Palikot - too liberal/modern for Poland?

Do you realise what kind of mess the public pension system is in? Do you realise that the system is totally, completely broken in Poland to the point where billions of zloty have just vanished into thin air?

It's not a problem for you, but for young people having to pay 1000zl a month in compulsory ZUS contributions for their small business, it is.

What you also don't realise is that the majority of Poles are thoroughly dissatisfied with the current system.

It's easy to be sanctimonious and smug when it is not oneself that is footing the bill for one's beliefs.

There is not a pension system in the world that doesn't need reformed its a big world wide story.

Cutting ZUS or providing a payment holiday is not the way to reform it especially as the flat tax rate cannot make up the difference or allow the tax break to be clawed back later. That would leave a huge hole in their budget.

Leaving first line pension provision in the hands of the individual is a risky proposition (for the individual and most probably the state) and the first step on a very slippery slope.

Edit


Indeed it is especially since the proposals of the vanity movement are not costed and as usual the state would end up subsidising the selfish.

yo told me that you didn't like it, are you embarrassed? After all you couldn't embraced gayness all the way with smile.

Yes, that's the political compass. And it provides a good mapping of political views that cannot be just classified as left or right. The economical left and right that Nolan chooses are exactly that, restricted to economy only. So less tax burden, less government, etc. would be considered rightist, whereas the opposite would be considered leftist. One could argue to rename them to "economical freedom" and "economical authoritarianism", but the meaning would remain the same. So many arguments about who is leftist, who is rightist, could be easily solved by just using that chart.

People would start realizing that Kaczynski is a leftist authoritarian, Palikot is a rightist libertarian and stop being confused.


I thought we were discussing economical values. How is that related?


How is it unfair? Every single PLN is taxed using the same tax rate, that's very fair. Richer still pay more taxes as their taxed income is higher. I'm still going to refer you to the Laffer curve. Seriously, do some reading.


Can you name one that does?


And there should be. The public pension should be reduced to minimum, just like in America. Over the years you are working, you should be saving for your own retirement. See 401(k), 403(b) and such. It will teach people responsibility and greatly reduce the government input. Which is what our social security system needs.


They are now discounted for the first 2 years of operation. That doesn't change the fact that ZUS premium should be a percentage of income, not a set value. Someone who has a loss still needs to pay this outrageous amount of money for a new palace for ZUS.


Start cutting down on government spending then

Indeed, I wonder why Barney thinks it's appropriate to tax small businesses 1000zl and counting before they even earn one zloty.

To build the 3 million flats :)

The man is a clown using all sorts of issues to disguise his rabid economics that will do nothing but effectively disenfranchise people. The self appointed elite lap that stuff up because they are so sophisticated leading the masses in the correct direction.


I have read extensively in this area what would you recommend?
Thinking that tax cuts for the rich generate tax revenue is infantile. The neo cons beloved laughable curve? Ah man you got to be kidding, the tax revenue generated by a classic flat tax falls as soon as it is introduced, it doesn't pick up later it just falls.

It's fundamentally unfair as tax should be based upon the principal of ability to pay, in Britain they had a flat tax called the poll tax that didn't end well. A millionaire paying the same rate as a cleaner is clearly unfair.


This is like discussing with a Tweenie, the same thing as yesterday......every political party presents its self as good for both business and worker, again its a cliche used by those devoid of ideas.

In short this vanity project wants to cut taxes for the rich, privatise social security yet subsidise the rich through government spending and removing ZUS oh and flash dildos and give condoms away.

Privatising Pensions is a mad policy the state ends up paying for the shortfall

You have explained the exact Tea party policies of this project but at least you knew it was a right wing thing.


Because I am in awe of those who selflessly went to Poland to help and clearly don't mind paying as much tax as possible in order to do so.

Yeah but I could flip that and say, what kind of left wing party would be anti abortion and gay marriage? It is unheard of.

The truth might well be [as somebody mentioned in a post] that left and right wing is either out of date and we need different categories, or the criteria that has to be met, for a party to be considered left or right, needs to be heavily tweaked.

Which is why describing PiS as Catholic-Socialist is the best possible label. And there - fundamentally - is nothing wrong with that, as it's very appealing to Polish voters. The problem is that the centrist electorate who might be persuaded by such a party wants nothing to do with the extreme positions that PiS have taken.


