Strongly against: I think any left-wing tax policies nullify the rewards of hard work.
I heard an interesting angle on this from the Lib-Dem party in the UK. They favour environmental taxes, and said that we should “start taxing things that are bad, and not things that are good, such as income”
Thats an interesting approach I thought. Income is presumably good, so should be low tax, whereas buying antisocial stuff such as polluting cars or unhealthy fod, should be taxed higher. I quite like the idea.
Nothing personally, you developed a great game 
But who are you to say what people are to do with their life?! Why should the state regulate peoples eating habits? The Taxes should be low and flat and services should be more or less private.
Do you vote lib.dem cliffski?
Thanks again for a great game!
Cliffski is not in a position to dictate others actions because he is only one man and we live in a democratic society. However, the Lib Dems, in the example stated, are outlining their tax plans. Granted it’s not likely to happen, but, if they were voted into power, THE PARTY WOULD be in a position to DICTATE “WHAT PEOPLE ARE TO DO WITH THEIR LIFE” because they would have an electoral mandate to legislate in accordance with their manifesto (please excuse the legal speak 
).
Cliffski is merely stating his approval of the policy.
Quoth The Raven
Nevermore
i never say who I vote for and try to avoid taking sides here. Im the moderator 
I totally understand people who are opposed to govt telling them how to live their life, but this is a matter of degree, nto principle. Every govt in the world tells you how to live your life to some extent. I can’t own a submachinegun in the UK, I can’t ride a motobike without a crash helmet, I have to insure my car if I want to drive it, I can’t take certain drugs legally. It’s just a matter of degree. Some people would push that level of state influence further, others would roll it back.
Theres no magic reason that I know of that we atx income primarily as opposed to taxing other stuff, like spending on certain products. Or even ALL products. We could scrap income tax and just boost sales tax (VAT).
I’m not in favour of that, I’m just pointing it out as an option.
I guess I agree with the basic principle that tax policies should take into account whether we as a society want to be encouraging or discouraging a given activity, but I’m not sure it boils down so easily to a matter, as they said, of “not taxing things that are good.” Good for whom? I can see how my making income is good for me, but absent any taxes, it doesn’t seem to be doing anyone else much good unless I spend it in certain ways–which may themselves be either good and bad (or frequently both). Indeed, there are certain ways in which income itself can be bad…it contributes to inflation and makes people less likely to take nonprofit or other socially beneficial (but less lucrative) jobs.
Also, income is self-reinforcing; good or not, we don’t need to stop taxing it, since people will want to make money whether or not it’s being taxed (this is why I just can’t see the logic behind claims like nevermore’s. Surely someone who would want to become a successful CEO who takes home £60,000 a year in income wouldn’t suddenly decide at £50,000 that it wasn’t worth the trouble and he’d rather just lie in bed and eat crisps all day?)
An economist would point to the law of diminishing marginal utility, which basically says that as you get morw of something, the next bit of its worth less. So the first 10k you earn makes a big difference to your standard of living, the next 10k less etc etc.
Im sure there comes a point where you earn so much that if you have to do slightly more work to earn slightly more money, you’d rather not bother.
I guess some people are more bothered by marginal tax rates than others.
I was unemployed for a while, and when I did a few days work a week, the earnings were deducted from unemplyment benefit, meaning that my incentive to do any amount of work rather than a fulltime job was basically nill. I think thats the effect that people worry about whemn it comes to high income taxes.
mechasaprophyte you make a good point viz inflation. I’ve always wondered by governments don’t fiddle more with benefits/tax policies to restrain wages growth, rather than relying on the broad strokes of monetary policy. Guess it’s too much work
And though I am unashamedly a supporter of less regulation, I find the liberatarian “micro-government” viewpoint a bit naieve. For a good book about what happens in an unregulated market, read
The Predators Ball by Connie Bruck.
As for flat taxes, well it sounds interesting, but better the devil you know eh?
I don’t understand why they are called the Liberal Democrats. I dislike the modern use of the term Liberal. Liberals are supposed to be against regulation of both economic and social issues. These days they seem to be against social issue regulation only (and even then they do stick their nose into certain social issues to an extent). IMO…
Modern Liberals = Socialist Democrats (more intervention in economics, some in social issues… ie handgun restrictions, free speech restrictions)
Example: Plenty
Libertarians = Classic Liberals (very little regulation overall)
Example: Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson
Modern Conservatives = Economically Neo-liberal (little economic regulation), Socially Conservative (social regulation)
Example: George Dubya Bush, Margaret Thatcher
Old Conservatives = Government intervention of both economics and social aspects
Example: Pre-Thatcher British Tories, The Catholic Church
… because they formed after a merger of the Liberal party and the Social Democrats. In addition, they are still “Liberal” in some capacities. They have stayed true to the old Liberal tax model (although this could now be a thing of the past).
Don’t forget that they, possibly more than any other party, have to have broad, centrist policies to be able to maintain a strong parliamentary repreprsentation without the staunch support of “heartlands”.
Quoth The Raven
Nevermore