Is it wrong to lower taxes on only lower income earners?

[Madison320]

First off we all know that spending is the real problem, but just for fun let's look at taxes. Suppose we had a flat tax of 10%. Then suppose we reduce taxes to 5% for everyone who earns under a million. Is this moral? I would say no because I think if you are going to impose a government burden it should be applied equally.

[KingNothing]

Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.

[sailingaway]

Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.

That is how Ron Paul analyzes it. He figures the fact that we have only half the nation paying taxes means we are half way there. Less taxes is good.

The problem with the current situation is they aren't 'raising' taxes so you can just kill a bill, they are PREVENTING taxes from AUTOMATICALLY going up. In that case the most taxes you can reduce is best, I should think. The will was there to extend them last time across the board. That would by far be best. But if that vote isn't even going to be brought up by leadership, passing what you can do might be best. I don't know all the negotiation factors in play though. I would expect some Senator to propose an amendment to extend all the cuts, but I would also, given the make up of the Senate, expect that amendment to fail.

[Madison320]

Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.

What if we started with a flat tax rate of 10% and we only lowered it to 5% for black people? Still OK?

[JustinTime]

That is how Ron Paul analyzes it. He figures the fact that we have only half the nation paying taxes means we are half way there. Less taxes is good.

The problem is the half not paying will only benefit from government spending, and therefore more easily convinced to vote for more and more of it. This creates a vicious cycle with only one logical end, government control of all wealth and government providing everything people want or need.

[Feeding the Abscess]

What if we started with a flat tax rate of 10% and we only lowered it to 5% for black people? Still OK?

Yes. Any lessening of the burden is a good thing.

[JustinTime]

Yes. Any lessening of the burden is a good thing.

How about we lower tax rates for white people only? Still good?

[staerker]

How about we lower tax rates for white people only? Still good?

I don't think anyone would suggest that, but you said it. Same principle applies. I am persecuted, thus everyone should be persecuted.? No.

[JustinTime]

I don't think anyone would suggest that,

No shit, but they will suggest it for blacks.


but you said it. Same principle applies. I am persecuted, thus everyone should be persecuted.? No.

Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.

[staerker]

No shit, but they will suggest it for blacks.



Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.

I see. Good luck getting the government to protect your rights. :)

[JustinTime]

I see. Good luck getting the government to protect your rights. :)

So thats your answer? You see no danger in some people paying huge taxes, some people paying little, and some none at all? You dont see how that feeds the beast?

[brandon]

At this point I really hope congress passes something that prevents my taxes from going up, even if it means a new top bracket is created with a higher rate. Lets be real... taxing rich people more certainly ain't gonna help the economy, but it's not gonna put anyone out on the street either. On the other hand, raising taxes on someone making 50k and supporting a family can have some seriously crappy consequences.

[bolil]

No shit, but they will suggest it for blacks.



Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.

I do not fancy myself an anarchist (perhaps I am to weak for that) either, but taxes must be looked at in their proper light: If you don't pay them, you can be sent to jail. Sounds like taxation is synonymous with conditional slavery to me (You dont met the condition- that is paying taxes, then your freedom is taken by force). Does a government need superfluous funds to function? Or is government, in its proper scope, able to function through voluntary contributions and service?

[JustinTime]

I do not fancy myself an anarchist (perhaps I am to weak for that) either, but taxes must be looked at in their proper light: If you don't pay them, you can be sent to jail. Sounds like taxation is synonymous with conditional slavery to me

OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

Sounds like slavery to me.

In a nutshell Im OK with lower taxes for some and higher for others, provided the group is relatively small (for reasons Ive given above) or if the "non-payers" get less or no benefits.

[bolil]

OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. But, as you say, I would call that the current state of affairs.

[JustinTime]

VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS. But, as you say, I would call that the current state of affairs.

Uhh, no, the current state of affairs is nowhere even close to voluntary contributions (if I understand you correctly). If we get "payers" and "non-payers" even more out of balance it will flat out slavery, with "payers" having no real say in how much they pay, or what their confiscated wealth is used for.

[bolil]

OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

Sounds like slavery to me.

In a nutshell Im OK with lower taxes for some and higher for others, provided the group is relatively small (for reasons Ive given above) or if the "non-payers" get less or no benefits.

This is as you say. When one says as you say, they mean what you said. As opposed to what I said.

You are operating under the idea that the current scope of government is proper. No shit the current state is not voluntary... errrmmm duh? The ideal state would be a voluntary, and government could function on voluntary contributions by: A. Restricting their activities to a proper, I would say constitutional scope. B. By operating fairly, and without regard to income or class, the gov. would likely see the contributions recvd not only increase but originate in more and more diverse sections on the population. I guess I am saying that our government, because of a long history of shittery, needs to prove itself worthy of the material and emotional support of the people once more.

Now, could you describe to me exactly what are benefits? The bill of rights, the law of the land, applies to all citizens of the USA. I would like to see that scope expanded... of course it could only be expanded with consent.

[JustinTime]

This is as you say. When one says as you say, they mean what you said. As opposed to what I said.

You are operating under the idea that the current scope of government is proper.

No, Im not.


No shit the current state is not voluntary... errrmmm duh?

Well you brought it up first, and repeated it two or three times.


Now, could you describe to me exactly what are benefits? The bill of rights, the law of the land, applies to all citizens of the USA.

The government doesnt have to tax a cent for you to own property, speak your mind, practice your religion, etc. Im talking about entitlements, having other peoples money spent on you.

Doesnt it make sense, if a minority is taxed to pay for the majority's maintainence, the majority will never vote to decrease taxes or the spending burden. Its simple common sense, so taxes should be as equal and "across the board" as possible.

Now yeah, I guess we could dream big and say "Why not abolish all taxes and stuff altogether", but one doesnt prevent the other.

[awake]

Whats fundamentally immoral is the idea that taxation is something other than theft. Until mankind tackles slavery by another name, we will spin in circles defining right and wrong when it suits.

Everytime you use the word 'tax', replace it with the correct term 'steal'. You can then see the morals of the situation clearly.

[bolil]

No, Im not.



Well you brought it up first, and repeated it two or three times.



