How do you justify taxing the rich?

granny smith wrote:

1) Progressive taxation has been tried in a multiplicity of states, and it resulted in stable and growing economies in those states with sufficient benefits.

America and the Eurozone, two regions with progressive taxation, are now collapsing under the weight of their debts. The lack of respect for economic freedom that goes hand-in-hand with progressive taxation created an environment in which deficit spending thrived for years and eventually grew out of control. Now we are near the ugly end of that road and will suffer hyperinflation if we don't quickly abandon statism, which includes abandoning progressive taxes.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Adam Smith -- "Wealth of Nations"

Fvckin radical hippie.

Arguments Counter wrote:

granny smith wrote:

1) Progressive taxation has been tried in a multiplicity of states, and it resulted in stable and growing economies in those states with sufficient benefits.

America and the Eurozone, two regions with progressive taxation, are now collapsing under the weight of their debts. The lack of respect for economic freedom that goes hand-in-hand with progressive taxation created an environment in which deficit spending thrived for years and eventually grew out of control. Now we are near the ugly end of that road and will suffer hyperinflation if we don't quickly abandon statism, which includes abandoning progressive taxes.

If I might offer a counterpoint to your counterpoint..

Is there a nation where non-progressive taxation is not going through a depression? And why do you say that progressive taxation and deficit spending go hand in hand? I would argue the taxation system has nothing to do with spending habits (whether a nation spends more money than they are able to bring in)... systems of taxation and spending are two completely different topics.

Arguments Counter wrote:

granny smith wrote:

1) Progressive taxation has been tried in a multiplicity of states, and it resulted in stable and growing economies in those states with sufficient benefits.

America and the Eurozone, two regions with progressive taxation, are now collapsing under the weight of their debts. The lack of respect for economic freedom that goes hand-in-hand with progressive taxation created an environment in which deficit spending thrived for years and eventually grew out of control. Now we are near the ugly end of that road and will suffer hyperinflation if we don't quickly abandon statism, which includes abandoning progressive taxes.

Welcome to the counter-factual universe of "conservative" thought! What a bizarre reading of history. Historically, these deficits coincide with the DISMANTLING of a robustly progressive taxt system, in favor of merely a moderately progressive one COMBINED with a willful disregard for annual deficits. And the greatest pressure for both these trends came from the "conservative" side of the aisle--specifically Reagan and W. Bush Sr. and Clinton were far more honest--and truly conservative--about the relationship between spending and revenue.

The current tax laws utterly benefit the already rich and powerful--that's not "statism", but something more akin to "plutocracy." The current crop of right-wing ideologues are utterly wrong about both the real problems and their realistic solution.

We are collapsing under the weight of our debts because of out-of-control spending, not because progressive taxation.

how about tax in percentage of total income.

for example, take "blank" % across the board. yes, this means more money taxed against the rich in total dollars, but in percentage to their total income, it's the same as someone much poor. bread and gas costs the same for someone making 10k a year as it does someone making 100k.

you make 10k a year, we'll use 8% = $800 a year

you make 100k a year, with 8% tax = $8,000 a year.

same percentage.

bad call wrote:

Ah so you made your argument backwards. Conclusion first, then premises to support it. An unusual approach except of course when you are assuming the conclusion and looking for "premises" to support it. But we'll go with it.

Premise #1 in this case would be the false one. First because it qualifies itself with subjective terms (e.g. "sufficient"? who decides what is sufficient? You?) and because it therefore must assume that growing debts and deficits have merit.

Premise #2 is a tautology.

Both premises assume consider the taxation side the only measure of merit while completely ignoring the spending side.

It is common practice to begin with a conclusion and then provide support for it. Especially on a message board, where brevity is important.

You have not shown that premise #1 is false. You have challenged whether or not progressive taxation provides sufficient social benefits, but you haven't provided any evidence that it doesn't. I think that a simple comparison between states who have more progressive tax rates vs those who have regressive tax rates provides an obvious answer. But maybe you could present some counter evidence. Until you do, I remain unpersuaded.

