Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Everyone profits from the existence of roads. Without roads, your poor people would have an even rougher time.

As for who pays for roads, I think they should be privately built, owned, and maintained.

But without Roads their Trucks would be of no use.
And Rich people who own a company with a lot of trucks use the roads a lot more than poor people do (who probably don´t even have the money to buy an own car and therefore have to rely on public transportation).

And one single Truck produces the same wear on the streets like 10,000 normal cars.
So, the rich one profits from (public) roads much more than a single poor Citizen does, while at the same time producing more costs to repair them.

[David Floyd]

Such protections often come at the expense of the freedoms and liberties that ought to be engendered to all, regardless of their status in society.

So, you think that respecting my right to be a millionaire impacts someone else's freedom?

So let me get this straight. If I have a million bucks, and stuff it in a mattress, and don't let other people have any, I'm causing them to have less freedom? That's ridiculous. Would the freedom of those people be impacted if that money didn't exist at all?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, I can. If your premise is that we are obligated to help those in need, then I don't see why you don't extend that to your kidney. Would you extend it to donating blood or plasma?

Well, David. I will agree with you that the moment the government requires me to give body parts to the collective is a few moments later than the revolt should have begun.

Now, let's play like reasonable people and discuss reality, not rubbish. OK?

[Ned]

Progressive taxation has nothing to do with financing the government since there are too few rich to tax for their taxes to matter much. Progressive taxation is punitive and can only be justified by some demonstration that it benefits society in some manner.

From an economics point of view, progressive taxation is counterproductive.

From a Marxist point of view, progressive taxation helps lessen the distance between the rich and the poor.

Thus, unless one believes in the class warfare doctrine of Marx, it is quite evident that progressive taxation is ill thought out and harmful to society.

[David Floyd]

I certainly am more concerned with my welfare more than the welfare of the most of the other people in the world. This doesn't say that this is the most ethical stance. FOR ME, it takes precedence, that does it mean that it should actually take precedence in the eyes of the law. I am doubtful that if the government would harvest the organs, it would be an ethical action, since it would both mean a descent in my quality of life, AND doing something that I don't want to do, which are both carrying negative utility.

But the same holds true for taking my money. It's something I don't want the government to do, and it negatively impacts my quality of life. I see no difference.

This also has implications on the entire society, so I am not sure that saving a single person's life would be worth it.

OK, God

Proteus,

And Rich people who own a company with a lot of trucks use the roads a lot more than poor people do (who probably don´t even have the money to buy an own car and therefore have to rely on public transportation).

And one single Truck produces the same wear on the streets like 10,000 normal cars.
So, the rich one uses the (public) roads much more than a single por Citizen does.

So it seems to me that the fairest way of resolving the problem is to simply make the roads private. Hell, the sections of highway that are privately maintained seem to be a lot smoother, anyway. But this way, roads can be paid for through tolls, and those who own the roads can charge whatever they want - the market can determine the price, not some government bureaucrat who is trying to get re-elected.

[M. Robespierre]

Look at the poor man, who has no property to call his own. To what benefits does the poor man derive from the police?

The police automatically treat him as a suspect, or criminal around wealth, yet no such wealth, does the poor man possess to have society protect.

Why then, should this poor man bear the burdens for such services, to which, he will not enjoy the benefits?

If I have a million bucks, and stuff it in a mattress, and don't let other people have any, I'm causing them to have less freedom?

You are encouraging your wealth to be looted, yes. I would share no tears for such a miser.

[David Floyd]

Well, David. I will agree with you that the moment the government requires me to give body parts to the collective is a few moments later than the revolt should have begun.

Right, the point is that the government doesn't own you - you aren't a slave. The point is also that there is no unlimited moral imperative to help others. The question then becomes whether or not there is a LIMITED moral imperative, but if there is, the line certainly does not seem to be drawn between money and body parts, because no one has yet demonstrated how taking my money against my will and taking a body part against my will are fundamentally different. Both are involuntary, and both result in a negative impact on my quality of life. Since you've already rejected a utilitarian argument for body parts, you can't bring it up again for money, so what would your test be?

[Az]

But the same holds true for taking my money. It's something I don't want the government to do, and it negatively impacts my quality of life. I see no difference.

You see no difference between taxation, and forcible organ harvesting?!

[David Floyd]

[/quote]Look at the poor man, who has no property to call his own. To what benefits does the poor man derive from the police?[/quote]

So you think protection of property is the only function of police? In any case, how can you say the poor have no property? Sure, the homeless may not, but so what? Often times, that's their own fault, and they aren't paying taxes anyway - they're homeless and unemployed. The poor certainly own property - and the police will certainly investigate and prosecute incidents of theft, even if poor people are involved.

