Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Progressive taxation has nothing to do with financing the government since there are too few rich to tax for their taxes to matter much. Progressive taxation is punitive and can only be justified by some demonstration that it benefits society in some manner.

It actually depends on the banding, but I'll take the US as example. In 2000, 37.4% of federal income taxes were paid by the top 1% of income earners, who incidentally had an income share of 20.8%.

You can't say that either of those figures are small.

[David Floyd]

If one opposes taxation to assist these people, as well as charitable donations, to what option have you left the poor, but to rob their more fortunate neighbours?

I don't oppose charity, rather, I think that charity should be the method of support for the destitute.

They must survive, and their survival ought to weigh of more value than mere property.

Why? Are not property rights an extenion of my right to life? If I have a right to be alive, surely I have a right to my labor, and the products produced by my labor. To deny any of that is to deny my right to life.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And poor people benefit from an education they couldn't otherwise afford, poor people benefit from a police and court system, and poor people benefit from roads. Arguing that the rich benefit more than the poor is kinda silly, because without rich people, poor people would be ****ed.

But I benefit more, hence I pay more. Simple, really.

You personally could not provide those things, but other people would be able to set up road building companies and make a profit, and other people would be able to build schools.

And if you feel as if it is in your benefit for workers to be educated, then by all means, feel free to donate your money and time to educating them. Don't force others who disagree to do the same.

And then someone would have to pay for those roads and those schools. If taxes did not pay for it, wages would have to be higher so that people could pay for them themselves. One way or the other, they have to be paid for. That is unless you are advocating an illiterate population walking in the mud along wagon tracks.

So, to get back to my mattress example, you concede that stuffing your mattress full of money does not limit anyone's freedom.

By taking your money out of the mattress and generating commerce, you are helping both yourself and others. Why should you be punished for this?

I'm not punished. I'm taxed if I make a profit. The same way I'd be taxed if I worked for someone else. It is simply the case that I stand to make a sizable amount more profit than the average person earns in wages, or I wouldn't invest the capital in the first place.

If I am taxed a fair amount, and can see that profits outway risks, then I will let the capital ride to accrue more profits.

And finally, your arguments about utility miss the point. If everyone agrees with you, then people will donate their time and effort to educate workers. If people disagree, then they won't. Those would-be workers certainly have no right to an education, and you certainly have no right to expect other people to contribute to what you feel is beneficial. If someone wants to get an education, they can pay for one, and if you feel as if it's in your interest to help them, by all means do so.

The issue is one of freedom, not one of benefits or entitlements. You aren't entitled to an educated workforce any more than some random poor guy is entitled to an education. You may need an educated workforce to generate more profit, but need doesn't create entitlement. If it did, we'd be back at the kidney donation example.

And now you are into silly land.

If libertarians can ever get broad agreement that people pay for their own education, good luck to you and the basket case of a country that you would be living in.

[M. Robespierre]

but most of them probably have made bad decisions contributing to their homelessness.

Such lack of sympathy causes me to suspect your lack of charitable donations to the poor. Why give to those who have inflicted their own wounds?

Are not property rights an extenion of my right to life? If I have a right to be alive, surely I have a right to my labor, and the products produced by my labor. To deny any of that is to deny my right to life.

You speak of the right to life, to one who would have supported the Terror?

Curious. The right to life does not justify crimes against the state, for surely you agree the state ought to support capital punishment, where there is no other alternative to maintain law and order.

If one would allow another person to suffer and die, for want of food and shelter, I would think this to be a capital crime. Such mercy withheld, also should be withheld from him.

Why would one give to charity, if one believes that the poor are responsible for their own plight?

[Az]

Sure, an intrusive operation is akin to mutilation, but you miss the point. Mutilating me is wrong, and robbing me without mutiliating me is wrong. Saying that one is "less wrong" is a value judgment I don't necessarily agree with, but you don't seem to dispute the fact that both are wrong.

