Is "progressive" taxation inherently immoral?

[Madison320]

There's no difference unless you take into account the diminishing marginal utility (DMU) of money/goods.

...but, ironically, DMU is precisely the argument for progressive taxation.

DMU reminds me of:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

[Swordsmyth]

DMU reminds me of:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

So does differing rates of taxation.

So does wanting absolute power over the whole world.

[Swordsmyth]

They're not exact but very similar. In both cases a group is deciding how to split up the bill.

Back to the island. 10 people live on it. They all make 100 clams a year each. They decide to form a defense that costs 100 clams.

Your position is that there's no moral difference between taxing each person 10 clams or taxing one guy 100 clams, which is actually a death sentence since it's his entire annual income.

So according to your logic there's no difference between inconveniencing 10 people to pay for defense or literally killing (sacrificing) one guy to pay for it so that the others are unaffected. I think what really bothers me is that opinion on this is about 50-50.

Question for you. Since the method of taxation doesn't matter to you, would to be safe to assume you have never posted anything negative about Trump's tariffs?

Next year they will have 100 less clams in total income to tax too, it's stupid as well as unfair.
Everyone should play by the same rules for optimum results.

[Swordsmyth]

The standard deduction is just another form of progressive taxation. If some people can't pay 10% then the rate should be lowered. Or they should lose their voting privilege.

In return for paying nothing.

That's an interesting idea, even if you did away with the income tax you could issue tax exemption cards to anyone who gives up their right to vote to exempt them from sales taxes etc.

I have to think about it before endorsing it but it is intriguing.

[r3volution 3.0]

DMU reminds me of:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

I guess you need to do some more reading.

[r3volution 3.0]

dupe

[Madison320]

I guess you need to do some more reading.

DMU is another way of saying that a dollar means more to a poor person than to a rich person because the rich person has more dollars, right? Therefore it's ok to take money from the rich guy because he won't notice it as much. Which taken to it's logical conclusion means a "DMU fair tax" is one where both parties are left with equal amounts after being taxed. Which is more or less the definition of communism.

I'll concede that there's no such thing as the "perfect tax". What does that even mean? But a flat rate tax is orders of magnitude more moral than any sort of progressive tax. A progressive tax punishes good behavior, rewards bad behavior, has no natural upper limit(100%?), is subjective (gives politicians more power) and can put an excessive burden on a minority of the population (actually a form of slavery).

I'd to hear your answer to the question about whether you're ever criticized Trump for his import tax.

[Madison320]

In return for paying nothing.

That's an interesting idea, even if you did away with the income tax you could issue tax exemption cards to anyone who gives up their right to vote to exempt them from sales taxes etc.

I have to think about it before endorsing it but it is intriguing.

Yeah, it's basically another version of the "if you get welfare you can't vote" concept. I think the welfare version might be easier to implement.

[r3volution 3.0]

DMU is another way of saying that a dollar means more to a poor person than to a rich person because the rich person has more dollars, right?

Right

Therefore it's ok to take money from the rich guy because he won't notice it as much.

That's the idea.

Which taken to it's logical conclusion means a "DMU fair tax" is one where both parties are left with equal amounts after being taxed. Which is more or less the definition of communism.

No, the argument is that equal amounts should be taken from all parties, not that all parties should be left with equal amounts.

I don't endorse this argument, mind you.

I'll concede that there's no such thing as the "perfect tax". What does that even mean?

To me, it means whichever one will require the least aggression.

A progressive tax punishes good behavior, rewards bad behavior, has no natural upper limit(100%?), is subjective (gives politicians more power) and can put an excessive burden on a minority of the population (actually a form of slavery).

There are some problems with that characterization, but I'm not advocating progressive income taxes, so I won't argue.

I'd to hear your answer to the question about whether you're ever criticized Trump for his import tax.

Only constantly since the day he proposed them

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

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

SS should be eliminated altogether.

[Swordsmyth]

SS should be eliminated altogether.

Start by means testing it and then stop all new enrollments after a few years.
End the tax and shred the bonds in the trust fund immediately and fund the payouts to those who need it to survive from the general budget.

[PAF]

Needless to say that I oppose all taxation which is theft. Short of private ownership, if there is to be a tax at all, all types and forms of taxation should be completely eliminated, and then utilize a Consumption tax.

[CCTelander]

Yes.