Palikot - too liberal/modern for Poland?

The last exchange was about flat rate income tax which went over your head. Flat rate poll tax is a different matter and is a fixed universal charge.

For the benefit of the slow here we go again.....

If you plot either against income or any other variable they produce a flat line graph that is basic maths and is why they are flat taxes. Wiki produced a definition of flat rate tax because that is what the debate in the US is about a quick look at any academic papers (linked above) shows that fixed tax like the poll tax is also a flat tax and is described as such in the literature.

In Britain they introduced a poll tax and it was a disaster pointing this out is a normal thing to do unless you have suddenly become chief censor. You already tried maliciously editing my posts now you are not even attempting to justify your madness.

Why do you insist in dragging things off topic?

It's not my fault that you give the impression of being innumerate.

It's not my fault that your utter ignorance of economics has been pointed out by several posters.


Here we go again.


We've been trying to discuss Palikot and his plans for flat tax, you seem to want to talk about poll taxes and the British (yet again).

Anyway, to get back to the topic, can you explain why Palikot's proposals to reform ZUS and to lessen the massive burden that ZUS is for the self-employed is a bad thing for the thousands (if not millions) of middle class Poles who are self-employed?

Not just the middle classes. Many people (including one on this very forum!) demand that their employees go self employed.

Perhaps he would also like to explain why it is fair for huge wealthy farmers to pay KRUS (which is peanuts) while my neighbour who runs a very small therapy business has to pay over 1000zl a month?

I had been talking about Zus earlier before the discussion became stuck on flat tax, the topic is not about me or you it's about whether that movement is too liberal for Poland.

As explained earlier the regressive tax system would be a disaster where the burden on ordinary people would be disproportionate. The social security system like most in the world does need a degree of reform Palikot's proposals have not been costed and as usual calling for a tax cut for the middle class (effectively a subsidy) is no solution, the state will have to pick up the bill for the shortfall.

We discussed this and only jkb answered he suggested to shrink the state but didn't indicate who should be made unemployed.

Now Harry do you have anything to add for example who do you think should be made unemployed?

A few hundred thousand bureaucrats for a start. But then I suppose that one has to actually live in Poland in order to experience the ridiculous levels of red tape here (for example, in order to have my car's annual vehicle inspection recognised as valid, I have to make a total of six trips round town to four separate offices and the process takes more than two months).

Which bureaucrats? Where should these people and associated families look for work?


I didn't realise that I couldn't comment on Poland, does your new rule apply to you? At what distance from your home does your opinion become worthless?

For a start the ones who deal with the issuing of confirmations of the right of EU citizens to reside in Poland and the ones who deal with malduneks: both those bits of paper are a complete waste of time.


That would depend on the individual's given skill set. Interesting that you immediately bring their families into it. Such a pity that you don't know that in Polish families which do work, it's normal for all the people who can work to work.


Would you care to quote where I said that only people who live here can comment about here?

Do you think Palikot are proposing to make hundreds of thousands unemployed?
That is not exactly liberal is it

No. His policies would instead lead to hundreds of thousands of more Poles having jobs.

Brilliant!!

So it's only you who wishes to throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work

Can you give a brief outline of how Palikot would create a few hundred thousand jobs?

I'd like to see them in gainful employment rather than being the useless burden to the tax payer which they currently are.


Not to somebody with a knowledge of economics that is as bad as yours is.

I understand it involves numbers

So you still do not understand the fact that rate and proportion have the very same meaning. Okay, your gap in math education is not the only issue here, then. Let me explain this to you once and for all: if the rate of tax that I pay remains the same, independent on my income, it means that the proportion of my income i pay as tax to my total income remains the same.


That's head tax, not flat tax. And I already explained that in my previous post. No one is favoring head tax here. We're talking about positive sides of a flat tax, where the rate remains the same for everyone.


It might be a language thing, but your persistence in error is astonishing. I'm not a humanities graduate.
Now let me take these two quotes from Barney and put them together:



So which one is it? The rate remains the same? Or the money paid? Or maybe both? Quit posting cause you're just getting more and more ridiculous. Nothing gets through to you.

