[avalaunch]

When two people order a steak, regardless of their income, they get the same thing. On the other hand, one of the largest services a government offers its citizens is protection of the citizens' persons and wealth, both from domestic and foreign threats. The value of that protection is relative to how much each citizen is worth. If you're in debt, like many Americans, you're basically getting protection only for your person, as you have little to no wealth to protect. On the other hand, if you're worth billions, the government is protecting your wealth as well. It only makes sense that the more you have to protect, the more you should have to pay.

[jasode]

> The value of that protection is relative to how much each citizen is worth. [...] On the other hand, if you're worth billions, the government is protecting your wealth as well. It only makes sense that the more you have to protect, the more you should have to pay.

Fyi, those sentences in your reasoning are already handled by a hypothetical flat tax percentage. It's the percentage that handles your cases as you stated them. For example, if a flat 15% tax was applied for everyone, the billionaire earning $30 million pays $4500000 in taxes, while the Walmart earning $20k pays $3000.

Mathematically, 4500000 is greater than 3000. In that case, the billionaire has paid more taxes which satisfies your reasoning.

On the other hand, the previous posters were emphasizing "progressive" taxes. That means that the percentages themselves are increased as income increases. Your rationale isn't specific to that. Probably the most common math rationale for progressive taxation is the concept of marginal utility of money[1]. In other words, a billionaire's $1 million of money made between $29 million and $30 million is less significant to him and therefore, can be taxed at a more "progressive" tax rate of 40% instead of 15%. On the other hand, the Walmart employees $1000 from $3000 to $4000 pays for food and rent and is not discretionary play money.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

[avalaunch]

Well, despite using the term progressive, the poster I replied to was not emphasizing progressive taxes, because he used an analogy where everyone literally pays the same amount.

In any case, what I said wouldn't be covered under a flat tax percentage unless that flat tax percentage were on wealth, not income. A person making approximately 20k or less currently pays no income tax, which makes sense, because there's virtually no way they can accumulate any wealth at that income. On the other hand, as you move up each income tier, the amount of wealth you can accumulate goes up progressively. So a progressive tax is a close enough approximation to a flat tax on wealth, which is what I'm arguing makes the most sense.

[aantix]

So, do you think you should pay more for Internet service if you consume more bandwidth?

Or is it just a commodity that we all utilize and is payed for with a flat rate, regardless of the value/un-value is provides?

[prostoalex]

Is California doing a better job at protecting its citizens than income tax free states like Washington or Nevada?