1/16    Related tax thread. I bought this up before and I couldn't find a
        single convincing argument against it.  Everybody pays a base tax
        for all gov't projects and services.  Those who use that particular
        gov't service should pay more for the simple reason that they use it.
        E.g., everybody pays some base amt to build a bridge.  But the
        people who drive across it pays more in the form of a toll.  Same
        for education.  Everybody pays for public education.  But people
        with a lot of kids in public schools should pay more.  You get the
        idea.  I think this "pay more tax the more gov't service" you use
        is the only way to get the state and federal deficits under control.
        \_ this is one of the stupidest things I've seen on the MOTD.  -tom
        \_ The problem with "pay-more-use-more" is that it may be in the
           state's best interests for people to use services even if they can't
           afford to pay more.  What if people 'oops' and have another kid but
           can't afford to send him/her to school?  What about an indigent
           drunk bum?  They use tons of services and theres no way they can pay
           \_ There is a mechanism for this already, it's called garnishing
              wages.  Yes, sometimes someone would die or something or otherwise
              be unable to pay, which will result in some deficit.  However, I
              have this impression the resulting deficit will be far, far more
              manageable than now.
              \_ Saying you'll garnish their wages is no different from plain
                 old regular income tax.  If you just blindly increase their
                 tax, what happens if they can't afford rent or food?  It seems
                 like you're just advocating making the tax code way more
                 complicated in way that will make taxes over all much more
                 regressive.
           \_ the base tax that everybody pays should be enough to cover
              these things. I'm not suggesting that the homeless pay for their
              homeless shelter. That's stupid and unreasonable.
        \_ Schools are a good counterexample.  Families have children typically
           long before their earnings peak, yet educated children will have a
           better chance of higher earnings and greater contribution to society.
           Hence it makes sense to give young families help to grow with help,
           so they can then help others later.
           That being said, the school systems in many places suck now, so it's
           not such a good example any more.
        \_ what you are suggesting isa regressive tax.  The poor end up paying
           a much higher percentage of their income to pay the taxes.  And it
           doesn't take into account that the wealthy get a lot of advantages
           out of having functional government services.  For instance our
           infrastructure and education system have MADE the country one
           where wealth is so attainable.  Make those paid by regressive
           taxes and it won't be the case.  Do you really want to live in
           a third world country?
           \_ I think the issue is this 'base amt' that I'm suggesting. If
              this base amt is enough to pay for 2 kids in public school, and
              you pay more if you have more than 2 kids, why would that
              destabilize society?  It would make people think twice about
              having 5 kids.
              \_ You are still making a regressive tax.  And in this case
                 the poor are maying the same amount (or more) for the
                 same services, services that end up improving the life of
                 the rich more.  Think about how hard it would be to
                 have the industrial base the us has if we didn't have
                 say, roads.
              \_ China had the same thing. The US called it a violation of
                 human rights.
        \_ progressive tax >> flat tax >> regressive tax
           As much as conservatives like the principle of an overall flat
           tax or regressive system, I believe the majority support an
           overall progressive tax system -- just not as progressive as the
           liberals would like it.  Your proposal is for a regressive tax
           system:  a fair sounding idea, but not humane in practice.  What
           do I mean by humane?  People (conservatives and liberals) believe
           if you're rich, you should pay more than the poor person.  Humane
           people want to provide a safety net for the poor or those who
           run into unexpected circumstances -- thus, the rich, having the
           extra buffer to pay, do pay.
        \_ To OP: If I want to beat you up and take your stuff because I
           think you're a dumbass, should you pay more because you're
           using the protection provided by the police?  :)
           Seriously, though, I think a flaw in your proposal is that many
           things are difficult to charge for fairly.  For example, there
           is a class of goods often referred to as "public goods" in
           economics which benefit everyone beyond just the user.  Some
           classic example beyond police protection and the military are
           roads, schools, enforcing environmental regulations, and
           emergency services.  I don't think your system would work for
           many public goods.
           \_ You're ascribing a level of rationality to the libertarian motd
              that simply does not exist.  They figure they'll protect
              themselves from criminals with their gun collection, fight off
              invaders with the local militia, and that all environmental
              concernes are part of a vast liberal conspiracy to undermine the
              free market.  Roads? who needs 'em?
              I'll just drive an SUV over the decaying dirt strips that used to\
              be roads.  Schools?  Fuck 'em.  I learned PERL from a book, not
              a school, and look what a useful member of society I am!
                \_ You are ignoring where a majority of Federal expenditures
                   go - Medicaid and Social Security.  These are
                   unconstitutional bureaucratic monstrosities that
                   misallocate funds and whose industries basically extort
                   rent from the economy.  This nation survived quite well
                   for 150 years without an income tax and socialized
                   medicine and retirement.  Our system has devolved
                   into capitalism for the rich and socialism for the poor.
                   Its obvious we are failing the poor.
                   \_ Do you have any idea what the poverty rate was
                      amongst the ederly before Social Security? Social
                      Security is the most successful povertly elimination
                      program ever invented. And no way is the "majority"
                      of federal expenditure on Medicaid and Social Security.
                      A plurality perhaps, not a majority.