The government doesnt have to tax a cent for you to own property, speak your mind, practice your religion, etc. Im talking about entitlements, having other peoples money spent on you.

Doesnt it make sense, if a minority is taxed to pay for the majority's maintainence, the majority will never vote to decrease taxes or the spending burden. Its simple common sense, so taxes should be as equal and "across the board" as possible.

Now yeah, I guess we could dream big and say "Why not abolish all taxes and stuff altogether", but one doesnt prevent the other.

Voluntary contributions are not a tax. Being a republic the majority has no right to demand anything of minorities or vice versa as we are each of use ONE, constituting neither majority of minority. Those terms belong in the collectivist sewer. Simply common sense is it? No, simple common sense would be to say: Taxes wouldn't be taxes if they were not coerced. Coercion is wrong. Taxes, therefore, are wrong. Blather about minorities and majorities all you like, makes no difference to me.

One doesn't prevent what? You have lost me.

[Danan]

No, Im not.



Well you brought it up first, and repeated it two or three times.



The government doesnt have to tax a cent for you to own property, speak your mind, practice your religion, etc. Im talking about entitlements, having other peoples money spent on you.

Doesnt it make sense, if a minority is taxed to pay for the majority's maintainence, the majority will never vote to decrease taxes or the spending burden. Its simple common sense, so taxes should be as equal and "across the board" as possible.

Now yeah, I guess we could dream big and say "Why not abolish all taxes and stuff altogether", but one doesnt prevent the other.

Then why is it more realistic to believe that the majority agrees to apply taxes evenly on all people?

If, like you state it, the majority profits (or at least believes it profits) from a minority paying a large amount of all taxes, why would they support support a position like a flat tax? I mean, after all, you would need to convince this majority in order to change the current tax scheme.

It actually seems like a more practical approach to show him why every form of taxation is unjust, than to tell the "median voter" why he should have a higher tax rate in order to be fair to all millionaires and billionaires.

[Pauls' Revere]

OK, but if you abolish taxes for some and force others to pay up, while the former group collects the benefits, what do you call it?

Sounds like slavery to me.

In a nutshell Im OK with lower taxes for some and higher for others, provided the group is relatively small (for reasons Ive given above) or if the "non-payers" get less or no benefits.

just how big would this group be? have an number in mind?

[erowe1]

It's never wrong to lower anyone's taxes, and never right to raise anyone's taxes.

[Brian4Liberty]

How about no "income" tax at all?

[JustinTime]

Voluntary contributions are not a tax.

No shit, the current state isnt voluntary though. Bwhahahahaha!!!!!

[JustinTime]

just how big would this group be? have an number in mind?

50%. Its the ol' "2 Wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner".

And yeah, I know it would be better if we had no taxes at all, blah blah. It would be better if money grew on trees too, but knowing that doesnt mean I wont give up my business and quit working.

[JustinTime]

Then why is it more realistic to believe that the majority agrees to apply taxes evenly on all people?

If, like you state it, the majority profits (or at least believes it profits) from a minority paying a large amount of all taxes, why would they support support a position like a flat tax? I mean, after all, you would need to convince this majority in order to change the current tax scheme.

It actually seems like a more practical approach to show him why every form of taxation is unjust, than to tell the "median voter" why he should have a higher tax rate in order to be fair to all millionaires and billionaires.

Im not arguing against that. Im saying it could be dangerous to lower taxes for some and raise them for others. You would be giving the majority an incentive to vote for more and more taxes, why the hell not? They aint paying anyway!

[nobody's_hero]

The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty–– Benjamin Franklin.

(I quote this as someone who was working for $8/hr at a part time job last year.)

[Brian4Liberty]

The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty–– Benjamin Franklin.

(I quote this as someone who was working for $8/hr at a part time job last year.)

Free housing, free medical care, EBT card. Ben is rolling in his grave.

[Madison320]

My point is that if the government is going to impose a burden on it's citizens, it should be done evenly. Whether it SHOULD impose a burden is another argument. I'm surprised at how few agree with me. It looks like JustinTime is the only one. Class envy maybe?

I would argue that a truly even tax would be the same amount for each citizen. Why should a rich guy pay more for a government service than a poor guy? They're both receiving the same service, at least for proper government which would be the protection of rights. I view a flat tax as a realistic compromise. But a progressive tax? The 2nd plank of the communist manifesto? That's just wrong.

[TonySutton]

Wow, you guys got 30 posts deep and never mentioned the fact that some people MAKE money when they fill out their income tax return. These people are MAKING A PROFIT off not making enough money while bitching that the top 2% do not pay their fair share...

I recently saw one article which talked about 30 of workers had a negative income tax. This is word play for THEY MADE MONEY for filling out their tax forms.

[erowe1]

Wow, you guys got 30 posts deep and never mentioned the fact that some people MAKE money when they fill out their income tax return.

I'm one of those people, or at least have been in several recent years ever since having kids. And I agree with you, while I'm all for cutting anyone's taxes by any amount at any time for any excuse, these tax credits that result in people making a profit should be gotten rid of.

But that's not a matter of the tax rates, it's tax credits.

[smhbbag]

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” - Thomas Jefferson

[JustinTime]

My point is that if the government is going to impose a burden on it's citizens, it should be done evenly. Whether it SHOULD impose a burden is another argument. I'm surprised at how few agree with me. It looks like JustinTime is the only one. Class envy maybe?

I would argue that a truly even tax would be the same amount for each citizen. Why should a rich guy pay more for a government service than a poor guy? They're both receiving the same service, at least for proper government which would be the protection of rights. I view a flat tax as a realistic compromise. But a progressive tax? The 2nd plank of the communist manifesto? That's just wrong.

I own a small business, and although I dont feel rich, Im one of the people government is coming after to fund their chicanery. If their chicanery is for the good of us all, as we are told, let "us all" pay up.

Cant do that though, if everyone felt the pain they might for for politicians who want tax cuts.

[erowe1]

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” - Thomas Jefferson

Notice that Jefferson specifically limits that argument to taxes on land, and that his point does not apply to income taxes.

[smhbbag]

Notice that Jefferson specifically limits that argument to taxes on land, and that his point does not apply to income taxes.