I think we're dealing with a seasoned troll here. End of flat tax subject, because some people's skulls are just too thickto penetrate with knowledge.


And why would the state pick up the bill for that?


Start off with the great amount of civil servants. If the government's role gets shrunk, the amount of people it employs should go down drastically.


Somewhere where our tax money don't finance their paychecks. Like all other useful workers.


No matter the distance. It's enough you confuse basic facts. Plus living here is a big plus, you actually know the reality.


He's proposing to reduce government spending, which obviously implies getting rid of lots of useless civil servants that get paid from the budget.


I'm who wishes that jobs would actually not be subsidized by public sector so that we all don't have to be funding them.


It's not government's or party's job to create jobs. It's businesses' job to create jobs and the government's job is to create a fertile ground - friendly tax laws - to make it happen.


You have proven not to understand anything that involves numbers in the slightest.

Yes, I was inaccurate in the language I used


I meant the amount of disposable income available increases as your wealth increases and the tax burden also decreases. I did make a mistake there using the wrong words but the theory is sound.


See above, disposable income rises with wealth and the ability to pay the tax becomes easier under any form of flat tax that makes them regressive.


Both are flat taxes, both produce flat line graphs when measured against any variable because they are fixed, one a fixed percentage the other a fixed value. Both are regressive taxes.

The rest is just straight tea party stuff think that way if you want but remember that in the end it's always the public sector that bails out the private sector.

So now you're claiming disposable income as the attribute we should be comparing the tax systems against? Then I guess the perfect tax for you would be the one that leaves the tax payer with a constant amount of money after taxation. So, no matter how much I make, whether it's 1.000, 10.000 or 100.000, I should always be left with 1.000 in my pocket. The plot is then tax_rate = (income - 1000) / income * 100%. That is a reverse hyperbola with its limit equal to 100% tax rate at income trending towards +inf. I doubt anyone would want to live under a system like that.

Anyway, the fact that paying the tax is easier due to the amount of "disposable income" doesn't make the tax regressive in its definition. By your definition any tax that's more lenient (placed under the curve described by my previous paragraph) would fall into your definition of a regressive tax. Which is wrong.


See above. The fact you decided to change the definition of regressive tax doesn't make flat tax regressive.


You have an incorrect definition of a flat tax. I'm going to contradict it right now. With head tax, plot income on x axis, tax rate on y axis, result: not a flat line. With flat tax, plot income on x axis, amount of tax owed on y axis, result: not a flat line.You can't say any given tax is flat because you can produce an arbitrary plot that is a flat line. You're comparing apples to oranges and calling them equal.

I'm not changing my point I made an error the point still stands.
Tax systems are not unrelated to disposable income and they should be based on an ability to pay. When they are not based on ability to pay they are regressive as there is no disposable income.

I have not changed the definition of anything


Source
forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2011/10/24/what-is-a-flat-tax-surprise-it-is-a-vat

Obviously people should be rewarded for many things hard work being one nobody is suggesting that a doctor should earn the same as a builder despite the fact that the Doctor benefited from pubic ally subsidised higher education paid for from the builder's wages.

A living wage for all is slightly more important than a tax cut for the rich, does Palikot have anything to say about that?


You accused me of changing the value on the axis when I had not now you are doing that. A flat tax gives a flat line that's why it's called a flat tax just as I said above

It's not an arbitrary plot, a percentage or a fixed amount against income is a flat line the amount of income generated is a different story.

Then I just gave you an example tax construction according to the exact description you're providing. From that there's only one tiny step to the government taking all your pay and leaving you with nothing.


No. The regressive tax rate means that the tax rate decreases with income. Not with the ability to pay. You're making up your own definitions.


You just did.


Cutting down taxes for everyone is just that. Low and middle class are the ones who are summarily carrying the biggest tax burden.


Yes you have. Head tax produces a flat line only if you plot income against amount of tax owed. Flat tax produces a flat line only if you plot income against tax rate. Otherwise there won't be any flat line.


It's arbitrary because you're not using the same axis for both taxes. Use the same criteria to compare and then look what you get.