The police automatically treat him as a suspect, or criminal around wealth, yet no such wealth, does the poor man possess to have society protect.

Well, if what you say is true, and without the police the poor would simply go around looting at will, stealing what they wanted, then maybe they should be treated as suspect

You are encouraging your wealth to be looted, yes. I would share no tears for such a miser.

That wasn't the question. The question was, whose freedom is impacted?

And how are you encouraging theft? Are you saying that when the rich are robbed, it's their own fault? That's ass-backwards logic if I've ever heard it.

[David Floyd]

You see no difference between taxation, and forcible organ harvesting?!

According to the tests that you used - quality of life and involuntary action - then no, not really. Find a better test to differentiate the two.

[Proteus_MST]

You can more easily survive with less money than you can if you only have a single kidney.
If your remaining kidney fails, you are in grave danger of loosing your life. But if you (as a rich one) have less money it wouldn´t threaten your life, it would only result in a slight inconvenience, as you maybe aren´t able to afford your third Plasma TV Set.

[monkspider]

I think the bottom line is that libertarianism is a really stupid idea.

Let's all agree on that and go home.

[Az]

According to the tests that you used - quality of life and involuntary action - then no, not really. Find a better test to differentiate the two.

I meant involunary action to your physical self. taxing money from your paycheck isn't such, though it does pose negative utility, on it's own, it's way less harmful.

When would you feel worse, if someone would physically beat you, and take 200 USD, or a hacker would take 200 USD from your account?

[David Floyd]

You can more easily survive with less money than you can if you only have a single kidney.

Well, if the issue is survival, the person who doesn't have any kidney at all certainly won't survive. And besides, if everyone is forced to donate kidneys to the needy, then if your remaining kidney fails, you're OK. Right?

Essentially, though, what you are saying, is that the government can take anything it wants from you, except something that might threaten your life. Great, much better

I think the bottom line is that libertarianism is a really stupid idea.

Yeah, but not quite up to the standard of stupidity set by your belief that communism is Christlike and that one day, all true Christians will embrace communism and convert those around them

[David Floyd]

I meant involunary action to your physical self. taxing money from your paycheck isn't such, though it does pose negative utility, on it's own, it's way less harmful.

Actually, if I refuse to have money deducted, and if I refuse to pay taxes at the end of the year, the result will be involuntary action against my physical self. So you're right, as long as I play nice and pretend like my money isn't being stolen, and don't try to keep it, I won't get hurt.

When would you feel worse, if someone would physically beat you, and take 200 USD, or a hacker would take 200 USD from your account?

I'd feel worse knowing that my bank account was open to hacking, than I would if I lose $200 in my wallet after getting mugged. Wouldn't you?

[Az]

Actually, if I refuse to have money deducted, and if I refuse to pay taxes at the end of the year, the result will be involuntary action against my physical self. So you're right, as long as I play nice and pretend like my money isn't being stolen, and don't try to keep it, I won't get hurt.

thank you.

I'd feel worse knowing that my bank account was open to hacking, than I would if I lose $200 in my wallet after getting mugged. Wouldn't you?

Hell no! you prefer to be beaten and mutilated?!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Right, the point is that the government doesn't own you - you aren't a slave. The point is also that there is no unlimited moral imperative to help others. The question then becomes whether or not there is a LIMITED moral imperative, but if there is, the line certainly does not seem to be drawn between money and body parts, because no one has yet demonstrated how taking my money against my will and taking a body part against my will are fundamentally different. Both are involuntary, and both result in a negative impact on my quality of life. Since you've already rejected a utilitarian argument for body parts, you can't bring it up again for money, so what would your test be?

Bullshit.

As a businessman, I benefit from having an educated and healthy workforce. I benefit from police to protect my property and courts to enforce my claims. I benefit from there being roads to convey my products, employees, and customers to my place of business.

Of all the things that government does, I derive the most benefit (profit). The system is set up so that I may profit. I do profit, and I do not ***** that I have to pay back for the things that I never could create myself, like educated, healthy workers who arrive on time on good roads to serve my clients from far and wide who use those same roads.

You are right, I am not a slave. I could choose to withdraw my capital and board up my business. I could keep all of my capital and not be taxed one single dime on it. That is my choice. However, if I choose to remain open and to profit from the inputs that society at large has put into the equation, then I should right well pay my fair share of taxes to support the enterprise and not wail as if I'd just lost a kidney.

[M. Robespierre]

Sure, the homeless may not, but so what? Often times, that's their own fault,

So who would fault such a man, on being denied the basic comforts of life, from looting a careless miser?

Such mercy you withhold, will also be withheld from you.

and the police will certainly investigate and prosecute incidents of theft, even if poor people are involved.

