Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No that they are coerced under duress to sell their homes, in many cases simply to pay off back property taxes with no money for their pockets (after transactional taxes that is.)

Maybe it's unfair to increase retired people's taxes like that since they paid tax on their income while they were working, but property tax is still so much better for the economy, and in my view fairer over all.

If you think about it a lot of retired folks live in the same house that they lived in with their children. That house would better serve a larger family. When you tax the property it makes people think, "do I really need all this property" or "am I using this property most productively." When you tax people's income and spending they always think, "should I earn this much" or "should I spend this much." Taxing income and spending results in less economic activity, but taxing property often results in better use of property. Either it's used more productively or it produces more utility for the user.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel


That WOULDN'T be treating the guilty people and the innocent people equally, would it. IT would be just, and ethical, yes, but you wouldn't be treating them equally.

Why not? Who recieves a greater benefit or pays a higher price?

[Az]

AHA! as you see, complete equality is not only impossible, it's bad. you have other things that you have to take into account, and while still acknowledging, their happiness is equally important, you realize that the ethical thing to do is to discriminate, and prefer the one ( the innocent ) over the other ( the guilty )

That was my entire point. Thus what we strive for is not that everyone would be equally happy, but that there would be generally as much happiness in the world as possible.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel
AHA! as you see, complete equality is not only impossible, it's bad. you have other things that you have to take into account, and while still acknowledging, their happiness is equally important, you realize that the ethical thing to do is to discriminate, and prefer the one ( the innocent ) over the other ( the guilty )

That was my entire point. Thus what we strive for is not that everyone would be equally happy, but that there would be generally as much happiness in the world as possible.

It's not a matter of prefering the innocent over the guilty. The guilty commit a crime. That is, the innocent pay a price for the actions of the guilty. The equitable thing to do is make the guilty pay a price equal to the price that the innocent paid. It's not equal outcomes, it's equal treatment. If you commit a crime you pay for it. If you help society you benefit from it. That's justice.