Premise #2 is not a tautology. It just says that taxation systems should be evaluated according to their real world consequences, not in terms of a priori ideas or political intuitions. It's a substantive premise.

With regard to your final point--it's a red herring. We are considering taxation, not government spending. If these are relevantly connected (I'm not ruling this out), the burden is on you to show the relevance of the connection.

Cheers!

And you have not shown it to be true. You have made a declarative statement about it what you believe to be a correlation. You have shown nothing to back this up and, if you could, would have proven a correlation, not causation. You have completely ignored the subject of outlays

No, that is not what premise #2 said. It said this

"Reasonable people look to the consequences of a tax system in order to evaluate its merit"

But of course, reasonable people look to the consequences of just about anything to evaluate its merit. That is a tautology. Those arguing about the progressive taxation from a philosophical point of view clearly do not agree with you about its consequences. And as you have not shown in any way shape or form that a stable and growing economy is the consequence of a progressive tax system, you have added a statement of the obvious to a completely unsupported assertion.

I'm not the one who made the premise or the argument. You were. The burden is on you to show that premise #1 is true. Merely stating it does not make it so. One cannot simply point to inlays as a source of prosperity/hardship and ignore outlays.

1. What? Outlays? Correlation, not causation? Tell me why you disagree. All you've told me is that you disagree.

2. Actually a lot of the people in this thread, including the OP, were totally ignoring the real-world consequences of various forms of taxation. Most of the arguments that have been made thus far have appealed to a priori, non-empirical ideas like "fairness." In this context, it was important to clarify that this is--to my mind--a less reasonable way to approach the issue. I'm glad you agree with me.

3. Outlays again? What are you talking about?

Buddy, I've done all the work in this conversation--you couldn't even decipher the original argument. Step up now. Say something important and relevant; this is boring and I'm sure everyone else thinks so too.

bad call wrote:

We are collapsing under the weight of our debts because of out-of-control spending, not because progressive taxation.

Out-of-control spending and progressive taxation are two different results of the same political philosophy (statism). The set of ideas that attempts to justify progressive taxation also enables deficit spending.

I suppose I could have said, "I remain unpersuaded". Would that have been more acceptable?

If you are clarifying that fine. But be careful about assuming they are ignoring the real world consequences. Sounds to me like they don't agree with what you think the real world consequences are.

How hard is this to understand? Do you not know what the word means? An economy's prosperity is not simply based upon how much money a government takes in. It also has to do with how much a government spends. Outlays. If the government takes in a trillion but spends two, that's a bad thing. In the short run it can give "prosperity". In the long run, not so much.

(An economy's prosperity also has to do with a thousand other things. Tying it simply to the form of taxation is awfully simplistic)

You gave us an argument based upon a premise that is nothing but an empty declaration. Give me something to back it up. You say progressive taxation leads to prosperity. I say, prove it. Sorry if that's too "boring" for you.

Political Philosophy wrote:

Out-of-control spending and progressive taxation are two different results of the same political philosophy (statism). The set of ideas that attempts to justify progressive taxation also enables deficit spending.

I disagree. Out of control spending is simply irresponsibility. Progressive taxation is an attempt to encode social policy.

In case you haven't noticed, the no-progressive-taxation folks have been doing an awfully good job of deficit spending the past few decades.

Okay, good. Your responses were really good this time. I hope that's not patronizing.

Here's where we stand: we agree that the relevant question is the consequences of taxation--whether or not a certain system leads to prosperity. This is already agreeing on a lot, I think.

Neither of us has gotten into the details of whether or not progressive tax systems actually lead to prosperity. I've mention vaguely that they have in multiple states, and I believe this to be the case. Here, many states in Europe, Chile, etc. Bear this out. But I agree with you, there can be many confounders, and I have not made this point convincingly. BUT--this was my intention of my original post all along--this is where the argument has to live or die. I think the evidence is on my side, but I suppose I could be convinced otherwise.

I agree with you that reckless government spending can be a really bad thing for the economy. I just don't see exactly how that is a criticism of a progressive tax system. Maybe I'm just being dumb.

