Any "alternative" means ofc that some section/s of the community will pay more than they currently do, fairly or not.
Seems pointless as naturally different stakeholders will generally oppose any changes that make them pay "more of the pie".

You can't really ask that the pie simply "gets bigger".  After all, would doubling all wages make people wealthier/better off?  No - since that would simply cause costs to inflate to respond to that.

Hence a "rising tide" idea is pointless - somewhere in the world someone/something has to pay for the consequences of that. 

Asking businesses to pay more for more social/government costs in addition to worker costs is fair.  Businesses benefit from:
- educated workforce (public spending of education, whether one has child or not)
- better roads (public spending of roads) for movement of goods/consumers
- security (defence force on terror, other nations, police force)
- better health (public spending of health, healthier people can spend more and for longer lengths of their lives)

Yes, workers/people benefit from these public infrastructure, but make no mistake.  Every entity benefits from these.  They all should pay.  You cant' say that the existence of a business who pays workers only and not pay any additional to the government has contributed enough.

As for alternatives - the only alternative is to accept that some entities can afford to pay little more than others, fairly or not. 

New Matilda on deficits, revenue and spending:

Quote:


https://newmatilda.com/2015/12/16/australian-government-revenue-slides-but-our-s...

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:49am:


And you dont think we have that already with a tax system spectacularly weighted against high-income earners? A person on $160K doesnt pay 4 times the tax of someone on $40K. He pays 20 times as much. And if you take welfare into account, the margin can rise as high as 100+ times.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 6:05pm:


A person on 160k can afford to apply tax deductions that a 40k wouldn't have.  And in any case, does this result in a person on 40k with enough for basic cost of living?

I won't argue is the appropriateness of progressive taxation.  There is a whole series of fors and against on many a website. 
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Progressive_tax_vs._flat_tax as an example.

It would be up to each individual to weigh the merits of each argument/reason based on their values.  Having dealth with this topic before, it seems pointless to rehash the same arguments and expect people to change sides.  The best I can do is to ensure people have a relook at the debate and reconsider their values.

To me it isn't the 160k paying more based on percentage fairness argument.  Though not religious but there is a parable from Jesus that said that a poor woman who donated 1 coin from a purse that became empty did more than a rich man who donated a many a coins - because the woman paid more based on percentage of wealth.

To me it is about does a person on 40k able to have access to quality education, water, electricity, food and shelter, and social mobility without severe disadvantage?  If that isn't possible then that's a problem that can be solved through money/taxation.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:



Give the monkey some peanuts......

mariacostel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2015 at 8:15pm:



Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to us fully exactly how this 'politics of envy' works, and exactly what it means.... the phrase is bandied about like a chorus of parrots trained by Maggie Thatcher - yet nobody ever explains how it is 'envy' to expect those getting more out of society to pay more proportionately... I mean ... it's not like they're being asked to fork over every cent they get over a certain amount or whatever - only a percentage.....