Quote:
Originally posted by chr|s sedition
In theory, is the flat tax fair in this example? I say yes. Is it fair in reality? I say no. The reason why is that the factor of living expenses is not also assesed on a flat-fee in propotion to income. To make a flat-tax fair, it would seem that things like rent, food, etc shoud also be flat-fee's based on a proprtion of income. To do so otherwise, would be to make the shackles of poverty that much harder to overcome. |
Plus, as one person begins to accumulate wealth, they inevitably end up controlling many of the basic needs of human existence: food, shelter, clothing. This allows them to maintain the gap between themselves and those at the poverty line indefinitely, ala the plight of WV coal miners expressed in "Sixteen Tons".
Laissez Faire economics has been tested in this country, and it resulted in the vast majority of wealth ending up in the hands of a (lucky/well connected/hardworking/intellligent) few. And they could have passed it on to their progeny to maintain a strangehold on wealth indefinitely if the laws weren't changed to promote redistribution of wealth.
I believe the only way to maintain Laissez Faire economics would be to make everyone equal from birth, you would be raised to adulthood using a pool of common funds which is maintained by the wealth people have amassed when they die (no more passing it on to your progeny), when you turned 18 you would be given a chunk of money from this common pool and told to go out and seek your fortune. Of course, this would probably require putting all children in the control of the state from birth, and that might piss some bleeding hearts off who want to love and raise their children...meh...