Fair Share?

I would previously have taken the opposite view, regarding income tax as a fairer way of distributing the burden of collective responsibility, those that are more able to contribute sharing greater part of the burden, just as say if a car broke down the strongest would share a greater burden of pushing it. But, now I am inclined to think differently, whilst I cannot agree that all tax should be on purchase, since this would make paying for the basic necessities of life beyond the means of many, but I am thinking that an increased level of purchase tax might discourage the odious consumerism that has become prevalent in society and encourage those qualities I value, being frugality, self-sufficiency and resourcefulness, etc. all the best, urban

IF you believe that it is government's job to socially engineer people's lives, I suppose a reform such as Chrystalia suggests would be somewhat better. Personally, I think a flat tax rate on everyone with minimal deductions for contributions to charities, mortgages, education and medical expenses.

The reason I favor a consumption tax over a flat tax is simple-- efficiency and freedom. With a flat tax, everything you add to it--basic deductions, etc.-- decreases the efficiency, and makes it "unfair"--in that some people can't afford the charity deduction, or they can't use the education deduction, whatever. The actual tax would be "fair" as in universal and equal, but the addition of deductions would introduce inequality--again--and people would begin to campaign for more deductions, or credits--and you're back where we are now, after a while. A consumption tax, on the other hand, is maximally efficient--it would happen through the systems automatically in place already (cash registers, monthly bills, etc) and it allows the maximum freedom to the individual, and maximum empowerment for individuals. Since everyone keeps EVERYTHING they make, their "success" or "failure" can no longer be pointed at somebody or something else--like the government. Each individual and family would be as empowered as possible, financially--they would have full control not only over their income, but over their taxes. If it were implemented within the current system, then the current social programs would still be paying their portion of basic necessities, as people accumulated savings, became debt free, and began to prosper, and eventually, those people would be prosperous enough to not be using those programs any longer. As more people got off social programs like food stamps, the cost of those programs on the government would fall, and the programs would shrink naturally over time. I don't consider a consumption tax to be "social engineering", as the government wouldn't be telling anyone how to manage their money or their consumption. People would be totally free to spend as they wish, always. Where's the social engineering in that? You might make a slim case, from somewhere that this would "force" people to be frugal...but it doesn't that is still a personal choice.

Yes, that and just not bothering to learn the "whole story"...everyone thought "no tax cut" means no higher taxes on a paycheck and with the yelling of "tax the rich" in our faces to distract them and think.."great, I'll vote for him!". But no one bothers to go the next step and find out what is being raised to get more tax revenue...making your more of your income taxable! People are going to be very shocked...not sure if it is April 2013 or 2014..but it is coming! And then along with the Obamacare "penalty" on 1040's, people are going to finally start waking up. They are predicting a huge mortgage crises again...end of next year to 2014..bigger than the last one!

You reap what you sow. Spiritual laws cannot be ignored forever.

And we have 'asked' them to do this by demanding they care for us. We've brought this on our own greedy little selves. By not forbidding them access to our livlihoods, we have sold them our lives with each new entitlement promised.

The "small businesses" employee many more Americans than do the Large corps.

That is the one thing that has amazed me through all of this; that the poor and middle class think that government is protecting them from the evil rich. What a laugh, the government FEEDS off the very rich. It is the very rich who give government the bulk of their power over us.

It is your post and one about fairness. If, "There is no guarantee of 'fairness' in life." was it not foolish to posit the question in the first place You complain that the rich are not being treated fairly then state that it is acceptable that there is no fairness, strange indeed all the best, urban

The word of God says the poor will always be with you, and that it was the duty of those who HAD, to care for those who did not have. They did this by leaving their fields partially harvested and giving alms. And the poor where NOT handed bread, they had to work for it in the gleaning of the rich man's fields, and they were not given the best of everything, they sat in the streets begging. The Israelites were told to not forget their charitable acts, he did not tell them to pay their taxes so the king could be charitable for them, releasing them from their PERSONAL responsibility to the poor. God warned the Israelites when they demanded a king as other nations had, that they would rue the day they asked for a King to rule over them...because kings are men and will not always rule with wisdom and would take power where they could. And when he commanded them to give the king his due, it was to remind them that the king now OWNED them, and they had given themselves to the king willingly as his subjects. They had NO SAY in what the king spent his riches on. There is no guarantee of 'fairness' in life. And God's remedy for the unfairness was to commend INDIVIDUALS to love others as they love themselves, not to shirk their duty to their fellow man off on the government.

The term 'fair share' is NOT MINE, it is that of the man asking for the rich to pay an even larger share than they already do.

Why do you think the 'pay their fair share' slogan/talking point has been so successful? And I'm with you...rich is nice. And so is being able to dream about starting my own business and helping the unfortunate.

Some stats to think upon: Number of billionaires in USA 403 Their avg. annual income $106 Million Tax revenue at 70% $30 Billion Obama's 2011 budget deficit $1.27 Trillion Percentage of deficit paid by Millionaire's tax 2%

The 21st century has seen the birth of the online bandwagon - people without a care in the world attaching themselves to the cause of the week. Just because something appears on Twitter, it does not mean that it actually true. At this moment in the UK, there is pressure for the powers that be to implement more control and restraints on the press - Activists are calling for a law to be passed. There is an online petition in support of this... 16000 people have signed, Over 65 million people live in the UK. That means around 65 million people do not care. The idiots that follow have created a Twitter trend supporting this online petition. Just another thing for the fools to follow.

I understand the need for taxes too, but I don't think that governments should pass out goodies like it's Halloween. If a man does not trust himself to provide for himself, if he trusts another to do for him, he has sold himself to that man. And men of government can be just as greedy as anyone else, thinking only of their own desires. Hand more power to them and they will demand even more power. Men who seek to be your master in a few things, will convince you that they are to be trusted as your master in ALL things.