Percentage taxes are already unfair
Political ·Saturday April 4, 2009 @ 01:30 EDT (link)
So-called "progressive" taxes (higher percentage rates for higher incomes, not just a larger total) are immoral and unfair: why should those that make more be taxed at a higher rate? But (again, so-called—not my labels, the liberals won this naming round) "regressive" taxation (taxing everybody at the same rate) are also immoral and unfair. The argument usually goes that if you make more, then you're using more government services, so you should pay more (as a sum), but that really doesn't hold much water. Many things are already pay for play (also known as "pay as you go"): for example, people that don't drive don't (directly) pay gas taxes. But there are still plenty of things that people are taxed for yet do not use (schools for the childfree, unemployment or welfare for the continuously employed, etc.). I doubt very much that the government services people use are proportional to their income.
The libertarian ideal is "pay as you go"; but a fairer way than now would be to take the cost of government and government services, divide it among all adults, and assess them an equal portion. Presumably this would be fairly high, probably in the tens of thousands, due to the current mulcting of the "evil" rich. For those that did not pay, it would be counted as a debt like any other, subject to garnishment etc. If that were done, several good things would come out of it. Politicians would find incentive to reduce cost of government (and as a side benefit, most likely make it smaller). Expenditures would directly relate to every person's bottom line (versus selling the country to China), and politicians would also have incentive to start cutting back or making programs opt-in.
