TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Fairer form of taxes for all citizens

Taxes to be fair, should be based on percentages of money earned, so that no group in society can claim they are being victimized by it e.g. 10%, so that someone earning a £100, would pay £10 and someone earning a £1,000, would pay a £100.

There would be no allowances for anyone because everybody needs to pay out something for their work, whether it is transport, food, clothing or tools and this includes employees, bosses (machinery/ canteen/ haulage etc) and the self employed.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 17 2012: The tax system itself (minus tax loopholes and corporate lobbying for subsidies) are fair in most cases.
    The only real issues are that:
    1) The taxes are spent improperly
    2) Certain high earners (the ones who are consistently heard of in the media) complain about having to pay *any* tax.

    A equal tax rate for all wouldn't work unless you were willing to completely overhaul society and reduce government, regulation and services; Too much money would be lost and it still wouldn't be fair because the general staple costs of living are much the same for all (we all pay the same for bread, petrol etc etc) so the poorest would still be hit hardest by that idea.
    The only reasonable way that I can think of is to increase the number of tax brackets into higher incomes, each new higher category paying a higher percentage; and to simply ignore the billionaires who complain about paying it.
    Studies have shown that reducing tax rates in higher earners does not increase the number of jobs or investment into the country and such people still continue to complain even when their demands are met, so why bother.
    • Feb 19 2012: I agree with this - there is or should be an implicit social contract which recognises that high earners need society, and vice versa (as a courtesy mainly - I've yet to be convinced that wealthy people contribute anything real at all to society - its usually the reverse in that they generate inefficiency in resource use) Taxes should peak at 50% when a person earns twice the mean, (ie twice the man) and fall to zero where a person is capable of providing subsistence for two people (ie we need an-other) .

      Why not a simple sliding scale between these two limits?
    • Feb 20 2012: Xavier,

      "The tax system itself is fair in most cases"

      How? Or should I say - by what criteria is the tax system 'fair'? Almost half of America does not pay any income tax, which is the tax system I assume you are referring to. How is that 'fair'? Wealthy Americans are able to manipulate their assets to pay the lowest possible tax rate. How is that 'fair'?

      Moreover, what makes it 'fair' that the federal government taxes income at all? And if it is fair that they do so, are we certain it is the most fair or most effective form of taxation?

      And another point - the current tax system brings in roughly $1.4 trillion less than we spend a year. That is not fair. Granted, you say the taxes are not spent fairly (that is an entirely different debate), but you seem hesitant to bring spending down to these 'fair' revenue levels.

      "Ignore the billionaires complaining about it"

      The moral superiority of Socialism. You know, if it weren't for 'billionaires', you might actually have to get creative when discussing public policy.

      If you are interested in the actual effects of stifling taxation (income and other forms), look into the capital flight suffered by NYC and New York State. The problem with making a very few select people responsible for the bulk of the public treasury is that these people will either demand special privileges or will just leave.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.