Hi All, I'm having a long debate with a conservative. I'm looking for
an ethical justification for progresive taxes.
I feel it's right, but does anyone have one or two passages that I can use? He keeps calling it theft. I know i won't change his mind, but I'd like to have the satifaction that I answered his quesiton.
Comments
There is no ethical justification for progresive taxes.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "I feel it's right". The justification can only exist on moral grounds, not ethical. If you feel it is okay to punish success then then progressive taxes look good on moral grounds. If you understand that taking away ones property based on feelings is unethical, then progressive taxes look like theft. It all comes down to if you are ruled by your head or your heart.
The concept is completely justifiable. Even Adam Smith recognized this. Those who get more should pay more.
The big argument is that, "It's not fair". If you understand how marginal taxes work, then you can see how fair it is. Everybody in the lowest percentile pays the same tax rate. Everybody making the next additional percentile pays the same rate on that percentile. And so forth for each additional percentile of income. What could be more fair than that? (I wanted to scream when a "tax expert" on Faux News talked about Ikes' 90% tax rate. Megan Kelly asked, "You mean they only got to keep 10% of what they made"? )
The alternative to a progressive tax would be a flat tax. Flat taxes are always regressive. They tax an inordinate percentage of people's subsistence income.
The fact is that high marginal tax rates have no effect on the very rich. Tax that last marginal percentage at a super high rate and that person is still rich. In fact, he is still richer than the same guy he was richer than without the high marginal tax. No effect.
From Man, Economy, and State:
Part III:
The Progressive Tax
Of all the patterns of tax distribution, the progressive tax has generated the most controversy. In the case of the progressive tax, the conservative economists who oppose it have taken the offensive, for even its advocates must grudgingly admit that the progressive tax lowers incentives and productivity. Hence, the most ardent champions of the progressive tax on “equity” grounds admit that the degree and intensity of progression must be limited by considerations of productivity. The major criticisms that have been leveled against progressive taxation are: (a) it reduces the savings of the community; (b) it reduces the incentive to work and earn; and (c) it constitutes “robbery of the rich by the poor.”
To evaluate these criticisms, let us turn to an analysis of the effects of the progression principle. The progressive tax imposes a higher rate of taxation on a man earning more. In other words, it acts as a penalty on service to the consumer, on merit in the market. Incomes in the market are determined by service to the consumer in producing and allocating factors of production and vary directly according to the extent of such services. To impose penalties on the very people who have served the consumers most is to injure not only them, but the consumers as well. A progressive tax is therefore bound to cripple incentives, impair mobility of occupation, and greatly hamper the flexibility of the market in serving the consumers. It will consequently lower the general standard of living. The ultimate of progression—coercively equalized incomes—will, as we have seen, cause a reversion to barbarism. There is also no question that progressive income taxation will reduce incentives to save, because people will not earn the return on investment consonant with their time preferences; their earnings will be taxed away. Since people will earn far less than their time preferences would warrant, their savings will be depressed far below what they would be on the free market.
Thus, conservatives’ charges that the progressive tax reduces incentives to work and save are correct and, in fact, are usually understated, because there is not sufficient realization that these effects stem a priori from the very nature of progression itself. It should not be forgotten, however, that proportional taxation will induce many of the same effects as, in fact, will any tax that goes beyond equality or the cost principle. For proportional taxation also penalizes the able and the saver. It is true that proportional taxation will not have many of the crippling effects of progression, such as the progressive hampering of effort from one income bracket to another. But proportional taxation also imposes heavier burdens as the income brackets rise, and these also hamper earning and saving.