Quite true, but the question was whether it was just to take different amounts of taxes from different people, based solely on the differences in wealth or prosperity. Jefferson's answer was yes, and that it was more than just, it was necessary.

[erowe1]

Quite true, but the question was whether it was just to take different amounts of taxes from different people, based solely on the differences in wealth or prosperity. Jefferson's answer was yes, and that it was more than just, it was necessary.

But he doesn't base it on wealth or prosperity, he bases it on land ownership. For some, that might not be an important distinction, but for Jefferson it definitely was. The context of that quote explains why.

[KrokHead]

First off we all know that spending is the real problem, but just for fun let's look at taxes. Suppose we had a flat tax of 10%. Then suppose we reduce taxes to 5% for everyone who earns under a million. Is this moral? I would say no because I think if you are going to impose a government burden it should be applied equally.
Technically higher taxes for rich people isn't fair, but I don't lose sleep over it. (Like when people 'cheat' their taxes.)

[smhbbag]

But he doesn't base it on wealth or prosperity, he bases it on land ownership. For some, that might not be an important distinction, but for Jefferson it definitely was. The context of that quote explains why.

What exactly do you think "tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise" means?

It means higher tax rates (by multiples, even, for that's what "geometric" means) on bigger estates. This is specifically designed to reduce the centralization of wealth and lessen the disparity in means. Estate size/price is a very good proxy for prosperity and overall wealth.

Taxing land and other physical assets is far superior in every way to taxing income. But the point remains, and Jefferson clearly offers an answer to the OP. But it's one that RPFers won't generally like, because they wrongly believe the founders were anything like modern libertarians.

[erowe1]

What exactly do you think "tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise" means?
It means, larger parcels of land taxed at higher rates than smaller ones.

Here's the quote in context:

The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_James_Madison_-_October_28,_1785

Clearly his points apply only to land ownership, and not simply wealth and prosperity, and certainly not income. This is not an answer to the OP. It's Georgism, which has always been pretty popular among classical liberals and still is today.

[smhbbag]

Clearly his points apply only to land ownership, and not simply wealth and prosperity.

Dude, wealth and prosperity and estate size are all essentially the same thing.


Larger parcels of land taxed at higher rates than smaller ones.

Not just higher rates, but multiples of rate the smaller parcels (if even there is to be a rate on the smallest parcels).

That directly answers the OP's question, from Jefferson's perspective. It is not unjust, and in fact it is necessary, to discriminate in tax rate based on prosperity, wealth, or estate size, or whatever other synonym you want to throw out there.

[erowe1]

Dude, wealth and prosperity and estate size are all essentially the same thing.
I don't think so.


How can Jefferson be saying anything other than to minimize or abolish taxation on the lower rungs, while multiplying taxes on the higher rungs?
What's a rung?


So I'll repeat my question: what does "tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise" mean?
I'll repeat my answer. It means taxing larger parcels of land at higher rates than smaller ones.

Did you read the quote in context?

I notice that the quote you provided pops up all over the internet as a stand-alone quote just the way you presented it here. Usually this is done by people trying to make the point that Jefferson was for wealth redistribution or some such nonsense. Did you perhaps just copy and paste it from one of those places?

[JustinTime]

That directly answers the OP's question, from Jefferson's perspective. It is not unjust, and in fact it is necessary, to discriminate in tax rate based on prosperity, wealth, or estate size, or whatever other synonym you want to throw out there.

I'm confused by the antiquated language... why is Jefferson saying its necessary?

[loveshiscountry]

First off we all know that spending is the real problem, but just for fun let's look at taxes. Suppose we had a flat tax of 10%. Then suppose we reduce taxes to 5% for everyone who earns under a million. Is this moral? I would say no because I think if you are going to impose a government burden it should be applied equally.Income tax isn't moral anyway imo. I would vote to lower it though. That's a "compromise" I would do. At least someones taxes would drop.

You way reminds me of a married buddy of mine. He had the day off and had a couple of free tickets to the Byron Nelson. His wife said he couldn't go since she had to work and couldn't have fun, he couldn't either.

[Danan]

My point is that if the government is going to impose a burden on it's citizens, it should be done evenly. Whether it SHOULD impose a burden is another argument. I'm surprised at how few agree with me. It looks like JustinTime is the only one. Class envy maybe?

It's certainly not class envy for me. You basically asked if it's a good thing to lower taxes for a specific group only and I would argue that lower taxes are always a good thing. To me it doesn't matter if you lower the rates just for poor people, just for rich people, whites, blacks, gays, atheists, jews, professional Nascar drivers, or any group you can imagine - as long as you don't increase the rates for some other group as part of the deal I'm all for it. How is that position class envy?

[smhbbag]

A rung is a step on a ladder. I'm referring to economic status.


I notice that the quote you provided pops up all over the internet as a stand-alone quote just the way you presented it here. Usually this is done by people trying to make the point that Jefferson was for wealth redistribution or some such nonsense.

Jefferson specifically says the purpose of such a tax structure is to reduce inequality. Redistribution? No, not if that means to hand the money of the rich to the poor. But it does mean to use the money of the rich preferentially over the money of the poor to fund government. And it does mean that the government should openly acknowledge that a growing and/or large gap between rich and poor is bad thing that it should address by tax policy and other means.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Any lowering of taxes is good and should be celebrated. Anything that reduces the overall tax burden and therefore coercion is a good thing.

If we can lower rates for non-wealthy people today, we can at least make it so the other side has to battle to increase rates, and position ourselves for more incremental cuts as time goes on.

First off, understand how taxes originated. They were a penalty. As the king owned all property both private and public, the best one could do is share property with him meaning most people had to work illegally on his property at the business of survival.
You see, by tradition, the first born generally went into the employment of the ruling monarchy and the second born went into the service of the church. All the other children born after that had to survive illegally on land jointly owned by the king and the church. Therefore, they were penalized with a tax.

In regards to functions within society, those that mirror the lowly common housewife generally earn little; meanwhile, those more promiscuous functions within society, you know, those who perform mysterious actions behind the scene within the most holiest of holy places, tend to earn a lot.

