Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Ned]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


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.

Just for the sake of argument here, but how much tax would these same people pay if the tax rate were flat, but there were no deductions?

Now, how much would they pay if the rate were slightly progressive.

Now continue to interrate.

Once one determines the tax rate, without deductions, that yeilds the greatest return - well that is the right tax rate. Any other rate is the wrong tax rate.

[Berzerker]

And so, I assume you lived from money that was taxed from other people

Nope, and I could have gotten unemployment "benefits" too but didn't. I did what most people do, I got another job and started saving money.

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.

My folks paid plenty in taxes for those state "funded" schools, but are you now suggesting that children who go to public schools are required to support state run schools when they grow up? Ever hear the phrase, "sins of the father"? It basicly means it is illogical (and immoral) to hold the child responsible for the actions of the parents.

[Az]

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

Difference is, I am right, and they're wrong, unless they use my definition, or use it according to my definition.

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.

EXACTLY! It requires no sacrifice on my part. and it will still save another teenager/younger person, only later on ( which doesn't mean it has less positive utility) . Therefor it's more utilitarian. utilitarianism isn't about self-sacrifice, it's about utility.

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...

I still don't get it. Why is it wrong?

[Az]

Oh, and btw:

Yup, and I'm not even a utilitarian.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Nope, and I could have gotten unemployment "benefits" too but didn't. I did what most people do, I got another job and started saving money.



My folks paid plenty in taxes for those state "funded" schools, but are you now suggesting that children who go to public schools are required to support state run schools when they grow up? Ever hear the phrase, "sins of the father"? It basicly means it is illogical (and immoral) to hold the child responsible for the actions of the parents.

So, yes, they were paid for by taxes.
And without those taxes you probably hadn´t gotten the Education you have now (because School Fees for privately owned schools would have probably be too high for you or your Parents to afford).

And so without taxes, you probably wouldn´t even have a job (because without the proper education you probably wouldn´t meet the requirements for many jobs) and so you probably would have to live from charity.

Without taxes (or low taxes) you would have just this:
The poor people stay poor because they won´t get educated and also their children will most probably stay poor for the same reason, as their Parents can´t afford to get their children properly educated.
At the same time the rich people will grow richer and richer, as they have no need to pay taxes (or only few taxes).

Also, much more people in your own country would begin to starve, as, because Donations are voluntary, much less money is available for Welfare Projects within the country.
So, on the other Hand, tensions between poor and Rich would begin to rise.

[The Mad Viking]

Ned - They would pay 20.8% of the taxes in a flat perecntage tax scenario. (They make 20.8% of the income.)

They would pay 1% of the tax in a head tax scenario. (1% of the population)

DF

Here is the difference between money and a kidney.

I take out some money. It has a picture of Abe on it. It says, "The United States of America" . It says, Federal Reserve Note.

That is who made it. That is who OWNS it. They are only lending it to me, under terms and conditions. If I made one just like it, they would arrest me. If I used a bunch of them to place an illegal wager, they would confiscate it.

I take out my kidney. Oh wait, I can't ! It is a part of my body. I grew it myself. It goes with me wherever I go.

Once you agree to use the governments notes, you agree implicity to abide by their rules. If you don't want to, you are entirely free not to use their notes. There is not coercion, no stealing. You are free to choose. When you choose currency, you are making a convenant with your state.

You are free to disagree with the state, but to suggest that universal principles somehow give you a natural right to an unnatural construct is pure fallacy.

The people who make the currency notes govern financial matters.

One can just as easily make the argument that taxation is not discriminatory, in that it leaves many people with much more than they need. Why not tax everybody to a flat income level?

No tax method is right or wrong. They are all attempts to balance wealth creation and wealth distribution.

We have had hundreds of experiments in this balancing act. I think it has been found that progressive taxation strikes the best balance, and that is why virtually every country uses it.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned


Once one determines the tax rate, without deductions, that yeilds the greatest return - well that is the right tax rate. Any other rate is the wrong tax rate.

You believe in 100% taxation?

Please carrify your meaning.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

Maybe you should do a field trip to Somalia or rural Afghanistan and check out how well that works.

[GePap]

Great posts from The Msd Viking and NYE

You guys have far more patience than I would dealing with the liberterians.

And in short, pregressive taxes are better than recessive taxes, and as for a flat tax scheme, for that to work no income could be made excempt- including all gains from stock and so forth, which they are not today.