A second argument against the progressive income tax, and one which is perhaps the most widely used, is that, by taxing the incomes of the wealthy, it reduces savings in particular, thus injuring society as a whole. This argument is predicated on the usually plausible assumption that the rich save more proportionately than the poor. Yet, as we have indicated above, this is an extremely weak argument, particularly for partisans of the free market. It is legitimate to criticize a measure for forcing deviations from free-market allocations to arbitrary ones; but it can hardly be legitimate simply to criticize a measure for reducing savings per se. For why does consumption possess less merit than saving? Allocation between them on the market is simply a matter of time preference. This means that any coerced deviation from the market ratio of saving to consumption imposes a loss in utility, and this is true whichever direction the deviation takes. A government measure that might induce more saving and less consumption is then no less subject to criticism than one that would lead to more consumption and less saving. To say differently is to criticize free-market choices and implicitly to advocate governmental measures to force more savings upon the public. If they were consistent, therefore, these conservative economists would have to advocate taxation of the poor to subsidize the rich, for in that case savings would presumably increase and consumption diminish.
The third objection is a political-ethical one—that “the poor rob the rich.” The implication is that the poor man who pays 1 percent of his income in taxes is “robbing” the rich man who pays 80 percent. Without judging the merits or demerits of robbery, we may say that this is invalid. Both citizens are being robbed—by the State. That one is robbed in greater proportion does not eliminate the fact that both are being injured. It may be objected that the poor receive a net subsidy out of the tax proceeds because the government spends money to serve the poor. Yet this is not a valid argument. For the actual act of robbery is committed by the State, and not by the poor. Secondly, the State may spend its money, as we shall see below, on many different projects. It may consume products; it may subsidize some or all of the rich; it may subsidize some or all of the poor. The fact of progressive income taxation does not itself imply that “the poor” en masse will be subsidized. If some of the poor are subsidized, others may not be, and these latter will still be net taxpayers rather than tax-consumers and will be “robbed” along with the rich. The extent of this deprivation will be less for a poor taxpayer than for a rich one; and yet, since usually there are far more poor than rich, the poor en masse may very well bear the greatest burden of the tax “robbery.” In contrast, the State bureaucracy, as we have seen, actually pays no taxes at all.[39]
This misconception of the incidence of “robbery,” and the defective argument on savings, among other reasons, have led most conservative economists and writers to overemphasize greatly the importance of the progressiveness of taxation. Actually, the level of taxation is far more important than its progressiveness in determining the distance that a society has traveled from a free market. An example will clarify the relative importance of the two. Let us contrast two people and see how they fare under two different tax systems. Smith makes $1,000 a year, and Jones makes $20,000 a year. In Society A taxation is proportionate for all at 50 percent. In Society B taxation is very steeply progressive: rates are ½ percent for $1,000 income, 20 percent for $20,000 income. The following tabulation shows how much money each will pay in taxes in the different societies:
Now, we may ask both the rich and the poor taxpayers: Under which system of taxation are you better off? Both the rich man and the poor man will unhesitatingly pick Society B, where the rate structure is far more progressive, but where the level of taxation for every man is lower. Some may object that the total amount of tax levied is far greater in Society A. But this is precisely the point! The point is that what the rich man objects to is not the progressiveness of the rates, but the high level of the rates imposed upon him, and he will prefer progressiveness when rates are lower. This demonstrates that it is not the poor who “rob” the rich through the progressive principle of taxation; it is the State that “robs” both through all taxation. And it indicates that what the conservative economists are actually objecting to, whether they fully realize it or not, is not progression, but high levels of taxation, and that their real objection to progression is that it opens the sluice gates for high levels of taxation of the rich. Yet this prospect will not always be realized. For it is certainly possible and has often occurred that a rate structure is very progressive and yet lower all around, on the high brackets and on the low, than a less progressive structure. As a practical matter, however, progressiveness is necessary for high tax rates, because the multitude of lower-income citizens might revolt against very steep tax rates if they were imposed on all equally. On the other hand, many people may accept a high tax burden if they are secure in the knowledge or belief that the rich pay a still higher rate.[40]
We have seen that coerced egalitarianism will cause a reversion to barbarism and that steps in that direction will result in dislocations of the market and a lowering of living standards. Many economists—notably the members of the “Chicago School”—believe that they champion the “free market,” and yet they do not consider taxation as connected with the market or as an intervention in the market process. These writers strongly believe that, on the market, every individual should earn the profits and marginal value productivity that the consumers wish to pay, in order to achieve a satisfactory allocation of productive factors. Nevertheless, they see no inconsistency in then advocating drastic taxation and subsidies. They believe that these can alter the “distribution” of incomes without lowering the efficiency of productive allocations. In this way they rely on an equivalent of Keynesian “money illusion”—a tax illusion, a belief that individuals will arrange their activities according to their gross rather than net (after-tax) income. This is a palpable error. There is no reason why people should not be tax-conscious and allocate their resources and energies accordingly. Altering relative rewards by taxation will disrupt all the allocations of the market—the movement of labor, the alertness of entrepreneurship, etc. The market is a vast nexus, with all strands interconnected, and it must be analyzed as such. The prevailing fashion in economics of chopping up the market into isolated compartments—“the firm,” a few “macroscopic” holistic aggregates, market exchanges, taxation, etc.—distorts the discussion of each one of these compartments and fails to present a true picture of the interrelations of the market.
