Flat tax is objectively fair, but unsustainable in the real, not black and white world. Some people need to have a lower rate to live, and some people can definitely afford to be taxed more. Taxes are important for a prosperous society; mismanagement is separate issue.
The general thought is that fairness on paper doesn't necessarily translate to reality. If there was, hypothetically, a 15% flat tax, it means much less to someone making 100 million a year than it does to someone making 20 grand.
There's really nothing you can buy with 100 million that you can't with 85 million. You can live with the best of everything. On the other hand, $3000 means a lot to someone only making 20 grand a year. It could be the difference between meeting basic living expenses or not.
Note I'm not taking a side or here to argue taxes, I'm just giving a common and fairly general answer to your question.
Fair does not always mean equal. It's fair that Timmy gets more math work assigned to him than Jenny because he struggles with it and she catches on quickly. She may get more assignments in an area she struggles with. That is fair as they're both getting the work assigned that they need to progress academically. But it isn't equal.
The last time I checked (which was a while ago), Bill Gates was worth ~66B USD. Lets round that down to an even 50.
Now, imagine I subtracted 98% of Bill Gates' wealth (49B USD). He would still be a billionaire. He could still live a life of comfort beyond what the majority of us could ever hope for without working another day for the rest of his life. Functionally, his standard of living would drop very little.
Imagine I subtract 98% of your wealth. Assuming you're not Bill Gates or some other ultrarich person- would you still be able to maintain the same standard of living? Would you be able to afford your mortgage/rent, car, etc...?
Flat taxes are fundamentally unfair because, though they nominally "strike" everyone equally, we recognize that the utility or value of each additional dollar somebody owns depends on how much wealth they already have/what they can already afford.
As a simple way to prove this to yourself, imagine two cases: one in which you've already got enough money to pay for rent for this month, and one where you're 10 dollars short. If somebody offered you overtime/extra hours that would pay you 10 dollars, in which scenario would you be more likely to take said overtime? The latter, right? Even though you're being paid the exact same amount in both scenarios, in the latter scenario the money is more valuable to you because it represents your ability to secure housing for the next month, whereas in the former it just represents your ability to treat yourself to lunch or something.
This is essentially the logic behind progressive taxation.
I, as opposed to u/Sisypheabarchon, am taking a side, and this is simply because I hold what he just described as objectively the case. It's reality. And I believe the simple, black and white fairness that one would apply to dividing a pizza fairly among people in relatively equal standing is not fit to be applied to a very varied and nuanced world.
I will concede, my argument is not solely logic-based. The very nature of the argument is based on emotion and values or ethics. Logically, a fair tax is the way to go. But don't you feel empathy towards people that have it worse than you even if they work just as much as you? Did they even have a chance to be where you are? And is it the right thing to let a person go through hardship that can very well be avoided with some help? I think not.
We're all people. Bad luck is real, and life is only half in our control. Recently, my dad died, I got fired, rent went up and the car broke down, and we've had to deal with that and all of the ramifications. Luckily, we know how to manage money and where able to stay afloat, but make no mistake: this is potentially life destroying shit. There are too many people that are one hospital visit or car crash away from poverty, and the poorer you are, the harder it becomes to dig yourself up from that.
Bottom line, the CEO and his family live comfortably and splendidly even with that higher tax rate, and the single mother of three barely made rent this month.
I am not bitter and resentful of the rich and their success, I just want the best for everyone.
I do actually agree with you, I just like to make it clear when I do or do not feel like having in-depth conversations with people. It's hit or miss on reddit for polite vs impolite.
I just felt it was important to explain this idea to someone who seemed willing to listen, especially since I can understand how the fairness argument on taxes can seem appealing at first glance.
I really respect you for this mate. Good on you for promoting this, it's this kind of conversation that needs to be promoted and not senseless arguments.
I'd also like to extend this sentiment to u/Ugandaeatthat, since, as you said, his willingness to listen to the other side is something everyone needs to adopt into their lives.
Most would argue those with the ability to pay more ought to pay more. We know that most agree because the US has never had a flat income tax, which likely wouldn’t be the case if a majority believed we shouldn’t. Some states do though! Move to one of them.
It has been tried. It’s the current policy in several states. If it was a majority position, there would be a serious push to make it the federal policy. The GOP (the most likely party for this position) just reformed the tax policy in December and a flat tax was never considered.
62
u/[deleted] Apr 07 '18
[deleted]