Will they be as inclined to protect the property of the wealthy, of far greater value, than the property of the poor?

[Berzerker]

Look at the poor man, who has no property to call his own. To what benefits does the poor man derive from the police?

No one can legally steal his kidney to serve some liberal's utilitarian vision. Oh yeah, these "utilitarian's" don't really believe their own crappola. Let's see what else... that poor man is free to get a job and acrue wealth until he has enough to buy property and the police will help protect his endeavors. Shall we continue?

[David Floyd]

thank you.

So you agree that the essence of your proposal is that as long as I "give" you my money, I won't get hurt?

Hell no! you prefer to be beaten and mutilated?!

Now you're changing your story. Mutilated? Perhaps not. My ass kicked? Probably, yes. Either way, my rights are being grossly violated. Surely you won't argue that it's OK to find some way to rob me of $200, as long as you don't hurt me?

NYE,

As a businessman, I benefit from having an educated and healthy workforce. I benefit from police to protect my property and courts to enforce my claims. I benefit from there being roads to convey my products, employees, and customers to my place of business.

And poor people benefit from an education they couldn't otherwise afford, poor people benefit from a police and court system, and poor people benefit from roads. Arguing that the rich benefit more than the poor is kinda silly, because without rich people, poor people would be ****ed.

I do profit, and I do not ***** that I have to pay back for the things that I never could create myself, like educated, healthy workers who arrive on time on good roads to serve my clients from far and wide who use those same roads.

You personally could not provide those things, but other people would be able to set up road building companies and make a profit, and other people would be able to build schools.

And if you feel as if it is in your benefit for workers to be educated, then by all means, feel free to donate your money and time to educating them. Don't force others who disagree to do the same.

You are right, I am not a slave. I could choose to withdraw my capital and board up my business. I could keep all of my capital and not be taxed one single dime on it. That is my choice. However, if I choose to remain open and to profit from the inputs that society at large has put into the equation, then I should right well pay my fair share of taxes to support the enterprise and not wail as if I'd just lost a kidney.

So, to get back to my mattress example, you concede that stuffing your mattress full of money does not limit anyone's freedom.

By taking your money out of the mattress and generating commerce, you are helping both yourself and others. Why should you be punished for this?

And finally, your arguments about utility miss the point. If everyone agrees with you, then people will donate their time and effort to educate workers. If people disagree, then they won't. Those would-be workers certainly have no right to an education, and you certainly have no right to expect other people to contribute to what you feel is beneficial. If someone wants to get an education, they can pay for one, and if you feel as if it's in your interest to help them, by all means do so.

The issue is one of freedom, not one of benefits or entitlements. You aren't entitled to an educated workforce any more than some random poor guy is entitled to an education. You may need an educated workforce to generate more profit, but need doesn't create entitlement. If it did, we'd be back at the kidney donation example.

[Az]

Oh yeah, these "utilitarian's" don't really believe their own crappola.

[M. Robespierre]

Let's see what else... that poor man is free to get a job and acrue wealth until he has enough to buy property and the police will help protect his endeavors. Shall we continue?

Will a bank loan him money, as readily as it will someone who is already wealthy?

What if the poor man cannot find ready employment in the city, yet he still must live, and eat? How will he accrue wealth at such a rate as to become wealthy?

It is only by society, in offering him assistence, that such man can free himself from the shackles of poverty. This system has one advantage, over that of the looting of the rich by the poor, and that is the fact that the rich voluntarily submit to the system.

For if they did not, surely the poor would become resentful of a wealthy man who refused to help others as he himself has been helped.

[David Floyd]

So who would fault such a man, on being denied the basic comforts of life, from looting a careless miser?

I certainly would. If he was breaking into my house in Texas, I'd shoot his ass and not be prosecuted for it. He doesn't have a right to my money, just because he has none of his own.

Will they be as inclined to protect the property of the wealthy, of far greater value, than the property of the poor?

A police officer, taken individually, is not some rich man in cahoots with other rich men. A police officer is simply another person who makes maybe $45,000 per year to do a job. That job is to enforce the law, and most cops will arrest a rich man for stealing just as readily as a poor man.

[David Floyd]

Will a bank loan him money, as readily as it will someone who is already wealthy?

Why should it? That wouldn't be a good investment. Unfortunately, people's mistakes in the past sometimes haunt them in the future. That concept is also known as "consequences".

What if the poor man cannot find ready employment in the city, yet he still must live, and eat? How will he accrue wealth at such a rate as to become wealthy?

Well, apparently, if you were poor you'd simply find a way to steal your way into wealth.

[Az]

So you agree that the essence of your proposal is that as long as I "give" you my money, I won't get hurt?