Generally, libertarians would prefer excess incomes extracted from the economy to be plowed into financial markets, derivatives, currency plays and futures speculation...rather than going round and round producing and buying goods.
Progressive taxation attempts to keep the bulk of it circulating and an economy thriving....rather than the quagmire we currently find ourselves in..
Probably an economy that keeps people employed, eating, and keeping their homes isn't an ethical taxation excuse from their point of view.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".
Gosh. I was interested in the contra argument, but these long, long copy-and-paste articles are just too cumbersome for these message boards. I don't really care what somebody named Rothbard thinks. I can't have a discussion with him. I will say, however, that the first point he made is not beyond dispute. It's the question of incentive. He makes an assumption that to place high taxes on the highest earners is a disincentive to performance. I reject that assumption. It's about the utility of money. The high earner is not motivated by the desire to earn infinite wealth. He is motivated by the desire to earn the most wealth that is potentially available to him.
The most important fact is that the progressive tax is inarguably fair. The high earner pays the exact same tax rate on his last increment of income as every other high earner who is competing for the same spot in the pecking order. This is true no matter how much he pays in taxes. There is no competitive disadvantage from a high marginal tax since this tax will not in any way degrade his place in the pecking order. I would even argue that, to the extent that the tax puts limits on his earning potential, thus creating a kind of "worker insecurity", the harder he will feel he has to work in order to maintain his position of financial superiority.
This man also talked about the desirability of high rates of savings. Presumably, large pools of savings result in more funds available for investment in beneficial enterprises. This is not a truism. Currently, the captains of industry are drowning in money, thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Financial charts show us where that money resides - in the stock market. This does nothing to benefit the real economy.
On skimming the remainder of the article, I noticed references to "robbing" from the high earners. Statistics clearly show that 30 years of Reaganomics has been characterized by a robbery by the wealthy from the disappearing American middle class. The fact is that every transaction, be it ever so small, results in the transfer of wealth from one party to another. "Free" commerce inevitably results in the exchange of durable wealth for consumable goods. It is the nature of systems of taxation to regulate the net flow of wealth throughout the economy. It is clear which direction that net flow has moved during the last 30 years.
Further, the purposes of taxation are twofold. First, to pay for infrastucture that the country needs. Second, to regulate the direction of the net flow of money. No doubt, every taxpayer feels that "his" money is being "stolen". Generally, it seems to be only the wealthy who whine and cry about it.
That's as far as I got in the article.
Hi All, I'm having a long debate with a conservative. I'm looking for
an ethical justification for progresive taxes.
I feel it's right, but does anyone have one or two passages that I can use? He keeps calling it theft. I know i won't change his mind, but I'd like to have the satifaction that I answered his quesiton.
In my experience, most who call taxation theft are opposed to most or all taxation, no matter what form it takes.
