Economics - Progressive Income Tax

[student007]

I'm preparing a debate in economics regarding taxes, and was told to examine progressive income tax. I'm yet to find out what side I am debating, so i am listing and trying to understand some points for and against it. All i have is one point against it - PITs are unfair in that people who work hard to achieve wealth are essentially penalized for their hard-earned wealth. I'm struggling to find anything in favour of PITs. Can anyone help me out?

 

[Pengwuino]

Simple, although its not fair (although other people have different definitions as to what fair is... and its rather hard because if you could ever somehow graph pay vs. difficulty of certain jobs, itd be all over the place), if you leveled out the income taxes into a flat % system, the % of, for say the US government's revenue "needs", would be at least 50% of your income probably. It would be even more difficult for the lower incomes to make it ahead as well. You put the burden on the rich so that the lower incomes can live better lives. In my opinion, its not fair... but it results in a happier population overall.

A regressive system just sucks... the whole concept is absurd in the real world.

I don't think its right to get into what a flat tax would be like ( its a flat tax on every thing you buy instead of everything you earn) because that won't help your argument either way.

I can't wait for the ideologs to come in here nad start turning this into a Bush this Bush that thread...

 

[selfAdjoint]

A regressive system just sucks...

To me what sucks is that a little over 1% of the people in the US own nearly half the assets. I happily paid my share of the regression all the years I was making good money, and now that I am collecting benefits the younger generation is all about "fairness", meaning "I got mine, too bad about you."

 

[russ_watters]

To me what sucks is that a little over 1% of the people in the US own nearly half the assets. I happily paid my share of the regression all the years I was making good money, and now that I am collecting benefits the younger generation is all about "fairness", meaning "I got mine, too bad about you."

You sure you didn't accidentally just flip progressive and regressive...?

student007, one thing to consider about progressive vs regressive taxes is the influence of welfare and other social programs. The argument can be made that such things give the poor a negative tax rate and that a "flat" tax would require removing all social programs to truly be flat. For that reason alone, it is generally accepted that taxes need to be progressive unless we are to choose to let the truly in need fend for themselves.

After that, the theory is that when you are poor, more of your income goes to needs and when you are rich, more of it goes to wants. The way the theory goes is that needs shouldn't be taxed as much as wants. But then you have to decide how you want to define "fair" in that context.

Basically though, if you are to be pro pro, emphasize the plight of the poor and define "fair" in a socialist sense (fair means everyone is provided for who needs it). If you are pro re (or flat - like Penguino said, virtually no-one favors a regressive system), emphasize the "fairness" of an equal rate for everyone (would could be more fair than equality?).

The loophole in the flat tax is the welfare issue - depending on what side you are on, you can subtract welfare from taxes paid, or not.

 

[Pengwuino]

To me what sucks is that a little over 1% of the people in the US own nearly half the assets. I happily paid my share of the regression all the years I was making good money, and now that I am collecting benefits the younger generation is all about "fairness", meaning "I got mine, too bad about you."

I think you got regressive and progressive taxes mixed up. You must also realize that since corporations are considered a part of the population, it is no wonder why that is true (and probably true in most other nations). An overwhelming % of people have no idea how to invest their money wisely or spend it wisely whilea corporations sole purpose is to invest wisely and spend wisely. However, that statistic sounds rather bloated... would like to see a source on it. Of all the "top 1%" rhetoric for this and that, I've yet to see such an overwhelming statistic to be validated (however I've also never seen such a statistic elsewhere)

 

[student007]

Cool. But what theory is it that says that whole thing about wants and needs? Did someone come up with it, or is it just a generally accepted theory? Anyways, here are all of the benefits i have for a progressive tax system:

1)Allows for greater tax revenue for the government.
2)Allows low-income families to keep a greater percentage of their income than high-income families.
3) Encourages equity (lowers the wealth distribution gap)
4) Lower taxes actually decreases purchasing power as it increases consumer spending and therefore inflation. (higher PITs are not harmful).
5) Marginal PITs ensure that those who make larger pre-tax incomes have larger post-tax incomes relative to those with other incomes.
6) Prices will drop to levels that taxpayers can afford if all consumers have their disposable incomes reduced in a way that preserves everyone's relative 'bidding positions’.
7) Theory is that when one is poor, more of their income goes to needs and when one is rich, more of it goes to wants. The way the theory goes is that needs shouldn't be taxed as much as wants. (I used one of your responses for this one!)