Erm, the poll tax wasn't a flat tax, it was a set amount. A flat tax takes the same percentage from everyone.


I wasn't talking about foreigners. I was talking about people in their mid to late 20's who face having to find a significant amount of money every month that their business is open regardless of income.

Delph a poll tax is a flat tax

No Barney, the poll tax was not a flat tax. Go and look up the definition of flat tax.

Everyone pays the same a flat tax the poll tax.

Edit


It's called flat because it produces a flat line graph when drawn, change any other variable and it still gives a flat line

A millionaire paying the same amount of tax as a cleaner is unfair. But a millionaire paying the same rate is very fair. As an example: if you make $1000, you pay $100. If you make $100.000, you pay $10.000. How is that unfair? Give X percent of whatever you make. It's as fair as it can be. It's unfair if the rate changes with your wealth. Look at the countries that introduced high rates for the wealthiest. How is it fair if the taxman takes 75% of your income?


Quite the opposite. We're giving you bullet points on what is being proposed and how is it good, yet you keep on banging your head against the wall yelling "cliche". He's not just saying "let's fix the economy" having nothing of value behind it.


People need to learn responsibility. Reduce tax burden and let people save their own money for their retirement.


Of course it's right wing. Economically right wing. Giving individual members of the society more rights and freedom to do what they please with their money.


PiS is economically left when it comes to taxes, government interventionism and so on. PiS is rightist when it comes to family values, sexuality, reproductive rights, religion. So in general, PiS is a christian - leftist party. The complete opposite of Palikot, who is libertarian - rightist in most of his policies.


https://polishforums.com/news/poland-palikot-liberal-modern-46911/4/#msg1375356


Exactly. Although socialist is not the best description. Social would be better. To back this up: UK is a highly social country, but it's not socialist. PRL used to be a socialist country, just like any other country of the Eastern Bloc. Know the difference.


I think Barney's problem is that he doesn't understand what a flat tax is. A flat tax imposes the same rate of tax on everyone. Not the same amount of tax. Because you seem to disagree that flat tax is socially unfair, but also claim that Louisiana's $1 poll tax or Mississippi $2 poll tax are examples of flat tax, shows your grave misunderstanding of this term.


And this only proves it.

Poll Tax: Everybody pays 1000 zloty. Doesn't matter if you are the babci in the toilet stall or the CEO who owns the firm.

So for the poor babcia who makes 20,000 zloty a year is paying a 5% tax. The CEO who makes 200,000 ends up with a 0.5% tax rate. Not so flat.

Flat is where everybody pays 1% whether they make 20,000 or 2,000,000 a year.

I know exactly what a flat tax is it's your reliance on wiki or google that has led you and others astray.

Now for the rest of your post I don't care if this movement is left or right wing (I knew it was solidly right because of the policies) what I found amusing was the insistence that they were left wing because of the stunts or because they are anti church for example, that is a childish reading of political posturing last seen in the sixth form.

I am numerate and know what a flat rate is and am literate enough to know that it's still unfair. Introducing a flat rate will mean either a tax cut for the rich or a tax rise for the poor neither of which are good.


First of all who is this we, I thought I was responding to an individual not a committee, Delph spouted cliches you described my answer as rubbish then agreed with it I find "They are going to fix the economy" and "They are good for business" are cliches, Delph used both with nothing to support them.


No big government and so on, the same Tea party stuff that's grand think that stuff its just fine until you need bailed out or get sick and so on.


That is grand in theory just like comparing a countries economy to a shop in practice its very different.


That is a flat rate tax not a flat tax which when drawn will produce a flat line meaning that the money paid doesn't change with income. The graph is a flat line that is why it's called a flat tax


It proves that you dont know what a flat tax is.

No, you really don't. You compared flat taxes to poll taxes when the two are like chalk and cheese.

Just admit your mistake and move on - no point in trying to save face now.


There is also a lot of social democracy in their policies. Generally speaking, the best social democratic governments tend to be pro-business, funnily enough.


Why is cutting taxes for the rich a bad thing? As for the poor - it can easily be avoided through tax thresholds, or the Polish approach of allowing people to apply tax credits to their end of year tax return.


