An Explanation of Progressive Taxation

[Voidwar]

Then there would be no law at all.

Silly. Is civil disobedience always instant, full-on rebellion ?

And I am not arguing that the State is always right, or that it must always be obeyed.

You sort of were. Your "state" threatened to crush my "walk out".

Crushing a rebellion doesn't answer the question "Who was Right? ". it answers "Who won the fight? ".

I am arguing that the progressive income tax is not something imposed upon the country by a parasitic majority, but a social institution that has been accepted and upheld by the vast majority of American citizens-- including those you claim are currently being unfairly taxed.

We have fought for years over what the tax rates should be, and how they should be calculated, but we have generally agreed that the basic premise of progressive taxation is sound.

Lets rephrase that, with some more truth in there. Poor people have outvoted wealthy people for a long time, and stole from them using the power of the state and the mechanism of a classist tax code.

And, unlike ridiculous policies like the minimum wage, there is no economic evidence to suggest that the progressive income tax is in any way damaging to the economy. (The overall tax burden itself is, of course, but the progressive tax is the least damaging method of bearing it.)

I disagree. This nation has some intangible traditions that are part and parcel of who we are. Mom and Apple Pie does mean something, whether I can completely explain it or not, and so does fair play. Fair play is a flat tax. Our government should reflect this.

And yet, they seem to think that conditions in this country are still more than good enough for them to stay.

Telling the selection committee that you are the pimp who beats his whores the least might get one Pimp of the Year honors, but that is not the contest we are dicussing. The fact that the rich would be abused more somewhere else is not germane to the discussion of whether they are being abused or not.

Especially when the rich themselves betray their brethren and their own enlightened self-interest by voting to steal from themselves. Disgusting, really.

This part makes no sense. The rich are few, their votes, not that relevant.

And your rejection does not change the fact that taxing $2000-- twenty percent-- from a man who makes $10000 a year is going to affect his ability to pay for food, housing and transportation more than taxing $10000 from a man making $50000 will affect his.

My tax code says those men make 8000 and 40000 dollars respectively after taxes, and is simply not concerned with how or where they spend their income.

This argument is faulty. We know that a person who makes more can afford more-- because this is simple logic--

I already destroyed this line of reasoning. You don't know the man's life well enough to make these declarations.

You have no data on what he can afford.
You only know how much he makes.
As I stated, you do not know if he and his whole extended family are saving for a cousin's operation.

Funny you should mention the "moral validity" of the poor's political voice... when the people who pay more in taxes also have a far greater say in the course of government.

Only by the leave of the poor, with their consent via votes.

How is it fair to tax the poor the same amount for less influence?

Easy. Wouldn't you agree that this relationship can get out of balance ?
I claim it is already out of balance, that the poor already have more influence than their societal contribution merits. If this is readjusted downward, then it is completely fair to tax the poor the same amount for the properly reduced amount of influence.

Its fair the same way you should give the extra money back to the teller at the bank when he makes a mistake. When you had no right to a thing, it is fair to give it back.

It certainly is, because the money they have after they've paid their income tax is all the money they have to live on-- it's the money they use to support themselves, and the money they spend on our businesses.

This is exactly true of every taxpayer, and thus I don't understand the argumentative intent of this passage.

You cannot make any sound, reasonable economic policy while ignoring the effects of your policies.

I do not ignore it. What you refer to is not an effect of "my" policy. It is a systemic condition already present. In any pack of humans, the economic productivity of individuals will vary.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

My tax code says those men make 8000 and 40000 dollars respectively after taxes, and is simply not concerned with how or where they spend their income.

And, as I said a page ago... this is an irreconcilable difference in economic philosophy. There is no way for us to resolve this basic argument, and we are now alternately talking in circles or branching out into wider and wider tangents.

There's really no point in continuing this argument.

I already destroyed this line of reasoning. You don't know the man's life well enough to make these declarations.

I will, however, take this parting shot. You've done no such thing; you presented, and then defended, a silly argument by willfully ignoring simple logic concerning household budgeting-- and then pretended that the possibility of a wealthy person having a sick cousin (who, by the way, is more likely to have health insurance) means that we can not, despite the fact that it is easily demonstrated, know that wealthy people are capable of affording more than poor people.

You can have the last word if you want it. My argument is complete.

 

[rathi]

Lets rephrase that, with some more truth in there. Poor people have outvoted wealthy people for a long time, and stole from them using the power of the state and the mechanism of a classist tax code.

Actually the rich bribed the poor to keep them from revolting, as it has happened countless times in society. The rich have always benefited from structure, law, and order more than anyone else. Eventually the poor gets pissed about it and threatens to revolt. The rich then gives them more wealth to prevent them from getting killed. The poor masses always have ultimate power given their vast number. Maintaining the balance between order and freedom is what makes America so great. Ensuring the rich give the wealth back to poor before they revolt is why America has never had a revolution since our countries founding.

 

[Voidwar]

Cop Out.

Knowing what a man makes does not tell you what a man can afford.

You do not know him or what his personal commitments are, period.

 

[Alkaline]

Actually the rich bribed the poor to keep them from revolting, as it has happened countless times in society. The rich have always benefited from structure, law, and order more than anyone else. Eventually the poor gets pissed about it and threatens to revolt.

Good spot on this pattern, but you're missing something critical here: organization. The difference between being dissatisfied and revolting is unity.

The rich then gives them more wealth to prevent them from getting killed. The poor masses always have ultimate power given their vast number. Maintaining the balance between order and freedom is what makes America so great. Ensuring the rich give the wealth back to poor before they revolt is why America has never had a revolution since our countries founding.