Does progressive in any way encourage savings? If so how, and how does this boost the economy.

Also, what about cons, besides this one: "Those who work hard to earn high incomes have to pay for their hard work." I'm short on cons for it.

 

[Kenneth Mann]

Personally, I'm less concerned with whether taxes are "progressive" or "regressive", than with what we choose to tax. Rather than trying to use taxes to effect sociological concerns (of doubtful value at best) I'd like to see it used for economic concerns. Remember, we suppress that part of the economy that we tax, and we increase that which we subsidize. Thus, if we tax production and subsidize consumption, we suppress production and increase consumption (sound familiar?). A simple economic exercise can be constructed to show that in industrial nation that predominantly taxes production (income) is subsidizing other industrial nations that predominantly tax consumption (sales, excise and Value-Added [in truth Value-Subtracted] taxes).

The objection we always hear from those who object to consumption taxes is that "It would penalize the poor," but this is pure nonsense. Consumption taxes can be graduated just as easily as can production taxes; in fact they can be graduated on two levels. They can be graduated according to how essential the products or services being sold are, and they can be graduated according to the "snob appeal" value of the item within its class category. Thus, we can tax clothing (maybe 10%) at a higher rate, for example than food (maybe 0%), and cars (maybe 20%) at a higher rate than clothing, and jewelry (maybe 40%) at a higher rate than cars. On the other hand, within a category, say cars, we can tax say Mercedes (maybe 30%) at a higher rate than Dodge (20% ??), etc., because its selling price within class is proportionately higher. (That actually gives snob items more snob appeal.)

If a government wants to tax, I say let it do so, and if it wants it to be either progressive or regressive, I won't object, but I say don't punish your own people (either poor or rich) when you do it.

KM

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Let's get it right.
Taxation is the cost of government. To whom does government serve and to what degree? Those who are rich are served the most by the government and should pay the most for it. The reason there's any debate at all on this subject is because capitalist exploiters use "externalities" to get others to pay for their means to procure profits. Those "externalities" are costs to doing business and gaining profits that the capitalist doesn't pay for. For one example of hundreds of others who pay for the fortunes of others through the scheme of capitalism - Our war dead paid for it. Yet how many of their wives and children benefit from their supreme sacrifice and how many of those who've never known combat or the threat of combat have capitalized and realized billions of dollars more than they'll ever need on just the sacrifices of these nobles?
At that's not to mention the millions of other public servants who endure a living death of existence and sacrifice to maintain the environment - government workers (slaves) who love their country, states, communities and people - and give their lives.
Progressive vs regressive tax structure? Progressive only. And we need a lot of other tax, fine and fee reform until we get true and real justice. Those who benefit should pay proportionately. Those who suffer through no fault of their own should be relieved and assisted. Since Reagan and Prop 13 we have not known civilization, but anarchy. Damn the so-called "right". The entire position is completely and disgustingly selfish, cruel, uncivilized and unworthy of modern humanity.

Peace and love,
NN

 

[Pengwuino]

Cool. But what theory is it that says that whole thing about wants and needs? Did someone come up with it, or is it just a generally accepted theory? Anyways, here are all of the benefits i have for a progressive tax system:

Thats Karl Marx's famous quote... "To his based on his needs, to each according ot his ability" or something along those lines. Its not really a theory... its more of a wish or social commentary-based wish.

1)Allows for greater tax revenue for the government.

