• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which tax system is most 'fair'

Which tax system is most 'fair'?

  • Progressive Tax

    Votes: 28 46.7%
  • Regressive Tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Flat Percentage Tax Rate

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Flat Dollar Tax

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 14 23.3%

  • Total voters
    60
I think to totally summarize my point here.

We've had some sort of progressive taxation for the better part of 100 years and the amount of relative poverty is more or less the same (over the past 40 years at least).
We've increased regulations from 1 book of approximately 1,000 pages to multiple volumes compromising approximately 70,000 pages.

Is there a point when you ask yourself, when is it enough? What have we really accomplished?

The more progressive a tax system, the more stability it provides to the economy during changes income (GDP).
 

So the rich are clearly paying far far more than they use to make up for all those who don't pay near as much as they use.

This is a Continuing and Raging LIE by Turtle Due.
Not an opinion.. a Grotesque LIE.
Most recently he's been shown so here
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-flat-taxation-dont-get-3.html#post1058836356

Reminding him of:

me said:
You may THINK it's unfair because of Your political stance, which has NO basis in the econonic history of this country... only in what you naively perceive as 'fair'.
So easy on the "Idiotic" unless you have a Mirror handy.

We have a Progressive income tax now, which in your mind is already 'unfair'.
but in FACT, it's clearly not Progressive Enough to prevent greater and greater income disparity and so-called 'working poor.

So that IN FACT, BOTH parties have agreed several times to stimulous checks (ie 600/1200) which benefit the little guy (and effectivley Lower His tax rate far more significantly than bigger earners) and who HAS to spend every penny he makes ALREADY and still has nothing left.
He can't buy enough cars, computers, etc, to support the Stock prices of the rich. So ALL then do agree where relief is more needed.
The Closet 'Proof of the Pudding'.

A Flat Rate Income tax would obviously cause even greater disparity and Raise the taxes of at least the bottom 2/3s (probably 4/5's/80%) of the population now to lower the taxes on the richer.
Of course, Only AN "IDIOT" would propose it, and no one really has seriously tried.

And as to "Class Warfare", I already addressed this, the most myopic of your many Goofy remarks in post #176.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250

1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
AND........ just under Bush II, Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes were near HALVED from 28% to 15% (on which the truly wealthy live), and the estate tax all but eliminated.
So the rich pay fare LESS than the used to.
 
Last edited:
I think to totally summarize my point here.

We've had some sort of progressive taxation for the better part of 100 years and the amount of relative poverty is more or less the same (over the past 40 years at least).
We've increased regulations from 1 book of approximately 1,000 pages to multiple volumes compromising approximately 70,000 pages.

Is there a point when you ask yourself, when is it enough? What have we really accomplished?

Maybe we can draw a few conclusions from that.

One could be that not enough is being done to help the poor.

The other is that maybe the methods we are using to help the poor are not working.

The other, which is the most likely IMO, is that measures are put into place to make it appear that the goal is to reduce poverty but they are mostly hot air. The reason being that it gets votes.
 
Taxation is going to inherently unfair and arbitrary no matter how it done. Somebody always pays more and somebody always pays less. The best that one can do is create a system that gets the needed revenues while causing the minimum amount of pain. The graduated income tax has been around for quite a while and gets the job done. Nobody has to suffer much from paying their taxes, and it generates close to enough revenue to pay for the programs we need.
 
Maybe we can draw a few conclusions from that.

One could be that not enough is being done to help the poor.

The other is that maybe the methods we are using to help the poor are not working.

Just for future clarification, in this argument my use of "poor" is relative poverty.
Well, what the government defines as poor.

Realistically, I don't consider, hardly, anyone in the states as poor.

The other, which is the most likely IMO, is that measures are put into place to make it appear that the goal is to reduce poverty but they are mostly hot air. The reason being that it gets votes.

I do agree with this.
I think we have come to the finality of alleviating poverty in the sense of feeding and clothing people.
There is really nothing left to be done in this sense.
Poor people here have a reasonable ease of access to food, medical care, housing, you name it.

What we should be doing, is figuring out how these people can make the life changes necessary to no longer be poor.
It requires a great amount of personal effort, in my opinion.
 
Isn't the intent to help reduce or end poverty though?
When is there a point where it is too progressive?

