I’ve always wondered what a ‘fair share’ is when it comes to taxes. You hear that phrase all the time. “They need to pay their fair share.”  Can we talk about that for a moment?

What actually is it? Let’s try a few real life examples.

A. Family of Four - Household Income of $50,000 - Both parents work - Two cars - Both kids in grade school.
B. Single 27 year old tech geek - Income $156,000 plus bonus’ - Walks or bike’s to work or Uber - No kids.
C. Professional Couple - Household income of $480,000 - Both adults work - Two cars - no kids with no plans to have kids

The family of 4 uses the pubic road system with two cars as does the Professional couple. The single guy basically does not.

The family with kids taxes the education system with their two children, the tech geek and the Professional Couple do not.

Presuming the kids typically get sick and need medical attention, the family is likely to lean on healthcare more than the others with no kids.

The family of four uses more water, electricity, garbage pickup, and so forth.

You can take this scenario out into all sorts of areas like use of playgrounds, hockey rinks, getting the kids immunization shots, etc with the general thought that the Family of Four will absolutely use more public (taxpayer paid) resources than the single geek ever will. Most likely more than the Professional couple also.

They absolutely cost a city more money to service them. Yet the Family of Four is expected to pay less for using those resources than the others.  Why is that?

Why is it fair that the people who cost all taxpayers the most amount of money, who use the resources the most, pay the least?

That doesn’t seem fair at all.

In any other scenario, the more you use the more you pay. Gas, electricity, plane tickets, food at a restaurant, ordering two coffee’s instead of one…

Every scenario except taxes.

So, can we drop the “Pay your fair share” charade and start calling it what it actually is? Income Redistribution. Well, actually it's theft, but Income Redistribution is a much nicer sounding phrase.

Personally, I get it. Anyone making a half a million a year should be paying more than a family only making 5o or 60k. Call it having compassion, or mandatory charity, or helping others who have less.

But don’t call it their “Fair Share”. That insinuates that trying to keep your taxes low is some dastardly thing when all you're trying to do is have the tax man steal less.

Maybe the family of four is lazy. Maybe the professional couple really wanted to have kids but can’t and bury themselves in constant work. There's a thousand reasons why one person is more successful than another. Life isn’t fair and people are not equal.

Perhaps income tax should be replaced with an infinitely fairer system of consumption tax, similar to that in many other countries.

Perhaps a flat tax with no deductions.

Perhaps no personal income tax at all, but instead a sales tax on everything but food? Then those that buy big lavish toys, big houses, expensive clothes pay through the nose and those just getting by pay less.

Surely there's something that can at least appear to be... fair.

When God gave Moses the 10 commandments his demands were simple. Two were explicit, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife or goods" and "Thou shalt not steal".

Pointing out that another has more, or earns more, or doesn't deserve more clearly breaks God's law. Then taking their money for the purpose of giving it to someone else is a kind way of saying stealing.

Ten simple commandments to live by and almost all Governments break those at will. What does that say about them and the society that votes for them to do it?

The term is always, "It's for the greater good."  Knowing what Moses encountered on the mount, it would appear God wouldn't agree.