It all comes down to one central idea: any tax that causes the working poor and the middle class more proportional pain to pay than it causes the wealthy can be fairly called intrinsically regressive. Any tax that causes the wealthy as much proportional pain to pay as the working poor and the middle class can be fairly called intrinsically progressive. If equity in taxation is the goal or standard, this can't be ignored and real dollar amounts are much less important than the impact taxation has on individual taxpayers. The rich can pay out much higher percentages of their incomes in taxes before they begin to feel the same impact from taxation as is felt in lower income brackets. Since Reagan, the American rich have not only ignored and discarded but also completely forgotten the concept of noblesse oblige. This is nowhere more evident than in the battles over taxation, the current one being over the restoration or expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which were completely regressive.
From Man, Economy, and State:
Part III:
The Progressive Tax
Of all the patterns of tax distribution, the progressive tax has generated the most controversy. In the case of the progressive tax, the conservative economists who oppose it have taken the offensive, for even its advocates must grudgingly admit that the progressive tax lowers incentives and productivity. Hence, the most ardent champions of the progressive tax on “equity” grounds admit that the degree and intensity of progression must be limited by considerations of productivity. The major criticisms that have been leveled against progressive taxation are: (a) it reduces the savings of the community; (b) it reduces the incentive to work and earn; and (c) it constitutes “robbery of the rich by the poor.”
To evaluate these criticisms, let us turn to an analysis of the effects of the progression principle. The progressive tax imposes a higher rate of taxation on a man earning more. In other words, it acts as a penalty on service to the consumer, on merit in the market. Incomes in the market are determined by service to the consumer in producing and allocating factors of production and vary directly according to the extent of such services. To impose penalties on the very people who have served the consumers most is to injure not only them, but the consumers as well. A progressive tax is therefore bound to cripple incentives, impair mobility of occupation, and greatly hamper the flexibility of the market in serving the consumers. It will consequently lower the general standard of living. The ultimate of progression—coercively equalized incomes—will, as we have seen, cause a reversion to barbarism. There is also no question that progressive income taxation will reduce incentives to save, because people will not earn the return on investment consonant with their time preferences; their earnings will be taxed away. Since people will earn far less than their time preferences would warrant, their savings will be depressed far below what they would be on the free market.
Thus, conservatives’ charges that the progressive tax reduces incentives to work and save are correct and, in fact, are usually understated, because there is not sufficient realization that these effects stem a priori from the very nature of progression itself. It should not be forgotten, however, that proportional taxation will induce many of the same effects as, in fact, will any tax that goes beyond equality or the cost principle. For proportional taxation also penalizes the able and the saver. It is true that proportional taxation will not have many of the crippling effects of progression, such as the progressive hampering of effort from one income bracket to another. But proportional taxation also imposes heavier burdens as the income brackets rise, and these also hamper earning and saving.
A second argument against the progressive income tax, and one which is perhaps the most widely used, is that, by taxing the incomes of the wealthy, it reduces savings in particular, thus injuring society as a whole. This argument is predicated on the usually plausible assumption that the rich save more proportionately than the poor. Yet, as we have indicated above, this is an extremely weak argument, particularly for partisans of the free market. It is legitimate to criticize a measure for forcing deviations from free-market allocations to arbitrary ones; but it can hardly be legitimate simply to criticize a measure for reducing savings per se. For why does consumption possess less merit than saving? Allocation between them on the market is simply a matter of time preference. This means that any coerced deviation from the market ratio of saving to consumption imposes a loss in utility, and this is true whichever direction the deviation takes. A government measure that might induce more saving and less consumption is then no less subject to criticism than one that would lead to more consumption and less saving. To say differently is to criticize free-market choices and implicitly to advocate governmental measures to force more savings upon the public. If they were consistent, therefore, these conservative economists would have to advocate taxation of the poor to subsidize the rich, for in that case savings would presumably increase and consumption diminish.
