Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsSon
Well, it is marxist, even if western states do it. Esping-Andersen, the modern welfare state guru is heavily influenced by the works of Marx. It doesn't matter if other western states do it too, it's still unfair.
A flat tax is the only fair tax and what people don't see is that it increases national budgets dramatically...in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY it was introduced. If it's tiny as Estonia or huuge as Russia, national budget was increased directly by the introduction of a flat tax (as a direct outcome, controlling for any sort of other factors which may have influenced that increase). The Bush administration fought hard to introduce it. I still admire them for that. In Germany, the Christian Democrats initially campaigned on that but because it was badly received by the press, Kirchhoff, the "to-be" Finance Minister was dismissed. It's just stupid really.With more money in the federal budget, the US could run more schooling/ welfare/ infrastructure programs and they wouldn't need to further push an out-dated progressive tax model. I think the Heritage Foundation was speculating that a flat tax of 22% would already increase the Federal Budget. Bust still people go for the marxist solution. It's sad.
|
the problem with a flat tax is that say you use a flat tax of 25% just for ease.
someone earning £10,000 is left with £7,500 to live on whereas someone with £1,000,000 is left with £750,000
from a personal moral point of view i think someone earning £10,000 being left with something like £9,000 whereas someone with £1,000,000 being left with £500,000 isn't THAT bad a situation to be imposed for either person.
the 1st system is biased against the poor, the 2nd is biased against the rich. this isn't an anti-rich sentiment but by the by they need alot less help financially speaking than the poor so it should be them who takes the brunt of it.