Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Aeson]

It is discrimination, and I think that progressive taxation is somewhat shortsighted.

That is not to say that I think that the wealthy shouldn't be giving back more to society. Just that long term the likelyhood of our society finally reaching a level of understanding that results in the voluntary and just distribution of wealth is lessened due to the inherent imbalance of the system. It further reinforces lines that have been drawn between the wealthy and the poor, and the justification for those lines in each group's mentality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't read what I said. I said we revolted because of taxes not income taxes.

Yet this is a discussion on income taxes. And we revolted because of a lack of representation. We had nothing against taxes in general.

There was an income tax during the Civil War. It was later ruled unconstitutional. Hence the need for a Contitutional Amendment when it was reenacted in 1917.

Hmmm, you are correct about the income tax during the Civil War. But it was ruled unconstitutional after the court had originally ruled it constitutional. And the date of the 16th Amendment was actually 1913 (I looked it up), so it wasn't for WW1, because it hadn't even started in Europe at that time.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/winter_1986_civil_war_tax_records.html

The Civil War taxes were not immediately repealed at the end of the war but continued in force until 1872, when the Grant administration sponsored the repeal of most of the "emergency" taxes. The tax on whiskey remained in force. Between 1868 and 1881 the U.S. Supreme Court responded to challenges regarding the validity of the Civil War taxes on dividends, real estate, inheritances, and income tax by upholding the constitutionality of those taxes. 2 Fifteen years later the Populists attempted to revive the income tax and Congress passed a law providing for a new 2 percent tax on incomes over $4,000. But the Supreme Court surprised the nation, reversing its earlier decision and declaring the law unconstitutional in 1895. This ruling, declaring that an income tax is a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional, led to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment in 1913.

I said they were relatively insignificant UNTIL the 50's - 60's.

http://www.taxhistory.org/Articles/taxjustice.htm

Incorrect:

Policymakers broadened the base, increasing the number of taxpayers tenfold between 1939 and 1945. They also established a highly progressive rate structure, with rates reaching 94 percent for the richest taxpayers. Together, these changes made the individual income tax a fiscal workhorse; between 1939 and 1945, revenues soared from $1.0 billion to $18.4 billion.

We made it thru the Depression without it.

The rich were taxed a good amount during the Depression. How else did we pay for such a massive expansion in government?

And besides, we are in "some sort of Socialist state right now"

Bollocks! If you actually saw a socialist state (ie, Eastern Europe during the Cold War), you probably wouldn't be saying such things. After all, you have bought many things today, I bet, that are products of a market system.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

what about a graduated progressive tax? is that better than straight up progressive tax?

[Sandman]

The rich don't need all their money. Simple, really. They'd never, ever voluntarily donate enough to stop the poor dying by the thousand.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Interesting enough, the people behind the scene of the revolution were the wealthy landowners, not the common man in the taverns.

The revolution started among dirt farmers who wanted debt relief. The Founding Fathers got involved in order to coopt the revolution from it's natural levelling impulse. Of cuorse, they had been laying the ideological groundwork for over a decade before the farmers revolted.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[
Yet this is a discussion on income taxes. And we revolted because of a lack of representation. We had nothing against taxes in general.

You stated that there would be a revolution if it weren't for these taxes. My point was that the only revoluition in my country's history was about taxes. And the revolt wasn't that they wanted more.

Hmmm, you are correct about the income tax during the Civil War. But it was ruled unconstitutional after the court had originally ruled it constitutional. And the date of the 16th Amendment was actually 1913 (I looked it up), so it wasn't for WW1, because it hadn't even started in Europe at that time.

Sorry about being off by a couple years but the point is still valid, It was illegal for most of the history of this country and the country prospered without a revolt for more taxes.

Incorrect:

Policymakers broadened the base, increasing the number of taxpayers tenfold between 1939 and 1945. They also established a highly progressive rate structure, with rates reaching 94 percent for the richest taxpayers. Together, these changes made the individual income tax a fiscal workhorse; between 1939 and 1945, revenues soared from $1.0 billion to $18.4 billion.

It was broadened and laid the horrible foundation for what was to come but was still relatively insignificant. I'm sure people were told during WWII that the tax was needed to finance the war. In fact, I probably got my history mixed up a little and thought it was Civil War and WWI when we were told that lie when it was actually Civil War and WWII.

The rich were taxed a good amount during the Depression. How else did we pay for such a massive expansion in government?

