Is "progressive" taxation inherently immoral?

[Madison320]

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.

[oyarde]

There is very little about taxation that is moral .

[jkr]

equal
extortion
under da lawwwWWWwww

[Dr.3D]

Well, when somebody drives their car over the speed limit and gets a fine, does the state adjust the amount of the fine by the income of the person paying the fine?

Of course not, so if there is going to be any tax, people shouldn't be singled out for more or less tax, depending on how much income they have in a year.

[Madison320]

Well, when somebody drives their car over the speed limit and gets a fine, does the state adjust the amount of the fine by the income of the person paying the fine?

Of course not, so if there is going to be any tax, people shouldn't be singled out for more or less tax, depending on how much income they have in a year.

Actually in some socialist "paradises" they DO fine you more based on income. Which I hate because you shouldn't be punished for being successful. That's one of the benefits of working hard and being successful, stuff like traffic tickets don't sting as much.

And yeah, the ultimate fair tax would be a fixed amount for each person but I think you can make a case for one rate on income, similar to a sales tax. But I don;t see how anyone could make a case for a higher rate for higher income. If you make more you're already paying more with a flat rate.

[Madison320]

There is very little about taxation that is moral .

Yeah but there are degrees of immorality. A progressive tax is orders of magnitude more immoral than a flat tax.

[Madison320]

I have a question for Rev3 who believes the net amount of tax is the only thing that matters, not how it's divided up.

Suppose you have an island with 10 people who decide to form a common defense (they're tired of getting invaded).

Suppose the islanders decide that they are going to fund the defense by taking all the money from just one islander, they take his home, all his food and his entire life savings. Do you really see no moral difference compared to taking a smaller amount from all ten people?

[Swordsmyth]

Everyone should pay the same rate, that's how other taxes work.

The income tax invites progressive taxation by its nature (being aimed at individuals instead of transactions) and we must do away with it to bury progressive taxation.

[Origanalist]

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.

Anyone who has ever tried to grow their income without "write offs" and such understands how immoral a progressive income tax is.

[Madison320]

Anyone who has ever tried to grow their income without "write offs" and such understands how immoral a progressive income tax is.

Wealth envy is a powerful emotion, maybe the most powerful. That's why even on a libertarian website like Ron Paul forums, progressive taxation doesn't get much hate.

[Pauls' Revere]

"If" you must have a tax, I prefer a flat tax rate everyone pays. Everyone pays 10% of the tax in question no matter how much or how little you earn the proportion is the same.

An income tax of 10% on everyone, regardless of income. [income] * [.10] = Tax owed.

Imagine how much the government would save on manpower alone. But the real beauty is everyone realizes how much they pay. With write offs and deductions and credits etc the government decides who pays more and who pays less. So, the progressive tax is immoral and government decides who pays less or more.

Of course I prefer no income tax at all.

[Origanalist]

Wealth envy is a powerful emotion, maybe the most powerful. That's why even on a libertarian website like Ron Paul forums, progressive taxation doesn't get much hate.

I guess I missed it. Where is the support for that here?

[Madison320]

I guess I missed it. Where is the support for that here?

Support is not the same as lack of opposition.

[Anti Globalist]

There is very little about taxation that is moral .

My thoughts exactly.

[Origanalist]

Support is not the same as lack of opposition.

I can only agree.

[Origanalist]

Support is not the same as lack of opposition.

I can only agree.

[Swordsmyth]

This thread needs a poll so @TheTexan can vote.

[TheTexan]

This thread needs a poll so @TheTexan can vote.

I have a very strong opinion on this subject but there's really no way I can voice it properly without a poll.

[Sonny Tufts]

The current system isn't as progressive as some people think. Even ignoring the rate differential between capital gains and ordinary income (e.g., wages), one needs to take into account the effect of payroll taxes, which are regressive owing to the fact that the amount of wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax is capped.

