The right, the left, and the middle on taxation

from JoeUser Forums

Imagine a household of three.

Imagine a household of three 20-something year olds sharing a flat.

Imagine the flat has three rooms, a big one, a small one, and a mid-sized one. (The big one has also the nicest view.)

Imagine the three 20-something year olds work:

Peter is a software developer and works full-time. He makes the most money of the three.

Paddy is a part-time call-center clerk and works 20 hours a week. He makes less money per hour than Peter.

Paul is an office drone of some kind and works full-time. He makes as much per hour as Paddy.

 

Imagine that Peter lives in the big room, Paddy in the small room, and Paul in the mid-sized room. Peter has also bought a TV for the living room (which all three use), a super expensive computer for his room, and a washing machine for the household (it's in the kitchen). Paul bought himself a less expensive computer for his room. Paddy cannot afford a computer and spends most of his time, including the time the others are at work, watching TV in the living room.

 

Imagine that, for some reason, a politican from another street decides how much of the rent they each must pay.

 

What would the politician decide?

 

If he was a modern liberal he would decide that each of the three will pay rent according to how much they make. This results in Peter paying 80% of the rent and Paul paying 20%. Paddy pays nothing.

If he was a classic liberal he would decide that each of three will pay rent according to their room size, independent of their income and other holdings. This results in Peter paying 50% of the rent, Paul paying 30%, and Paddy paying 20%.

If he was a conservative he would decide that each of the three will pay rent according to the value of their rooms including property in it. This results in Peter paying 60%, Paul paying 35%, and Paddy paying 5%.

If he was a socialist he would decide that Peter, Paul, and Paddy should make the same amount of money. He thus decides that Peter and Paul will henceforth pay a part of their income into a fund from which Paul and Paddy can withdraw money. This involves lots of forms and hearings. Afterwards, all three are paying the same share of the rent.

If he was a communist he would decide that Peter and Paul will only be allowed to make as much money as Paddy and that all three should pay the same amount of rent. Also, the two bigger rooms will be made smaller. This results in Paul working only 20 hours a week from now on and Peter working only 10 hours a week now. The policitian does not understand why the three of them together seem to have less money than before.

If he was an environmentalist he would decide that each will pay according to their negative influence on the flat. For example, Paul uses the bathroom longer in the mornings and Paddy has the most cloths to wash. Peter is very much in favour of this. But it results in Peter paying 90% because he has the most money, Paul paying 30% because of the bathroom issue, and Paddy paying 10% because he is poor. It is not clear to any of them why they suddenly pay more in total.

If he was a progressive centrist he would try to determine how much each should pay according to their respective incomes, room size, personal property, needs, and wants. The exact percentages would change every month depending on individual input. It involves A LOT of forms and hearings and living room meetings. The majority of tenants agree that it is fair. Peter usually pays around 80% of the rent.

 

If you were the politician, what would you decide?

 

 

 

democrat
12,103 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

If I was a politician, I would be impeached! ;)

Good comparison.  One may want to tweak the numbers, but the essence is right on.  I guess I am a classic liberal, because I am surely not one of the conservatives mentioned here.

And Paddy?  You are being assimilated by the Irish! :LOL:

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

Good comparison.  One may want to tweak the numbers, but the essence is right on.  I guess I am a classic liberal, because I am surely not one of the conservatives mentioned here.

End of quote

The numbers are fairly good. I am myself in a similar situation. Although in our case, one of us is on a student visa and hence is not allowed to work for more than 20 hours a week.

(My own living arrangements have nothing to do with why I wrote the post.)

 

And Paddy?  You are being assimilated by the Irish!

End of quote

My grand father was called "Paddy" in Germany because he lived in Ireland. I always thought "Peter" is a rich name, "Paul" a normal name, and "Paddy" a poor man's name. All three are really Irish. :-)

 

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Since they all decided to share an apartment together, why aren't they splitting the rent equally between them?  Unless they decided before hand that the person with the largest room with a view (?) pays the most.  But of course if there's only one bathroom, why should he pay the most, that wouldn't be fair to him.  If they had an agreement (written) of who pays what and if the least making money person, should take on any or some of the utilities and pay less rent...that would be up to them to have decided what each of them should pay.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Since they all decided to share an apartment together, why aren't they splitting the rent equally between them?

End of quote

As I said, "for some reason" they don't and a politician does.

Worry not about the reason, that is not the exercise. Assume the reason is a given and not to be doubted.

 

Unless they decided before hand that the person with the largest room with a view (?) pays the most. 

End of quote

It seems obvious to me that the one with the most money would live in the largest room and pay the most money.

Splitting the money equally between them would be unfair towards whoever is in the smallest room and might not be possible due to the different incomes.

 

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

If I was the politician, I'd say, "It's your appartment, work it out between yourselves".

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

You forgot the fascists... he would invade the adjoining apartment for living space. declare those inhabitants enemies of the state, and put those tenants to work in labor camps. Peter, Paul and Paddy could then join the party and not worry about finances, just the war effort. Now everyone is happy (except the other evicted tenants, of course).

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

Little-whip,

:-)

But I do wonder. Where are all the liberals? Here's a chance to show that the tax systems they propose are fairer and better than what conservatives propose. Where are they?

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

If I were part of the 3 roommates I would overthrow the politician, 3 against 1, Then replace the politician with someone who minds the business on a bigger level. We can manage ourselves at a local level. Beat it. If you add 2 more room mates then they can work for comcast and be on t.v. and live for free.:LOL:

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

Kelly,

You haven't told us who should pay how much and why. Replacing the politician seems like empty idealism to me. Perhaps you could also organise a protest.

