Okay, lets see. Three main points being raised:
-Land abuse - As had been confirmed by AN, what's wrong
isn't the land transfer. We do this all the time, and we normally reward the farmers who improve the land
-Scaling rates discouraging innovation - I believe I've already highlighted this previously. It's going to discourage innovation, but less so than our current system, but Flat rates in turn disproportionately rewards the producers of luxuries, as they can trade for, and retain more value than anyone else over time, which is leveragable wealth. Basically it should start cutting somewhat into manpower availability for large projects if we go Flat. No clear superiority here, it depends on whether you think maintaining high availability of public works and avoiding wealth accumulation from creating a merchant prince caste is better or if you want to encourage innovation at the expense of the previous two(noting again that we don't discourage all innovation, as those who devise useful rather than ornamental innovations are still lauded and likely to be hired by the government in excess of their quota)
--Primary goal for me is to prevent cumulative wealth leading to stratfication, as it's what we leverage for a lot of our social stability.
-Administrative difficulty being hell - Also highlighted previously, this would spur further administrative improvements. Currency or more advanced mathematics may result, though it'd no doubt cause pain while we adjust.
I'd argue that it's the exact opposite.
Tax man would prefer flat tax since it's nice and simple. Everyone who consumes pays, end of story. They can do their rounds and be done with it.
The producers would prefer the scaling tax since it's more fair to them. The ones using the most pay the most. It's worse for the ones doing more complex things but better for the ones taking only one or two community resources to do their labour.
Pretty much. Producers and workers greatly prefer to scaling rate, since it automatically adjusts to their needs if say, they break a leg and can't produce as much anymore. The administration would very much rather just claim everything the state needs as a flat quota, which is easy to collect and determine punishment for shortfalls.
This is why Quota + Scaling is the compromise. The state will always claim the bare minimum of what's needed for universal subsistence as a quota, then assess extra rations over that as a scalar.