The third objection is a political-ethical one—that “the poor rob the rich.” The implication is that the poor man who pays 1 percent of his income in taxes is “robbing” the rich man who pays 80 percent. Without judging the merits or demerits of robbery, we may say that this is invalid. Both citizens are being robbed—by the State. That one is robbed in greater proportion does not eliminate the fact that both are being injured. It may be objected that the poor receive a net subsidy out of the tax proceeds because the government spends money to serve the poor. Yet this is not a valid argument. For the actual act of robbery is committed by the State, and not by the poor. Secondly, the State may spend its money, as we shall see below, on many different projects. It may consume products; it may subsidize some or all of the rich; it may subsidize some or all of the poor. The fact of progressive income taxation does not itself imply that “the poor” en masse will be subsidized. If some of the poor are subsidized, others may not be, and these latter will still be net taxpayers rather than tax-consumers and will be “robbed” along with the rich. The extent of this deprivation will be less for a poor taxpayer than for a rich one; and yet, since usually there are far more poor than rich, the poor en masse may very well bear the greatest burden of the tax “robbery.” In contrast, the State bureaucracy, as we have seen, actually pays no taxes at all.[39]
This misconception of the incidence of “robbery,” and the defective argument on savings, among other reasons, have led most conservative economists and writers to overemphasize greatly the importance of the progressiveness of taxation. Actually, the level of taxation is far more important than its progressiveness in determining the distance that a society has traveled from a free market. An example will clarify the relative importance of the two. Let us contrast two people and see how they fare under two different tax systems. Smith makes $1,000 a year, and Jones makes $20,000 a year. In Society A taxation is proportionate for all at 50 percent. In Society B taxation is very steeply progressive: rates are ½ percent for $1,000 income, 20 percent for $20,000 income. The following tabulation shows how much money each will pay in taxes in the different societies:
Now, we may ask both the rich and the poor taxpayers: Under which system of taxation are you better off? Both the rich man and the poor man will unhesitatingly pick Society B, where the rate structure is far more progressive, but where the level of taxation for every man is lower. Some may object that the total amount of tax levied is far greater in Society A. But this is precisely the point! The point is that what the rich man objects to is not the progressiveness of the rates, but the high level of the rates imposed upon him, and he will prefer progressiveness when rates are lower. This demonstrates that it is not the poor who “rob” the rich through the progressive principle of taxation; it is the State that “robs” both through all taxation. And it indicates that what the conservative economists are actually objecting to, whether they fully realize it or not, is not progression, but high levels of taxation, and that their real objection to progression is that it opens the sluice gates for high levels of taxation of the rich. Yet this prospect will not always be realized. For it is certainly possible and has often occurred that a rate structure is very progressive and yet lower all around, on the high brackets and on the low, than a less progressive structure. As a practical matter, however, progressiveness is necessary for high tax rates, because the multitude of lower-income citizens might revolt against very steep tax rates if they were imposed on all equally. On the other hand, many people may accept a high tax burden if they are secure in the knowledge or belief that the rich pay a still higher rate.[40]
We have seen that coerced egalitarianism will cause a reversion to barbarism and that steps in that direction will result in dislocations of the market and a lowering of living standards. Many economists—notably the members of the “Chicago School”—believe that they champion the “free market,” and yet they do not consider taxation as connected with the market or as an intervention in the market process. These writers strongly believe that, on the market, every individual should earn the profits and marginal value productivity that the consumers wish to pay, in order to achieve a satisfactory allocation of productive factors. Nevertheless, they see no inconsistency in then advocating drastic taxation and subsidies. They believe that these can alter the “distribution” of incomes without lowering the efficiency of productive allocations. In this way they rely on an equivalent of Keynesian “money illusion”—a tax illusion, a belief that individuals will arrange their activities according to their gross rather than net (after-tax) income. This is a palpable error. There is no reason why people should not be tax-conscious and allocate their resources and energies accordingly. Altering relative rewards by taxation will disrupt all the allocations of the market—the movement of labor, the alertness of entrepreneurship, etc. The market is a vast nexus, with all strands interconnected, and it must be analyzed as such. The prevailing fashion in economics of chopping up the market into isolated compartments—“the firm,” a few “macroscopic” holistic aggregates, market exchanges, taxation, etc.—distorts the discussion of each one of these compartments and fails to present a true picture of the interrelations of the market.
WHEW! Boy!
I have The Great Books. Shall I transcribe Volume 50, Marx, in response?
