ANSWERS: 6
  • am going to have to tax your answer sorry
  • Bad idea. Unless it was NO tax, you'd really hurt some people. People who make less than 20k a year cannot afford the same taxes as those who make over 100k a year. And to tax the 100k a year for only as much as the 20k a year would be taxed isn't fair, percentage wise, to the 20k a year.
  • It is seems such a simple idea but leads to great complications. If you go with a set value tax (a poll tax for example) then the proportion being paid by lower income households is far greater than high income. i.e. a £1000 tax is nothing to someone in the £100, 000 salary band but a heck of a lot to someone earning £10, 000. 1% compared against 10%. Or you could try a set 20%. But again the problem is that a low income house hold would then have residuals of only £8, 000 and the high income residual would be £80, 000. Compound this with the problem that the total tax income would not be high enough to support government spending and once again there are severe problems. Scenario 2 is alot less obvious than the first one and open to far more debate. And I have massively simplified issues and not looked at population splits etc. Historically simpler tax systems have failed as people have seen them as unfair. The reverse is that when you complicate the system to address the fairness issue you need more of the tax gathered to administer the tax system. A complex tax system eats up so much of the revenue it is simply inefficient and people question why their taxes are being spent on tax gathering and not public services. So it is a very difficult balancing act.
  • Sure if adjusted proportionally to a persons income.
  • Just an opinion here but I do think taxes are very complicated (when you get into the tough stuff) and that should be easier. The issue I think there would be with a flat tax (one mariganl rate for all) is that they would have to bring the high rate people down and the low rate people up to meet in the middle. Hence your low income folks would be paying more than they are now which for some sounds ok I suspect. But then think of this, it would force them to rely more on tax paid for services hence reburdening an already overburdened system and so then the rate would have to go up again to replenish the system....see the cycle.
  • Fine, if we also had equal income for all. Fair is fair.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy