View Single Post
Unread 11 Nov 2005, 20:24   #29
acropolis
Vermin Supreme
 
acropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,280
acropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better placeacropolis single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: So if you had to choose...

Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
I've not seen the proposals but I am fairly sure that there would be a certain point where tax woud begin. So people who earn (lets say) £15,000 or less wouldn't pay any income tax, while those who earn over that amount would pay the same level of tax per pound [edit]after[/edit] the initial £15,000.
that's a perfectly good system and i have no problem with it.

i guess my real problem is that when people talk about changing a tax system, the only two relevant questions are:
1. Who do you want to raise taxes on?
and
2. Who do you want to lower taxes on?

and the phrase 'flat tax' manages to talk about radically altering the tax system without answering any relevant question about what the changes would actually mean. using a non-ideal 'flat tax' as you describe, you could: raise taxes on the poor, lower them on the rich. raise taxes on the rich, lower them on the poor. or: raise taxes on the middle class, and lower them on the rich and the poor.

i get the impression nod means lower on the rich, higher on the rest.
acropolis is offline   Reply With Quote