No, but you will be hurt much less.

Now you're changing your story. Mutilated? Perhaps not. My ass kicked? Probably, yes. Either way, my rights are being grossly violated. Surely you won't argue that it's OK to find some way to rob me of $200, as long as you don't hurt me?

I am not changing the story. We're comparing here the loss of utility from taxation ( taking your money without violence), and forcible organ harvesting ( violence + intrusive operation ). I said that an intrusive operation is akin to mutilation.

[M. Robespierre]

and most cops will arrest a rich man for stealing just as readily as a poor man.

You evade my point. Will the police care if a poor man has something stolen from him, of little value to anyone but himself? Or will they care if a rich man loses something of great value? They will respond in the latter instance, and not in the former.

Yet the poor, would most certainly be arrested for robbing someone else. So again, how do the poor benefit from the police?

He doesn't have a right to my money, just because he has none of his own.

But does that give you the right to blame the homeless for their plight? Rather, I would think that their cause should inspire mercy, particularly on the behalf of the wealthy.

There are two ways to go about doing so. The first, is to support such men through the state, and the apparatus of the state, employed to enforce the collection. The second is to rely upon voluntary donations.

Your statements rule out the second option, for you clearly do not feel any mercy for these people, so society has no option but to support these people.

[M. Robespierre]

Why should it? That wouldn't be a good investment. Unfortunately, people's mistakes in the past sometimes haunt them in the future. That concept is also known as "consequences".

So all the homeless are responsible for their plight? Their wounds are self-inflicted? I should only hope, that you find yourself in a similar situation, where one could learn empathy for the poor.

Well, apparently, if you were poor you'd simply find a way to steal your way into wealth.

If one opposes taxation to assist these people, as well as charitable donations, to what option have you left the poor, but to rob their more fortunate neighbours? They must survive, and their survival ought to weigh of more value than mere property.

[Proteus_MST]

If schools were run like businesses and you therefore would have just the rich getting the best Education and poorer people getting little to not one (because they would have no money to afford school) it would also mean, that many people who for example would have become great scientists if they had gotten the proper education (which unfortunately their parents couldn´t afford) would end like other poor people, on the streets).

So, Society as a whole would suffer for the Benefit of a few (because Inventions which these poor people would have made, if proper educated) couldn´t be made (because none of these rich, educated people was gifted enough, to invent them)

[David Floyd]

Azazel,

I am not changing the story. We're comparing here the loss of utility from taxation ( taking your money without violence), and forcible organ harvesting ( violence + intrusive operation ). I said that an intrusive operation is akin to mutilation.

Sure, an intrusive operation is akin to mutilation, but you miss the point. Mutilating me is wrong, and robbing me without mutiliating me is wrong. Saying that one is "less wrong" is a value judgment I don't necessarily agree with, but you don't seem to dispute the fact that both are wrong.

Robespierre,

You evade my point. Will the police care if a poor man has something stolen from him, of little value to anyone but himself? Or will they care if a rich man loses something of great value? They will respond in the latter instance, and not in the former.

If a poor person's car is stolen, then the police will certainly investigate and prosecute those involved. If a poor person has his lucky rabbit's foot stolen, the police won't do anything, primarily because it would be next to impossible to recover the property and find the perp.

Yet the poor, would most certainly be arrested for robbing someone else.

Not if they stole someone's lucky rabbit's foot, but certainly if they stole someone's car

But does that give you the right to blame the homeless for their plight?

I don't blame the homeless in every case, but most of them probably have made bad decisions contributing to their homelessness. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

Rather, I would think that their cause should inspire mercy, particularly on the behalf of the wealthy.

There are two ways to go about doing so. The first, is to support such men through the state, and the apparatus of the state, employed to enforce the collection. The second is to rely upon voluntary donations.

Your statements rule out the second option, for you clearly do not feel any mercy for these people, so society has no option but to support these people.

When did I ever say I don't "feel mercy" towards poor people? Actually, I have donated to charity in the past.

Further, are you claiming that you would not donate to charity if there was no "social safety net"? If not, then why should I be forced to do so?

And finally, there certainly IS another option, and that option is to not force me to support others. If that means some people starve to death, then so be it. It sucks, but you can't say that I had an obligation to give them food or money.

But let's talk about reality. Realistically, poor people - the TRULY poor - DO have options that don't involve coercion. There are soup kitchens, churches, YMCAs, and things of that nature that are more than happy to lend a hand.

[Az]

So, Society as a whole would suffer for the Benefit of a few (because Inventions which these people would have made, if proper educated) couldn´t be made (because none of these rich, educated people was gifted enough, to invent them)

I think you're missing the point with Libertarians. They don't care.