Basically the libertarians and/or conservatives are offended by the prospect of taxes.
They ignore the fact that America's greatest prosperity came during the pre-Reagan tax cut era.
The highest earners back then didn't REALLY pay 90% in income tax. They used tax shelters, gave money to charity, and reinvested their income into their businesses in the form of new equipment.
All of which reduced their tax liability and moved them into a lower tax bracket.
The high rate thus encouraged the economy. Rather than sitting on the money, the richest folks kept it moving.
America is most prosperous when the middle class has the most money, and least prosperous when 80% of the wealth is held by the top 2%.
" A progressive tax is therefore bound to cripple incentives, impair mobility of occupation, and greatly hamper the flexibility of the market in serving the consumers."
Except it doesn't. Germany, etc, have high top tax rates and they are much better off than we are.
Of course they have the sense to protect their manufacturing markets from China, and half of all Corporation Board Members have to be drawn from company workers by law.
That no doubt helps.
Boy, Libertarians never get tired of saying that taxation is theft. However when you ask them to give an example of a successful nation with little or no taxes, they cannot.
If you point to a country like Somalia as an example of a tax free, small government, regulation free nation. Its called a straw man argument.
So let's look at this from a different perspective. Why is Somalia NOT an example of a Libertarian nation?
BTW, that Rothband article is a bunch of bull. It assumes all humans act in the exact same manner when it comes to wealth and money.
And in so many ways, once again the Libertarian argument is completely contradictory. If a person only behaves in a manner in line with protecting his own individual wealth, than how can they ever work for the benefit of the greater society?
Boy, Libertarians never get tired of saying that taxation is theft. However when you ask them to give an example of a successful nation with little or no taxes, they cannot.
If you point to a country like Somalia as an example of a tax free, small government, regulation free nation. Its called a straw man argument.
So let's look at this from a different perspective. Why is Somalia NOT an example of a Libertarian nation?
Gosh, could it be that when there is absolutely no government, there is absolutely no order, and that one can hardly be called free or Libertarian when one has to spend all of one's time avoiding being robbed, raped, maimed, or killed by minions of the local warlord? Ah, but isn't it a comfort to the average Somali that there's no taxation to pay for socialist organizations like police or a national army, either of which could, of course, put a stop to those colorful and dramatic activities!
Very easy my brother...
There's something called: "A living wage". That's the amount of money that it would require for an average size family (let's say 2 adults and 2 kids) to live without starving to death. Nobody should be forced to eat only twice a day to be able to pay taxes (poor people).
Thank you to all those posters that supported my claim. The "fairness" of the progressive tax is based on ones feelings and not anything objective. The word "fair" has got to be the mushiest word in the language.
First of all, I loved the way Art refered to higher income peopel as if they "got" more money instead of saying they earned more money.
Analogy alert-- A guy owns a farmstead. He spent all year working from sun up to sun down tending crops, livestock, and the land. Now he has several barns full of the product of his efforts. Then a crowd of people, who spent the same time watching Oprah and eating Bon Bons, show up at his door and claim he owes them 39% of whats in the barns because he "got" more....Liberals actually think this scenario is fair, I don't get it.
Taxes are not theft. Taxes are the price we pay to live in the United States, and the price is set by We The People. Payday is April 15. If anybody doesn't like it, you are free to pack you suitcase and move back to Europe.
I've absolutely no problem with anyone having "more" if they spend it within the real economy rather than plowing it into financial paper.Build a business rather than making a derivative bet.
The huge extractions from the circulating money supply collapses economies over time...or haven't you noticed?
The B.S. about slipping back into recession ( which has never recovered in the first place ) is just another way of saying its going to get worse. Of course it is. We're heading for a general economic collapse....and a few will come out smelling like roses.
Foreclosures rise...right along with bankster bonuses. Unemployment rises...right along with CEO perks.
The economy is doing exacly what it was engineered to do. Collapsing. Tax structures, along with outsourcing, have both played a large role in that.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Taxes are not theft. Taxes are the price we pay to live in the United States, and the price is set by We The People. Payday is April 15. If anybody doesn't like it, you are free to pack you suitcase and move back to Europe.