Thats not true. Any of the tax systems suggested here could result in the same amount of tax revenue. Progressive is the one that pisses the fewest people off however.

2)Allows low-income families to keep a greater percentage of their income than high-income families.
3) Encourages equity (lowers the wealth distribution gap)
4) Lower taxes actually decreases purchasing power as it increases consumer spending and therefore inflation. (higher PITs are not harmful).
5) Marginal PITs ensure that those who make larger pre-tax incomes have larger post-tax incomes relative to those with other incomes.
6) Prices will drop to levels that taxpayers can afford if all consumers have their disposable incomes reduced in a way that preserves everyone's relative 'bidding positions’.

True but you'll get chewed out for saying it

7) Theory is that when one is poor, more of their income goes to needs and when one is rich, more of it goes to wants. The way the theory goes is that needs shouldn't be taxed as much as wants. (I used one of your responses for this one!)

One thing to wonder though is that what's a want and what's a need? This also doesn't seem to corrolate with income tax pro/regression. There are excise taxes however which taxes things many consider "immoral wants" (but this has been expanded too... gas?)

Does progressive in any way encourage savings? If so how, and how does this boost the economy.

No, it does not. A flat sales tax does however. That is where you are taxed at the time of purchase of goods. Since you only get taxed when you spend, you are inclined to save money. When you have income taxes however by %, this does not apply.

Also, what about cons, besides this one: "Those who work hard to earn high incomes have to pay for their hard work." I'm short on cons for it.

Your going to get flamed for this lol. Some people think since they have more money, its their responsibility to give if away.

@Nebraska

"Lets get it right" and everything you say afterwords is in contradiction. Most of the money used by the government goes to support the poor be it through health care or welfare.

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/07feb20051415/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/pdf/budget/overview.pdf is a nice overview

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide02.html#Spending is a ... pie chart :D Who doesn't love pie...

 

[loseyourname]

I think you got regressive and progressive taxes mixed up. You must also realize that since corporations are considered a part of the population, it is no wonder why that is true (and probably true in most other nations). An overwhelming % of people have no idea how to invest their money wisely or spend it wisely whilea corporations sole purpose is to invest wisely and spend wisely. However, that statistic sounds rather bloated... would like to see a source on it. Of all the "top 1%" rhetoric for this and that, I've yet to see such an overwhelming statistic to be validated (however I've also never seen such a statistic elsewhere)

I found this table at www.inequality.org:

http://www.faireconomy.org/images/image008.jpg

According to this, wealth in the US is distributed as such:

The top 1% own 33%
Next 4% own 26%
Next 5% own 12%
Next 10% own 13%
Next 20% own 11%
Next 20% own 4%
Next 22% own 0.3%
Bottom 18% have zero or negative net worth

Interestingly enough, the actual abstract of the paper that this data is sourced from says this:

• I find that despite slow growth in income over the 1990s, there have been marked improvements in the wealth position of average families. Both mean and median wealth grew briskly in the late 1990s. The inequality of net worth leveled off even though income inequality continued to rise over this period. Indebtedness also fell substantially during the late 1990s.

http://www.levy.org/default.asp?view=publications_view&pubID=fca3a440ee

Apparently things got better for everyone. Although their income didn't rise much, the worth of their assets (in particular, home equity) appreciated appreciably. Inequality.org doesn't seem to see anything positive in this information, however. Although wealth disparity didn't increase much over this period, income disparity did. So basically, people that weren't homeowners or property owners in general don't benefit nearly as much when the economy grows here in the US. Moral of the story: be a property owner. At the very least, own your own house.

 

[Pengwuino]

haha property owner... be one only if a 30 year mortage's payment is in a comfortable range. My mother is noticing a looooooooot of people, many lower-income, buying houses they just cannot afford and a lot of them are coming back up on forclosure soon after.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hey Pen,
Yes, I see it too. Horrible cost for basic shelter. Those who own will be damned before they lose a dime of investment or possible profit on their property. Property as an investment? What's that say or indicate about the current resource distribution system? What does our system benefit or reward? Nothing of value that I can see. OHHH NNOOOOOO!

