In this hypothetical, which is the fairest form of taxation? Why?

There will no doubt be arguments for and against ANY type of taxation.

However, given those 3 choices, I believe that "C," the sales tax (also called a Consumption Tax) is the fairest, especially since it is imposed only on non-essential items (i.e., no tax on prescriptions, water, food, etc.) will be paid only when they buy (= 'consume,' in the broad sense of that word) something.

That allows people to save their wages and when they choose to buy something, they are taxed a 'flat,' pre-set amount. The implication is that rich people will continue to buy big boats, fancy cars, etc. and that less-well-off folks will buy more modest goods (and fewer of those goods)... but they still have the freedom to spend their money, within their means, anything that they want.

One possible problem that I can foresee is: if the 'flat tax' is a "National" sales tax, how will the individual States get money? Should the flat tax be in the 20 or 25% range, with the States receiving, say one-third? Of course, IF that is to be the scenario, an obvious 'fair' way to redistribute their share is to give back to the States the amount that each State generated.

Another area to consider: collection of the flat tax would be P.O.S. (point-of-sale), meaning that every store, stable, gas station, body shop, etc etc etc would be the 'tax collectors.' That would entail having ALL the retailers and all other businesses to turn over the collected taxes on a regular basis ... monthly would seem to be a rational interval.

However, that means that there will be a LOT of money --money that belongs to The Government-- in the hands of every business UNTIL the mandated remittance time comes due. Owing to human nature, there will be (undoubtedly) a lot of temptation for businesses to 'use' the collected tax money, which would/could further lead to a need for The Government to be very very judicious and vigilant about enforcing its own collection policies ... which inevitably leads to an expanded bureaucracy of enforcement agents, investigators, people to monitor the collection, receipt and redistribution of the monies involved.

Anyway, I still think that a well-thought-out program of a flat tax, with safeguards, would be the fairest way.

C sounds about right....it works for everybody...although on could say that in away it is the same is b due to the fact that people in the upper bracket are more likely to buy products are not necessary for survival. Having said that, I still am going with C because if you are willing to buy a 52 inch screen plasma tv then you should be willing to pay more for your protection etc.

C. because we do not acquire an similar properly privileges. i exploit roads more advantageous than the perfect human being because I go back and forth extra, hence the added I spend, the added i'd nicely be taxed, and that is sensible. i do not concepts paying extra because I earn extra, in spite of the undeniable fact that, i do compared to huge quantities of my money being taken and given to lazy and drug addicted human beings. Burnt...I earned my money with the help of spending 8 years without telephone, cable, etc. with the help of minimizing my utilizing to below 1000 miles in line with year and driving my bicycle everywhere I probably might want to. with the help of now unlikely out to eat except for once a month at maximum, and by no potential at an extreme priced position. So, why could I pay so a lot extra if my sacrifice and exertions is what earned my $$? back, I pay so a lot more advantageous than the perfect human being, and am happy with that except for authorities waste, and handouts to unworthy human beings.

B. Definitely but if they're very rich I think it should be more like 3k. We're so much in dept in this country it's bad. Although we're still the best country I'd say

i like the flat tax. It seems to be the most fair way.