Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Proteus_MST]

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.

But without Roads their Trucks would be of no use.
And Rich people who own a company with a lot of trucks use the roads a lot more than poor people do (who probably don´t even have the money to buy an own car and therefore have to rely on public transportation).

And one single Truck produces the same wear on the streets like 10,000 normal cars.
So, the rich one profits from (public) roads much more than a single poor Citizen does, while at the same time producing more costs to repair them.

[David Floyd]

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.

So, you think that respecting my right to be a millionaire impacts someone else's freedom?

So let me get this straight. If I have a million bucks, and stuff it in a mattress, and don't let other people have any, I'm causing them to have less freedom? That's ridiculous. Would the freedom of those people be impacted if that money didn't exist at all?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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?

Well, David. I will agree with you that the moment the government requires me to give body parts to the collective is a few moments later than the revolt should have begun.

Now, let's play like reasonable people and discuss reality, not rubbish. OK?

[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.

From an economics point of view, progressive taxation is counterproductive.

From a Marxist point of view, progressive taxation helps lessen the distance between the rich and the poor.

Thus, unless one believes in the class warfare doctrine of Marx, it is quite evident that progressive taxation is ill thought out and harmful to society.

[David Floyd]

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.

But the same holds true for taking my money. It's something I don't want the government to do, and it negatively impacts my quality of life. I see no difference.

This also has implications on the entire society, so I am not sure that saving a single person's life would be worth it.

OK, God

Proteus,

And Rich people who own a company with a lot of trucks use the roads a lot more than poor people do (who probably don´t even have the money to buy an own car and therefore have to rely on public transportation).

And one single Truck produces the same wear on the streets like 10,000 normal cars.
So, the rich one uses the (public) roads much more than a single por Citizen does.

So it seems to me that the fairest way of resolving the problem is to simply make the roads private. Hell, the sections of highway that are privately maintained seem to be a lot smoother, anyway. But this way, roads can be paid for through tolls, and those who own the roads can charge whatever they want - the market can determine the price, not some government bureaucrat who is trying to get re-elected.

[M. Robespierre]

Look at the poor man, who has no property to call his own. To what benefits does the poor man derive from the police?

The police automatically treat him as a suspect, or criminal around wealth, yet no such wealth, does the poor man possess to have society protect.

Why then, should this poor man bear the burdens for such services, to which, he will not enjoy the benefits?

If I have a million bucks, and stuff it in a mattress, and don't let other people have any, I'm causing them to have less freedom?

You are encouraging your wealth to be looted, yes. I would share no tears for such a miser.

[David Floyd]

Well, David. I will agree with you that the moment the government requires me to give body parts to the collective is a few moments later than the revolt should have begun.

Right, the point is that the government doesn't own you - you aren't a slave. The point is also that there is no unlimited moral imperative to help others. The question then becomes whether or not there is a LIMITED moral imperative, but if there is, the line certainly does not seem to be drawn between money and body parts, because no one has yet demonstrated how taking my money against my will and taking a body part against my will are fundamentally different. Both are involuntary, and both result in a negative impact on my quality of life. Since you've already rejected a utilitarian argument for body parts, you can't bring it up again for money, so what would your test be?

[Az]

But the same holds true for taking my money. It's something I don't want the government to do, and it negatively impacts my quality of life. I see no difference.

You see no difference between taxation, and forcible organ harvesting?!

[David Floyd]

[/quote]Look at the poor man, who has no property to call his own. To what benefits does the poor man derive from the police?[/quote]

So you think protection of property is the only function of police? In any case, how can you say the poor have no property? Sure, the homeless may not, but so what? Often times, that's their own fault, and they aren't paying taxes anyway - they're homeless and unemployed. The poor certainly own property - and the police will certainly investigate and prosecute incidents of theft, even if poor people are involved.

The police automatically treat him as a suspect, or criminal around wealth, yet no such wealth, does the poor man possess to have society protect.

Well, if what you say is true, and without the police the poor would simply go around looting at will, stealing what they wanted, then maybe they should be treated as suspect

You are encouraging your wealth to be looted, yes. I would share no tears for such a miser.

That wasn't the question. The question was, whose freedom is impacted?

And how are you encouraging theft? Are you saying that when the rich are robbed, it's their own fault? That's ass-backwards logic if I've ever heard it.

[David Floyd]

You see no difference between taxation, and forcible organ harvesting?!

According to the tests that you used - quality of life and involuntary action - then no, not really. Find a better test to differentiate the two.

[Proteus_MST]

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.

[monkspider]

I think the bottom line is that libertarianism is a really stupid idea.

Let's all agree on that and go home.

[Az]

According to the tests that you used - quality of life and involuntary action - then no, not really. Find a better test to differentiate the two.

I meant involunary action to your physical self. taxing money from your paycheck isn't such, though it does pose negative utility, on it's own, it's way less harmful.

When would you feel worse, if someone would physically beat you, and take 200 USD, or a hacker would take 200 USD from your account?

[David Floyd]

You can more easily survive with less money than you can if you only have a single kidney.

Well, if the issue is survival, the person who doesn't have any kidney at all certainly won't survive. And besides, if everyone is forced to donate kidneys to the needy, then if your remaining kidney fails, you're OK. Right?

Essentially, though, what you are saying, is that the government can take anything it wants from you, except something that might threaten your life. Great, much better

I think the bottom line is that libertarianism is a really stupid idea.

Yeah, but not quite up to the standard of stupidity set by your belief that communism is Christlike and that one day, all true Christians will embrace communism and convert those around them

[David Floyd]

I meant involunary action to your physical self. taxing money from your paycheck isn't such, though it does pose negative utility, on it's own, it's way less harmful.

Actually, if I refuse to have money deducted, and if I refuse to pay taxes at the end of the year, the result will be involuntary action against my physical self. So you're right, as long as I play nice and pretend like my money isn't being stolen, and don't try to keep it, I won't get hurt.

When would you feel worse, if someone would physically beat you, and take 200 USD, or a hacker would take 200 USD from your account?

I'd feel worse knowing that my bank account was open to hacking, than I would if I lose $200 in my wallet after getting mugged. Wouldn't you?