• Want to take part in this year's BoS Trials event for Maths and/or Business Studies?
    Click here for details and register now!
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page

Flat Tax Rate. (4 Viewers)

Do you support a Flat tax rate?

  • No

    Votes: 29 70.7%
  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.3%
  • Yes - With some concessions.

    Votes: 9 22.0%

  • Total voters
    41

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
mr_shittles said:
I didn't bring that point up in refernece to "flat tax." I brought it up because someone falsely claimed that taxing all goods at the same rate is efficient.
That was the literal meaning of the claim, but there are certain implied assumptions (like everyone is acting in their own best interests) which pretty much covers your objection anyway. I notice you ignored my counter argument to your point completely (again) and regardless your point has no relevance in the comparison of progressive and proportional tax systems, which is what the thread is about anyway.


Why would u, it makes the ppl on low incomes have a high percentage of their income taken in tax, and the rich to have minimal tax in relation to their income
:(
Flat tax aka proportional refers to a percentage taken from income. There is no difference in the percentage between the poor and the rich.
 

Korn

King of the Universe
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Messages
3,406
Location
The Hills
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Rorix said:
That was the literal meaning of the claim, but there are certain implied assumptions (like everyone is acting in their own best interests) which pretty much covers your objection anyway. I notice you ignored my counter argument to your point completely (again) and regardless your point has no relevance in the comparison of progressive and proportional tax systems, which is what the thread is about anyway.




:(
Flat tax aka proportional refers to a percentage taken from income. There is no difference in the percentage between the poor and the rich.
Oh, well in that case i dont really see a problem in it
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Unsure, but leaning more to yes than no, so the third option.
 

heybraham

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
288
Location
google earth
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
have you not realised that every measure to 'improve the economy' or 'improve the standard of living' has only made the rich richer and the poor poorer. everything costs something. it's the 'opportunity cost' (no don't go into a economics debate, i don't study eco but i have commonsense), the reason why western society is so rich is because they exploit and control poorer countries. hence this is what the extremists muslims are protesting against.

to employ such regressive tax rates would destroy the australian values of egalitarian society, this isn't a first however, just look at the changes to HECS. howard is destroying equal opportunity, taking it down brick by brick for the sake of 'boosting the economy' (which equate to votes).
 
Last edited:

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
please understand the idea would be to set up the poor so that they are paying NO TAX, in an attempt to get them into the work force... instead of taxing the fuck out of them as it is.

while alot of economic measures have widened the gap between the rich and the poor, it's a fallacy to say that they have made the 'poor poorer' (unless of course we're talking in relative terms). I think it's wrong to say all economic measures do this.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
The problem is that moves such as these or the simplification of the tax/welfare system by the Australian could all be inflationary.

More money = more spending.

This is particularly dangerous in the case of the Australian's suggestion as people would just think they had more money but not actually have anymore.....
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
heybraham said:
have you not realised that every measure to 'improve the economy' or 'improve the standard of living' has only made the rich richer and the poor poorer. everything costs something. it's the 'opportunity cost' (no don't go into a economics debate, i don't study eco but i have commonsense), the reason why western society is so rich is because they exploit and control poorer countries. hence this is what the extremists muslims are protesting against.

to employ such regressive tax rates would destroy the australian values of egalitarian society, this isn't a first however, just look at the changes to HECS. howard is destroying equal opportunity, taking it down brick by brick for the sake of 'boosting the economy' (which equate to votes).
Destroying equality by allowing everybody to defer their HECS? By charging it dependent upon the course you do not by how much your parents earn (who says they will support you anyway, if I was in the USA I would be struggling because my dad doesn't support me much at all relative to his income)?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Top