 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I were part of the 3 roommates I would overthrow the politician, 3 against 1, Then replace the politician with someone who minds the business on a bigger level. We can manage ourselves at a local level. Beat it. If you add 2 more room mates then they can work for comcast and be on t.v. and live for free.
End of quote


Aha, this is what I keep saying. We the people have the power to get the Govt to do what we want yet we act like we are powerless against them.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top

You haven't told us who should pay how much and why. Replacing the politician seems like empty idealism to me. Perhaps you could also organise a protest.
End of quote

I guess my point would be that I don't want the politician making my decisons. I think who pays what should be between the roommates, not the politician.

I know you are using this as an analogy of a bigger picture, but I went to the literal. I want as little government participation in my daily life as possible. This is why I am not good at politics.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

I guess my point would be that I don't want the politician making my decisons. I think who pays what should be between the roommates, not the politician.

End of quote

But then you are making the same mistake the anarchists and "libertarians" are making. You remove the method to solve the problem, but you haven't solved the problem.

Following your advice our three players have not actually figured out how much each has to pay. And you just removed the method they used to come to terms peacefully.

You understood that it was an analogy, but you didn't understand that you didn't find an extreme case for which it didn't work but merely a way to shift the problem. Now our three players are further away from a solution than before.

Put the politician back and think about what the solution for the problem should be.

Aha, this is what I keep saying. We the people have the power to get the Govt to do what we want yet we act like we are powerless against them.

End of quote

We are apparently powerless. So far the only "solution" we have come up with is the idea that it is somebody else's (the politician's) fault. So we removed him and found ourselves with the same problem. Turns out the rent needs to be paid and the politician has nothing to do with that fact.

He's back now. What should he decide?

You can remove him from power again. But that still won't solve the problem. This is not about finding somebody to blame but about finding a fair and workable solution.

I want to know what YOU would do if you were in power. This is directed at liberals just as much as against those anti-government-influence types.

 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a politician that wants to get re-elected (and what politician don't?) I would do whatever I could to help Paul. Because, as they say, if you steal from Peter to pay Paul you can always depend on the support of Paul -and usually there's far more Pauls.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

But then you are making the same mistake the anarchists and "libertarians" are making. You remove the method to solve the problem, but you haven't solved the problem. Following your advice our three players have not actually figured out how much each has to pay. And you just removed the method they used to come to terms peacefully.
End of quote

Man, I don't like the sound of that. O.K. because if anything I am a person that likes to do something, not ignore it. Seeing that I don't have a soulution now, I would say from your descriptions that I am a classic liberal.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

As a politician that wants to get re-elected (and what politician don't?) I would do whatever I could to help Paul. Because, as they say, if you steal from Peter to pay Paul you can always depend on the support of Paul -and usually there's far more Pauls.

End of quote

Excellent! Now there is a working solution.

But what if you were the politician and were trying to change the world and make it better? What would you decide then? (You only have this one thing to decide!)

 

Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top

Man, I don't like the sound of that. O.K. because if anything I am a person that likes to do something, not ignore it. Seeing that I don't have a soulution now, I would say from your descriptions that I am a classic liberal.

End of quote

Very good.

This is, in fact, what I would support too.

Although in my own house we do it differently, as we don't have the politician and I came up with a solution that is entirely not fair towards me (I am in the smaller room and pay more than my flatmate) but workable.

 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, I'll try my hand at a 'liberal' solution.

End of quote

Very good liberal solution!

It's a bit extreme, but sounds very much like what could happen if liberals are unchecked.

I wonder why no real liberal (I know you are not) came up and defended a reasonable progressive solution yet.

Where is Col Gene? Where are all the Hillary and Obama supporters?

I'll get them here!

-> It's Bush's fault that Peter is richer than Paul!

So there.

 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the end it will never be fair for any of the 3 persons in the house since the politician, in the end, will do what he does for personal benefit and not for the benefit of the 3 people.

I would also pick "classic liberal" though LW's final result seems more likely in todays world.
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

In the end it will never be fair for any of the 3 persons in the house since the politician, in the end, will do what he does for personal benefit and not for the benefit of the 3 people.

End of quote


The politician will do whatever you want him to do, in this story.

But may I ask why so many people here advocate the "classic liberal" answer, while so few give the same answer when it comes to taxation?

This is a nice microcosm to try out tax systems. Where are all those opinions now?

 

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

mmm, the biggest problem i see here is that this analogy limmits the choices of consuption, i am for a tax system based on choice of consumption of luxuries. I invtened a tax system that I thought was revolutionary, but when I told it to people they informed me it is called fairtax.org

those who donate for the sake of the common good, while appreciated, are donating, as such they require no monetary compensation. The owners of the TV and the washer have a right to claim it as exclusively theirs, to fully donate it, or to claim it as theirs and allow others to use it for free, or for money. This should have nothing to do with how much they each pay for rent.

Each should be free to choose how big a room they get, and pay according to its size.

Alternatively, I am interested in the idea that a minimum rent allocation could be given to them, which they have to supplement to get anything beyond what it buys. (aka, 100$ towards rent, not paid to them, but to the owner. Which they could use to either share a room with someone, or supplement with their own money to get a private room, a bigger room shared or alone, or even an entire appartment or house to themselves).

To explain the rent supplmetation example... for a 1000$ house they will be asked to pay 1300$, then each one of them would receive 100$ credit towards the 1300$ goal. Meaning as a total they still only have to pay 1000$ out of pocket, but how much each pays is now a percentage on how much bigger then 100$ worth of room he gets.