On theirselves, of course they're both are "wrong" in the sense they carry negative utility. However, there are more results to these actions rather than your discomfort. In taxation, these benefits outweigh your discomfort.

[David Floyd]

But I benefit more, hence I pay more. Simple, really.

But let's say you provide a job to someone who is unemployed. As a result of that job, your profits increase by a certain amount. Obviously, the salary you pay that person will be less than your profits (otherwise they aren't profits). So, then, who benefits more? If you go by numbers, you benefitted more, but on the other hand, you provided a job to someone who had no job, so speaking relatively, THEY benefitted more.

And then someone would have to pay for those roads and those schools. If taxes did not pay for it, wages would have to be higher so that people could pay for them themselves. One way or the other, they have to be paid for.

Obviously. I only advocate that the funding be voluntary, and that those who do not wish to make use of the services should not have to pay for them.

I'm not punished. I'm taxed if I make a profit. The same way I'd be taxed if I worked for someone else. It is simply the case that I stand to make a sizable amount more profit than the average person earns in wages, or I wouldn't invest the capital in the first place.

Sure you're punished. By putting your capital on the market, others are deriving a benefit. You are as well. The more money you earn, the more capital you can potentially put on the market. Sure, without taxes you can't have things such as universal health care, but so what? You are essentially doing others (and of course yourself) a favor by building a mall (or whatever). That this isn't your primary motivation for doing so in no way means that you should be taxed for doing so.

[David Floyd]

Such lack of sympathy causes me to suspect your lack of charitable donations to the poor. Why give to those who have inflicted their own wounds?

My lack of major charitable donations have more to do with the fact that the government already forces me to donate.

You speak of the right to life, to one who would have supported the Terror?

I'm in no way in favor of either the French Monarchy, the anarchy after the overthrow of the monarchy, the Terror, OR Napoleon's system. None of them were free and non-coercive.

The right to life does not justify crimes against the state, for surely you agree the state ought to support capital punishment, where there is no other alternative to maintain law and order.

No. First of all, I can't quite get what you are trying to say, I'll do the best I can. You seem to assume that the existence of the state should be an end unto itself. I disagree - the state is properly a means to an end, that end being individual liberty. Do I support capital punishment? I lean towards "no", and I certainly oppose classifying "crimes against the state" as capital crimes.

If one would allow another person to suffer and die, for want of food and shelter, I would think this to be a capital crime. Such mercy withheld, also should be withheld from him.

Oh, so now we get down to it. By allowing you to live, the state is simply being merciful. You no more have a right to your life than a right to your property. That is the concept you are supporting, whether you realize it or not.

Why would one give to charity, if one believes that the poor are responsible for their own plight?

I probably wouldn't give to those responsible for their own plight

Azazel,

On theirselves, of course they're both are "wrong" in the sense they carry negative utility. However, there are more results to these actions rather than your discomfort. In taxation, these benefits outweigh your discomfort.

Ah, but in forced organ donation, you are saving lives, and surely that also outweighs discomfort. Right?

[Az]

Ah, but in forced organ donation, you are saving lives, and surely that also outweighs discomfort. Right?

I am not sure. But this would be right, I'd support it.
And of course, as always, the fact that post mortem harvesting is BY FAR more ethical makes this choice very wrong. so is keeping the current situation as it is, more or less.

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

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.

So stealing becomes moral if the thieves put the money to a better use (as determined by the thieves) than the rightful owner? Fascinating...

Why not?

Because that's how the word "right" is defined within the context of this country's founding ideals. Rights are branches on the tree of liberty, and those branches must first qualify under the meaning of freedom before they can qualify as rights.

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

After you don't need them any more, gee, that's mighty utilitarian of you. Why not commit suicide at 50 so younger people in need of those organs can live? Btw, you have 2 kidneys and some people need just 1...

Ned -

Progressive taxation is punitive and can only be justified by some demonstration that it benefits society in some manner.

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

NYE -

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

You didn't answer my question...

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.

