Progressive income tax is the main driver of socialism.

[Madison320]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[Occam's Banana]

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.

So if you suddenly legalized drugs for half the population, that would be a "step in the right direction".

Yes. It would be.

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.

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.

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 ...

[Madison320]

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.

[Occam's Banana]

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 ...)

[Madison320]

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.

[Occam's Banana]

Wow. This is why I've pretty much given up posting here.

*shrug* Sorry. It's not my fault that 2 > 1 > 0 ...

[Occam's Banana]

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 ... ?

[jkr]

GIVE ME LUV

[jkr]

well

by LAW
BUT

dey dont read that bitter document

[jkr]

the
word

u
r

looking 4


is

"MECHANISM"

[jkr]

the
word

u
r

looking 4


is

"MECHANISM"

w0w...THERE I AM!

[oyarde]

I oppose property tax and income tax too . If there is to be progressive income tax I would have preferred to be exempt .

[Suzanimal]

[Occam's Banana]

/thread-winner

[Krugminator2]

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.

[Swordsmyth]

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.

That's why those who receive ANY government money shouldn't get to vote.

[Madison320]

That's why those who receive ANY government money shouldn't get to vote.

As you probably know, I think that's the ultimate solution. A "non-welfare" type voting system would lead to a flatter tax. Actually if I had to pick between a flat tax and a non welfare voting system I'd choose the latter because it would last longer. A flat tax with unlimited democracy wouldn't last very long.

[Swordsmyth]

As you probably know, I think that's the ultimate solution. A "non-welfare" type voting system would lead to a flatter tax. Actually if I had to pick between a flat tax and a non welfare voting system I'd choose the latter because it would last longer. A flat tax with unlimited democracy wouldn't last very long.

You are absolutely correct.

[oyarde]

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 .

[Madison320]

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.

[oyarde]

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 .

[Madison320]

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.

[Krugminator2]

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.

[oyarde]

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 .

[Swordsmyth]

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 .

There should be no income tax of any sort, there should only be taxes on consumption, preferably on non-necessities so you can choose to avoid them.

[Madison320]

There should be no income tax of any sort, there should only be taxes on consumption, preferably on non-necessities so you can choose to avoid them.

The only problem I have with a sales tax is that is unfairly places the burden of collection on a small minority (retailers). I think if we switched to a sales tax we'd have to give existing business owners some sort of option to liquidate their business and be compensated by the taxpayers at the time of the switch.

[Swordsmyth]

The only problem I have with a sales tax is that is unfairly places the burden of collection on a small minority (retailers). I think if we switched to a sales tax we'd have to give existing business owners some sort of option to liquidate their business and be compensated by the taxpayers at the time of the switch.

I prefer a tax collected from manufacturers of specified items when they first sell the item, that allows all other wholesalers and retailers to be free from having to collect taxes.

[Madison320]

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.

[5Points]

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...

Doesn't it seem obvious that all taxation is theft?