Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Az]

You mean you become happy when someone steals from you? What if other people don't share your definition of happiness? And if you people really believed in "utility" you'd be giving up a kidney to people in need of one

No you don't become happy when someone steals from you. But by collecting tax, you create things that benefit society as a whole, things that wouldn't have been created without taxation.

Rights derive from universal desires and are personal in nature, i.e., you don't have a "right" to involve others against their will. For example, if you want to be religious, you don't have a right to compel me to build or attend your church.

Why not?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
legalised stealing is moral? If there were no government to do your stealing, would you really walk around stealing from others and telling them how moral you are and how immoral they are for not appreciating your special insights into morality?

No, mobs would do their stealing and looting directly from the rich, a la the French Revolution.

Society and the rule of law enable the accumulation of wealth and safe guard those who possess it. The least the rich can do when they are protected and fostered by society is to pay back in proportion to what they derive.

We all benefit from public safety and good roads, the rich who need trucks to carry the goods to market in safety on good roads benefit a little bit more and should thus pay a little bit more.

[monkspider]

Nicely articulated NYE.

[David Floyd]

Society and the rule of law enable the accumulation of wealth and safe guard those who possess it. The least the rich can do when they are protected and fostered by society is to pay back in proportion to what they derive.

You make it sound as if the rich are the only ones protected. Stealing from poor people is wrong, too. Just because poor people may be more inclined to steal doesn't mean their property isn't protected, and it certainly doesn't make stealing right.

And you guys still haven't responded to the kidney example. Interesting.

[David Floyd]

We all benefit from public safety and good roads, the rich who need trucks to carry the goods to market in safety on good roads benefit a little bit more and should thus pay a little bit more.

They already DO pay more - who hires the trucks? Who builds the supermarkets? Who builds the trucks?

[Az]

And you guys still haven't responded to the kidney example. Interesting.

The quality of life does decline greatly from kindey donation. However I donated all of my organs that would be harvested post mortem,.

[David Floyd]

The quality of life does decline greatly from kindey donation.

Good point. On the other hand, the quality of life also declines greatly when you're dead from lack of kidneys.

Oh, I see. You feel that you should primarily be concerned with your own quality of life. Your life, and the quality thereof, takes precedence over that of others. If that's your point, we agree, and you don't actually think we have a moral commitment to help others at the expense of ourselves.

Taking my money and giving it to others impacts my quality of life, you know.

[notyoueither]

Of course it can go overboard. At the point where it is unattractive to take the risk of running the trucks and supplying the goods due to posibilities of commercial losses, when taking into account that the potential for profit is negated by too high a level of taxation, you will then get less commerce using the roads and paying for public safety. You will then have a stagnated economy where very few can benefit and therefore very few people will waste the effort.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd


They already DO pay more - who hires the trucks? Who builds the supermarkets? Who builds the trucks?

Who pays for the roads, and who profits from their existence?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And you guys still haven't responded to the kidney example. Interesting.

You expect a response to such tripe?

[David Floyd]

Who pays for the roads, and who profits from their existence?

Everyone profits from the existence of roads. Without roads, your poor people would have an even rougher time.

As for who pays for roads, I think they should be privately built, owned, and maintained.

[David Floyd]

You expect a response to such tripe?

Yes, I can. If your premise is that we are obligated to help those in need, then I don't see why you don't extend that to your kidney. Would you extend it to donating blood or plasma?

[M. Robespierre]

No, mobs would do their stealing and looting directly from the rich, a la the French Revolution.

One cannot blame the revolution for the looting, but rather, the excesses of the privileged class before them.

Society and the rule of law enable the accumulation of wealth and safe guard those who possess it. The least the rich can do when they are protected and fostered by society is to pay back in proportion to what they derive.

Such protections often come at the expense of the freedoms and liberties that ought to be engendered to all, regardless of their status in society.

We all benefit from public safety and good roads,

True, but the government should not be limited in their adminstration to just public safety and roads.

No, these taxes on the rich merely redress the wrongs to society committed by the priveleged to the impoverished.

[Az]

Oh, I see. You feel that you should primarily be concerned with your own quality of life. Your life, and the quality thereof, takes precedence over that of others. If that's your point, we agree, and you don't actually think we have a moral commitment to help others at the expense of ourselves.

Oh, I see, you're putting words in my mouth.

I certainly am more concerned with my welfare more than the welfare of the most of the other people in the world. This doesn't say that this is the most ethical stance. FOR ME, it takes precedence, that does it mean that it should actually take precedence in the eyes of the law. I am doubtful that if the government would harvest the organs, it would be an ethical action, since it would both mean a descent in my quality of life, AND doing something that I don't want to do, which are both carrying negative utility. This also has implications on the entire society, so I am not sure that saving a single person's life would be worth it. The most ethical solution would be to make post mortem organ harvesting mandatory.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Everyone profits from the existence of roads. Without roads, your poor people would have an even rougher time.

As for who pays for roads, I think they should be privately built, owned, and maintained.

And you're living in a dreamland, but whatever.