The point of contention here is a matter of what functions in society should be considered administrative. I think all functions within society are administrative meaning that one can't just fire someone at will. If you hire a janitor to clean the toilet, there should be a limit to how much you are able to dictate to them how you want it cleaned.

As a face represents authority, and as we are all born with one, that means, by natural right, we are all born endowed with administrative authority.

Once again, there is no such thing as a legal definition outside of insanity as the legal system itself is an irrational process. Ethically speaking, as the legal system controls the endeavor of science, it too is an irrational process.

This is why we shouldn't talk, but listen to our worthless grandmothers.

[smhbbag]

I'm confused by the antiquated language... why is Jefferson saying its necessary?

I said that progressive taxation (of real property, in Jefferson's writing) is not only 'just' but also necessary. By that, I mean that for Jefferson the state not only has the proper authority to tax, and to tax progressively, but also the moral obligation to do so.

In the quote provided, this is because

1) "enormous inequality" brings "so much misery to the bulk of mankind,"
2) the combination of unemployed poor and uncultivated land shows "it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

Whatever inequality is a necessary consequence of encouraging industry, then the state must seek to minimize the damage that causes by taking "care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation."

So, he is saying the progressive taxation of real property is to decrease the misery of the poor, and respect the natural right of a man to work to provide for himself and his house.

To put it in terms a libertarian might be familiar with - the centralization of wealth is as great a threat to liberty and prosperity as the centralization of power. One cannot be an economic slave without eventually becoming a political slave as well.

[erowe1]

I'm referring to economic status.

Jefferson isn't. He's referring to land.

[erowe1]

To put it in terms a libertarian might be familiar with - the centralization of wealth is as great a threat to liberty and prosperity as the centralization of power.

Some may think that. But you can't get it from what Jefferson said about land.

[smhbbag]

Jefferson isn't. He's referring to land.

You keep saying that as if it's important, but have yet to explain why the distinction matters.

[erowe1]

You keep saying that as if it's important, but have yet to explain why the distinction matters.

It may not matter to you, but it clearly mattered to Jefferson, as you can see from the paragraph I provided which gave the context of the quote you pulled from some leftist website oblivious to what Jefferson was talking about.

He talks more about the distinction between land and movable property in his view here:
http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff18.txt

Mr. Livingston and his advocates have asserted
that the right to the beds and increments of rivers, is
a gift of the feudal system to the sovereign, that is, to
the nation, and is a peculiarity of that system: and
further, that that system was never introduced into
Louisiana. That the latter assertion is palpably
erroneous, could be readily shown, were not the ques-
tion altogether unnecessary. With respect to the
former, surely it is putting the cart before the horse to
say, that the authority of the nation flows from the
Feudal system, instead of the Feudal system flowing
from the authority of the nation. That the lands
within the limits assumed by a nation belong to the
nation as a body, has probably been the law of every
people on earth at some period of their history. A
right of property in moveable things is admitted
before the establishment of government. A separate
property in lands not till after that establishment.
The right to movables is acknowledged by all the
hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of
them has a separate property in lands been yielded to
individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession
till he has gathered the produce, after which one has
as good a right as another to occupy it. Govern-
ment must be established and laws provided, before
lands can be separately appropriated, and their
owner protected in his possession. Till then the
property is in the body of the nation, and they, or
their chief as their trustee, must grant them to indi-
viduals, and determine the conditions of the grant.

[PaulConventionWV]

First off we all know that spending is the real problem, but just for fun let's look at taxes. Suppose we had a flat tax of 10%. Then suppose we reduce taxes to 5% for everyone who earns under a million. Is this moral? I would say no because I think if you are going to impose a government burden it should be applied equally.

Yes, it's moral. We shouldn't envy what good fortune our neighbors receive. The only immoral part about it is that we didn't lower taxes for everybody.

This whole "apply government burden equally" thing is really getting in the way of liberty. People will use it to justify anything because, you know, we can't just get rid of government burdens, so let's make sure they're applied equally. The whole idea is a major distraction and I think it really detracts from getting to the real issue. The lower the taxes, the better. Taxes have never been fair to begin with, so trying to make it equal is a waste of time. Let's fight for liberty, not equality.

[smhbbag]

It may not matter to you, but it clearly mattered to Jefferson, as you can see from the paragraph I provided which gave the context of the quote you pulled from some leftist website oblivious to what Jefferson was talking about.

The context makes the quote stronger, not weaker, toward my view.

I've stated why I believe that, and cited it line by line. You just keep repeating "context" and "land" without actually saying much at all.

Is estate size/value not a good proxy for wealth or economic status?

But even if I were to ignore Jefferson and go along with your misreading, can I assume then that you'll then agree that Jefferson would favor a highly progressive property tax, with little or no property tax on small estates? And that he would do so specifically as a way to reduce economic inequality?

[PaulConventionWV]

What if we started with a flat tax rate of 10% and we only lowered it to 5% for black people? Still OK?

You're race-baiting in order to push the equality thing. Look, we get it. The implications of lowering the tax rates for a specific group of people suggests that the government is playing favorites. Everyone wants to feel equal. But equality is not the issue. If the government lowers the tax rate for black people, it should do it for white people, too, but that has nothing to do with whether or not lowering taxes for black people was a good thing. It was a good thing, in this hypothetical scenario, even though it implies favoritism. Let's stop focusing on the equality factor and get to the real issue, which is government theft. If a thief regularly steals from its victims with the threat of violence, is it moral for the thief to suddenly take less from only black people? The whole question is patently absurd. The thief shouldn't be stealing in the first place, so rebel against the thief and stop asking the thief to be "nice" and "equal". It's purely a distraction. The thing is, the government has massive powers and they use propaganda to distract people. The issue you bring up is simply a false dichotomy. It phrases the question as if it was about race, when there are bigger problems here, and they have nothing to do with race. If people stopped caring about the race issue and focused on liberty, the world would be a better place because we would stop arguing about the things the government wants us to as they continue to stick their hands in our pockets while prodding us to keep arguing about race. It's fickle and it's stupid.

[PaulConventionWV]

How about we lower tax rates for white people only? Still good?

Why would you think that question was any different from the one before? I'm sure FTA has the principled integrity to have the same answer for both.

[PaulConventionWV]

No shit, but they will suggest it for blacks.



Im not an anarchist, so I dont view necessarily taxation as persecution. We fund this thing called government to protect our rights, but if 49% does all the paying then the 51% majority just keeps voting for more and more government. Thats the situation the Democrats are setting up with their demands to "let the Bush cuts expire for all but the richest 1%" and what Republicans are trying to avert with their attempts to "broaden the base".

Taxes should be fair, simple, blind to who you are, and going to very specific purposes. We should all enjoy equal treatment by those funded.

I don't know about you, but I am "enjoying" very little of their treatment. I would rather have them just stop treating me, period.

[erowe1]

Is estate size/value not a good proxy for wealth or economic status?
No. It might be to some, but that's not where Jefferson was coming from. As you can see from both lengthy quotes I've provided, he believed that land ownership needed to be treated differently than property in general.


can I assume then that you'll then agree that Jefferson would favor a highly progressive property tax, with little or no property tax on small estates?
Of course. That's what he said.


And that he would do so specifically as a way to reduce economic inequality?
No. Economic inequality may have been the concern of whoever you lifted that quote from. But, as those who have read the quotes I provided can now see, it wasn't Jefferson's. His reference to property in the quote you provided is specifically, and only, about land, and does not apply more generally to all wealth.

Where did you get the quote anyway?

[PaulConventionWV]

At this point I really hope congress passes something that prevents my taxes from going up, even if it means a new top bracket is created with a higher rate. Lets be real... taxing rich people more certainly ain't gonna help the economy, but it's not gonna put anyone out on the street either. On the other hand, raising taxes on someone making 50k and supporting a family can have some seriously crappy consequences.

Taxes for the rich very well could put someone out on the streets. If a rich man decides to close his business and lay off all of his employees, where is the poor man that works for him going to go?

[PaulConventionWV]

Uhh, no, the current state of affairs is nowhere even close to voluntary contributions (if I understand you correctly). If we get "payers" and "non-payers" even more out of balance it will flat out slavery, with "payers" having no real say in how much they pay, or what their confiscated wealth is used for.

Where have you been? That is already true. We have no say in how much we pay or what it's used for. Like you said, flat out slavery. That's what we have now, regardless of how equal it is between slaves. If I were a slave working on a plantation, I wouldn't spend my time bickering with other slaves about how equal our contributions are. I would want to directly confront the master and get my freedom back in some way. The whole "this slave works harder than this slave/pays more than this slave" nonsense is a distraction.

[smhbbag]

No. Economic inequality may have been the concern of whoever you lifted that quote from. But, as those who have read the quotes I provided can now see, it wasn't Jefferson's. His reference to property in the quote you provided is specifically, and only, about land, and does not apply more generally to all wealth.

Of course this quote is just about land. But the question in the OP was whether it was inherently wrong to take more from the rich than the poor in taxation. Yes, the OP was about income tax, but the OP answered the question with a broader statement that tax burdens should be borne equally.

Jefferson clearly repudiated such an idea, at least with property taxes. That means Jefferson's quote directly addresses the OP. The OP offered a broad principle in reply to a specific situation. Jefferson opposed that principle.


Economic inequality may have been the concern of whoever you lifted that quote from. But, as those who have read the quotes I provided can now see, it wasn't Jefferson's.

Holy cow, man. Jefferson opens the sentence about progressive land taxation with "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to...."

This is only a difficult passage to read if you think any mention or concern over economic inequality has to be a leftist trap.

[JustinTime]

I said that progressive taxation (of real property, in Jefferson's writing) is not only 'just' but also necessary. By that, I mean that for Jefferson the state not only has the proper authority to tax, and to tax progressively, but also the moral obligation to do so.

In the quote provided, this is because

1) "enormous inequality" brings "so much misery to the bulk of mankind,"
2) the combination of unemployed poor and uncultivated land shows "it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

Whatever inequality is a necessary consequence of encouraging industry, then the state must seek to minimize the damage that causes by taking "care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation."

So, he is saying the progressive taxation of real property is to decrease the misery of the poor, and respect the natural right of a man to work to provide for himself and his house.

To put it in terms a libertarian might be familiar with - the centralization of wealth is as great a threat to liberty and prosperity as the centralization of power. One cannot be an economic slave without eventually becoming a political slave as well.

Put it in two words: wealth redistribution.

[PaulConventionWV]

Im not arguing against that. Im saying it could be dangerous to lower taxes for some and raise them for others. You would be giving the majority an incentive to vote for more and more taxes, why the hell not? They aint paying anyway!

Maybe because they don't want the services that are being provided?? Or perhaps they have a little human decency and moral standards???

[PaulConventionWV]

My point is that if the government is going to impose a burden on it's citizens, it should be done evenly. Whether it SHOULD impose a burden is another argument. I'm surprised at how few agree with me. It looks like JustinTime is the only one. Class envy maybe?

I would argue that a truly even tax would be the same amount for each citizen. Why should a rich guy pay more for a government service than a poor guy? They're both receiving the same service, at least for proper government which would be the protection of rights. I view a flat tax as a realistic compromise. But a progressive tax? The 2nd plank of the communist manifesto? That's just wrong.

The crux of this issue is that we don't get to decide what our taxes are. We can argue all we want, but the government will tax us as it sees fit. It does it in percentages because it operates under the assumption that, because they have power, they have a right to our money. Think about it. If what you were saying was true, that we were paying for a service, then we would all pay the same amount like you said, but the government is operating under the assumptions that it has a right to a certain PERCENTAGE of your hard earned wealth to do as they please with. I don't like that idea very much.

[smhbbag]

Put it in two words: wealth redistribution.

Maybe you missed what I said earlier about what this text meant:

Redistribution? No, not if that means to hand the money of the rich to the poor. But it does mean to use the money of the rich preferentially over the money of the poor to fund government.

[JustinTime]

Where have you been? That is already true. We have no say in how much we pay or what it's used for.

We do, its called voting, the only trouble with voting is that people like you and I cant get enough the dumbdowned populace to consider our point of view, much less agree with us and vote for pro-freedom candidates.


Like you said, flat out slavery. That's what we have now, regardless of how equal it is between slaves. If I were a slave working on a plantation, I wouldn't spend my time bickering with other slaves about how equal our contributions are. I would want to directly confront the master and get my freedom back in some way. The whole "this slave works harder than this slave/pays more than this slave" nonsense is a distraction.

No, its not a distraction, the cause of the problem! The "slaves" who do little or no work but still live off the plantations profit dont care about confronting the master, why should they?

[PaulConventionWV]

Dude, wealth and prosperity and estate size are all essentially the same thing.

What? No they're not. If you want to tax estate size, that doesn't mean you also want to tax a person's income. That doesn't make any sense. If I work for the government and I show up at your door and tell you that we are going to tax you per acre of your land and you agree, what would you think if I then started putting my hand into your bank account? That wasn't part of the agreement, was it?


Not just higher rates, but multiples of rate the smaller parcels (if even there is to be a rate on the smallest parcels).

That directly answers the OP's question, from Jefferson's perspective. It is not unjust, and in fact it is necessary, to discriminate in tax rate based on prosperity, wealth, or estate size, or whatever other synonym you want to throw out there.

No, that's clearly not what he was saying. As I said, if I am the government and I tell you I am going to tax you per acre of land that you own, then you wouldn't necessarily assume that I am going to start taking money out of your bank account, would you?

[JustinTime]

Maybe because they don't want the services that are being provided?? Or perhaps they have a little human decency and moral standards???

Ok, so why arent we getting less government, or no government? Why arent these decent people who dont want government flocking to candidates like Ron Paul?

[JustinTime]

What? No they're not. If you want to tax estate size, that doesn't mean you also want to tax a person's income.

Jesus Christ.

[JustinTime]

Put it in two words: wealth redistribution.


Maybe you missed what I said earlier about what this text meant:

Redistribution? No, not if that means to hand the money of the rich to the poor. But it does mean to use the money of the rich preferentially over the money of the poor to fund government.

Three words: redistribution of wealth.

[PaulConventionWV]

You keep saying that as if it's important, but have yet to explain why the distinction matters.

If you are gioing to talk about what Jefferson said, then you have to quote him honestly. If he is talking about land, you can't just arbitrarily expand that to mean something that he didn't say. That is dishonest. That's why the distinction matters.

[smhbbag]

What? No they're not. If you want to tax estate size, that doesn't mean you also want to tax a person's income. That doesn't make any sense. If I work for the government and I show up at your door and tell you that we are going to tax you per acre of your land and you agree, what would you think if I then started putting my hand into your bank account? That wasn't part of the agreement, was it?

It is different to tax wealth vs. income vs. estate size. I've already shown that by saying that I think property taxes are better than income taxes in every way possible. I know good and well they are not the same exact thing.

But I didn't say those taxes were the same thing. I said that wealth and estate size were essentially the same thing if we're talking about who to tax and at what rate. Put a tax on the wealthy, and put a tax on valuable estate owners, and those will hit almost exactly the same group of people. Which tax is chosen isn't the issue, here. The OP proposed that the burdens of government spending should be borne equally, without regard to your economic status. Jefferson took economic status into account (by referencing the size of the estate) when considering tax rates.

The idea of progressive taxation itself is on the table, not what form of taxation. Most libertarians and many conservatives (here, anyway) have a principled problem with taking different portions of money from different people, in any form. Jefferson didn't have such a problem.

[PaulConventionWV]

We do, its called voting, the only trouble with voting is that people like you and I cant get enough the dumbdowned populace to consider our point of view, much less agree with us and vote for pro-freedom candidates.

Voting is merely a front to give us the illusion of choice. It has been for a long time. The reason we can't get libertarians into office is because the establishment has such a hold on the whole system that they can manipulate it in ways that favor only the ones who support their agenda. This is hard for the masses to see because of the propaganda that blinds them.


No, its not a distraction, the cause of the problem! The "slaves" who do little or no work but still live off the plantations profit dont care about confronting the master, why should they?

Maybe it's because they don't want to be slaves anymore. Just a thought.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok, so why arent we getting less government, or no government? Why arent these decent people who dont want government flocking to candidates like Ron Paul?

Oh, it's a tragedy, I know. I'm talking about what should happen, not what people will do. The situation you just described is one of the reasons I have a relatively nihilistic view toward government. Nobody will support the ideal that is right because they want to mooch. Yes, you are right, that is a problem. But if people would stop being blinded by the propaganda and see that a man's liberty is his most precious asset, then we wouldn't have to bicker about which slaves are working harder than others.

[PaulConventionWV]

Jesus Christ.

What about JC?

[PaulConventionWV]

It is different to tax wealth vs. income vs. estate size. I've already shown that by saying that I think property taxes are better than income taxes in every way possible. I know good and well they are not the same exact thing.

But I didn't say those taxes were the same thing. I said that wealth and estate size were essentially the same thing if we're talking about who to tax and at what rate. Put a tax on the wealthy, and put a tax on valuable estate owners, and those will hit almost exactly the same group of people. Which tax is chosen isn't the issue, here. The OP proposed that the burdens of government spending should be borne equally, without regard to your economic status. Jefferson took economic status into account (by referencing the size of the estate) when considering tax rates.

The idea of progressive taxation itself is on the table, not what form of taxation. Most libertarians and many conservatives (here, anyway) have a principled problem with taking different portions of money from different people, in any form. Jefferson didn't have such a problem.

Jefferson had a problem with it when it came to income and wealth. Property, or more specifically, land, not so much.

[smhbbag]

Three words: redistribution of wealth.

If that's what you'd like to call progressive taxation, then go ahead. But this country was founded by people who thought that way.

If that makes you squeemish, then maybe you'd prefer Ben Franklin instead of Jefferson:


All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html


Jefferson had a problem with it when it came to income and wealth. Property, or more specifically, land, not so much.

Which is precisely my point, and that shows that Jefferson opposed the principle in the OP.

[cbrons]

Yes it is. Taxes are wrong period.

[Madison320]

Would it be blasphemous to disagree with Jefferson? I think property tax is one of the worst taxes. It means you don't own your home, you are just renting it from the government. At least with a sales tax or income tax your existing wealth is not being taken.

