I was initially attracted by the idea of wealth tax and I think it still has it's application. George Bernard Shaw puts up some pretty strong arguments against, basically the means of production/tools are accumulated wealth (or capital) and if you taxed them, where does the money come from. I
Much simpler to just take ownership and use them for useful social production.!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('3aidlillahi', 'D')oesn't make my head explode. It's pretty basic. Even if we had a flat tax, the richest 1% would still pay a massive amount in taxes compared to the rest. The richest 10% make nearly half of the income. They make even more when you factor in things like capital gains. Thus, that they pay 70% of the income taxes is not that outrageous.
Not to mention, there are taxes that affect the lower and middle classes more so than upper classes such as cigarette and gasoline taxes. If you spend $100 on gasoline taxes making $20,000 a year, it's a much greater burden on you than if you spend $200 on gasoline taxes (driving a Lexus) making $200,000 a year.
Alex, are you one of the top income earners?
Anyway, this is why we should go to a Shari'ah income tax system. No income tax. Only a tax on your assets of 2.5%, across the board. Any income taxes are considered
bid'ah and thus illegal - grounds for removing the government.
You can make the case for many ways of taxation. There is a lot of sense in taxing accumulated wealth rather than income. Would that encourage high wage owners to mostly spend their incomes on non-durable goods and services (good food, wine, "massages" etc ?). Sounds interesting! .