[FoRK] Weird... interesting.
J. Andrew Rogers
andrew at ceruleansystems.com
Tue Apr 14 13:34:07 PDT 2009
On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> So, a flat tax fails the 'fairness test' by the most basic principle
> of 'paying your fair share for services you consume and benefit you
> derive from those services'. Fat tails and all that... comments?
Without arguing for a flat income tax or anything like that, it raises
a number of questions:
First, why should a person be taxed disproportionately for benefit
rather than consumption? Should gas taxes be higher for people who
drive a Prius because they are receiving more benefit from a liter of
gas than someone who drives a Hummer? There is also the matter of
incentives. I would think we would want to encourage people to
maximize the benefit generated from a given unit of taxation and
consumption, not penalize those that are efficient.
Second, what is a flat tax if not an excellent proxy for capturing a
percentage of the real benefit a person receives from the economy?
People making more money would be paying proportionally more taxes.
And while it is not perfect, it certainly seems like a more rigorous
metric of benefit than capricious political hand-waving that is more
likely to answer to special interests than any semblance of reality.
Third, it is not obvious that wealthy people receive disproportionate
benefit from the taxes they pay, and I doubt any credible intuitive
argument could be made one way or the other. This is the kind of thing
that would require an army of economists years of effort to even
approach, and the real answer probably varies considerably by locale.
Lastly, I think it is important to distinguish between "available
benefit" and "realized benefit". If you give everyone a million
dollars, and half waste it on hookers and blow while the other half
invest in a successful business, does the asymmetric outcome several
years down the road really reflect an asymmetric distribution of
benefits in a society? This is a tacit assumption in your rationale,
but I think it is tenuous at best. It sounds more like a way to
justify taking money from people with money that can be taken for
taxes, without actually stating it that way. In other words, a
politically comfortable and expedient fiction because the practical
argument is at odds with the moral argument.
Given that we as a society have determined that these benefits are a
Social Good(tm) that are worth raising taxes to provide, it is a bit
perverse that instead of incentivizing people to take maximum
advantage of those available benefits we disincentivize those that
realize the available benefits.
I think the primary argument for flat tax models is that they go a
long way toward eliminating many kinds of systemic perverse
incentives, and there are a number of ways you can lash those models
up to make them satisfactorily progressive (fixed exemptions, minimum
guaranteed income, etc). I think the biggest (political) negative is
that it cannot easily be used by the fickle mob to punish people they
don't like, which makes it a non-starter.
J. Andrew Rogers
More information about the FoRK