" about any of this. But Trump has arbitrarily decided that trade has to be "balanced" to be "fair" without any thought to the relative wealth of the players.

If a man is a millionaire and hires a child to mow his lawn - it would seem a tad odd to complain that it is "unfair" that the man is paying the child more than the child is paying the man.

That is essentially what Trump is doing.

[Starlight]

Most of the time, I hear "that's not fair" as a whine.

Well it is indeed quite a common whine. But perhaps the very observation that so many people inherently resort to appeals to fairness should tell us about the intuitive morality of the notion of fairness, and should lead us to a reflection on the concept and thus a desire to acknowledge its validity as a core moral principle of our societies.

Most of the time, when I hear it, what the person is actually saying is "I'm not getting what I want!"

I disagree. Any statement that something's "not fair" is much more than a statement that a person isn't getting what they want, it's a claim that them getting it is morally right and morally obligated.

Look, for example, at Trump's perpetual whine that the trade imbalance is "not fair." What he is saying is, "it's not what I want it to be."

No, it's a claim that the current state of affairs is morally unjust and thus that his attempts to correct it are a moral action motivated by a sense of moral injustice. Thus the claim he's making is vastly different to "this is not what I want".

But Trump has arbitrarily decided that trade has to be "balanced" to be "fair" without any thought to the relative wealth of the players.

I don't really buy your analysis of relative wealth here and how it relates to trade fairness. I don't object in principle to tariffs, I just think the choices Trump is making with regard to what goods tariffs are put on are random and ill-thought-out.

[carpedm9587]

Well it is indeed quite a common whine.

Well - at least we agree on something.

But perhaps the very observation that so many people inherently resort to appeals to fairness should tell us about the intuitive morality of the notion of fairness, and should lead us to a reflection on the concept and thus a desire to acknowledge its validity as a core moral principle of our societies.

I think that "justice" is a better concept. Justice implies balance with thought to what is morally required. "It's not fair" should be the same thing - but it's usually not. Most of the time, when someone says "it's not fair!" I find what I have said - what they are actually saying is "it's not how I want it to be."

I disagree. Any statement that something's "not fair" is much more than a statement that a person isn't getting what they want, it's a claim that them getting it is morally right and morally obligated.

What it should be and what it usually is are two very different things.

No, it's a claim that the current state of affairs is morally unjust and thus that his attempts to correct it are a moral action motivated by a sense of moral injustice. Thus the claim he's making is vastly different to "this is not what I want".

I agree this is what it ought to mean. It is not usually the reality.

I don't really buy your analysis of relative wealth here and how it relates to trade fairness. I don't object in principle to tariffs, I just think the choices Trump is making with regard to what goods tariffs are put on are random and ill-thought-out.

I have not said a word about tariffs, so I'm not sure how this came to be part of the equation.

[Cow Poke]

Most of the time, I hear "that's not fair" as a whine.

My response is always "to whom?"

[Starlight]

I think that "justice" is a better concept.

I don't like the ambiguity inherent in the term "justice". It's too much of a multi-faceted concept. It can mean revenge, punishment, the fixing of injustice, fairness, rescue of the oppressed, tough on crime, and lots of other things. It spans the spectrum from doing harm to others (e.g. punishing them) to helping others (e.g. rescuing them from oppression or injustice) and, as such, is just too vague a term given it spans two opposites.

So I avoid the term "justice" and prefer any discussion involving the term be translated into other terms for clarity's sake. Having written a book that discusses the biblical meaning of the term dikaiosune, sometimes translated "justice" / "justification" etc, I also have Views. And given the influence of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on modern moral philosophy, I tend to have Views relating to that too. So don't trigger me on the subject.

I have not said a word about tariffs, so I'm not sure how this came to be part of the equation.

They are connected in Trump's thinking with the trade imbalances and what he perceives to be wrong with international trade.

[Starlight]

My response is always "to whom?"

That strikes me as nonsensical. If someone says a state of affairs has the attribute of not being fair, that is like saying an apple has the attribute of being red. Asking "to whom" is nonsense just as asking "to whom" about the apple.

It suggests to me you fundamentally lack an understanding as to what is being asserted.

[carpedm9587]

I don't like the ambiguity inherent in the term "justice". It's too much of a multi-faceted concept. It can mean revenge, punishment, the fixing of injustice, fairness, rescue of the oppressed, tough on crime, and lots of other things. It spans the spectrum from doing harm to others (e.g. punishing them) to helping others (e.g. rescuing them from oppression or injustice) and, as such, is just too vague a term given it spans two opposites.

So I avoid the term "justice" and prefer any discussion involving the term be translated into other terms for clarity's sake. Having written a book that discusses the biblical meaning of the term dikaiosune, sometimes translated "justice" / "justification" etc, I also have Views. And given the influence of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice on modern moral philosophy, I tend to have Views relating to that too. So don't trigger me on the subject.

The funny thing about "triggers" is --- no one else can "trigger" you. The trigger belongs to you. So YOU are the person triggered - by your own triggers.

They are connected in Trump's thinking with the trade imbalances and what he perceives to be wrong with international trade.

Trump has made this association - that does not make them absolute. Trade imbalances occur - and are perfectly natural when there is a corresponding wealth imbalance. The fact is that the U.S. is an amazingly wealthy country. We essentially cannot have trade "balances" because we have more money to spend than any other country - so we will buy more than we sell. That's just a fact of life - to which Trump has apparently never really adjusted. His rant against trade imbalances is badly misinformed.

[Cow Poke]

That strikes me as nonsensical.

Of course it does. You didn't think it up.

If someone says a state of affairs has the attribute of not being fair, that is like saying an apple has the attribute of being red. Asking "to whom" is nonsense just as asking "to whom" about the apple.

You're comparing apples to states of affairs.

Fair is relative. A student wants a teacher to be "fair" in grading, which often means he/she wants special consideration. If the teacher gives that student a break by raising a grade, it's not fair to the student who studied really hard and actually earned the grade.

It suggests to me you fundamentally lack an understanding as to what is being asserted.

Because I ask a question? It's part of the diagnostic. You just like to be a fart-head.

[Cow Poke]

The funny thing about "triggers" is --- no one else can "trigger" you. The trigger belongs to you. So YOU are the person triggered - by your own triggers.

I don't entirely disagree even one tiny little bit.

[Cow Poke]

That strikes me as nonsensical. If someone says a state of affairs has the attribute of not being fair, that is like saying an apple has the attribute of being red. Asking "to whom" is nonsense just as asking "to whom" about the apple.

It suggests to me you fundamentally lack an understanding as to what is being asserted.

Thinking about this some more -- an apple being red can actually be tested in a lab, or observed by persons who can see colors. (I'd need some help with that one) "Fairness", on the other hand, can be pretty durn relative.

[Starlight]

Fair is relative.

No.

A student wants a teacher to be "fair" in grading

Seems generally desirable.

which often means he/she wants special consideration.

Seems a strange misuse of the word.

If the teacher gives that student a break by raising a grade, it's not fair to the student who studied really hard and actually earned the grade.

No. Being "fair" is an attribute of the overall system, it's not relative to anything.

Because I ask a question?

Because you treat an absolute as if it were subjective. It implies you don't understand the idea of fairness.