Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[pchang]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Yet we would describe Aztec's human sacrifce as murder in todays view.

No, it's called reducing the unemployment rate.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Sales tax was used as an example superior to the income tax. While it has coercive elements to it, it is still voluntary. The Income Tax is not voluntary. Sales Tax, however, was only one of 3 or 4 examples I threw out as options.

Yeah, we're beating a dead horse here, but you're being rediculously obtuse.

Sales tax IS NOT VOLUNTARY!!!! You're being incredibly myopic in simply shifting the stage of the transaction. Let's go through this one more time, really slowly:

1) Do you, as the merchant, have any choice but to pay the government 6% of your sale?

2) If the customer is willing to pay $424 for your product, would you not make more profit if you could keep the $24 you now need to fork over to the government?

3) How is this in any way different than income tax? Let's say I sign a contract for $60k a year - that's how much I could theoretically make if the government didn't want 35% (or whatever) of my salary in income tax - JUST LIKE YOU COULD MAKE $24 MORE on every sale if the government didn't want 6% of your sales. Your job is sales. Your income comes from your sales. The sales tax is robbing you of income. How do you see any difference?

4) What the hell does the customer have to do with anything? Who cares if his purchase is voluntary - you're the merchant, you're being deprived of $24 you would otherwise have in your pocket.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The fact that we differentiate shows that the concept of murder is maleable and subject to cultural interpretation, no?

Both laws about what constitutes murder, and (differing) public opinion (aka morality) on those laws has changed over the years, therefore obviously morality isn't universal.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker

All sorts of ways, we have private security systems now with private security guards/patrols, customer lists and notifications of a break in. Those who do pay will show their displeasure with those who don't by discriminating against them (just see how life is when markets won't sell you goods). And virtually everyone, faced with lower taxes, will gladly pay to have police protection.

This is the kind of libertarian myopia that bothers me so much. So taxes are immoral because they involve coersion, but turning someone into a social parriah that you will not do business with because they won't pay their "voluntary" user fee is somehow not coersion? What kind of logic is that? Sticking with your favorite analogy, it's no longer the mafia that's demanding 10% of your money, it's an angry mob of your peers.

All you're arguing for is the right to be the one that's doing the coercing instead of the government.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Both laws about what constitutes murder, and (differing) public opinion (aka morality) on those laws has changed over the years, therefore obviously morality isn't universal.

Correct. Which is why one needs be very careful when describing morality/immorality in terms of absolutes. It may at best (or worst if one ascribes to the concept that humans are incapable of change) be an absolute to an indivudal's view of the world. There is no evidence to suggest though that individual human's are completely inflexible with respect to views of morality/immorality over time. (Excepting the dogged fundamentally flawed views shared by commies that is )

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
This is their argument - it isn't moral for a Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange, but it is moral for that Mafioso to demand a "tax" on my exchange if they hire a politician to make the demand on his behalf. And that brings us back to the fallacy that making an immoral act legal makes it moral...

Your fallacy lies in equating the government with the mafia. Lets see some argument or evidence for that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

You're asking me why justice is good? Is that really subjective. Maybe you are asking why that is better than the most good for the most people. Perhaps that is subjective.

Yes, I am asking you why there should be no meritocracy, which isn't egalitarian.

Meritocracy can be egalitarian as long as people are compensated fairly for their contribution to society.

Originally posted by Azazel

By claiming that an action which produces the most good for the most people you are allowing for an action that produces unfair treatment. Some people are made to pay a price for other peoples happiness.

Yes. And the price one of them pays is equally important to the utility another recieves. Thus, through calculation of positive and negative utilities, and the number of people experiencing each, we get the utility of the entire action. Unless you say that you can NEVER harm ANYONE's interests, in an ethical behavior.

I am saying that it is unethical to make someone pay a price for someone elses benefit if they aren't compensated fairly for it.

Originally posted by Azazel

Justice is when people are treated equally.

That's not true.

jus·tice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n.
The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

Originally posted by Azazel

for example, in a court, is the just solution to have everyone punished equally, no matter the case, and whether the person is guilty?

No. The person is punished because they have harmed society or another person. The punishment is just because they pay an equal cost for the harm they have caused. Or that is the aim of legal justice anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Azazel,

Ethical is not the same thing as just. Utilitarian ethics allow the kidney to be taken because it gives the recipient a greater benefit than the harm to the person whom the kidney was taken from. Just ethics do not allow this because benefits must be equal.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Not if you go to another country, with preferrable (to you) tax laws.

You have that choice with any tax.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
This has to be the weakest arguement yet.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
but that is a choice for you to make. Do you want the good bad enough to pay the asking price. I am not forcing you to buy it, nor am I telling you you must take it and work for me for three months to pay for it.

If my argument is so weak then why don't you attack it instead of just ignoring it. I've demonstrated to you that you make a choice to pay income tax as well at sales tax. You're ignoring my argument. Usually that means the argument is pretty good.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The most onerous of all taxes is local property taxes. Theft out and out for the mere sin of having property.

As opposed to taxing the 'sin' of working?

[MrBaggins]

http://www.jengajam.com/r/Badger/bo

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Thanks Kid. I agree Income taxes are evil as well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Thanks Kid. I agree Income taxes are evil as well.

I never said they were. You said property tax was the most onerous. If you don't tax property then the only thing left is income. So you must propose taxing people's income.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wrong