Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Negative Income Tax: would you support it? (Read 8191 times)
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #30 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 5:50pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 2:25pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2017 at 9:37pm:
It sounds to me like you are combining two different things at once - a change to the 'progressiveness' of the tax system and a change to how it is implemented.

Good way to confuse people and make them hostile to your change for one reason or another.


The question is: "is it a good policy?" Based on my current understanding of it, I believe it is.

I think you'll find that many people would support a flat tax. The progressive tax system is completely unfair; it punishes people for earning more money.


Tax has never been about fairness or punishment. There is no fair way to take people's money off them. People only resort to the fairness argument when they have nothing else to stand on.


We all agree that the Government needs to collect income taxes, so it's not an issue of saying 'all tax is unfair', ergo this tax policy is unfair. A flat tax is FAIRER because it doesn't discriminate against people just because they earn more (or less).
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #31 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm
 
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #32 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #33 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #34 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #35 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:06pm
 
Caesar's Ghost, is that what U R proposing for the republic ?

It is little different from the current welfare system.

There is a bit of the old Socialist redistribute income floating around in there.

Why not ban cap gains and neg gearing while U R at it for a total Socialist collapse of Australia ? This is what Labor already has in mind to "solve" the housing crisis.

Don't worry about the panic and recession and loss of the AAA credit rating and foreign govt debt passing up thru the stratosphere.

Gosh, after the housing market collapses the Chinese buyers will buy up whole streets and blocks of cheap houses.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6682
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #36 - Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:28pm
 
I'd be far more interested in substantial reductions in corporate tax. The real killer of living standards.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #37 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 1:47pm
 
juliar wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:06pm:
Caesar's Ghost, is that what U R proposing for the republic ?

It is little different from the current welfare system.

There is a bit of the old Socialist redistribute income floating around in there.

Why not ban cap gains and neg gearing while U R at it for a total Socialist collapse of Australia ? This is what Labor already has in mind to "solve" the housing crisis.

Don't worry about the panic and recession and loss of the AAA credit rating and foreign govt debt passing up thru the stratosphere.

Gosh, after the housing market collapses the Chinese buyers will buy up whole streets and blocks of cheap houses.


The Negative Income Tax is unique in that both Libertarians and Socialists can agree with it. Ultimately, we all agree that some form of income redistribution is necessary to provide for a Social Safety Network. I think the NIT is one way that can guarantee a minimum basic income without the need for a person to get through the whole process of Centrelink. In the event that a NIT fails or is not sustainable, then a guaranteed minimum income payment could be provided instead.

Don't forget that these changes are made with the expectation that the minimum wage would either be abolished completely or significantly reduced.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #38 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 1:48pm
 
crocodile wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 11:28pm:
I'd be far more interested in substantial reductions in corporate tax. The real killer of living standards.


A NIT policy would also be accompanied by a reduction of the corporation tax rate to 20%. There is even an argument to reduce the rate for business with a turnover of $1 million or less; such rate being reduce to 10% or less.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #39 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #40 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 8:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"


Effendi, under this tax plan, everyone pays less tax; ergo, every has more disposable income. I know that socialists like you don't consider this to be a benefit; but I do.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #41 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 10:10pm
 
Auggie wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 8:24pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"


Effendi, under this tax plan, everyone pays less tax; ergo, every has more disposable income. I know that socialists like you don't consider this to be a benefit; but I do.


What about the people who benefited from that tax revenue? You really haven't thought this through, have you?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #42 - Apr 21st, 2017 at 11:54pm
 
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 10:10pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 8:24pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2017 at 7:08pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:03pm:
freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2017 at 6:01pm:
It has nothing to do with fairness. One system is not more or less fair than another. Fairness is the argument of last resort. Even your system is progressive in an absolute sense. People on a certain wage pay no tax at all. Some even get negative tax.


Even if you argue that no tax is fair, then look at the outcome: all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan.


Crap.


Crap? Really? How so?


By virtue of being complete BS. "all segments of the society benefit from this tax plan"


Effendi, under this tax plan, everyone pays less tax; ergo, every has more disposable income. I know that socialists like you don't consider this to be a benefit; but I do.


What about the people who benefited from that tax revenue? You really haven't thought this through, have you?


They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax. Besides, the NIT provides a guaranteed minimum income for all citizens; they don't have to go through the soul-destroying process of Centrelink to get their payment; plus there are no conditions to receiving such a payment. We would abolish Centrelink completely, and leave other payments, such disability to the States/local councils.

Second, the NIT is based on a libertarian principal. Surely, you would agree, as a anti-establismentarian that Government exists to be relevant and to accumulate more and more power? What's the solution presented by all parties? To pass more laws, and to give government more power. What does this result in? More bureaucrats, more red-tape, more rules that the government requires of citizens to follow, resulting in a soft tyranny of rule-making.

The government just needs to stay out and stop making so many laws and regulations. I believe in small government and personal liberty and choice. Also, the government sucks at pretty much everything, except collecting taxes and protecting people from harm.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #43 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:17am
 
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


You really haven't thought this through, have you? Does this scheme simply invent bucketloads of money so everyone is better off? Plenty of people on welfare pay zero tax already. Your scheme is a redistribution of wealth on a massive scale and it is astonishing that you actually think there would be no losers.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Negative Income Tax: would you support it?
Reply #44 - Apr 22nd, 2017 at 9:41am
 
Quote:
They will be better off because they'll pay either no or less tax.


So now the government can not pay their bills and the deficit goes through the roof ?



The minimum amount $8000 is less than the full amount of Newstart Allowance of approx. $12k per annum.

From the original proposition you really think that people who are $4,000 worse off are not worse off now ?

How about pensioners ? same boat now that you have put them on $8,000 are they not worse off by more, they would lose $20K and get $8K ?

In reality any change would have to at least balance with the current numbers. All this does is redistributes the tax burden making it fairer for some at the expense of others.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print