Persuasive Argument for Progressive Taxes

[drz-400]

ie everyone paying the same amount of tax for the same service

Then why do both parties prefer to lower taxes when income falls?

 

[TurtleDude]

Then why do both parties prefer to lower taxes when income falls?

because those with lower incomes have more votes

but there are plenty of people who want a flat tax

mainly to castrate congressional extra-constitutional power that comes from progressive rates

 

[Deuce]

Then please show the other alternatives.

Being against progressive taxation because it makes the rich pay a higher percentage of income. I mean, jesus christ this isn't hard. Decreasing income due to recession is hardly the only consideration to take into account when forming an opinion on tax policy.

 

[Deuce]

Then why do both parties prefer to lower taxes when income falls?

You're talking about things that aren't actually the same thing as if they are the same thing, and you seem to be under the impression that there can only be one reason for supporting something.

 

[drz-400]

You're talking about things that aren't actually the same thing as if they are the same thing, and you seem to be under the impression that there can only be one reason for supporting something.

Show me how they are not the same thing.

 

[drz-400]

Being against progressive taxation because it makes the rich pay a higher percentage of income. I mean, jesus christ this isn't hard. Decreasing income due to recession is hardly the only consideration to take into account when forming an opinion on tax policy.

No it is not, but if you notice in the OP I stated that there are two specific position that I feel are held frequently that are contradictory. Just one of those happens to be "lower taxes during a recession." The other is "a flat tax is more fair and equitable."

 

[drz-400]

because those with lower incomes have more votes

but there are plenty of people who want a flat tax

mainly to castrate congressional extra-constitutional power that comes from progressive rates

My argument does not address those people. This argument is meant to persuade those partisan republicans that hold the two frequently held positions outlined in the OP.

 

[Deuce]

No it is not, but if you notice in the OP I stated that there are two specific position that I feel are held frequently that are contradictory. Just one of those happens to be "lower taxes during a recession." The other is "a flat tax is more fair and equitable."

Someone who holds the second opinion would support across the board tax cuts during a recession, maintaining the fair (in their opinion) flat tax scheme and simultaneously lowering taxes "as income drops."

The tax cut a conservative is supporting in this scenario isn't because of falling income, it's because they want people to spend more money.

 

[drz-400]

Someone who holds the second opinion would support across the board tax cuts during a recession, maintaining the fair (in their opinion) flat tax scheme and simultaneously lowering taxes "as income drops."

Would taxes increase after the recession or are they permanent? If they increase, well they seem to follow a progressive scheme. If not, then this can easily be reduced to the absurd argument. Unless the business cycle magically ends, taxes will eventually have to be raised to prevent them from reaching 0.\

Edit:

To add, if they are consistent w/ the first proposition, they will be raised when a recession is not taking place, when income is rising.

The tax cut a conservative is supporting in this scenario isn't because of falling income, it's because they want people to spend more money.

But this avoid the fundamental question of why they want people to spend more, magically during a recession. It is because income is falling.

 

[Deuce]

Would taxes increase after the recession or are they permanent? If they increase, well they seem to follow a progressive scheme. If not, then this can easily be reduced to the absurd argument. Unless the business cycle magically ends, taxes will eventually have to be raised to prevent them from reaching 0.

No, it wouldn't be progressive because the tax rates would still be the same for everyone. It's not the rising or lowering tax rates they take issue with, it's the disparity in tax rates between a poor person and a rich person.

But this avoid the fundamental question of why they want people to spend more, magically during a recession. It is because income is falling.

Sometimes people spend less during a recession even though their own income isn't falling. There's a lot more to a recession than what you describe. It doesn't avoid anything, you're just deliberately trying to railroad the conversation because to expand it at all makes your premise collapse.

 

[Deuce]

Let me spell it out for you:
You're using a different definition of progressive taxation than everyone else is. That's where your confusion comes from.

 

[drz-400]

No, it wouldn't be progressive because the tax rates would still be the same for everyone. It's not the rising or lowering tax rates they take issue with, it's the disparity in tax rates between a poor person and a rich person.

If you are concerned with how the tax policy will behave on the aggregate then yes, lowering a flat tax during a recession and raising a flat tax during a boom will be in effect the same as a progressive policy. To me it would make more sense to automate this into a progressive tax, rather than having congress act every time income in the economy falls and rises.

If you are concerned with the disparity then correct. Yet I would ask why you are only concerned with the desparity between individuals, when for the economy as a whole, "everyone," why you do not care that the policy acts as a progressive tax scheme.

Sometimes people spend less during a recession even though their own income isn't falling. There's a lot more to a recession than what you describe. It doesn't avoid anything, you're just deliberately trying to railroad the conversation because to expand it at all makes your premise collapse.

Go ahead and expand it, but it is a fact that a recession is defined as falling income on the aggregate.

 

[drz-400]

Let me spell it out for you:
You're using a different definition of progressive taxation than everyone else is. That's where your confusion comes from.

I guess I look at it different that everyone else. I see a progressive tax system as increasing taxes as income goes up. Decreasing taxes as income goes down.

 

[drz-400]

I guess I look at it different that everyone else. I see a progressive tax system as increasing taxes as income goes up. Decreasing taxes as income goes down.

Let me expand duece.

If you are soley looking at the disparity betwen your taxes and someone else, I would ask why you think that doing so is fair and equitable. See the definition several posts back. If we are to take all parties into account, why not look at all parties, everyone. Why not look at the aggregate?

 

[Deuce]

I guess I look at it different that everyone else. I see a progressive tax system as increasing taxes as income goes up. Decreasing taxes as income goes down.

Yes, and you're wrong. Progressive taxation is when someone making more money is taxed at a higher rate than someone making less. At the same time. Progressive tax schemes do not address whether or not tax rates change over time, which is what you have been describing.

I'm not concerned with the disparity. I support progressive taxation. Those against it, however, actually are focused on the disparity. They aren't against increasing taxes (necessarily), they're against being forced to pay a higher tax rate than their neighbor.

Read through TurtleDude's post history and you'll see very quickly what I'm talking about. He's one of the more vocal detractors of progressive taxation.

 

[drz-400]

Yes, and you're wrong. Progressive taxation is when someone making more money is taxed at a higher rate than someone making less. At the same time.

I'm not concerned with the disparity. I support progressive taxation. Those against it, however, actually are focused on the disparity. They aren't against increasing taxes (necessarily), they're against being forced to pay a higher tax rate than their neighbor.

I already posted kinda a response, but if you are simply looking at your tax rate how can you characterize your position as fair? We must take everyone into consideration. In doing so, it would be more useful to look at an aggregate rather than your own individual rate.

 

[Deuce]

I already posted kinda a response, but if you are simply looking at your tax rate how can you characterize your position as fair? We must take everyone into consideration. In doing so, it would be more useful to look at an aggregate rather than your own individual rate.

I don't see what you're getting at. People supporting flat tax rates are supporting the same tax rate for everyone, not just themselves. Under their system, my own individual rate would be the same as Warren Buffet's.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

its seems ridiculous that someone who doesn't use much government services pays 10,000 times more for what he uses over another person

as well

it seems ridiculous that a majority of non tax paying voters can successfully vote into office those who want to raise the top rates on those who already pay most of the taxes

I have no idea how much money you make or if you're even who you say you are, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it.

its seems ridiculous that someone who doesn't use much government services pays 10,000 times more for what he uses over another person

It feels to me like you're envious of the poor. Give away all your money, then you won't have to pay taxes and you can live as the poor do, with a vote without tax. And you can vote to increase the taxes on the rich all you want to. It's what you want, so shut up and give your money away so I can stop hearing these ridiculous arguments you make.

it seems ridiculous that a majority of non tax paying voters can successfully vote into office those who want to raise the top rates on those who already pay most of the taxes

47% isnt a majority, which makes me wonder just how you got so rich when you can't grasp such simple concepts. I find it sick that a conservative, or someone labeling themselves as such, places a value of a vote on money. I can see why liberals hate conservatives, with beliefs like that, I can feel their anger. Again, I must bring up the soldiers whose families are so poor they don't pay taxes but their sons and daughters die overseas so you can be a jackass and say **** like that. According to you, it's not right that they get a vote when you only get a vote.

