How much of a drag

[EternalOptimist]

How much of a drag on a country is a complicated tax regime ?

The negatives are a vast bureaucracy , an army of accountants, constant disruption to business

The positives would be, social justice, fine tuning, political expediency



I think a flat rate would be better. what do youse think ?

[SpontaneousOrder]

How much of a drag on a country is a complicated tax regime ?

The negatives are a vast bureaucracy , an army of accountants, constant disruption to business

The positives would be, social justice, fine tuning, political expediency



I think a flat rate would be better. what do youse think ?

I think the word 'social' in social justice is redundant. When people use it it makes me think they have something else in mind other than justice.

[EternalOptimist]

I think the word 'social' in social justice is redundant. When people use it it makes me think they have something else in mind other than justice.

yes, but it wasn't the SJW who said it, it was me.
and I am aware, concerned but not a SJW


so try again

[SpontaneousOrder]

And flat rate would be pretty much as low as you can get, and zero tax would result in best standard of living for both rich & poor, IMO. So low as you can get is closest to zero - so I also think flat rate would be best.

[EternalOptimist]

And flat rate would be pretty much as low as you can get, and zero tax would result in best standard of living for both rich & poor, IMO. So low as you can get is closest to zero - so I also think flat rate would be best.

Yes, I sort of agree. but then you lose loads of jobs
in the tax office, accountants etc

so my question is one of overall benefit

[SpontaneousOrder]

yes, but it wasn't the SJW who said it, it was me.
and I am aware, concerned but not a SJW


so try again

I wasn't accusing you. Just implying that the most just kind of justice wouldn't need to be called 'social' justice. I think there will always be a place for charity - and real justice dictates that charity is recognised as charity, and not a faux 'social' justice.

I think that state of affairs would be better for both the givers & receivers of charity.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yes, I sort of agree. but then you lose loads of jobs
in the tax office, accountants etc

so my question is one of overall benefit

Balls... I edited my post instead of quoting it. Here's it roughly again...


Those are jobs that are net consumers of wealth, so they aren't jobs worth existing.

I.e. if a tax man earned 25k a year doing the job of impoverishing us (or, for the sake of argument, was net wealth production neutral), we would be better off paying him 25k a year to pick litter.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Balls... I edited my post instead of quoting it. Here's it roughly again...


Those are jobs that are net consumers of wealth, so they aren't jobs worth existing.

I.e. if a tax man earned 25k a year doing the job of impoverishing us (or, for the sake of argument, was net wealth production neutral), we would be better off paying him 25k a year to pick litter.

Does that make sense? because I've always been confused about the debate on this point. The whole broken window fallacy & Bastiat's "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" thing. **edit** not that I read that in french. I can't.