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

Difference is, I am right, and they're wrong, unless they use my definition, or use it according to my definition.

How do you know they're wrong? I didn't even offer their rationale and you just assume you're right and they aren't?

EXACTLY! It requires no sacrifice on my part. and it will still save another teenager/younger person, only later on ( which doesn't mean it has less positive utility) . Therefor it's more utilitarian. utilitarianism isn't about self-sacrifice, it's about utility.

But utilitarians want us to sacrifice when it comes to our money, i.e., the time we used up from our lives laboring to accumulate wealth (a 40% tax is a 40% deduction from the time we worked, roughly 16 hours a week not including the extra time we have to work to make up some of the time lost to taxes). Calling yourself a utilitarian and citing post-mortem organ donations makes no sacrifice, therefore it doesn't test the utilitarian principle. It's when you do have to make a sacrifice - actions, not words - that utilitarianism is supposed to matter.

I still don't get it. Why is it wrong?

Why is what wrong? You asked me for a definition of the word "right" and I gave it. Are you asking why it's wrong to force another person to attend or build you a church?

Proteus -

So, yes, they were paid for by taxes.
And without those taxes you probably hadn´t gotten the Education you have now (because School Fees for privately owned schools would have probably be too high for you or your Parents to afford).

Wrong, my folks would have probably sent me to a Catholic school, paid tuition, and I might have taken it more seriously. Looking back, 12 years to learn what I did was a waste of several years. But that was partly my fault...

And so without taxes, you probably wouldn´t even have a job (because without the proper education you probably wouldn´t meet the requirements for many jobs) and so you probably would have to live from charity.

Most jobs in this country involve on the job training. You act as if people wouldn't seek or couldn't afford educations if not for government, that's just flat out wrong.

Without taxes (or low taxes) you would have just this:
The poor people stay poor because they won´t get educated and also their children will most probably stay poor for the same reason, as their Parents can´t afford to get their children properly educated.

Sounds like the welfare system. Businesses seek out people and they would do so even more with expanded training programs if they didn't have the state subsidising their training programs, and they'd be one helluva lot more efficient. There's an irony to that, the left complains about big business and subsidies but support the biggest business subsidy of all...

At the same time the rich people will grow richer and richer, as they have no need to pay taxes (or only few taxes).

Ah, so now we get down the real motive - envy. So what if the rich get richer?

Also, much more people in your own country would begin to starve, as, because Donations are voluntary, much less money is available for Welfare Projects within the country.
So, on the other Hand, tensions between poor and Rich would begin to rise.

Most starvation in the world is man-made, warring factions or dictators using food as a weapon. The worst starvations were caused by extremely non-libertarian governments, The Irish potato famine, the Ukraine under Stalin, Mao's "cultural purges", and Somalia and Ethiopia... If you see mass starvation, you'll most likely see government as that cause.

Hurricane -

Maybe you should do a field trip to Somalia or rural Afghanistan and check out how well that works.

Why? Both countries are products of the Cold War. Since the situation in Somalia has finally started to settle down (at least in the north), would you really like to see how bad crime is there now? You'll be surprised... If police were such a godsend for us here in rural Kansas, we wouldn't all be armed. Shall we point to France in 1940 to indict French socialism? How about the US in 1862 to indict a federal republic? How about 1930's Germany for an example of democracy? Let's look at South Africa, one of the largest governmental systems in Africa.

[Tripledoc]

Re: Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

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

Paying or allowing certain people more money than other people is an act of discrimination in itself. So one discrimination causes another. Yet the latter seeks to rectify, not excaberate.

However it is noted that even with a progressive tax system, in most cases it is still groosly unfair to the poor. This is especially so if the value added tax is high, or there are loopholes in the taxlaws which allows large deductions on loans or mortgages.

[chequita guevara]

Money isn't real. It only exists because we pretend it exists.

[GePap]

The better way to say that Che is that money is a concept, a social convention, which we maintain becuase it has proven usefull in trying to determine the distribution of goods and services but which has no intrinsic worth, and that the distribution of it is also set by soical convention, and not any sort of innate laws.

[chequita guevara]

I was being lazy.

[yavoon]

obviously it is discrimination. u r discriminating on the basis of income.

or were u implying it is "wrongful discrimination?"