The question is not about taxation in general but the specific case of "progressive" income taxation. If you assume some taxation is necessary do you think it's more moral to have the same rate for everyone or is it better to have a few bear the majority of the burden?
I think I'm in the minority here. Here's a post from another thread:
"It's about the total "amount" of aggression, not the number of victims.
Better a $9 tax burden paid by 1 guy than a $10 tax burden divided among 10 guys."
Needless to say I totally disagree. It's seems like such a fundamental truth that it's hard for me to even explain why I think it's wrong to have a different tax laws for different groups. Or any laws for that matter.
I'm not even talking about the obvious fact that when a minority has to pay for the majority, it leads to more spending. I'm saying progressive taxation, or any unevenly declared laws are wrong by themselves.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us