I dunno, I am sure it would have to do with income elasticities and peoples incentives to make more money. I agree, a redistribution effect can also be a goal and would be partly the side effect of a progressive scheme, however I think this is justified if we envoke rawls veil of ignorance and difference principle. However, my main point was a progressive scheme also provides stability as an accoplishment.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, I am sure it would have to do with income elasticities and peoples incentives to make more money. I agree, a redistribution effect can also be a goal and would be partly the side effect of a progressive scheme, however I think this is justified if we envoke rawls veil of ignorance and difference principle. However, my main point was a progressive scheme also provides stability as an accoplishment.

I understand your main point.

I guess what I am getting at is that, if I a libertarian were to accept progressive taxation, would proponents of the system also agree that there is a limit to it's problem solving ability?
Can anyone really justify a tax rate as high as 50%,60%,70%+.
To me that seems criminal, irrational and unreasonable.

I know the thread is about the most fair tax system but we really must delve deeper into the subject than giving a check mark of fair or not fair.
 
I understand your main point.

I guess what I am getting at is that, if I a libertarian were to accept progressive taxation, would proponents of the system also agree that there is a limit to it's problem solving ability?
Can anyone really justify a tax rate as high as 50%,60%,70%+.
To me that seems criminal, irrational and unreasonable.

I know the thread is about the most fair tax system but we really must delve deeper into the subject than giving a check mark of fair or not fair.

Libertarians hold private property as a fundamental right, so I doubt stability or the difference principle would be acceptable reasons.

I would say that taxation in general is opposed to libertarianism, however since most are minarchists they realize some is necessary. Most I have seen support a consumption tax rather than an income tax, but I think the main thing is that it is used for a minimal state. The form of taxation probobly does not matter that much as long as it is minimal for libertarians, at least that is what I would think.
 
This is a Continuing and Raging LIE by Turtle Due.
Not an opinion.. a Grotesque LIE.
Most recently he's been shown so here
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-flat-taxation-dont-get-3.html#post1058836356

Reminding him of:

AND........ just under Bush II, Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes were near HALVED from 28% to 15% (on which the truly wealthy live), and the estate tax all but eliminated.
So the rich pay fare LESS than the used to.

Wrong-the effective rate will be higher next year than anytime in history due to where the bracket hits and for the first 100+ years, there was no taxes on income,

I wasn't lying it is you who are wrong and obviously are another person who has demonstrated rather virulent class envy

that is the second time you posted to that thread where you really did not much more than cheer on another class warfare advocate's opinion.

sorry but that is lame
 
I know this will never happen but it would be interesting to see the tax returns of those who clamor for more taxes on the rich. I suspect that would shed a great deal of light on what motivates those who scream for others to pay more taxes. It is also the biggest problem with the progressive taxes-it appeals to class envy and gives congress untold extra-constitutional power by such pandering.
 
What's the most 'fair' tax system? (not asking which is most sustainable, just which would be most 'fair', in a morality sort of way)

I think the original tax system in place just after the ratification of the Constitution was most fair.
 
I don't disagree with you in that we need some serious behavior modifications in this country. However, I think that the government could be used to make such necessary behavior modifications.

One is shelter for the poor. I've stated this several times in other threads. I am critical for the government having provided government-backed loans to the poor for houses they can't afford that were built for the middle class. That's just stupid.

correct; it was. no amount of wishing will allow government fiat to change economic reality and turn people who can't afford houses into people who can. politicians cannot be put in charge of housing, because their incentives are completely different from those of the market, and the result will be malinvestment

Instead, I think the government should use the authority of law to mandate that housing developers cannot ignore the housing needs of the poor.

aaand here you make the same error as those you critique. what are the 'housing needs' of the poor? we used to classify as 'poor' (we rated foodstamps); we rented an apartment and thought we were doing pretty well for ourselves. we are moving up (we will make a little over 40k this year) square into the middle class, and still we rent because we are saving a good downpayment. we've bumped up our size of apartment (to account for a second child), but as much as we want a house we don't think that we are being unfairly 'denied' our own land by 'society' due to the fact that the government has not tried to push us into one or push others to build one for us.

if i may recommend an excellent piece on this:

Behind the housing boom and bust was one of those alluring but undefined phrases that are so popular in politics -- "affordable housing." It is hard for me to know specifically what politicians are talking about when they use this phrase. But then politics is about evoking emotions, not examining specifics...