Thanks.

Cool.

This is hilarious and sad at the same time that you right wing nuts are STILL whining about the high taxes on the rich. YOU GOT YOUR DAMN UNPAID FOR EXTENDED BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH. YOU.......GOT....... THEM. But you are STILL unhappy and whining about this?!? Jesus holy mother of God.

The right wing ULTIMATE cause is cutting taxes on the rich. They consider this the ultimate injustice of the world. This to them is like slavery was to many anti-slavery people from the north. " THE RICH, OH GOD, THE POOR, POOR RICH ARE SUFFERING!!! "

Look at Republican recent legislative agenda:

* End discrimination against gays in the military? NO WAY

* Ratify new START treaty that virtually every military expert from BOTH sides of the aisles supports, including all of the recent republican secretaries of state?? NO WAY

* Help pay for medical costs of those who risked their lives on 9/11 helping others? TOO EXPENSIVE!

* Extend unemployment benefits to those who have suffered from the worst employment market since the Great Depression?! HELL NO (cut deal on that one)

* EXTEND UNPAID FOR TAX CUTS FOR RICH, that have been declared by CBO to be the worst possible stimulus out of many options considered, and are a LARGE part of the reason we went from surplus to deficit ?? YES, OH GOD YES, WE (republicans) WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH FOR THAT.

You can rest easy tonight, oh right wing nuts. The Obamas, Bushs, Kennedys, Rockefellers, Waltons, Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, Lebron James, Kobe Bryants, and Tom Cruises, etc of the world will NOT have to pay more taxes thanks to your efforts. You have fought the good fight, and God is smiling on you.

What the hell is wrong with you???

Ha ha ha. Beautiful.

I would stipulate that today's "poor" are signifcantly LESS poor than those of even a generation ago. Our pretty generous "safety net" or "welfare state" or whatever term works best makes it possible for a huge portion of those who generate little to no income to still have basic necessities of life (food, shelter, etc.) The ones who worry me are those who don't/can't take advantage of those programs due to various problems beyond their control (i.e. mental illness). Moreover, the "poor" (and the scare quites are not because I doubt their poverty, I just want to somehow differentiate them from the starving poor of other times and places) of 2010 America have access to luxuries that even the richest didn't have not long ago. Some are technological, like the internet and cell phones. Others are more along the lines of infrastructure--everything from flush toilets to air conditioning. The poorest family can put their kid on a paid-for bus and send them to a public school where they can be fed breakfast and lunch (and in some cases dinner) and theoretically learn what they need to have a better life. The "persistent underclass" of which I speak lacks the habits/traits/training/role modeling/culture to take advantage of those things (and to apply for medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, etc.) I know people do slip through the cracks, and that some folks do milk the system. but overall, it's a really good system. As Churchill once said of democracy, "it's the worst system in the world, except for all the others that have been tried." What other culture has ever had an obesity problem among the poor?

Here is a concept that no one dares talk about anymore, but it is the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. The progressive tax code was partly imposed in order to slow this inevitable phenomenon of capitalism. Why does it matter? It matters because the middle class drives the economy. They are the ones who buy the products that all these wealthy individuals depend on. When the middle class disappears, our system will collapse. This gap has accelerated at an alarming rate under Bush and by all accounts, it will continue under Obama at least for the next 2 years. The right has been very effective in labeling any attempt to slow this process as socialism and even though our system has always had socialistic aspects (public education, utilities, military, post office, fire dept., police dept, roads, etc. Today's short-sighted, history-ignorant ill-mannered republicans have painted all elected officials with a sense of history and the "big-picture" as nothing less than Communists. We need a progressive income tax in order for our American system to survive. It is not political, it is practical and a matter of survival. When the middle class stops buying your products, what is the next best way to increase your wealth? Decrease your taxes. Our kids are screwed.

Political Philosophy wrote:Out-of-control spending and progressive taxation are two different results of the same political philosophy (statism). The set of ideas that attempts to justify progressive taxation also enables deficit spending.

Utterly wrong.