Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 77

Thread: Progressive income tax is the main driver of socialism.

  1. #1

    Progressive income tax is the main driver of socialism.

    I was arguing with my liberal coworker about how much I detest progressive taxation. I told him that it's immoral to tax people at different rates and he asked me "Why?". To me it just seems obvious but I tried to explain with an example of 10 people going out to dinner and 9 guys voting that the 10th guy should pay for all of it. And then naturally the 9 guys who aren't paying want filet mignon and salmon since they don't have to pay.

    To me the progressive income tax is by far the biggest violation of property rights in most democracies. I'm not talking about the income tax in general, I'm talking about the progressive income tax where you tax more productive people at a higher rate. In fact it's annoying to me when I hear a libertarians dismiss progressive taxation and say "well all taxes are wrong". To me that's a cop out and I suspect they are perfectly fine with a rich guy paying a higher rate as long as their rate doesn't go up.

    I think some libertarians have this idea that as long as the "net" amount of government force goes down it's an improvement. So if you suddenly legalized drugs for half the population, that would be a "step in the right direction". Or if we had a flat tax rate of 30% and then we reduced it to 10% for half the population, that would also be an improvement. I think that's terribly wrong although I wish I knew a better way of describing it.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I'm torn when a tax cut comes up for only part of the population but I absolutely agree in principle and I totally agree about any cut the adds more people to the number who don't pay at all.

    Unfortunately an income tax invites the idea of making it progressive so I think it is best to get rid of it entirely instead of advocating for a flat tax that can be made progressive again easily.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I think some libertarians have this idea that as long as the "net" amount of government force goes down it's an improvement.
    That's because it is an improvement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    So if you suddenly legalized drugs for half the population, that would be a "step in the right direction".
    Yes. It would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Or if we had a flat tax rate of 30% and then we reduced it to 10% for half the population, that would also be an improvement.
    Yes. That would be, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I think that's terribly wrong although I wish I knew a better way of describing it.
    There is no better way of describing it, because it isn't wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    In fact it's annoying to me when I hear a libertarians dismiss progressive taxation and say "well all taxes are wrong". To me that's a cop out and I suspect they are perfectly fine with a rich guy paying a higher rate as long as their rate doesn't go up.
    Suggesting that libertarians are "perfectly fine" with other people being robbed - or "taxed," if you prefer - is gratuitously unfair (not to mention grotesquely false).

    Of course people prefer not to be robbed for more than whatever they are already being robbed for; and of course people prefer to be robbed for less than whatever they are already being robbed for.

    That is not a "cop out."

    In fact, it's not even a libertarian thing.

    It's a human thing ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-24-2019 at 09:01 PM.


    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    That's because it is an improvement.



    Yes. It would be.



    Yes. That would be, too.



    There is no better way of describing it, because it isn't wrong.



    Suggesting that libertarians are "perfectly fine" with other people being robbed - or "taxed," if you prefer - is gratuitously unfair (not to mention grotesquely false).

    Of course people prefer not to be robbed for more than whatever they are already being robbed for; and of course people prefer to be robbed for less than whatever they are already being robbed for.

    That is not a "cop out."

    In fact, it's not even a libertarian thing.

    It's a human thing ...
    So if we only legalized drugs for politicians, that would be an improvement?

    Or if the majority votes to steal more from the rich so that the majority can avoid paying taxes themselves, that's an improvement? Because
    a smaller percentage is getting taxed? Eff that.
    Last edited by Madison320; 08-24-2019 at 09:21 PM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    So if we only legalized drugs for politicians, that would be an improvement?
    An improvement compared to drugs being illegal for everyone? All else equal ... yes. Yes, it would ...

    (Plus, it would give pro-legalization-for-everyone politicians something to beat over the heads of their hypocritical colleagues while simultaneously energizing activism by pro-legalization-for-everyone non-politicians. Hell, it would even piss off anti-legalization-for-anyone politicians and non-politicians ...)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-24-2019 at 09:38 PM.

  7. #6
    well

    by LAW
    BUT

    dey dont read that bitter document

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    An improvement compared to drugs being illegal for everyone? All else equal ... yes. Yes, it would ...

    (Plus, it would give pro-legalization-for-everyone politicians something to beat over the heads of their hypocritical colleagues while simultaneously energizing activism by pro-legalization-for-everyone non-politicians. Hell, it would even piss off anti-legalization-for-anyone non-politicians ...)
    Wow. This is why I've pretty much given up posting here.