I don't know of anyone who objects to paying fair taxes. They are indeed needed for a functional government. The issue is not taxes versus no taxes, the issue is: are punative taxes fair.
As you said, "The "fairness" of the progressive tax is based on ones feelings and not anything objective. The word "fair" has got to be the mushiest word in the language."
You don't really think your argument is going to convince anybody, do you?
The real issue is, an economy that works or one that doesn't.
Generally, conservatives and libertarians see everything from what best suits them individually. If the rest of the world comes tumbling down because of it...it's irrelevant from their viewpoint. Most talking points and economic "ideology" always comes back to that...what's best for "me".....and attempts to justify it..
It's a vast chasm between the right and what little of the left. remains in this country.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
As you said, "The "fairness" of the progressive tax is based on ones feelings and not anything objective. The word "fair" has got to be the mushiest word in the language."
You don't really think your argument is going to convince anybody, do you?
Only the fair minded. :o)
Paleo - Your statement...
"Then a crowd of people, who spent the same time watching Oprah and eating Bon Bons, show up at his door and claim he owes them 39% of whats in the barns because he "got" more"
...is not correct for the most part. The one sitting home is a person to ill to work, can't find a job, or needs help. I'm sure you'll find a few exceptions and they're rare. Most people want to work and be part of a community.
Most liberals view the world as a "we" society so they want these people to be taken care of - along with the air, water, food to be safe. And that it's taken care of by "we the people" through our Government. Conservatives think we live in a "me" society and you think that Corporations can do better and it will all just work out.
The Republicans and conservative Dems have desimated Government over the past 30 years and it needs to be rebuilt (they "shrunk it so it coud be flushed down the drain".) Corporations will never take care of the commons because they see profit as their motivations...not other humans or safety.
When taxes and regulations were higher - we had a larger middle class (less division between wealthy & poor) and when taxes & regulations were lower we have less of a middle class (more division of wealthy & poor.)
The wealthy use more of the commons - it's "fair" they should pay more.
Btw, your constant personal attacks of ideas & liberals here you disagree with are getting old....
Thank you to all those posters that supported my claim. The "fairness" of the progressive tax is based on ones feelings and not anything objective. The word "fair" has got to be the mushiest word in the language.
First of all, I loved the way Art refered to higher income peopel as if they "got" more money instead of saying they earned more money.
Analogy alert-- A guy owns a farmstead. He spent all year working from sun up to sun down tending crops, livestock, and the land. Now he has several barns full of the product of his efforts. Then a crowd of people, who spent the same time watching Oprah and eating Bon Bons, show up at his door and claim he owes them 39% of whats in the barns because he "got" more....Liberals actually think this scenario is fair, I don't get it.
That's fallacious.
One problem with this argument is that it doesn't recognize the difference between work and labor. A very large percentage of the wealthy in the U.S. performed no labor at all to get their wealth. They didn't "earn" it. Many inherited it and many made "new money" fortunes based on various speculative schemes, such as the housing bubble and the banking bailout, that harmed the overall economy and ruined lots of people. And their barns are sometimes (and I'm not saying it's true for all of the rich) full of immorally and illegally achieved gains, not gains garnered by honest toil. Some have gotten rich by means technically legal but completely immoral and unethical, and they knew that while they were raking in the cash. Those are the ones who often yowl the loudest when they have to come up with a penny's worth of tax money.
Others have never done anything helpful for the economy with the money they saved through the Bush tax cuts for the rich. All they've done is use the money for increased arbitrage, which does nothing at all for anything but their own pocketbooks. They didn't invest in new business start-ups or create jobs with it, per the stereotype they like to further. All most of them have done is move fortunes around on paper to pad their bank accounts.
