If you want a guarantee-by a toasterI'd say one of two things. Either a federal sales tax, or a semi-progressive income tax, where everyone is taxed a flat rate on any earnings above a certain threshold meant to guarantee a minimum standard of living.
Bravo!fairness has no meaning since it is twisted beyond all recognition
the most fair tax is a use tax. You pay for what you use.
the second fairest tax is a consumption tax-everyone has to pay it and the more you engage in transactions, the more you pay. a gasoline tax is a form of that as is a sales tax
the next fairest tax is a flat tax--true, many people end up paying more than they use just as many pay for far less than they use but the advantage of this tax is that politicians cannot pander to non tax payers or low bracket tax payers with promises of more handouts paid for by those in higher brackets
a progressive income tax is the worst and least fair because those who pay the most taxes are held hostage by the majority of voters who can continue to vote up the taxes on teh top bracket in order to loot their wealth
under a progressive tax, the state of having to pay far more than what you use is accentuated.
morally, no one should have to be forced to care for someone unless the former is responsible for the plight of the latter. to claim that it is fair to make someone shoulder the responsibility of another is clearly specious
Ask me in a way that doesn't show what an obviously biased partisan hack you are and I may.Since you identified the most unfair of the unfair tax schemes possible as being most fair in your opinion, perhaps you can illuminate why you hold this false position?
hmm. okay.Ask me in a way that doesn't show what an obviously biased partisan hack you are and I may.
While this is a more articulate way of asking, it is articulate partisan hackery. Better luck next time.hmm. okay.
given that wealth is generated via mutually beneficial trade in which resources are moved to higher uses and in which both sides prefer that which they are left with after the trade; someone who is generating a higher income is by definition already donating more in terms of helping his fellow citizens. why would you wish to deliberately design a tax system built around punishing and disincentiving that, especially when such a model is guaranteed to reduce social cohesion and increase conflict via class struggle between the payers and the moochers?