Well put, about maintaining the balance of power. It works in a political and economic sense. But the rich don't give that much back to the poor, comparitively speaking. The Gini coefficient, used to compare the financial equality of a country, for the US is 45. Compare to Iran, a Gini of 43 and France, a 32.7 (CIA factbook). A low number means, statistically, more economic equality.
I would arue that the inequality of our economy maintains order. The lower classes are motivated to work hard, harder than the workers next to them, to receive substantial rewards. A largre reward motivates a large crowd, and in US we have both.

 

[nope]

Knowing what a man makes does not tell you what a man can afford.

You do not know him or what his personal commitments are, period.

That's dump. A man who earns much and spends all his money on buying useless stuff may not be able to afford a new house. But he can save some money. The one who hardly earns enough won't be able to just save money for anything and cannot even consider spending money on useless stuff. When somebody with a high income can't afford something, it's his fault. But if the poor guy can't afford whatever it's just the fault of his income. (And don't say the income is his fault.)

Yesterday I heard a german proverb.
A intelligent man who is honest isn't a Nazi,
a honest man who is a Nazi isn't intelligent,
and a intelligent man who is a Nazi is not honest.

I'm not sure about the order. You can change this so it meets the topic of this thread or at least what the topic has become.
An intelligent man who thinks, flat tax is fair(er), isn't honest etc.

(Still talking about income taxation, off course)

lg nope

 

[Voidwar]

That's dump. A man who earns much and spends all his money on buying useless stuff may not be able to afford a new house. But he can save some money. The one who hardly earns enough won't be able to just save money for anything and cannot even consider spending money on useless stuff. When somebody with a high income can't afford something, it's his fault. But if the poor guy can't afford whatever it's just the fault of his income. (And don't say the income is his fault.)

Two men in the 25% tax bracket, with the same income, but one has an autistic kid with serious extra care requirements. According to you these two men can "afford" the same because their income is the same ?

Poppycock.

 

[nope]

Two men in the 25% tax bracket, with the same income, but one has an autistic kid with serious extra care requirements. According to you these two men can "afford" the same because their income is the same ?

And you think just because somebody could possibly have a disabled kid everybody with a high income should pay less taxes.
I know America isn't a state with a great social system but in most European countries such parents get money back. There is a thing called Kindergeld (child benefit). Parents get it for each child but for a disabled child (depended on how much disabled or ill) they get much more. Actually I don't know exactly how much. Starts with a healthy child at around 100€ -> 130$. Furthermore everybody has a healthinsurance.

Taxing the whealthy people less is not a solution for a this problem, it is the exact opposite.

Just please start thinking or stop with this crap. If you are an egoistic kapitalist who just wants money and nobody else should have it, ok. Nobody says you have to be the altruistic reincarnation of Jesus but don't pretend to care for disabled children just because you don't have any reasonable argument.

nope

 

[Voidwar]

just because you don't have any reasonable argument.

Flat tax is what is fair, it is obvious.

Rich people will pay more because they make more.

I do have the only reasonable argument in the fray.

Taking a higher percentage from one citizen compared to another, just because his income is higher, is not reason, it is greed, envy, and classism.

Under a flat tax, no deductions, cap gains = income plan, rich people pay way more than poor people anyway, because they make more.

 

[Iriemon]

Flat tax is what is fair, it is obvious.

Rich people will pay more because they make more.

I do have the only reasonable argument in the fray.

Taking a higher percentage from one citizen compared to another, just because his income is higher, is not reason, it is greed, envy, and classism.

Under a flat tax, no deductions, cap gains = income plan, rich people pay way more than poor people anyway, because they make more.

"Fair" being a subjective term, I think it is "fair" to consider the proportion of someone's income spent on necessities in terms of assessing a "fair" tax system.

 

[nope]

Flat tax is what is fair, it is obvious.

Off course and because it is obvious there are so many people supporting your strange hypothesis.

 

[nope]

"Fair" being a subjective term, I think it is "fair" to consider the proportion of someone's income spent on necessities in terms of assessing a "fair" tax system.

And I think it is fair that you give me all your money and starve to death. Than you will win the Darwin Award. :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

And I think it is fair that you give me all your money and starve to death. Than you will win the Darwin Award. :roll:

Perfect illustration of why "fair" is a subjective term.

 

[ARealConservative]

"Fair" being a subjective term, I think it is "fair" to consider the proportion of someone's income spent on necessities in terms of assessing a "fair" tax system.

Let's quit pretending now.

You support the laffer curve's application to taxation. Don't try to pretend fairness was even an after thought. You don't look at this issue as a persons right to his property. You want to take as much as you can from another individual without effecting the overall tax revenue as a whole.

 

[Iriemon]

Let's quit pretending now.

You support the laffer curve's application to taxation. Don't try to pretend fairness was even an after thought. You don't look at this issue as a persons right to his property. You want to take as much as you can from another individual without effecting the overall tax revenue as a whole.

False.

......

 

[Voidwar]

I think it is "fair" to consider the proportion of someone's income spent on necessities .

All you have done here is restate what I have already shot down TWICE from Korimyr. Do you honestly not see that ? Or do you think it makes some kind of difference to rephrase this broken assertion a third time ?

You don't know the person, so you cannot say what is necessity and what isnt. Tell a smoker that his cigarette money isn't a necessity :roll: The only person with the right to decide what is and isn't a necessity is the income maker.