  9. #8
    the
    word

    u
    r

    looking 4


    is

    "MECHANISM"


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Wow. This is why I've pretty much given up posting here.
    *shrug* Sorry. It's not my fault that 2 > 1 > 0 ...

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jkr View Post
    the
    word

    u
    r

    looking 4


    is

    "MECHANISM"

    w0w...THERE I AM!

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Wow. This is why I've pretty much given up posting here.
    *shrug* Sorry. It's not my fault that 2 > 1 > 0 ...
    I mean, really, what's the problem with Thomas Massie being able to burn a spliff without having to worry ... ?
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-24-2019 at 11:05 PM.

  14. #12


    GIVE ME LUV

    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  15. #13
    I did not see this edit to your post when I made my original reply, so I'll reply to it here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Or if the majority votes to steal more from the rich so that the majority can avoid paying taxes themselves, that's an improvement? Because a smaller percentage is getting taxed? Eff that.
    No, sorry. You do not get to start out with
    (1) simple and obvious improvements (such as some people paying lower taxes, or fewer people being punished for drug use),
    and then pull a "bait and switch" with
    (2) a compound mixture of obvious improvement with obvious deterioration,
    and then try to pretend that (2) is the same kind of thing as (1).

    All else equal, "the majority [voting] to steal more from the rich" is obviously NOT an improvement.

    All else equal, "the majority [avoiding having to pay higher] taxes themselves" obviously IS an improvement.

    Mixing both of those things together is a compound pick-your-poison wash that has nothing to do with the other simple hypotheticals to which I replied in post #3 and post #5.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-24-2019 at 11:02 PM.

  16. #14
    I oppose property tax and income tax too . If there is to be progressive income tax I would have preferred to be exempt .
    Do something Danke

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I mean, really, what's the problem with Thomas Massie being able to burn a spliff without having to worry ... ?
    Royalty having more privileges than the peons isn't liberty and it discourages them from restoring liberty to anyone else because they have it for themselves already.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Royalty having more privileges than the peons isn't liberty and it discourages them from restoring liberty to anyone else because they have it for themselves already.
    Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right; and the more people who have it, the more the improvement of it.

    Withholding it from some on the excuse that some others don't yet also have it is just the sort of utopian "all or nothing" absolutism one finds among the mongers of egalitarian everyone-should-be-equally-miserable "fairness" ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-25-2019 at 03:35 AM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right; and the more people who have it, the more the improvement of it.

    Withholding it from some on the excuse that some others don't yet also have it is just the sort of utopian "all or nothing" absolutism one finds among the mongers of egalitarian everyone-should-be-equally-miserable "fairness" ...
    Exactly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    /thread-winner

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I did not see this edit to your post when I made my original reply, so I'll reply to it here:



    No, sorry. You do not get to start out with
    (1) simple and obvious improvements (such as some people paying lower taxes, or fewer people being punished for drug use),
    and then pull a "bait and switch" with
    (2) a compound mixture of obvious improvement with obvious deterioration,
    and then try to pretend that (2) is the same kind of thing as (1).

    All else equal, "the majority [voting] to steal more from the rich" is obviously NOT an improvement.

    All else equal, "the majority [avoiding having to pay higher] taxes themselves" obviously IS an improvement.

    Mixing both of those things together is a compound pick-your-poison wash that has nothing to do with the other simple hypotheticals to which I replied in post #3 and post #5.
    So basically what you're saying is that there's no downside to having unequal laws.

    Which taken to it's logical conclusion would mean that each person would have his own set of laws that he feels pertains to him. Which would mean that every dispute would be resolved by a vote or more likely a war. Which would make you an anarchist.

  24. #21
    Tax systems may not drive socialism . It might be that there is a society of people who think they are or should be entitled to things they did not earn .
    Do something Danke

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Tax systems may not drive socialism . It might be that there is a society of people who think they are or should be entitled to things they did not earn .
    You're right. There are many people who think they are entitled to things they did not earn. And the progressive income tax is the main mechanism for achieving that goal for those people.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    You're right. There are many people who think they are entitled to things they did not earn. And the progressive income tax is the main mechanism for achieving that goal for those people.
    That seems right but after awhile you have to figure it is really debt and printing because they do not pay for these things as they go . They are taking in record revenue and adding a trillion in debt yearly . All that while they are also using all the social security taxes collected too as none is put away as was intended .
    Last edited by oyarde; 08-25-2019 at 09:16 AM.
    Do something Danke

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    That seems right but after awhile you have to figure it is really debt and printing because they do not pay for these things as they go . They are taking in record revenue and adding a trillion in debt yearly . ll that while they are also using all the social security taxes collected too as none is put away as was intended .
    True. As long as we can borrow and print there appears to be no downside to spending to the average voter. But when the ability to borrow and print inevitably ends then the main driver to socialism is progressive taxation. But I agree, right now we really have 3 main drivers to socialism, borrowing, printing and taxing the other guy.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    A no deductions (except business expenses which are deducted from revenue and are not income) flat tax is both moral and efficient. Having people pay separate rates creates class warfare, it violates equal protection, and it shelters people who don't pay taxes from the consequence of spending.