[erowe1]

This is only a difficult passage to read if you think any mention or concern over economic inequality has to be a leftist trap.

It's not difficult at all. If someone hadn't tricked you into thinking it was about economic inequality, you never would have thought that it was.

Also, where did you get the quote?

[erowe1]

Would it be blasphemous to disagree with Jefferson? I think property tax is one of the worst taxes. It means you don't own your home, you are just renting it from the government. At least with a sales tax or income tax your existing wealth is not being taken.

Actually, in the plan he described, if your home was on a small enough parcel of land you wouldn't pay any taxes on it.

But if you want to put a fence around millions of acres without even putting the land to any good use, just so you can hunt on it or whatever, then you have to pay a lot of taxes to do that.

[smhbbag]

It's not difficult at all. If someone hadn't tricked you into thinking it was about economic inequality, you never would have thought that it was.

Jefferson tricked me into believing it was about economic inequality. Because he said so multiple times.

You know, saying stuff like this all in the same paragraph:

"The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands..."

"But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery..."

"It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors..."

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to..."

"..it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right"

"...we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation."

"But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land."

Ummm yeah, it's just about land, as if that's not connected to economic status or wealth. He couldn't possibly have economic inequality in mind.

Q.E.D.

I'd love to see what magic spells you can cast on the Franklin quote to make him say something else.

[proudclod229]

Under a certain amount per hour shouldn't have to pay taxes...I'd say cumulatively if you make under 25,000 a year you shouldn't have to pay either.

NOBODY should have to pay more than 25%.

Then again, I don't believe in social security, medicare, and a lot of the useless/harmful spending(fluoride in the water; cops policing people consumption habits; proxy wars..etc ad nauseum.)


The thing that really gets me about the tax structure is the way it's re-distributed-- almost NO money goes back to localities until they end up having to grovel to the state, or the feds, to get money.

You'd THINK that most of your taxes would go to where you live...hah.

[erowe1]

Jefferson tricked me into believing it was about economic inequality. Because he said so multiple times.

You know, saying stuff like this all in the same paragraph:

"The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands..."

"But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery..."

"It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors..."

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to..."

"..it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right"

"...we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation."

"But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land."

Ummm yeah, it's just about land, as if that's not connected to economic status or wealth. He couldn't possibly have economic inequality in mind.

Q.E.D.

I'd love to see what magic spells you can cast on the Franklin quote to make him say something else.

Are those all from that same paragraph? If so, then they're all, each and every one of them, talking about land ownership specifically, not economic inequality in general. Every single reference to property there is specifically talking about land. Every single reference to inequality is specifically talking about unequal distribution of land. This whole point flows from Jefferson's thinking about land ownership being something the state is necessary for, and the need to treat it differently than other kinds of property. It has nothing at all to do with any general principle that the all people should have equal amounts of wealth or that some difference between the wealth of the rich and the poor can ever be too much of a difference.

And where did you get that quote again?

[smhbbag]

Are those all from that same paragraph? If so, then they're all, each and every one of them, talking about land ownership specifically, not economic inequality in general.

They are all from the same paragraph. Check post #40 from a guy named erowe1.

I got the quote from a guy named Thomas Jefferson.

[erowe1]

I got the quote from a guy named Thomas Jefferson.

Your stubborn refusal to admit where you got it only supports my suspicion that you lifted it from some leftist source that presented it free of its context the same way you did, and that you actually had no idea about the context. A quick google of the quote as you presented it shows that that's the usual way it appears online.

[smhbbag]

Your stubborn refusal to admit where you got it only supports my suspicion that you lifted it from some leftist source that presented it free of its context the same way you did, and that you actually had no idea about the context. A quick google of the quote as you presented it shows that that's the usual way it appears online.

I've seen it, and plenty of others like it, from reading primary sources. However, this specific passage came back to mind from a recent piece by a left-wing, commie rag called Front Porch Republic.

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/12/the-founders-on-taxation-redistribution-and-property/

My stubborn refusal comes from the fact that it doesn't matter who cites it. What matters is what it says. You can zoom out on context all you want - doing so only strengthens my point.

[smhbbag]

It has nothing at all to do with any general principle that the all people should have equal amounts of wealth or that some difference between the wealth of the rich and the poor can ever be too much of a difference.

May I repeat Jefferson again....

"These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured."

Note that it wasn't the size of the estate that kept these lands from being labored - it was the wealth of the proprietors that kept the large estate from being labored.

[erowe1]

May I repeat Jefferson again....

"These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured."

Note that it wasn't the size of the estate that kept these lands from being labored - it was the wealth of the proprietors that kept the large estate from being labored.

Yes, like many powerful special interests, they used their wealth to ingratiate themselves to politicians and bureaucrats and to be able to own land in ways that violate natural rights, and because of their wealth they felt no disincentive to put land they ostensibly owned to unproductive uses. But it is the unjust land ownership that Jefferson wants to correct, not the wealth.

Inequality in wealth itself, or in income, is not a problem Jefferson sought to correct.

[smhbbag]

Yes, like many powerful special interests, they used their wealth to ingratiate themselves to politicians and bureaucrats and to be able to own land in ways that violate natural rights. But it is the unjust land ownership that Jefferson wants to correct, not the wealth.

You're missing the causation Jefferson lists.

It is the wealth of the proprietors that causes them to be "above attention of their revenues" and that keeps them from it being labored.

The wealth of the owners is what brought them to use their land unjustly. Jefferson's talks about what we can do about it, and he says we cannot possibly invent too many ways to subdivide land, and also to use progressive land taxation. Both of those directly take some wealth from the owners, which he had just said was the cause of the unjust land use in the first place.

Yes, he wants to correct the unjust land use, by means of reducing wealth inequality. He could easily have just said "we should make using land this way illegal" - but that's not what he said. That would have been simple and direct. But he understood that it was the great wealth inequality that brought the owners to act unjustly in the first place, so we must attack a more fundamental thing.

[erowe1]

You're missing the causation Jefferson lists.

It is the wealth of the proprietors that causes them to be "above attention of their revenues" and that keeps them from it being labored.