Peace and love,
NN

 

[Pengwuino]

No... that's not what the problem is... Problem in California at least is two fold. High housing prices are one. Two, the more serious problem, is that there seeing people with $40,000 salaries wanting 2500 sq ft 2 story houses on 1/2 an acre. Its like walking into the twilight zone, people all of a sudden don't care how much anything costs.

As for basic shelter, around here at least, rents haven't really budged during this housing market boom so "shelter" is very easy to come by. And you know what that tells me? property as investment? that tells me that the only reason some people have a house over their head is because someone put it there. Someone makes a profit, someone has a roof over there head, win win, capitalist systems greatest concept. Our system rewards those who work hard and use their money wisely. And what in gods name does your posts have to do with our income taxes.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hi Pen,
1) taxation is the cost of government
2) government allows anything and everything happening here now
3) some persons benefit from this environment more than others
4) some persons benefit from this environment through no effort nor fault of their own
5) progressive taxation takes #3 and #4 into account
6) regressive and/or any other taxation ignores or downplays #3 and #4

Understand?

 

[Pengwuino]

You say now "some people" benefit from it but originally you said only the rich benefit from it. Please justify how the rich benefit the most.

 

[loseyourname]

Hey Pen,
Yes, I see it too. Horrible cost for basic shelter. Those who own will be damned before they lose a dime of investment or possible profit on their property. Property as an investment? What's that say or indicate about the current resource distribution system? What does our system benefit or reward? Nothing of value that I can see. OHHH NNOOOOOO!

Peace and love,
NN

It's not the fault of property owners. It's the fault of the people buying the property. The price of a house increases because demand increases. The owner just charges what someone is willing to pay. You can't really blame the supply side, either. Housing developers build like mad all the way out into the far-off boondocks here in California. But people prefer to live in certain areas that are already developed, and they'll pay more to do so. Think of it as an auction. Property goes to the highest bidder. If someone that can't afford to pay that much loses out, are you really going to blame the seller? Can you honestly tell me that you would willingly sell your house to person X for $250,000 when person Y is willing to pay $300,000? Unless person X is a family member or someone you owe a huge favor to, why would you?

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hi Pen,
Thanks for your attention. You responded in seconds. Well done.
I think here, "the rich" simply have a set of characteristics that are not universal nor particularly good. For example, if our government enacts a series of laws that arbitrarily value tennis players or plumbers or surfers - we would see that those who are naturally good at these things prosper, thrive and come to power. But pity the poor tennis player, non-plumber and person who cannot surf for a variety of reasons.
"Freedom and justice for all." is my point and message here. I believe that financial success is as arbitrary and non-universal as mastering tennis or plumbing or surfing. These pursuits, though worthy, aren't universal, yet all must meet their daily needs and that's the bottom line of a good economic resource distribution system.
It's really a privilege and pleasure to discuss these things with you. I enjoy this opportunity greatly.

Peace and love,
NN

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hi Pen,
Thanks for your quick reply. I'll try to be as brief and simple as possible.
1) financial success is as arbitrary a choice to value as playing tennis or plumbing or surfing.
2) by law, our society is only valuing persons who have the natural or nurtured ability to be financial successes - all else pale in comparison of access to resources.
3) ". . .freedom and justice for ALL". is the contract, beauty and specialness of America.
4) by contract law, my life should be as good as #2, yet the result is woefully different through no fault or misconduct of my own.
5) taxation, the cost of government, should be based on who benefits the most or least from government as it is designed. You benefit more from the way things are, (that government determines) you pay more of the cost maintain the upkeep of that government. That's a completely progressive tax structure. It indicates also that everything else should be priced and structured similarly - you make more, you pay more. Remember - "freedom and justice for all", bottom line basis for everything government's about and doing. Dig? We agree. I saw your previous posts.