    Intuit, which is the parent company of Turbo Tax, has a market cap of $72 billion. Think what a waste that is. They are the same size as Ford, GM, and Chrysler combined. And they provide a service that has no reason to exist. And when you combine H&R Block, local tax accountants, the time it takes to organize taxes, and lobbying for loopholes, it is a huge productivity loss for the country.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post

    That sounds good. But the people who don't pay taxes are often the people who vote themselves free stuff. They don't have to experience the consequence of their actions.

    They want their Obama money.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    A no deductions (except business expenses which are deducted from revenue and are not income) flat tax is both moral and efficient. Having people pay separate rates creates class warfare, it violates equal protection, and it shelters people who don't pay taxes from the consequence of spending.

    Intuit, which is the parent company of Turbo Tax, has a market cap of $72 billion. Think what a waste that is. They are the same size as Ford, GM, and Chrysler combined. And they provide a service that has no reason to exist. And when you combine H&R Block, local tax accountants, the time it takes to organize taxes, and lobbying for loopholes, it is a huge productivity loss for the country.
    While I agree it would be more " fair " . I will always have to oppose it . For there to be a flat tax to replace the current revenue it would be a huge tax increase for me as I can currently avoid paying tax altogether now that I am retired .
    Do something Danke

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    A no deductions (except business expenses which are deducted from revenue and are not income) flat tax is both moral and efficient. Having people pay separate rates creates class warfare, it violates equal protection, and it shelters people who don't pay taxes from the consequence of spending.

    Intuit, which is the parent company of Turbo Tax, has a market cap of $72 billion. Think what a waste that is. They are the same size as Ford, GM, and Chrysler combined. And they provide a service that has no reason to exist. And when you combine H&R Block, local tax accountants, the time it takes to organize taxes, and lobbying for loopholes, it is a huge productivity loss for the country.
    Thank you. Equal protection is the principle I was trying to explain. It's amazing how that principle gets ignored when it comes to progressive taxation. Of course the reason equal protection gets ignored when it comes to progressive taxation is because the voting mob gets the benefit of the stolen loot. There's no direct benefit to ignoring equal protection for other laws.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I did not see this edit to your post when I made my original reply, so I'll reply to it here:



    No, sorry. You do not get to start out with
    (1) simple and obvious improvements (such as some people paying lower taxes, or fewer people being punished for drug use),
    and then pull a "bait and switch" with
    (2) a compound mixture of obvious improvement with obvious deterioration,
    and then try to pretend that (2) is the same kind of thing as (1).

    All else equal, "the majority [voting] to steal more from the rich" is obviously NOT an improvement.

    All else equal, "the majority [avoiding having to pay higher] taxes themselves" obviously IS an improvement.

    Mixing both of those things together is a compound pick-your-poison wash that has nothing to do with the other simple hypotheticals to which I replied in post #3 and post #5.
    What if we raise the rate on the top 1% and use that money to lower the rate on the the lower 99%. Would that be an improvement in your world?

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Liberty is not a privilege, it is a right; and the more people who have it, the more the improvement of it.

    Withholding it from some on the excuse that some others don't yet also have it is just the sort of utopian "all or nothing" absolutism one finds among the mongers of egalitarian everyone-should-be-equally-miserable "fairness" ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Exactly.
    It is a privilege when some people deny it to others but keep it for themselves, that's wrong and it makes things worse not better.
    Last edited by Swordsmyth; 08-25-2019 at 08:03 PM.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Simplest Suitably Progressive Tax: R*log(Income/Poverty)
    By Neil Desmond in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-28-2013, 12:39 AM
  2. FED: Is the main purpose of the income tax to hide the Federal Reserve?
    By harikaried in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-23-2012, 03:47 PM
  3. The Problems with Progressive Policy and Income Equality
    By AlexMerced in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-12-2010, 04:59 PM
  4. A Progressive Debt Tax and Other Income Tax Alternatives
    By AlexMerced in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2010, 08:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •