Is "progressive" taxation inherently immoral?

[Swordsmyth]

At taxpayer expense of course.

The justice system costs money, that's why we have taxes, it's also why trivial thing not worth at least a day in jail shouldn't be illegal.

[Zippyjuan]

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

With no deductions? That would be much fairer- a flat rate vs a flat amount.

[Zippyjuan]

The justice system costs money, that's why we have taxes, it's also why trivial thing not worth at least a day in jail shouldn't be illegal.

So society pays for the crime not the criminal. Your taxes go up to pay for his mis-deeds.

[Swordsmyth]

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

Even then the rich man has the advantage, the poor have only a slim percentage of their income that is disposable while the rich have a much greater percentage.

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.

The rich are always better off than the poor, you can't change that.

I suppose you could give the perp a choice between a percentage of income fine or X days in jail, but people who are self employed etc. will be difficult to deal with.

Perfection isn't available.

[Swordsmyth]

So society pays for the crime not the criminal. Your taxes go up to pay for his mis-deeds.

Days in jail aren't punishment?
You think fines are used to restore the damage caused by crime?
You think the justice system doesn't cost society or that there is a way for it not to?


LOL

[Zippyjuan]

Days in jail aren't punishment?
You think fines are used to restore the damage caused by crime?
You think the justice system doesn't cost society or that there is a way for it not to?


LOL

Jails are better at producing better criminals than they are at producing better citizens.

[Swordsmyth]

Jails are better at producing better criminals than they are at producing better citizens.

I think you mean prisons, a few days in jail isn't going to transform anyone into a master criminal.
And prisons are for people who commit serious crimes who are probably beyond redemption anyway and the only hope is to punish them or for people who are so dangerous that they should be kept away from honest citizens.

[Sonny Tufts]

The top income earners pay close to 50%. The bottom pay close to 0%.

I was considering only federal taxes, not state income taxes; only the addition of the latter can push someone close to 50%.

Bottom earners always lose 15.3% to payroll taxes, even if they pay no federal income tax.

[Superfluous Man]

That's not exactly right. Those are a forced savings that people get back.

No they aren't. Social Security is taking money from one person and giving it to another. In order for that person who had money taken from them to get any money in the future, that money will also have to be taken from someone else.

[Superfluous Man]

Bottom earners always lose 15.3% to payroll taxes, even if they pay no federal income tax.

And they also get back a considerable percentage in earned income tax credits. If they have kids they may well make a net profit.

And even not counting that, the difference between 15% and 37% is pretty big.

[Superfluous Man]

With no deductions? That would be much fairer- a flat rate vs a flat amount.

What makes a flat rate more fair than a flat amount?

[Superfluous Man]

The justice system costs money, that's why we have taxes

That is not why we have taxes. We have taxes so that the oligarchs can control more of the economy and we can control less. To the extent that a justice system or anything else they spend that on actually benefits us (which is guaranteed to be less beneficial than the same product provided in a free market would be), that's only for them a necessary cost of being able to tax us, and not the reason to do it.

[Krugminator2]

No they aren't. Social Security is taking money from one person and giving it to another. In order for that person who had money taken from them to get any money in the future, that money will also have to be taken from someone else.

What you just said is true and doesn't contradict what I said.

[Brian4Liberty]

Wealth envy is a powerful emotion, maybe the most powerful.
...

FTFY. It applies to human behavior. Keeping up with the Jones. No one wants anyone else to get ahead of them. Think of a line. Taking cuts in line is considered one of the worst things one can do, at least in western society. Or driving. Try to pass someone. Most of the time, they will accelerate to keep you from passing. It’s often an unconscious reaction.

Support is not the same as lack of opposition.

Not the same at all. Lack of opposition usually doesn’t mean anything. It’s like dividing by zero.

[Zippyjuan]

I think you mean prisons, a few days in jail isn't going to transform anyone into a master criminal.
And prisons are for people who commit serious crimes who are probably beyond redemption anyway and the only hope is to punish them or for people who are so dangerous that they should be kept away from honest citizens.

Most people in prison (not jail) are in for minor crimes.

[oyarde]

Most people in prison (not jail) are in for minor crimes.

So if they deport the illegals , release the drugs and unconstitutional weapons cases that eliminates 76 percent of the prison population . That kind of shows you how $#@!ed up it has become .

[Zippyjuan]

So if they deport the illegals , release the drugs and unconstitutional weapons cases that eliminates 76 percent of the prison population . That kind of shows you how $#@!ed up it has become .

We have to be tough on crime. Politicians will protect us. Just give them more money to expand prisons and the police forces. We spend about $35,000 each a year keeping them locked up. People opposed to socialism should be against this since it is taxpayers providing them with free room, board, healthcare, etc.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-...-prison-system

The American prison system is massive. So massive that its estimated turnover of $74 billion eclipses the GDP of 133 nations. What is perhaps most unsettling about this fun fact is that it is the American taxpayer who foots the bill and is increasingly padding the pockets of publicly traded corporations like Corrections Corporation of America and GEO Group. Combined both companies generated over $2.53 billion in revenue in 2012, and represent more than half of the private prison business.

More at link.

[Swordsmyth]

Most people in prison (not jail) are in for minor crimes.

And that shouldn't be the case.

[Madison320]

I was considering only federal taxes, not state income taxes; only the addition of the latter can push someone close to 50%.

Bottom earners always lose 15.3% to payroll taxes, even if they pay no federal income tax.

So? With payroll taxes and the obamacare tax high income earners are well over 40%. That's 40% compared to 15% and that's not even including people that are either working under the table or unemployed and receiving federal benefits.

Anyway I agree about the payroll tax, we shouldn't even have it. We should just replace the obamacare tax and the payroll tax (and the death tax) with one flat rate with no deductions.

Do you agree?

[Swordsmyth]

So? With payroll taxes and the obamacare tax high income earners are well over 40%. That's 40% compared to 15% and that's not even including people that are either working under the table or unemployed and receiving federal benefits.

Anyway I agree about the payroll tax, we shouldn't even have it. We should just replace the obamacare tax and the payroll tax (and the death tax) with one flat rate with no deductions.

Do you agree?

I'd add that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate too.

[Sonny Tufts]

We should just replace the obamacare tax and the payroll tax (and the death tax) with one flat rate with no deductions.

Do you agree?

I don't think you can eliminate all deductions -- individuals and corporations that run businesses will need to be able to deduct certain expenses. Otherwise, you'll have a gross receipts tax, which would be payable even by someone who has a net operating loss.

The estate tax is a different matter. It doesn't raise much revenue, and it currently affects only the wealthy (estates over $11.4 million).

[osan]

The question is not about taxation in general but the specific case of "progressive" income taxation. If you assume some taxation is necessary...

Necessary to whom? For what valid purpose?

Your question presupposes necessity, which implies morality. That assumption, as a generally accepted precept, constitutes über-FAIL.

Taxation is a felony, period. It is never moral any more than is raping an infant to death.

To discuss this further can only lead to immediate sophistry because there is nothing else that can be relevantly said on the matter.

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

A just tax regime collects only as much as is necessary to finance legitimate state services, and does so as efficiently as possible. Progressive taxation is inefficient because it creates opportunities for evasion that otherwise wouldn't exist (shifting income or property from higher to lower bracket taxpayer), which have to be policed, and that has a cost (which has to be covered by additional taxation). So, yes, progressive taxation is unjust, not because of progressivity in itself, but because that leads to inefficiency (which increases the total tax burden).

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?

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.

[Madison320]

I don't think you can eliminate all deductions -- individuals and corporations that run businesses will need to be able to deduct certain expenses. Otherwise, you'll have a gross receipts tax, which would be payable even by someone who has a net operating loss.

The estate tax is a different matter. It doesn't raise much revenue, and it currently affects only the wealthy (estates over $11.4 million).

When I say "no deductions" I'm not talking about expenses, I'm talking about deductions like home interest or the standard deduction or deductions for clean energy. Expenses are not really a deduction, they're part of the calculation of income.

Anyway I think you're trying to avoid my question. Are you in favor of 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?

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.

Usually when a group of friends go out they try to split the tab evenly. They don't make one guy pay for the whole thing. It's basic morality.

[Swordsmyth]

Usually when a group of friends go out they try to split the tab evenly. They don't make one guy pay for the whole thing. It's basic morality.

What makes you think cash register libertarians have morality?

[Sonny Tufts]

Expenses are not really a deduction, they're part of the calculation of income.

Anyway I think you're trying to avoid my question. Are you in favor of a flat tax?

A flat tax is fine, but not all expenses are deductable; some have to be capitalized and depreciated or amortized over time. Others should arguably be nondeductable even if they're properly viewed as a current expense. For example, fines and penalties aren't deductable under current law; if they were they would be much less of a deterrent. As a practical matter a flat tax could never be enacted without some non-business deductions and without some nondeductible business expenses.

Incidentally, the standard deduction was originally designed to shelter income that people needed to live on and raise a family. In 1913 the deduction was $3,000 for a single person and $4,000 for a married couple. These translate to $77,800 and 103,740 in today's dollars (the overgenerous 1913 levels may have been set that high in order to assure the tax woulod be enacted). Obviously, today's standard deduction is nowhere near these levels, but the idea is that if the flat tax rate were, say, 10%, we shouldn't be taxing someone who has to spend 95% of his income on food, clothing, and housing for a family of 4.

[r3volution 3.0]

Usually when a group of friends go out they try to split the tab evenly. They don't make one guy pay for the whole thing. It's basic morality.

They don't make anyone pay for anything, as that's an entirely voluntary transaction, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand (taxes).

You might as well tell me that, because it's nice to split the bar bill evenly, communism is just.

...you're conflating totally unrelated issues.

[Madison320]

A flat tax is fine, but not all expenses are deductable; some have to be capitalized and depreciated or amortized over time. Others should arguably be nondeductable even if they're properly viewed as a current expense. For example, fines and penalties aren't deductable under current law; if they were they would be much less of a deterrent. As a practical matter a flat tax could never be enacted without some non-business deductions and without some nondeductible business expenses.

Incidentally, the standard deduction was originally designed to shelter income that people needed to live on and raise a family. In 1913 the deduction was $3,000 for a single person and $4,000 for a married couple. These translate to $77,800 and 103,740 in today's dollars (the overgenerous 1913 levels may have been set that high in order to assure the tax woulod be enacted). Obviously, today's standard deduction is nowhere near these levels, but the idea is that if the flat tax rate were, say, 10%, we shouldn't be taxing someone who has to spend 95% of his income on food, clothing, and housing for a family of 4.

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.

[Madison320]

They don't make anyone pay for anything, as that's an entirely voluntary transaction, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand (taxes).

You might as well tell me that, because it's nice to split the bar bill evenly, communism is just.

...you're conflating totally unrelated issues.

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?