Peace and love,
NN

PS See you after the revolution. We've a lot of work to do together.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Hi Pen,
I'm trying to stay on topic. Please bear with me. Taxation is the subject - who pays, when, where, why and how much is the subject.
Democracy is the unique thing that distinguishes America, American govenment and what this country is known and famous for. Capitalism, however, is different from democracy and not implied in America or freedom or justice or any of the good things America is known for. Capitalism is only a resource acquisition and distibution system.
Democracy and capitalism have been purposfully merged to allow freedom fighters and lovers to promote capitalism as well. Capitalism alone is not attractive EXCEPT to persons who are good at it or who percieve their best interests in maintaining it - but that is only a relatively small minority of people - the rich - or those who want to be "rich". We can't all be rich, for a variety of reasons, therefore to maintain the system means that some, (and even a vast majority of) citizens will be denied due resources and power, among other things. That condition existing alone means that capitalism is unacceptable as an economic distribution system.
Laws that benefit capitalists do so at the expense of non-capitalists and inept capitalists. These are the laws I mention that are wrong for America and justice- and freedom-loving persons.
Understand?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Capitalism alone is not attractive EXCEPT to persons who are good at it or who percieve their best interests in maintaining it - but that is only a relatively small minority of people - the rich - or those who want to be "rich".

This is not quite true. Everybody benefits to some degree from the free market, even the poor, because it provides a more flexible and appropriate response of the economy to the unknowable shocks that afflict economies. Socialism, at least in the form that tries to replace the market with government planning, has a track record of failure in this respect. The market is certainly not perfect in its responses - see recessions and the great depression - but it is a lot better than government planning, and even ditch-digger jobs depend on the smooother ride it gives.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Unwise, unfair and inhumane distribution of resources, responsibilities and risks

Hi Pen and SelfAdjoint,
I gathered together a few quotes from some experts on the subject. Taxation, our government's role and function are among the founding principles we became a new nation to famously establish and are the greatest questions and issues in our history. Some people, the rich, inordinately benefit more because of the many advantages those riches allow. It wasn't supposed to be that way. It's supposed to be " . . . freedom and justice FOR ALL."

Here's what I meant:

“The poverty of the country is such that all the power and sway has got into the hands of the rich, who by extortious advantages, having the common people in their debt, have always curbed and oppressed them in all manner of ways.”
Nathaniel Bacon, Rebel Leader, 1676

No man is naturally entitled to a grander proportion of the Earth than another . . . (Land) was made for the equal use of all.
Pennsylvania farmers, 1740’s

In every society where property exists there will ever be a struggle between rich and poor. Mixed in one assembly, equal laws can never be expected.
John Adams

Private Property . . . is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing.
Benjamin Franklin, 1883

The most common and durable source of faction has been the various and unequal distribution of property.
James Madison, The Federalist, No. 10

Even if we grant that the American has freed himself from a political tyrant, he is still the slave of an economical and moral tyrant.
Henry David Thoreau

These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people.
Abraham Lincoln, 1837

Following the destruction of the banks, must come that of all monopolies, of all PRIVILEGE. There are many of these. We cannot specify them all; we therefore select only one, the greatest of them all, the privilege which some have of being born rich while others are born poor. It will be seen at once that we allude to the hereditary descent of property, an anomaly in our American system, which must be removed, or the system itself will be destroyed.
Orestes Brownson, 1840

The great and fruitful source of crime and misery on Earth is the inequality of society – the abject dependence of honest willing industry upon idle and dishonest capitalists.
U.S. Rep. Mike Walsh, 1840

Things are in the saddle
And ride mankind.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1847

Who are the oppressors? The few; the king, the capitalist and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat. Why is it right that there is not a fairer division of the spoil all around? Because laws and constitutions have ordered otherwise. Then it follows that laws and constitutions should change around and say there shall be a more nearly equal division.
Mark Twain, 1886

There are ninety and nine who live and die
In want and hunger and cold
That one may live in luxury
And be wrapped in a silken fold
The ninety and nine in hovels bare
The one in a palace with riches rare

And the one owns cities and houses and lands
And the ninety and nine have empty hands
Farmers’ Alliance, 1889

Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street and for Wall Street.
Mary Lease, Kansas Populist, 1890

The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is their master. Are laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags . . . We will stand by our homes and stay by our firesides by force of necessary. The people are at bay. Let the bloodhounds of money who have dogged us thus far beware.
Elizabeth Barr, Kansas agitator, 1890

The plutocracy today is the logical result of the individual freedom which we have always considered to be the pride of our system . . . The corporation has absorbed the community. The community must now absorb the corporation. A stage must be reached in which each is for all, all is for each.
Lincoln (Nebraska) Farmers Alliance, 1890’s

I would not be a capitalist; I would be a man; you cannot be both at the same time.
Eugene Debs, 1905

The truth is we are all caught in a great economic system that is heartless.
Woodrow Wilson, 1912

The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators and the exploiters of labor.
Helen Keller, 1911

I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of millions of dollars – while millions of men and women who work all days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.
-AND-
In very truth gold is god today and rules with pitiless sway in the affairs of men
-AND-
Private appropriation of the earth’s surface, the natural resources and the means of life is nothing less than a crime against humanity, but the . . . few who are the beneficiaries of this iniquitous social arrangement, far from being viewed as criminals meriting punishment, are the exalted rulers of society, and the people they exploit gladly render them homage and obeisance.
-AND-
The economic owning class is always the political ruling class.
Eugene Debs, 5-time socialist candidate for the U.S Presidency

Private enterprise is ceasing to be free enterprise.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1938

 

[Brady]

Nebraska Naturalist, you need to understand something very important. The world isn't linear and it's not predictable. There is a luck factor in life, and even the most intelligent may fail, and the most hopeless can become victorious (although the chances are higher for the person with the more favorable character qualities). That being said, do you know what the true meaning of hard work is? I don't think many of us, myself included, exactly know. We all view the world as some entity where is everything is predictable and the outcome always fair and just, and if the reality doesn't fit our ideology, we say it's unfair. But all we do is stick to ideology and let ourselves rot. People need to understand that anything is possible and fight to succeed at all costs. In life, attitude is everything. The willingness to help yourself and fight all odds and common knowledge is everything. We have become swamped in ideology and lost the meaning of reaching for your dreams and putting in the effort.

I think you're getting equality under law confused with equality of opportunity. Do you understand that providing welfare to people helps them get from 0 to 1 on a scale of wealth? These people are just using the money that taxpayers are throwing. The welfare doesn't provide a stimulus to work harder, it merely provides a temporary shelter. THE PURPOSE OF WELFARE ISN'T TO TO SUPPORT IDEOLOGY THAT "HELPING PEOPLE" IS GOOD! It is a temporary relief to unemployment. So if welfare becomes a lifelong crutch, it is an ultimate failure. The poor get nowhere (they could have found some form of motivation and succeeded WITHOUT the welfare), and the middle-class and rich lose money. It's sometimes true that it's easier to succeed when there is nothing there for you, rather than having very little and always being reminded of how "sympathetic" other people are.

It seems like all of the liberals/socialists/Communists don't understand how the world works... You don't help people by giving them money, you help people by giving them hope and motivation. One more thing to remember, the world isn't a straight line, where everything is fair. There are unknowns, and there are variables that nobody knows. Just because somebody is intelligent means nothing. What will they do to fullfil their potential? Will they become a renowned scientist? Or will his/her lack of social skills, common sense, or communication skills compromise that ability? The fact is that nobody knows, and that if you are always working toward your goal, it's extremely unlikely that you'll be a failure.

Another issue, you say that most successful people have either God-given talents or nurtured talents that enable them to succeed, and that other less successful people tend to not have these talents. You then proceed to say that these talents are merely like playing golf well. Later, you say that since these people are the ones who benefit from the "government" (no idea how that works), they have an obligation to help the people who don't have this "talent."