I think it boils down to you think you're better than everyone else because of your income. That is definitely the old republican way of thinking. You'd make a good congressman. You already have the snobby attitude necessary to get the job.

 

[drz-400]

I don't see what you're getting at. People supporting flat tax rates are supporting the same tax rate for everyone, not just themselves. Under their system, my own individual rate would be the same as Warren Buffet's.

I know, I am saying why would you not look at how a tax policy will affect "everyone," the entire economy?

If "everyone's" income goes down, do you want tax rates to go down? Short answer is that most republicans do because they support lowering taxes when there is a recession.

However, when it comes to individual tax rates going up or down they seem to think it is unfair if one person has a lower tax rate because their income is low and another person has a higher tax rate because their income is high. This is the disparity you emphasize. I am saying this is not a "fair" way of looking at it to begin with if we are to go by the definition presented earlier. We must take all parties into account. How do we do that? By looking at all parties, "everyone," the entire economy.

 

[cholla]

Actually it is in there:

6.
a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.
b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

Is this unfair? If it is then both parties are guilty of the same "unfairness." Though that is strange, because fairness is usually described as something we all could agree to...

Not the same thing...close though

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no idea how much money you make or if you're even who you say you are, but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it.



It feels to me like you're envious of the poor. Give away all your money, then you won't have to pay taxes and you can live as the poor do, with a vote without tax. And you can vote to increase the taxes on the rich all you want to. It's what you want, so shut up and give your money away so I can stop hearing these ridiculous arguments you make.



47% isnt a majority, which makes me wonder just how you got so rich when you can't grasp such simple concepts. I find it sick that a conservative, or someone labeling themselves as such, places a value of a vote on money. I can see why liberals hate conservatives, with beliefs like that, I can feel their anger. Again, I must bring up the soldiers whose families are so poor they don't pay taxes but their sons and daughters die overseas so you can be a jackass and say **** like that. According to you, it's not right that they get a vote when you only get a vote.

I think it boils down to you think you're better than everyone else because of your income. That is definitely the old republican way of thinking. You'd make a good congressman. You already have the snobby attitude necessary to get the job.

that is rather silly and you are attributing things to me that makes you think your position is based on morality. that's stupid

another faux libertarian who is really a lefty

 

[cholla]

Sorry, did not see the reply initially in the quote box:



A bit of a red herring. The government has spent money and must spend money to operate. We must raise revenues. We must levy taxes. How shall we structure our tax? Would you prefer to see the lower taxes at a loss or a gain? Maybe you would prefer to see the same tax rate for both, I address this along with your other reply below.

I would prefer a tax that is the same percentage of income to everyone. 10% maybe, studies would have to be done to determine what percentage would be neccesary/agreeable to provide the money needed.

Risk aversion. After tax income will be lower if you do well, but higher if you do badly. This is important to a risk averse individual.

OK That answers my question, I don't agree and think that it is unamerican/wealth redistribution, though.

10 characters

 

[haymarket]

from Turtle disparaging another poster

another faux libertarian who is really a lefty

Since you have a nasty habit of doing this repeatedly, and for the sake of us all, could you please post your Official Credentials as the Official Authority to Determine All Things Libertarian on this particular message board?

 

[cholla]

Yes, and you're wrong. Progressive taxation is when someone making more money is taxed at a higher rate than someone making less. At the same time. Progressive tax schemes do not address whether or not tax rates change over time, which is what you have been describing.

I'm not concerned with the disparity. I support progressive taxation. Those against it, however, actually are focused on the disparity. They aren't against increasing taxes (necessarily), they're against being forced to pay a higher tax rate than their neighbor.

Thats the point, exactly.

Read through TurtleDude's post history and you'll see very quickly what I'm talking about. He's one of the more vocal detractors of progressive taxation.

10 characters

 

[TurtleDude]

from Turtle disparaging another poster



Since you have a nasty habit of doing this repeatedly, and for the sake of us all, could you please post your Official Credentials as the Official Authority to Determine All Things Libertarian on this particular message board?

its called the First Amendment. Look it up sometimes. such knowledge will do you good