Remove "government" from that equation and you have the Mafia extorting "protection" money from their victims. What if my friends and I don't want your "protection"? What will you and your friends do to us (with "government" as your means)? Assuming you wouldn't leave us be, would your actions be moral without government as your means?

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.

But "progressive" taxes aren't designed with that "little bit" in mind. How about a gas tax so those who use the roads more get to pay more? And what if I'm rich and I don't have a delivery truck or a market? Btw, what do you think those "rich" people do to the prices of those goods after you hit 'em with a higher tax? Ah yes, your "tax" on them is pushed off onto us consumers... Another sales tax, and we know how "regressive" those are...

You expect a response to such tripe?

If you're a utilitarian, yes.

Proteus -

You can more easily survive with less money than you can if you only have a single kidney.
If your remaining kidney fails, you are in grave danger of loosing your life. But if you (as a rich one) have less money it wouldn´t threaten your life, it would only result in a slight inconvenience, as you maybe aren´t able to afford your third Plasma TV Set.

But utiltarianism is based on the notion that the greater good matters more than your good, so if someone is going to die for lack of a kidney, utilitarianism requires they get a kidney from someone who has two. This question merely shows that most utilitarians are full of sh*t. That's why they introduce "limits" on their desire to achieve the greater good, i.e., they only want the greater good when they don't have to give up much.

Robespierre -

So who would fault such a man, on being denied the basic comforts of life, from looting a careless miser?

If I was the victim and the thief was truly in need, I could forgive them. But the fact that I would be in the position of forgiving them still shows what they did was wrong. If what they did was right, it should be legal to steal in these cases and the victims of theft should ask the thieves for forgiveness.

Such mercy you withhold, will also be withheld from you.

I can forgive a truly needy thief who steals from me, but I cannot morally consent to helping them steal from others. That is what liberals expect of me, my consent and my help to steal from others...

[M. Robespierre]

None of them were free and non-coercive.

Such would be anarchy, and the cessation of personal liberties. Personal liberties requires a state in which to enforce them.

the state is properly a means to an end, that end being individual liberty.

True, but the one cannot survive without the other. Liberty requires the state.

By allowing you to live, the state is simply being merciful. You no more have a right to your life than a right to your property. That is the concept you are supporting, whether you realize it or not.

No. I merely hold that such clear elevation of property
cannot benefit either the liberties of people, or the state. There is no difference between denying one who asks for aid, and actively strangling the one who asks. Such aid would not prove difficult, or burdensome, ought to be compelled by the necessity of those in need.

[M. Robespierre]

If I was the victim and the thief was truly in need, I could forgive them. But the fact that I would be in the position of forgiving them still shows what they did was wrong. If what they did was right, it should be legal to steal in these cases and the victims of theft should ask the thieves for forgiveness.

But how would one determine truly needy? Could you not merely label such a person, as blameworthy due to his own actions?

[qutoe]
That is what liberals expect of me, my consent and my help to steal from others...
[/quote]

No. We liberals espouse the balance between the benefits and burdens. Where one benefits greatly from the state, and structures of the state in accruing wealth, one ought to be required to compensate the state for these benefits. For without the state, the wealth would be worthless.

[Az]

So stealing becomes moral if the thieves put the money to a better use (as determined by the thieves) than the rightful owner? Fascinating...

what is "better use"? is it by creating more short-term, and long term utility? then, yes. This is a gross approximation, though, since things such as negative utility from it being unacceptable by the surrounding must be taken into account.

Because that's how the word "right" is defined within the context of this country's founding ideals. Rights are branches on the tree of liberty, and those branches must first qualify under the meaning of freedom before they can qualify as rights.

Why is forcing you wrong? "because I don't want to" Isn't an aswer, since that's the definition of forcing someone.

After you don't need them any more, gee, that's mighty utilitarian of you. Why not commit suicide at 50 so younger people in need of those organs can live? Btw, you have 2 kidneys and some people need just 1...

Actually, yes, it's mighty utilitarian of me. That's the best solution to this problem. I no longer use any of those organs, and give them away, to save someone's life. That someone deserves to live as much as the guy who'll need the kidney when I am dead, and I won't lose any welfare from it.