Again, noblesse oblige should obtain. Those who get the most out of any socioeconomic system should be willing to put the most back into it; the rich are not. And for there to be equality of opportunity, there must first be some degree of equality of condition. The only way to achieve that is for the rich to pay their FAIR share of taxes. You may consider that "mushy." So be it, but it's a political and economic fact of life because wealth intrinsically generates more wealth for its owners by its very existence, and if a few have it all and most have nothing, intrinsic generation of wealth becomes a vicious cycle that exponentially increases economic inequality until a few will virtually have it ALL and the rest nothing. That's not only not "fair," it's not civilized.
It's a stereotype to claim that everybody who isn't rich spends all their time eating bon bons and watching Oprah. It's just another "welfare queen" variant and cliched conservative talking point. It's fair to tell people that if they don't work they don't eat, but it only becomes fair to do that when everybody who wants a job has one -- at a liveable wage, not in modern economic serfdom.
Good job ignoring my comment where I explained you exactly why progressive taxes make sense. The government should never tax under the "living wage" (take food out of people's mouth).
Paleocon.... can you explain us "ignorant liberals" the following:
- Rightwingers want taxes to be lower and celebrate when rich people get their taxes reduced (is that correct?). Why is it that rightwingers hate it when poor people get their taxes lowered. Isn't that a good thing based on that same principle?
- If Rightwingers hate taxes and government spending, why is it that most rightwingers live in places with extra wide roads, extra street lighting, extra landscaping, extra wide sidewalks and roads that get paved every 6 months? Shouldn't they live in the areas with narrow roads, no sidewalks, no street lighting, and get paved every 6 years (where poor people live = pay low taxes).?
I think that phrase originated with the Puritans as part of the Puritan work ethic. I've always heard it used to refer to people on government welfare assistance. However, during the time of the Puritans, there was no government welfare assistance. That rule was meant to prevent the wealthy from coming to their settlements & setting up shop with capital and expecting others to do their work for them. We should apply that rule to the wealthy today also.
The idea that you have to work to eat is found in the Bible right next to the first rule of the early Christian communities : All property is held in common - everyone shares everything.
Actually it came from the "Apostle Paul" and his Letters.
Some in the early Christian churches were convinced that Christ would return immediately, and wanted to spend all their time worshipping and evangelizing.
Paul of Tarsus responded 'fine, but if you don't work, you won't eat'.
Which is common sense, but Libertarians have of course altered it for their own purposes.
They use it as a mantra to justify their "me first" philosophy, like that baloney about the farmer in the above post.
Does the farmer enjoy benefits from the government? Police protection, a Fire department, National Defense, Public schools?
Or did he carry an AK-47 out in the field for fear of robbers, employ guards just so he can sleep at night, own his own Fire truck to save his homestead from prairie fires, and home school his children in Math, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Programming?
If he enjoyed those benefits he owes a debt and should support them.
Is it ethical to take a persons property , who has NOT commited a crime, to provide goods and/or services to another who has NOT performed a service to the former or to the body politic?
Taxing for services that we ALL use (roads, emergency services, ect) is fair. We get pizza, we all throw in equally and eat equally (more or less). That is ethical. Collectivley we MAY decide that one person, who has had a bad run, can have a slice OR a person who has help out the collective (those who defend the collective) can have a slice without throwing in.
Religious writing is an appeal to Pathos (emotion). An appeal to Ethos (ethics) would be helping out those who have helped the collective or those who need a temporary helping hand. (ie feed a person until he can fish for himself).
If a rich guy buys a pizza , eats half of it and then gives away the remainder is he unjust because he had more than the rest? Or is he Just because he gave away half of his property with no reward?
Let me point out the republican hypocracy.....
Are you saying that we shouldn't pay tax to fund jails and prisons? Because that's what I get from what you are saying.
Progressive income taxes were created to prevent the mess we're in right now: 1% of the populace owning most of the wealth and thus wielding too much power. They're supposed to be a disincentive to such accumulation and not a theft by government. The government should never see that money because anyone with half a brain would call it quits before getting to that taxation level. They are insanely greedy if they want more money.
Now, I wonder if most if not all of that 1% were liberals what conservatives and libertarians would think of a progressive income tax? Bet they'd have a different opinion.