This is the silliest statement I have ever heard. Do you know what education is? Do you understand that there is a mandatory public education system to help everyone go through the basics of schooling? Do you realize that it is always being abused and not appreciated? There goes your nurture argument. People can LEARN. Don't let your confused ideologies mix with reality. Secondly, you say some people have God-given talents, and if they succeed, they have an obligation to help poorer member s of society? No. You are never forced to help someone. Help comes from the heart, not a mandate from the federal government. And you don't seem to understand that successful people are always under stress. Imagine how much suffering they endured. They have a extremely high potential and thus are always bordering on failure. That's the price of success. You can't afford ANY failures, or you go straight down the drain. For the homeless, they have no responsibilities. Their only way is up, and if they want to, they can do that. For example, my mom, (we're from Korea) had no English education, but she still managed to get an A in a medical terminology course with pretty much the toughest English words ever. It was hard as ****, but she got through it, and now has a much better job.

I don't want to say this, but the concept of extreme liberalism (that you are touting) is a social poison. And it's already a progressive tax right now, what more do you want? People in the top tax bracket lose 35% of their money. Do you want them to give away 50% or something? Gee...

The sooner you get over the fact that the world isn't an ideal society based upon the laws of logic and linearality, the sooner you'll get out of that dream world. Get with the realities of life, alright?

 

[Brady]

I find it weird that most science&math junkies are fairly liberal. I love science and math with all my heart, yet I'm a conservative Christian...

 

[EnumaElish]

Does progressive in any way encourage savings? If so how, and how does this boost the economy.

If savings toward education, retirement, etc. are included (as they should be), then yes. Suppose a person earns $100K/year before tax during her "working years." Her only retirement income will be what she saved during the earning period. You can devise a progressive tax to induce this person to invest in a tax-free fund for retirement, as an inter-temporal transfer of income. And when firms are looking for investment finance, they can borrow from these funds.

Also, what about cons, besides this one: "Those who work hard to earn high incomes have to pay for their hard work." I'm short on cons for it.

You could elaborate on this point by driving it home. Ad valorem (Latin for "according to value," in this case "percent of income") taxation is bad enough, because it punishes extra effort. (Contrast it with lump sum taxation, where a person pays a fixed amount independent of how much they earn in a given time frame. Lump sum taxation does not punish extra effort, because anything above one's fixed dues one will be able to keep for oneself, and therefore will not be discouraged from putting in extra hard work.) One might say that progressive tax is an especially vicious way of punishing extra effort, because it not only punishes extra effort (being a percentage tax), but the severity of punishment (tax percentage) increases with the amount of extra effort one puts in. If one sees percentage tax as a "brake" on effort, then one might say progressive tax is the "anti-lock brakes" of the economy, i.e. an especially "efficient" way of curtailing economic activity.

{P.S. by "percentage tax" I mean "proportional tax."}

 

[Pengwuino]

I find it weird that most science&math junkies are fairly liberal. I love science and math with all my heart, yet I'm a conservative Christian...

It seems like most the science and math junkies on this board are apolitical. Most of the political threads seem to be coming from people who i rarely ever see in the scientific sections of thes eforums.

 

[Antiphon]

I find it weird that most science&math junkies are fairly liberal. I love science and math with all my heart, yet I'm a conservative Christian...

Decency and values have little to do with how you chose your profession.

There are scoundrels and heros in every walk of life. As for why most
math & science junkies are liberals- they were formed that way by the
earlier phases of their education. Many of them will become more
conservative as they mature and grow. Other will sadly stay in their
little left-leaning worlds and never progress.

As far as the topic goes, a flat tax is the most fair, together with a
minimum threshold below which you pay nothing.

The real issue should be what gets taxed- income or something else?
Taxing income is detrimental at any slope of the marignal revenue curve
because it discourages wealth creation.