Did you sign up to donate your organs post mortem?

[Berzerker]

So all the homeless are responsible for their plight?

If not them, whom? If the reason you're homeless is because I'm a liberal who taxed you out of your home, then I'm responsible. Yes, that happens, not that any liberals will admit it.

Their wounds are self-inflicted?

Often times, yes.

I should only hope, that you find yourself in a similar situation, where one could learn empathy for the poor.

I need no lecture from you, I was poor and...ahem...homeless...

If one opposes taxation to assist these people, as well as charitable donations, to what option have you left the poor, but to rob their more fortunate neighbours?

Why would anyone oppose charity? What option? Get a job!

They must survive, and their survival ought to weigh of more value than mere property.

And freedom means you get to help them with your property all you want.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I need no lecture from you, I was poor and...ahem...homeless...



Why would anyone oppose charity? What option? Get a job!

And so, I assume you lived from money that was taxed from other people
and I also suppose that your Parents didn´t pay for your Education, but that you were educated in schools which were funded by the state.

[Berzerker]

Robespierre -

But how would one determine truly needy? Could you not merely label such a person, as blameworthy due to his own actions?

The thief would try to explain why he stole from me and I would decide if he was sincere and if he deserved forgiveness. And I just told you he is blameworthy due to his actions... Forgiveness wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't...

No.

Then why are y'all trying to convince us (and others) that we should continue legally stealing if you don't want others to help?

We liberals espouse the balance between the benefits and burdens.

Where is your equation? I've never seen a liberal produce any equation, that's an ad hoc rationalisation and you guys know it.

Where one benefits greatly from the state, and structures of the state in accruing wealth, one ought to be required to compensate the state for these benefits. For without the state, the wealth would be worthless.

You mean all wealth would vanish if there was no state? Fine, y'all want those who benefit more from society to pay more. Tell me, how many poor people have employed you? None? How much should the poor compensate the state for providing them with protection? If you and I don't want a rich person to benefit from "society", can't we just refuse to give them our money for their goods? But we can't stop others from doing the same, so what does that mean? It means that a rich person doesn't benefit from society, they benefit from individuals within society who want to give them money in exchange for the goods created by the rich person. If you and I walk up to this rich person and the people he is exchanging labor/goods with and demand money because we say they "owe society", aren't we really saying they owe us for nothing?

Btw, we live in rural Kansas and our police "protection" sucks. We might even be better off if there was no local police so we could legally deal with criminals on our own terms.

Anyway, the "state" doesn't do anything for me that I could not do exercising my freedom in cooperation with others. But let's assume we need the state to organise a national defense and provide for local police and courts, what else is there? Don't poorer people benefit from these "services"? And your argument misses several points, I cannot morally walk up to you and demand your money based on my biased speculations that you need my services. You don't benefit from me stealing your money. And you certainly don't have any moral requisite to "compensate" me for "services" I force upon you.

Azazel -

what is "better use"? is it by creating more short-term, and long term utility? then, yes. This is a gross approximation, though, since things such as negative utility from it being unacceptable by the surrounding must be taken into account.

It's whatever the takers say it is, just as you've done.

Why is forcing you wrong? "because I don't want to" Isn't an aswer, since that's the definition of forcing someone.

You asked me for the meaning of the word "right", I gave it. Where did I say "because I don't want to"? It sure wasn't in the quote you chose to respond to...

Actually, yes, it's mighty utilitarian of me. That's the best solution to this problem. I no longer use any of those organs, and give them away, to save someone's life. That someone deserves to live as much as the guy who'll need the kidney when I am dead, and I won't lose any welfare from it.

But what about the younger person who needs a kidney and you have two? What about the teenager who needs a heart or a liver and you're 55 years old? Telling me about post-mortem organ donations is meaningless since it requires little or no sacrifice on your part.

Did you sign up to donate your organs post mortem?

Yup, and I'm not even a utilitarian.