I think you'll find that the poster in question also supports personal responsibility. If you take the choice to take your money out of ZUS, then you also should have to take responsibility if you have nothing later in life. Works for me - I'd keep my money in ZUS personally, but others may choose otherwise.


Why wouldn't you give people genuine freedom?

It's no secret that the ZUS contributions being paid today are being used to support the this generation of thieves that robbed Poland blind.

Would you like to explain to me what a flat tax is as opposed to a flat tax rate and why its called a flat tax?


Another cliche Delph

Yet you keep proving otherwise.


I agree, describing current political parties and views based on a classification originating in 18th century and applying to French politics, is greatly outdated.


You still prove otherwise. You say poll tax is flax tax, which is outright stupid.


You are replying in a thread, where more than one person is speaking out. If you want to respond to an individual, use private messaging.


Let the government take all your earnings and let it decide what's best for you, then. That sounds like a good idea. Oh wait...



Stop speaking unsubstantiated garbage. Here's some reading for you to get educated:

investopedia.com/terms/f/flattax.asp
thefreedictionary.com/flat+tax
hoover.org/publications/books/8329

and these are just to start you off. Flat tax is a flat line graph when depicting a function of income to rate, not income to the amount of tax paid. Flat tax is also a short term for flat rate tax. So either you don't understand the concept or you don't understand English. Either way is bad.

investopedia.com/terms/f/flattax.asp


imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06218.pdf


cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1985/11/cj5n2-14.pdf


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax


Barney, unless you are talking about something biblical, every credible source I came across refers to Flat Tax as a rate to be levied, not a set amount per person regardless of income / sources of income.

Exodus 30:11-16:
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.

13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.

14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.

15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

Clearly Barney confuses head tax, capitation tax or other tax per head concepts with flat tax. He's so persistent in his error that it's pretty concerning.


Quoting fairy tales in a tax rate discussion?

Some basic maths may be in order here rather than google or wiki.

A flat or fixed tax is a tax that remains the same for everyone, regardless of income and other factors, it plots a flat line.

The tax is "flat" because it can be graphed against any other factor and still result in a flat line, meaning that the revenue generated doesn't vary with the person's budgetary situation.

The name depends on what is being taxed, flat rate applies to income and poll tax (in the UK example) applies to property. Still, the two types of taxes are both flat in that they are applied equally to people regardless of their income level.


I understand the concept fairly well

This however is getting away from the topic which is Palikot - too liberal/modern for Poland?
So far we have tea baggers who want to do that usual crazy stuff with little regard for costing or sensible reforming of the tax and social security system, they want to tax the poor to pay for the rich throwing out the concept of ability to pay.

The pantomime stuff just gives an illusion of liberty when the economic craziness will prevent any true liberty.


And you have zero sense of humour:)


Shawn read these links:
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=flat+tax+vs+poll+tax&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=


I'm just correct

Read this
ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/0/e305afecd2f4d7028525686c00686d48/$FILE/v44n4421.pdf
or just read page 5

Bring it on


A flat tax is a flat rate tax. A fixed tax, head tax is a tax at a constant value. Fixed tax plots a flat line when you consider a function from income to amount of tax owed. Flat rate tax, also widely known as flat tax, produces a flat line when considering a function from income to the rate of tax.


Incorrect. The head tax, which you're very stubborn to erroneously refer to as the flat tax, is in its nature a regressive tax. The more income you have, the lesser your tax rate is. If the amount of tax owed is at a constant X, then the function from income to rate can be described as: Tax_rate = (Your_income / X) * 100% and it plots a hyperbola. This is not a flat tax/flat rate tax.


So you're implying that lowering the tax brackets from 18/32 to, let's say, flat 15%, and reducing ZUS costs for self-employed, is going to increase the tax burden on the low and middle class. That's makes sense. In a parallel universe, where logic is irrelevant.


You just got schooled.

No Barney, you are completely and utterly wrong but you are simply to arrogant to admit that you are wrong.


It might make sense to somebody who knows nothing about Poland (i.e. Barney). However, for those of us who do work here and see people who earn 3,000zl per month before tax paying out 1,000zl of that to ZUS in order to fund theft, lowering the ZUS burden seems like a very very good idea. Barney also seems to be labouring under the rather common misconception that rich people pay their taxes at the headline rate and they don't simply hire accountants to 'optimise' their taxes.

Really!!!
OK this is boring and not really relevant but here goes.


Both (poll and flat rate income tax) are flat taxes they plot flat lines just draw it out if you can't imagine it. You have one variable and a fixed value it doesn't matter what changes in the variable or what variable you use the rate or fixed cost stays the same ie a flat line.


No, the tax rate is the same, remember it's a fixed rate, the proportion of your income that you pay in tax falls as your income rises. Plotting one variable against a fixed value always plots a straight line


The amount changes the rate stays the same

Any serious article or report (see links above) describes the poll tax as a flat tax. But I suppose if its not in wiki it must be wrong.

All flat taxes are regressive they are a very easy sell that's why some people like them. Of course the actual amount people pay depends upon the form the regressive tax takes and exactly which tax is to be reformed something the vanity movement haven't made clear. Where these proposals have been made, when costed, the results always show an increased tax burden on the average person.

Edit


Care to demonstrate how I'm wrong Harry? Now you will have to be careful as there are numbers involved.

Is it not true that all the migrants for example went to Poland for no other reason than to pay taxes to help Poland?


The dear leader certainly made use of tax havens, perhaps some sensible reforms are required plus a crackdown on white collar crime. That's probably better than waving a dildo about.

Point of information: The half-shekel donation was not a tax. Half a shekel was a tiny amount that anyone, rich or poor, was able to pay, and it signified the participation of every soul in the building of the tabernacle. If you want to take an example of taxation from the Bible, it would have to be the tithe. That was a flat 10% rate on all income. Income in ancient society was basically agricultural produce. So you would have to take 10% of the grain, fruits, olive oil and wine that you produced and give it as a tax.

This was not a fairy tale, but a legal system.

So now flat rate income tax is a flat tax according to you. At least we're getting somewhere here. Maybe a few more posts and you'll admit that flat rate tax is just a different name for flat tax.


The problem is that you change what's on the axis between your examples. With that we can create any arbitrary plot, including one that would describe progressive tax using a flat line by adjusting what's being represented on each axis. Now here's a task for you: keep income on X-axis, tax rate on Y-axis and you'll see what is flat and what is not flat. This should be doable by any 6th-grader. You have some serious gaps in your math education.


You just managed to contradict yourself in one sentence. Rate = proportion. How can a rate be fixed if the proportion falls? I think rates and proportions are covered in the 4th grade. Even worse gaps in your math education.


The link you posted does not describe that. The links I posted all prove your wrong.


How is flat tax a regressive tax? So now you're trying to imply that despite the rate being the same the rate decreases with income?


I think it's time you just stop and admit you're wrong. Because right now you're just pushing yourself into ridicule.


Oh the legal system was 100% real. It's the bible I was referring to.

No the tax rate is not the same. The amount of the tax remains the same but the rate changes. Are you really unable to see that?


i.e. the tax rate changes.

You really are giving Polonius a run for his money when it comes to being too arrogant to admit that one has made a mistake.


I would be so arrogant as to think that I know what all migrants think. You on the other hand....

Sometimes typos result in unconscious humour....


The rate at which you are taxed is fixed meaning that as your wealth increases the proportion of your income that you pay as tax falls. The rate stays fixed but the proportion falls what is so hard to understand?


Yes it does page 5 it is stated clearly.


It's regressive because as income increases the proportion of income paid as tax falls.

Perhaps it's a language thing or possibly you are a humanities graduate.


The tax rate is the same that is why it's a flat tax, the rate does not change. (For you as well) perhaps it's a language thing or possibly you are a humanities graduate.


The rate like the song remains the same the amount paid changes.

I told you to be careful Harry there were numbers involved.

No, the rate is not fixed with a poll tax: the amount of the tax is fixed, the rate falls as income rises.


Yes Barney, that is what we have been telling you all along. You are the one who has been insisting that "in Britain they had a flat tax called the poll tax that didn't end well." and "Delph a poll tax is a flat tax" Interesting that you mentioned the British: could it be that you have let your hatred of the British cloud your views of flat tax?