The critical thing about ANY tax system is that it must be SMALL, so as
not to distort the systems being taxed. 1-2% should be the absolute
miniumum.

 

[Antiphon]

Hi Pen,
Democracy is the unique thing that distinguishes America, American govenment and what this country is known and famous for.

Sorry, the Greeks were there first.

Capitalism, however, is different from democracy and not implied in America or freedom or justice or any of the good things America is known for. Capitalism is only a resource acquisition and distibution system.

Huh? Captialism IS freedom of association in the realm of trade. It is the
thing we are best at. Resource acquisition and distribution system?
I'm a free man. Not a cog in your resource allocation schemes. [/color]
If you want to "allocate" my resources you'll do it with my consent.
That's capitalism too.

Capitalism alone is not attractive EXCEPT to persons who are good at it or who percieve their best interests in maintaining it - but that is only a relatively small minority of people - the rich - or those who want to be "rich".

It's attractive to anyone who understands freedom.

We can't all be rich, for a variety of reasons, therefore to maintain the system means that some, (and even a vast majority of) citizens will be denied due resources and power, among other things. That condition existing alone means that capitalism is unacceptable as an economic distribution system.

Trade with me or leave me be. If you take my labor or capital by force,
you will be introduced to the counter-force which looks a lot like my revolver.

Laws that benefit capitalists do so at the expense of non-capitalists and inept capitalists. These are the laws I mention that are wrong for America and justice- and freedom-loving persons.
Understand?

HOGWASH! Your idea of justice is to reach into my pocket because you
can't produce what I can. That's the real meaning behind this drivel.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Huh? Captialism IS freedom of association in the realm of trade. It is the
thing we are best at. Resource acquisition and distribution system?
I'm a free man. Not a cog in your resource allocation schemes.
If you want to "allocate" my resources you'll do it with my consent.
That's capitalism too.

If a majority of your neighbors want to "allocate your resources" you'll pony up or go to jail. That's democracy too. And since the recent Supreme Court decision, they can take your house, too!

 

[Antiphon]

If a majority of your neighbors want to "allocate your resources" you'll pony up or go to jail. That's democracy too. And since the recent Supreme Court decision, they can take your house, too!

These are two examples of government failing to protecting individual rights.

They are not counter examples to my quote.

 

[kcballer21]

There are scoundrels and heros in every walk of life. As for why most
math & science junkies are liberals- they were formed that way by the
earlier phases of their education. Many of them will become more
conservative as they mature and grow. Other will sadly stay in their
little left-leaning worlds and never progress.

That's funny, I thought it had something to do with being consistent.

 

[Smurf]

There are scoundrels and heros in every walk of life. As for why most
math & science junkies are liberals- they were formed that way by the
earlier phases of their education. Many of them will become more
conservative as they mature and grow. Other will sadly stay in their
little left-leaning worlds and never progress.

I don't know if you were serious or kidding, but it's funny either way.

 

[Smurf]

Sorry, the Greeks were there first.

The Greek democracy was far different from what we know it as today (specifically liberal representative democracy)

Huh? Captialism IS freedom of association in the realm of trade. It is the
thing we are best at. Resource acquisition and distribution system?
I'm a free man. Not a cog in your resource allocation schemes.
If you want to "allocate" my resources you'll do it with my consent.
That's capitalism too.

No, Capitalism is an economic system where most means of production are privately owned (hence capitalism - private aquisition of capital). It shouldn't be confused with Free Market and Laissez-Faire economic theory, which have to do with a Planned vs. Market economy.

 

[Smurf]

These are two examples of government failing to protecting individual rights.

They are not counter examples to my quote.

Interestingly enough Democracy seems almost counter productive to individual rights. The idea of 'Rule of the majority' is inherently 'might is right', and favours benefit to society over benefit to the individual in almost all areas.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a reason they called it Laissez-faire capitalism, Smurf - the terms go together. You're making a distinction where there isn't one.