The wealth of the owners is what brought them to use their land unjustly. Jefferson's talks about what we can do about it, and he says we cannot possibly invent too many ways to subdivide land, and also to use progressive land taxation. Both of those directly take some wealth from the owners, which he had just said was the cause of the unjust land use in the first place.

Yes, he wants to correct the unjust land use, by means of reducing wealth inequality. He could easily have just said "we should make using land this way illegal" - but that's not what he said. That would have been simple and direct. But he understood that it was the great wealth inequality that brought the owners to act unjustly in the first place, so we must attack a more fundamental thing.

I think you're mixing the two. Yes, wealth is the cause. But the inequality to be corrected is the wealthy's unjust ownership of idle land, not their wealth itself. He doesn't want to reduce the wealth inequality, at least not as an end unto itself.

[loveableteddybear]

Technically higher taxes for rich people isn't fair, but I don't lose sleep over it. (Like when people 'cheat' their taxes.)
Strange, in the Bible the rich were required to make more expensive sacrifices.

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:48

[UMULAS]

Strange, in the Bible the rich were required to make more expensive sacrifices.

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:48

Seperation of Church and State!


Also, in my opinion I believe that income tax should be abolished, but have other types of taxes that the state decides. If the federal government needs tax revenue, (suchas in the sales tax)
then they will regulate the taxes by (for the sake of argument, 7%) and will not higher the taxes (think about it as a national tax ceiling); if congress would want to make tax decreases for people, they should make distinctions such as
mentally deficient people (that's probably the only case I would accept), then they should be allowed to because they did not cross out any race, color, orientation, age, just people itself which they have problems.

[A_Silent_Majority_Member]

this flat tax argument is annoying...
from the commoners perspective, lets have a look...
family of 5.. income of say 8.50 per hour x40 = 340 - 15%= 289 per week
family of 5.. income of say 500,000 per year - 15% = 425,000 / 52=8,173 per week
family of 5.. income of say 1,000,000 per year - 15% = 850,000 / 52=16,346 per week

but hey screw those poor bastards in the lower brackets huh? their fault for "not making better choices" (as if "choices" have all to do with values and circumstance). survival of the fittest right? how dare it be suggested that I live on a salary 10 or more times that of the average mongrel street wretch AFTER paying a higher tax!

there is only one equal tax and that is ZERO for all.

[Madison320]

I'm still disturbed by the support on this forum for progressive taxation. Isn't it wrong to apply laws unevenly? What if we legalized pot, but only for short people? Or what if first degree murder carried a life sentence for men but only 10 years for women. What about laws that congress is exempt from like Obamacare? Is that OK since at least some of the population is exempt from the bad law?

[Madison320]

this flat tax argument is annoying...
from the commoners perspective, lets have a look...
family of 5.. income of say 8.50 per hour x40 = 340 - 15%= 289 per week
family of 5.. income of say 500,000 per year - 15% = 425,000 / 52=8,173 per week
family of 5.. income of say 1,000,000 per year - 15% = 850,000 / 52=16,346 per week

but hey screw those poor bastards in the lower brackets huh? their fault for "not making better choices" (as if "choices" have all to do with values and circumstance). survival of the fittest right? how dare it be suggested that I live on a salary 10 or more times that of the average mongrel street wretch AFTER paying a higher tax!

there is only one equal tax and that is ZERO for all.


In your example the guy making 8.50 an hour is only paying $2,652 a year in taxes, the guy making a million is paying $150,000!

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm still disturbed by the support on this forum for progressive taxation. Isn't it wrong to apply laws unevenly? What if we legalized pot, but only for short people? Or what if first degree murder carried a life sentence for men but only 10 years for women. What about laws that congress is exempt from like Obamacare? Is that OK since at least some of the population is exempt from the bad law?

Boo hoo, life isn't fair. The goal is zero taxation, and any steps to reduce or eliminate tax burdens on anyone is a good thing. Installing a flat income tax is an unbelievably massive step in the wrong direction, in the direction of outright tyranny.

[erowe1]

What if we legalized pot, but only for short people?

Wouldn't that be an improvement over it being legalized for no one?

[Madison320]

Wouldn't that be an improvement over it being legalized for no one?

No, I think laws should be applied evenly. Otherwise you create priviledged classes. Is it OK if only politicians are exempt from drug laws?

[Madison320]

Boo hoo, life isn't fair. The goal is zero taxation, and any steps to reduce or eliminate tax burdens on anyone is a good thing. Installing a flat income tax is an unbelievably massive step in the wrong direction, in the direction of outright tyranny.

A flat tax is a massive step in the wrong direction compared to a progressive income tax?

[erowe1]

No, I think laws should be applied evenly. Otherwise you create priviledged classes. Is it OK if only politicians are exempt from drug laws?

It's not OK that drugs are outlawed for anybody.

But the more people who are exempted from such a law the better. Exempting one person is better than exempting none.

Same goes for taxes.

[erowe1]

A flat tax is a massive step in the wrong direction compared to a progressive income tax?

I would say it depends on the total tax. If switching from one to the other is revenue neutral, then it doesn't matter.

But if you raise income taxes on some people just to make the income tax less progressive, then that would definitely be a step in the wrong direction.

[Madison320]

I started a new thread called "Should laws apply evenly to all citizens?"

[Occam's Banana]

It is good to reduce or eliminate taxes on some people.

It is even better to reduce or eliminate taxes on all people.

It is *never* wrong to reduce or eliminate taxes. Period.

[Brett85]

Any tax cut is a good thing, regardless of who the tax cut is for.

[Occam's Banana]

My point is that if the government is going to impose a burden on it's citizens, it should be done evenly.

This statement makes no sense. There is no non-arbitrary definition of "evenly". As a case in point, consider the following:


I would argue that a truly even tax would be the same amount for each citizen.

One man makes $10,000/year. Another man makes $10,000,000/year. They are both taxed $1000/year.

You would call this "even". I would call it grossly uneven. Neither of us could possibly "prove" that he is right or that the other is wrong.

"Even" means whatever anyone wants it to mean. The entire notion of "evenness" in this context is completely bogus. There is no such thing.

Therefore, the issue becomes one of who can physically force (or successfully threaten to physically force) his preferred interpretation of "even" on everyone else.