I'm talking from memory here and don't have time to look up all detals but even your sources say it built up during the war years (1939-1945) not during the depression. If I remeberr an economist came along named Keynes who convinced Roosevelt to fund massive programs thru deficit spending. (another dangerous precedent)

[

Bollocks! If you actually saw a socialist state (ie, Eastern Europe during the Cold War), you probably wouldn't be saying such things. After all, you have bought many things today, I bet, that are products of a market system.

There are different degrees of Socialism. The US isn't as socialist/communist as Cold War Russia or Eastern Europe but it is still socialist. Redistribution of wealth thru a progressive tax system is an element of a socialist society.

And I still stand by the point that there havn't been any revolutions in free-market socieites because taxes weren't high enough.

I also stand by my point that societies are more prosperous and content when they are more free not less free. Societies are more prosperous and content when governments take as little of the people's money as possible.

[David Floyd]

I'm sure people were told during WWII that the tax was needed to finance the war. In fact, I probably got my history mixed up a little and thought it was Civil War and WWI when we were told that lie when it was actually Civil War and WWII.

There was an income tax in WW1, as well. Which only makes me wonder whether, without an income tax, the US would have gotten involved in wars like that to begin with. Hmmm....another point against income taxes...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Graduated Progressive Income Tax

First $35,000 taxed at 0%
Next $25,000 taxed at 10%
Next $20,000 taxed at 20%
Next $60,000 taxed at 30%
any income above $140,000 taxed at 35%

(or something to that effect)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sandman
The rich don't need all their money. Simple, really. They'd never, ever voluntarily donate enough to stop the poor dying by the thousand.

It doesn't require donation, to say so is to reinforce the idea that the current distribution of wealth is the right one. Distribution is the problem, and re-distribution after the fact doesn't solve it even if it does help negate some of the symptoms. It covers up the real problem, and does so in a manner which further reinforces it.

[GePap]

To all the liberterians- think it so imoral, then stand up and fight the system- stop paying your taxes..but be ready to deal with the results of your actions as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You stated that there would be a revolution if it weren't for these taxes. My point was that the only revoluition in my country's history was about taxes.

Yes in modern times if you didn't have progressive taxes you'd have a revolution.

And the revolution was only about taxes in the same way that Schindler's List was only about Jews. It was about representation!

It was illegal for most of the history of this country and the country prospered without a revolt for more taxes.

Yes, and the Communist Manifesto wasn't written until the 1850s, which was what really galvanized the working classes.

There were plenty of demonstrations which were prevented from reaching revolt only by use of the military. I'm sure che could detail it for you. Such as the union riots in the late 1800s, such as the ones in Chicago which had to be put down by Pinkerton men.

But go ahead, go to a flat tax and see if you don't get any revolts. Hehe.

but was still relatively insignificant.

I'm sure those 1% didn't think so.

I'm talking from memory here and don't have time to look up all detals but even your sources say it built up during the war years (1939-1945) not during the depression.

Yes, INCREASES in taxes during the war years. But there had to be substantial taxes during the Depression to cover the cost. It wasn't total deficit spending, or else the deficit would have skyrocketed higher than it did.

There are different degrees of Socialism. The US isn't as socialist/communist as Cold War Russia or Eastern Europe but it is still socialist. Redistribution of wealth thru a progressive tax system is an element of a socialist society.

Only if you think any government program is enough to make a country 'socialist'. Open markets is an element of a capitalist society. And socialism and capitalism are diametrically opposed, so I'm saying the 1st world is totally capitalist.

And I still stand by the point that there havn't been any revolutions in free-market socieites because taxes weren't high enough.

Weimar Germany? Debt load was crushing, a lot of it because they couldn't raise the funds to pay the reparations (ie, their taxes were too low). Bourgeois Russia? That was a free market society for the 6 months it existed. Inter-war Italy?

Fact is, most free market societies realized real quick that they had to provide social programs to prevent social unrest (such as the 1846 revolutions). Why do you think they all did it? Especially when you had a great communist power bloc staring you in the face.

[Ned]

That is exactly what we have in the US, Lawrence.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Is a progressive tax system discrimination aginst rich people?

No, it's discrimination against the poor.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

oh really? haha i didnt know that.

[Dauphin]

Keeping graduated progressive taxation at a static level is a great way of raising tax revenues without actually raising taxes. Its a stealth tax raise that few will notice.