A single person whose income consists of $132,000 of wages (the current cap) will pay total payroll and income taxes of $43,476, or 32.7% of his income. A single person with income of $1 million in wages would pay total tax of $383,154, or 38.3%.

If a flat tax is what's desired, the cap on wages subject to Social Security would need to be eliminated.

[Superfluous Man]

Since taxation is necessarily immoral, it stands to reason that progressive taxation must necessarily be immoral.

[oyarde]

Yeah but there are degrees of immorality. A progressive tax is orders of magnitude more immoral than a flat tax.

That is true but you will probably find there is little support to change it . The govt cannot be satisfied . They take in record tax revenue now , 3 trillion then spend 4 .Other reasons for that are for the govt to replace current tax with a flat tax it is going to be an excessive number and there are many people who would get a very large tax increase. It would likely plummet economic growth .Then there are the crackpots who think taxing all property is the better way to replace it which I find even more immoral than income tax . I have successfully navigated the current crap system to where I have no tax to pay and that works for me. The one thing you can count on is that any changes made by the govt will be worse for the people.

[Sammy]

Karl Marx pushed for the Progressive Income Tax.
It's a form of Communism & it should be replaced with a low Flat Tax.

[Madison320]

The current system isn't as progressive as some people think. Even ignoring the rate differential between capital gains and ordinary income (e.g., wages), one needs to take into account the effect of payroll taxes, which are regressive owing to the fact that the amount of wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax is capped.

A single person whose income consists of $132,000 of wages (the current cap) will pay total payroll and income taxes of $43,476, or 32.7% of his income. A single person with income of $1 million in wages would pay total tax of $383,154, or 38.3%.

If a flat tax is what's desired, the cap on wages subject to Social Security would need to be eliminated.

You need to compare the top income earners to the bottom income earners, not the middle brackets. The top income earners pay close to 50%. The bottom pay close to 0%.

[Madison320]

Karl Marx pushed for the Progressive Income Tax.
It's a form of Communism & it should be replaced with a low Flat Tax.

2nd plank of the communist manifesto.

[Krugminator2]

The current system isn't as progressive as some people think. Even ignoring the rate differential between capital gains and ordinary income (e.g., wages), one needs to take into account the effect of payroll taxes, which are regressive owing to the fact that the amount of wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax is capped.

That's not exactly right. Those are a forced savings that people get back. Higher income earners don't pay in after 130k because presumably they don't need their hand held. They are a tax. They are wrong. But they aren't the same as an income tax which is lighting money on fire with nothing in return.

[Zippyjuan]

Well, when somebody drives their car over the speed limit and gets a fine, does the state adjust the amount of the fine by the income of the person paying the fine?

Of course not, so if there is going to be any tax, people shouldn't be singled out for more or less tax, depending on how much income they have in a year.

On the other hand, is a "head tax" more fair? Everybody pays the same price regardless of income. Say we did a $100 head tax. One person makes $200 and one makes $10,000. Is that more fair or moral?

If you keep spending $4 trillion and have the same tax amount on each person, that comes to $12,000 each. Family of four? $48,000 a year. With median income $59,000, that is a 81% tax rate for an average family of four.

[Swordsmyth]

On the other hand, is a "head tax" more fair? Everybody pays the same price regardless of income. Say we did a $100 head tax. One person makes $200 and one makes $10,000. Is that more fair or moral?

That's why fines are just a bad idea.

Days in jail would be much better.

[Zippyjuan]

That's why fines are just a bad idea.

Days in jail would be much better.

At taxpayer expense of course.

[Dr.3D]

On the other hand, is a "head tax" more fair? Everybody pays the same price regardless of income. Say we did a $100 head tax. One person makes $200 and one makes $10,000. Is that more fair or moral?

How about a flat percentage of the income, no matter how much a person makes?

[Dr.3D]

That's why fines are just a bad idea.

Days in jail would be much better.

Thing is, a rich man can afford to take time off of work to stay in jail, but the poor man, loses his job, his home and everything else.