After three years of living in rented rooms, I began living in Marine Corps barracks, which didn't cost me anything. That was certainly affordable.

As a civilian again, in 1954 I rented my first apartment, a studio apartment -- small but affordable. But a year later, I went off to college and lived in dormitories on various campuses for the next six years. None was fancy but all of them were affordable.

After completing my academic studies, I rented another studio apartment.

In 1969, I rented my first house, which I could now afford, after several years as a faculty member at various colleges and universities. A dozen years later, I began to buy my first house.

While the specifics will differ from person to person, my general pattern was not unusual. Most people pay for what they can afford at the time.

What, then, is the "problem" that politicians claim to be solving when they talk about creating "affordable housing"?..

If you think it through, that is a policy for disaster. We cannot all go around buying whatever we want, whether or not we have enough money to afford it, and have somebody else make up the difference. For society as a whole, there is no somebody else...

It is certainly no longer considered to be the individual's own responsibility to acquire the work skills to be able to earn enough to afford better housing as the years passed. Why do that when the government can simply "spread the wealth around," to use another political phrase?

The ultimate irony is that increasing government intervention in the housing market has generally made housing less affordable than before, by any standard..


My position is this. Most housing developers focus on the people who are middle class or wealthier when they build houses. However there is a demand for shelter for people who earn minimum wage. But land is a commodity, so housing developers build housing only for the middle class or wealthier so they can get a better long term profit.

if there is demand for poor housing, then i'm going to need a much better explanation for why nobody is willing to make a profit meeting that demand than 'land is a commodity'. if there is demand then what is artificially depressing supply?

If I had my way, I would write a law requiring housing developers to build a certain percentage of low-income housing designed and built to be affordable to people earning a minimum wage. These could be very small, efficient multi-story homes. By forcing housing developers to dedicate to building these types of homes, they will use their ingenuity to create such homes.

....or stop building homes alltogether. or jack up prices to make up for the loss you are trying to force them to incur. or simply build slums and charge full price for them.

but it is worth noting that the market has already created the kind of house you are describing. they are called 'condominiums'; and where profit can be made on them, they are being built.

brother, i get where you're going with this, but this is a policy almost guaranteed to create a housing shortage. which would drive up prices and make the issue you are trying to address worse.

This way, the poor can actually get housing they can afford and the government isn't making risky mortgages, and housing developers will earn a profit.

housing developers will earn a profit? :confused:

A) if that were the case, then they would be doing this already. a company that turns down profit is one that is quickly replaced by a competitor that doesn't.
B) simply arguing that developers' 'ingenuity' will magically make housing affordable to those who can't afford it when it is declared so by fiat makes no more sense than declaring that banks 'ingenuity' can make loans affordable to those who cannot afford it.

The only thing that inhibits this is housing developers' desire to earn even more of a profit to cater to the demands of the middle class. But in doing so, they ignore the needs of the poor.

it's not a question of what you consider to be their 'needs', it's a question of supply and demand. housing has fallen sharply in the last few years; if there was profit to be made in any market, they would be hunting it down like starving cheetahs after a gazelle. that they are not indicates that there is no profit to be made in building a house for 30,000 on a piece of land worth 100,000 and then selling it for 50,000.

So there's a lot of ways to look at the scenario.

well it's still worth a look to see what government can do to help lower the cost of housing in America.

for example; the government owns massive swaths of unimproved land that it does not use. in a time of historical deficits and record debt, it seems that the income generated by the sale of this land would certainly come in handy, and the increase in the supply of land would push down its' price.
 
Last edited:
AND........ just under Bush II, Capital Gains and Dividend Taxes were near HALVED from 28% to 15% (on which the truly wealthy live), and the estate tax all but eliminated.
So the rich pay fare LESS than the used to.

as a percentage of their income, certainly; as far as actual revenues are concerned?


Rich got richer, paid more taxes under Bush


...In 2000, the top quintile paid 66.6 percent of taxes, a share that dipped to 64.8 percent in 2002 and then rose, peaking at 69.3 percent in 2006 and settling at 68.9 percent in 2007...

and what did those tax cuts do, anyway?

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
 
All Americans Pay Taxes
Those Who Pay No Federal Income Taxes Pay Other Types of Taxes, Most of
Which Take More from the Poor and Middle Class than from the Rich
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf
(Charts within)

Conservative pundits and media outlets have seized upon an estimate that 47% of taxpayers owe no federal income tax for 2009. This statistic has morphed into the claim by conservatives that “47% of all Americans don’t pay any taxes.”

The conservative pundits are Wrong. It’s true that many taxpayers don’t pay federal income taxes, but they still pay federal payroll taxes (and some federal excise taxes) and also pay state and local taxes. Most of these other taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of a poor or middle-class family’s income than they take from a rich family. This largely offsets the progressivity of the federal income tax.

CTJ estimates that the share of total taxes (federal state and local taxes) paid by taxpayers in each income group is quite similar to the share of total income received by each income group in 2009.

For example, the share of total taxes paid by the richest one percent (22.1%) is not dramatically different from the share of total income received by this group (20.4%).

Everyone in America pays some sort of taxes, which may take the form of income, sales or property taxes imposed by state and local governments, in addition to federal income, payroll and excise taxes.

Claims that the richest 1% are paying far more than their fair share usually focus only on the most significant progressive tax, the federal income tax. They ignore the other types of taxes. As these figures make clear, the U.S. tax system just barely qualifies as progressive.
 
Last edited:
as a percentage of their income, certainly; as far as actual revenues are concerned?


Rich got richer, paid more taxes under Bush


...In 2000, the top quintile paid 66.6 percent of taxes, a share that dipped to 64.8 percent in 2002 and then rose, peaking at 69.3 percent in 2006 and settling at 68.9 percent in 2007...

and what did those tax cuts do, anyway?

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

In an economy any economy using straight tax revenues as a means to gauge whether or not tax cuts have paid for themselves is a poor arguement, you have to use tax revenues as % of GDP and government spending as % of GDP. General economic growth and inflation will distort any year to year comparison
 
I am a moderately conservative libertarian, or a libertarian-ish conservative, except on Tuesdays.

I don't have a problem with progressive tax, as long as the progression isn't too steep and the top-end isn't too high, at least under any political and economic conditions likely to prevail in modern times or the near future.

You can't pay for the huge government we presently have with a flat tax that hits the poor with the same percentage as the rich; the rate would have to be 20-30% and the poor can't pay it and have a half-way decent life.

National sales tax? At the figures I've heard quoted (20-30%) it would be just as bad.

You have to remember the regressive taxes for SocSec/Medicare/etc. Property tax and state/local sales tax, etc etc. These things already cost the poor and blue-collar a bigger chunk of their limited income than it does the middle-class and wealthy.

Now if you cut government to the point where the flat rate was under 10%, that might be do-able...but lots of luck with that, you'd have to reduce government to less than half its current size and scope.

You could have a flat tax if you exempted some reasonable sum from the tax as "cost of living"... say 20-30 grand a household. Of course, if you do that then it is a form of two-rate progressive tax, really.

Principle is all very well and good, but nobody's taxes should push their heads underwater.
 
The fairest tax is no tax. The second fairest tax is where everyone pays the same amount. The third fairest tax is where everyone pays the same %. None of these are feasible. We need to accept the inherent unfairness of taxes but also accept that no taxes would be even worse.
 
I know this will never happen but it would be interesting to see the tax returns of those who clamor for more taxes on the rich. I suspect that would shed a great deal of light on what motivates those who scream for others to pay more taxes. It is also the biggest problem with the progressive taxes-it appeals to class envy and gives congress untold extra-constitutional power by such pandering.

What we do know is that the Messiah has appointed more people with more failures to pay their own taxes in history.

Not to mention Chucky Rangel's felonious tax evasions.
 
Rich got richer, paid more taxes under Bush

It's got nothing to do with revenue generation.

It has nothing to do with fairness.

It has EVERYTHING to do with envy.

I was posting to one of the DNC's useful idiots (they're everywhere), and he was whining that some Wall Street executive made four billion dollars and ONLY paid 15% tax on it.

I asked him why he felt that anyone paying $600,000,000 in taxes isn't paying enough, and the guy vanished.

I say there should be an upper limit on how much taxes any one person has to pay, and that limit should be a hell of a lot less than half a billion dollars, no matter how much money they make in a year.
 
The fairest tax is no tax. The second fairest tax is where everyone pays the same amount. The third fairest tax is where everyone pays the same %. None of these are feasible. We need to accept the inherent unfairness of taxes but also accept that no taxes would be even worse.

Well I think what you have to consider matters of fairness in a particular way to see no taxation as the most fair.

No taxation would result in no government and anarchy outright. It would be a disaster.

The second fairest tax according to you based on flat taxation where everyone pays the same tax does not consider that finances in terms of having dollars to spend has a bottom. A flat tax hits the lowest income bracket far more then the upper income bracket. So according to this logic if you have less money then someone with far more wealth to pay for needs/wants, it is somehow fair for you to have less money available for needs. Because you do have less money for needs it creates smaller pool of wealth available for wants. The person with less money has to spend a larger percent of his money on needs then the person with more money. When a person works for money equivalent to the poverty line or less they spend a greater portion of their money on needs under a flat tax system. A flat tax disproportionately punishes low income.

A progressive taxation does tax people with more total available money to spend then the people with less money to spend. However one only has to consider the means by which they attain that larger portion of wealth to reason they should indeed pay more. Many wealthy employ people who work for less then the poverty line.. so it is clear that the wealthy have created more wealth from people who are under huge income pressure in more of a parasitic manner then a symbiotic way the wealthy make wealth from the less fortunate. Many wealthy people don't do anything but invest their capital while the working poor are busy making them the money they live a privileged life from.

A progressive tax makes it possible for the wealthy to re-contribute to society via public services that their less fortunate social counterparts should indeed benefit from. A progressive taxation is the most fair considering the costs of needs on the lowest income bracket. More importantly from an economic sense in a consumer economy it makes sense for the wealthy to want consumers to have money to spend.

I personally think libertarians need to re-evaluate their idea of what fair is.
 
Well I think what you have to consider matters of fairness in a particular way to see no taxation as the most fair.

No taxation would result in no government and anarchy outright. It would be a disaster.

The second fairest tax according to you based on flat taxation where everyone pays the same tax does not consider that finances in terms of having dollars to spend has a bottom. A flat tax hits the lowest income bracket far more then the upper income bracket. So according to this logic if you have less money then someone with far more wealth to pay for needs/wants, it is somehow fair for you to have less money available for needs. Because you do have less money for needs it creates smaller pool of wealth available for wants. The person with less money has to spend a larger percent of his money on needs then the person with more money. When a person works for money equivalent to the poverty line or less they spend a greater portion of their money on needs under a flat tax system. A flat tax disproportionately punishes low income.

A progressive taxation does tax people with more total available money to spend then the people with less money to spend. However one only has to consider the means by which they attain that larger portion of wealth to reason they should indeed pay more. Many wealthy employ people who work for less then the poverty line.. so it is clear that the wealthy have created more wealth from people who are under huge income pressure in more of a parasitic manner then a symbiotic way the wealthy make wealth from the less fortunate. Many wealthy people don't do anything but invest their capital while the working poor are busy making them the money they live a privileged life from.

A progressive tax makes it possible for the wealthy to re-contribute to society via public services that their less fortunate social counterparts should indeed benefit from. A progressive taxation is the most fair considering the costs of needs on the lowest income bracket. More importantly from an economic sense in a consumer economy it makes sense for the wealthy to want consumers to have money to spend.

I personally think libertarians need to re-evaluate their idea of what fair is.

Nonsense-those who are rich-for the most part-worked very very hard to obtain that. And life isn't fair. The job of the government should not be to punish success. YOu concept of fairness is not universal nor based on reality. IF we started from scratch and asked what sort of government we should have, those who are smart and talented would not agree to a government that punishes them in favor of those who contribute little or nothing. Those who have no talent or skill are not able to bargain from a position of strength and could not make the productive people join a government that caters to the dependents.

the bottom line is that if the poor continue to vote up the taxes of the productive, the productive are going to leave and the untalented are going to starve.
 
I know this will never happen but it would be interesting to see the tax returns of those who clamor for more taxes on the rich. I suspect that would shed a great deal of light on what motivates those who scream for others to pay more taxes. It is also the biggest problem with the progressive taxes-it appeals to class envy and gives congress untold extra-constitutional power by such pandering.

Class warfare and racism are the central tenets to progressivism. That's what.
 
Class warfare and racism are the central tenets to progressivism. That's what.

I agree with the class warfare part. People who think it died or doesn't exist are deluding themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom