Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Deity Dude]

Here we go with the same old tired arguments again.

People are incapable of governing themselves so other people have to do it for them.

The bureaucrats most far removed from your situation know better what to do with your money then you do yourself.

Even thought slavery is outlawed, the government has the right to take from you, thru force if necessary, any amount of money it decides. This in essence makes me a slave of the government giving them my labor for free and against my will.

If the people here for redistribution of wealth thru threat of imprisonment (i.e. income tax) were honest, what they would want would be a system whereby the entire earth's mean income were calculated. Then everyone above that mean (as I suspect everyone here is) would be taxed down to the mean. Actually below it if you consider the built-in inefficiency of the government transfering all that money around.

But that isn't what they want. What they really want is everyone who earns more then THEM to be taxed more. Then either have that money redistributed to THEMSELVES or have the government fund THIER pet project (whether it be the road THEY want, the education program THEY want or whatever else)

Governments have a few legitimate functions. Protection and Defense of its citizens (i.e. Military and Police with limited powers) A limited court system. A few regulatory agencies to monitor things that all humans by the nature of our existance must share (water, air, land etc). If the other services and functions are so great why are we FORCED to pay for them. I would much rather see a system where we keep all of our own money (except for items listed above) and then if the government wants to make services available for a price I can choose to buy them or not. I'm sure the quality of the services would improve and the cost would go down. In addition, no one would be forced to pay for something they dont want.

Now before everyone posts the doom and gloom scenarios remember a few things.

I don't go to the government to buy my food. By the arguments I heard above, one could argue that food is such an important thing that it just cant be left to the private sector. "People would starve... Only the rich would eat." But that isnt the way it is. Now if we were forced to go to the govt for free food and were also taxed to pay for it, I would be willing to bet that food prices would go up. Furthermore, there would be one grocery chain and perhaps one restaurant chain. The choices would probably be extremely limited and I would probably stand in line for hours as the bureaucrat checked everyone's food card.

I am not forced to go to the government and use its transportation. If so there would probably 1 or 2 types of cars to choose from and the would cost alot more and run like sh1t.

I don't go to the government for my clothing. If so we would all probably be wearing the same shirt and pants and pay alot more for them.

I don't go to the government for my shelter. If so, we would all probably live in the same style of dwelling. It would probably cost more and be worse. Without pride of ownership it would also not be as well maintained.

Let's see. Food, Shelter, Clothing, Transportation those are all necessities that people purchase thru the free market system. In most cases the government doesn't even attempt to offer a competing service because it can't.

OK lets look at education now. Why are we to believe that the free market cant handle education. I would much rather keep my school taxes and whatever portion of my state and federal goes to that. Then take the $8,000 or $10,000 a year and shop the market for the school that best suits my children's needs.

Same goes for healthcare, retirement funding and probably just about every other "service" the government forces me to buy from them whether I want/need it or not.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Taking my money and giving it to others impacts my quality of life, you know.

In response, I'll quote myself...

I'm not going to shed tears for someone who have to settle for a $9.5 million house that has that and this that needs to be fixed instead of that brand new $10 million house he could have gotten if it was not for the tax.

$9.5 million due to higher taxes versus to $10 million due to lower taxes. I doubt that people who earn $30,000 per year will feel bad for you.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Proteus -

Wrong, my folks would have probably sent me to a Catholic school, paid tuition, and I might have taken it more seriously. Looking back, 12 years to learn what I did was a waste of several years. But that was partly my fault...

Of course,
Schools funded by chruches (may it be christian, jewish, islamic or the like) might be a way for poor people to get a proper education nevertheless.
But it also involves a grave danger, that of extremism.
If church has full control about what they teach (as poor people could only go to a christian/jewish/islamic church or get no education at all) they could also decide to tech some things less than others (for example rather teach the Christian Version of Creation than the Theory of Evolution) or teach their pupils in this way as to make clear that their Religion is superior to all others (for example by not teching the pupils how other Religions believe in their gods or even telling lies about other religions).
You could have very fast a bunch of religious extremists in your country. Just look at the ongoing war between cahtolics and protestants in Ireland.
Especially children are very easy to influence, so if you train them properly, they might be nice warrios for Christ, Allah or whoever.

Originally posted by Berzerker

Most jobs in this country involve on the job training. You act as if people wouldn't seek or couldn't afford educations if not for government, that's just flat out wrong.

Sounds like the welfare system. Businesses seek out people and they would do so even more with expanded training programs if they didn't have the state subsidising their training programs, and they'd be one helluva lot more efficient. There's an irony to that, the left complains about big business and subsidies but support the biggest business subsidy of all...

I think larger Corporations would fund only education which is of use for them, so there might be a lot of fields of educations which wouldn´t get funded.
Just look at research. If Industry funds research Projects, thexy usually wants results which they can use in a profitable manner and this best as fast as possible.
But fields in Basic Research, which don´t yield profitable results in the near future (but might be important in the far future) will get much less funding.

Originally posted by Berzerker

Ah, so now we get down the real motive - envy. So what if the rich get richer?

Yes, that may be the difference between our points of view.
I rather have a society where even the poor members have a certain standard of living, rather than a few rich people and a lot of poor people, who are fully dependend on the charity of others for their survival.
Maybe I´d think different if it would be fully according to survival of the fittest.
All children, regardless of having poor or rich parents get the same Basic Level of Education. Then, they get their expanded Level of Education (college/university) according to their wishes and abilities (which are tested, for example by IQ-Tests and the like).
Upon Adolescence all of them get a certain amount of money and then are on their own (and don´t get any help of their Parents from this point on).
Some might be successful, others might fail, and be dependend on the charity of others, but everyone had the same chance to develop and get rich.
That´s what I call equal chances

Originally posted by Berzerker

Most starvation in the world is man-made, warring factions or dictators using food as a weapon. The worst starvations were caused by extremely non-libertarian governments, The Irish potato famine, the Ukraine under Stalin, Mao's "cultural purges", and Somalia and Ethiopia... If you see mass starvation, you'll most likely see government as that cause.

AFAIK there was also Starvation in Corporate America and England and the like, during the 19th century, where we had Circumstances which are decribed in this thread, i.e. mighty industry barons which had a lot of freedoms and a lot of poor people who where fully dependend on them.
It was a time where the individual worker had to work more than 40 hours a week and also during the weekends.
It was also the time where a worker, because he got ill, was fired and afterwards ended as a beggar in the streets (Christmas Carol is something which was written during this time and somehow illustrates how people lived there )

[Barinthus]

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?

Help those in need only if you have means and it'd not negatively impact your life too much.

Take Bill Gates, $1 million to him is like a nickel to me so why not use that money for greater good? He is after all, he has a foundation.

However a kidney is very personal matter. It is part of your own body. I'd not expect anybody to just give away their kidneys like that. If someone wish to do so, kudos to him. Money is an entirely different matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Here we go with the same old tired arguments again.

People are incapable of governing themselves so other people have to do it for them.

The bureaucrats most far removed from your situation know better what to do with your money then you do yourself.

Even thought slavery is outlawed, the government has the right to take from you, thru force if necessary, any amount of money it decides. This in essence makes me a slave of the government giving them my labor for free and against my will.

You are free to not work- or to work for free and grow your own food and then barter for all your other needs. You are free, as it were, not to use the currency made by the US government. As The Mad Vking stated, currency is the creation of a state- you accept certain obligations by using it. Feel free to move out if you trully feel that this is too much, and you fail to convince the citizens of the polity to change the system

Advice all the liberterians here are free to take as well.

[/QUOTE]

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by 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.

Too few rich? UCLA professors did a study and their consclusion was that if the State of California was to raise taxes on the wealthy by a small amount (I cannot recall the figures and I cannot locate the source but this amount is very insignificant), the State would easily have $15 billion in extra renevue right there.

I say to progressive taxes.

EDIT: Ah, I found the information I mentioned above...

"Soak" perhaps isn't the mot juste. The proposal most frequently heard in Sacramento is to restore the 10% and 11% tax brackets that were dropped from the state tax code in 1995, when 9.3% was set as the top rate. The change would produce $2 billion to $3 billion a year in additional revenue, which plainly would do much to cut into the state's apparently permanent annual deficit of $7 billion.

(This is not the only proposal out there. Professors John Bachar of Cal State Long Beach and Paul O'Lague of UCLA have proposed a temporary surcharge of up to 7% on the wealthy, which they say would raise more than $13 billion a year. That would place the state budget on a gratifyingly firm footing, though at the risk of scaring some potentates into seeing socialists under their beds.)

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


You are free to not work- or to work for free and grow your own food and then barter for all your other needs. You are free, as it were, not to use the currency made by the US government. As The Mad Vking stated, currency is the creation of a state- you accept certain obligations by using it. Feel free to move out if you trully feel that this is too much, and you fail to convince the citizens of the polity to change the system

Advice all the liberterians here are free to take as well.

Im not sure what country you are from - but in the US ALL INCOMEIS TAXED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. If I grow my own food and barter with a construction person to build my house that is a taxable transaction. So your assertation in regards to that is false. In fact "currency" is used less and less in transactions.

Your next statemetn says if I use state created currency I am subject to some implicit agreement (not even stated on the currency) with the state. I would agree if it weren't illegal for me to manufacture my own but it is.

As for moving out if I don't like the situation. There are many problems with this attitude. First of all, the various governments of the world wont just let me move around wherever I want. Second of all, just because a better alternative to somethin isnt readily available doesn't mean I can't be critical of it or try to improve it. Third and most important, why do you feel the government has the right to give me the choice of partial enslavement or having leave the country. Would you have a problem if a group of people came to you and said "pay me this money on a monthly basis or else" Where I come from we call that the Mafia and of course the government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

nye is making the most sense here... the fact is progressive taxation is required because otherwise you'd have a messy and bloody revolution on your hands where the poorer people take everything from the rich. With progressive taxation, the rich are affording some protection.

It's a practical thing, see?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Im not sure what country you are from - but in the US ALL INCOME IS TAXED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. If I grow my own food and barter with a construction person to build my house that is a taxable transaction. So your assertation in regards to that is false. In fact "currency" is used less and less in transactions.

Currency is used, only not in it's physical form. As for being taxed-heck, if you feel it is slavery, act like a man and resist- join the black market and barter, without reporting any of it. And of course be ready to accept the consequences of your "principled stance"

Your next statemetn says if I use state created currency I am subject to some implicit agreement (not even stated on the currency) with the state. I would agree if it weren't illegal for me to manufacture my own but it is.

You are free not to use US currency (again, barter), in fact, the fact it is illegal for you to many it on your own shows the true nature of it. You are also free to leave the US and move elsewhere if you dislike the government the polity has chosen.

As for moving out if I don't like the situation. There are many problems with this attitude. First of all, the various governments of the world wont just let me move around wherever I want. Second of all, just because a better alternative to somethin isnt readily available doesn't mean I can't be critical of it or try to improve it. Third and most important, why do you feel the government has the right to give me the choice of partial enslavement or having leave the country. Would you have a problem if a group of people came to you and said "pay me this money on a monthly basis or else" Where I come from we call that the Mafia and of course the government.

"The Government" in the US is a creation of the Polity. People vote for their government (or freely abdicate this choice by not voting), and every so many years they get the chance to change course if they don;t like what was done. So the polity has chosen a set of rules to govern itself freely, free of cohersion (at least here in the US).

Face reality- humanity is not libertarian, and people, if given a choice, renounce libertarianism. Perhaps all of ya'll should gather all your money, buy some small island, and install your fanatsy liberterian polity there.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
nye is making the most sense here... the fact is progressive taxation is required because otherwise you'd have a messy and bloody revolution on your hands where the poorer people take everything from the rich. With progressive taxation, the rich are affording some protection.

It's a practical thing, see?

Again, I have to disagree. The only revolution that ever took place where I am from (US) was because we were being taxed. We revolted and formed a new govt. One of the provisions of that govt was that Income tax was illegal. It remained so until the people were conned by the government and were told a temporary emergency income tax of 1% on the rich only, would be put in place to fund the Civil War and again in WWI. So as citizens do so often, we gave away some of our rights for a "better cause" and changed the Constitution. (sounds like the justification I hear for the Patriot Act and just about every other bad idea the govt comes up with)

Income taxes remained insignificant until the late 50's and early 60's.

That's almost 200 years of steady growth and prosperity without having to rely on making citizens slaves of the government. There were no revolutions.

I will admit that in other countries that didn't have a free market system there were revolutions. But that had more to do with a King or some other ruler who arbitrailly took wealth from the masses I may be wrong here, but I know of no free market republic that had a revolution because there weren't enough taxes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only revolution that ever took place where I am from (US) was because we were being taxed. We revolted and formed a new govt. One of the provisions of that govt was that Income tax was illegal. It remained so until the people were conned by the government and were told a temporary emergency income tax of 1% on the rich only, would be put in place to fund the Civil War and again in WWI. So as citizens do so often, we gave away some of our rights for a "better cause" and changed the Constitution. (sounds like the justification I hear for the Patriot Act and just about every other bad idea the govt comes up with)

Income taxes remained insignificant until the late 50's and early 60's.

You are mistaken on US history. The taxes which the revolt came from were sales tax and import duties, which were STILL in effect after the revolution. Income taxes weren't even on the horizon for the colonies (or in Britain at the time).

Secondly, there was NO income tax during the Civil War. There was a reason there had to be a Constitutional Amendment requiring it around 1917.

Income taxes in the 50s and 60s were GREAT! The top 1% payed 90%-70% of their income to the federal government during that era! Where do you get 'insignificant' from?!

That's almost 200 years of steady growth and prosperity without having to rely on making citizens slaves of the government. There were no revolutions.

There would have been without that amendment. Look at how the Communist Party had been growing by leaps and bounds. If by the 1930s we didn't have a progressive tax, we'd be in some sort of Socialist state right now.

[Flubber]

To use ben kenobi's argument in all the gay marriage threads . . . of course it is not discrimination as all people are free to earn less and less mmoney and thereby pay less taxes . . No one is discriminated against as we all have this ability . .. LOL

Seriously though
I don't have a great deal of problem with the purpose of progressive taxation. The idea that the best-off pay a slightly larger share has some merit if the goal is to provide basic standards of living for the poor. It is probably true that on average the rich "use" more government services but thats arguable. IN this thread we have already seen the arguments about who benefits from something as simple as a road.

What I dislike is the implementation. . . In Canada and the US and I suspect most of Europe, what ends up happening is a tax code that gets so complicated that only the lawyers and accountants for the wealthy actually understand it and the "progressive" rates impact a lot of people that are middle class. It appears that a lot of the super wealthy are able to utilize shelters and tricks so that they pay nowhere near what the progressive rates would suggest. My experience is that the middle class gets the shaft as they are hit by the higher rates but don't have the resources needed to set up tax devices to pay less tax

I would prefer simpler tax systems with flatter rates and an elimination of a bunch of loopholes.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Again, I have to disagree. The only revolution that ever took place where I am from (US) was because we were being taxed. We revolted and formed a new govt.

Actually the issue was taxation without representation. People didn't have any problem with taxes as long they were represented. The Parilment said they're already represented via the concept of virtual representation while the colonials wanted the direct representation. Hence the revolution.

Interesting enough, the people behind the scene of the revolution were the wealthy landowners, not the common man in the taverns.

[Deity Dude]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You are mistaken on US history. The taxes which the revolt came from were sales tax and import duties, which were STILL in effect after the revolution. Income taxes weren't even on the horizon for the colonies (or in Britain at the time).

You didn't read what I said. I said we revolted because of taxes not income taxes.

Secondly, there was NO income tax during the Civil War. There was a reason there had to be a Constitutional Amendment requiring it around 1917.

There was an income tax during the Civil War. It was later ruled unconstitutional. Hence the need for a Contitutional Amendment when it was reenacted in 1917.

Income taxes in the 50s and 60s were GREAT! The top 1% payed 90%-70% of their income to the federal government during that era! Where do you get 'insignificant' from?!

You misread me again. I said they were relatively insignificant UNTIL the 50's - 60's. And If you like a 90% Income Tax Rate.... Well I don't know how to respond to that.

There would have been without that amendment. Look at how the Communist Party had been growing by leaps and bounds. If by the 1930s we didn't have a progressive tax, we'd be in some sort of Socialist state right now.

Again, significant Income Taxes didn't start until the 50's. We made it thru the Depression without it. If the Communist Party couldn't have made its move during the depression it certainly wasn't going to during Leave it to Beaver.

And besides, we are in "some sort of Socialist state right now"

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Flubber

What I dislike is the implementation. . . In Canada and the US and I suspect most of Europe, what ends up happening is a tax code that gets so complicated that only the lawyers and accountants for the wealthy actually understand it and the "progressive" rates impact a lot of people that are middle class. It appears that a lot of the super wealthy are able to utilize shelters and tricks so that they pay nowhere near what the progressive rates would suggest. My experience is that the middle class gets the shaft as they are hit by the higher rates but don't have the resources needed to set up tax devices to pay less tax

I would prefer simpler tax systems with flatter rates and an elimination of a bunch of loopholes.

This is so true.
Here in Germany we also have a system which has progressive Taxation but also chances to get lot of refunds for expenses which are necessary for your job.
There are a lot of Tax consultants, who earn a fortune by using every Trick available to make their clients pay less taxes.
As a result especially the rich people often are paying the least amount of taxes.
You have People who earn a million Euro per years, but nevertheless because of clever Tax consultants don´t pay more taxes than people with 100k Euro a year.
And some big Companies have even managed to not only pay not a single Euro in Taxes, but also instead getting Tax Refunds.

There are Plans to make the german Tax System more simple, with a smaller percentage of the income having to be paid as taxes, but at the same time getting rid of all ways to get Tax refunds.
But at the moment we are far away from making such a new system reality.

[Aeson]

It is discrimination, and I think that progressive taxation is somewhat shortsighted.

That is not to say that I think that the wealthy shouldn't be giving back more to society. Just that long term the likelyhood of our society finally reaching a level of understanding that results in the voluntary and just distribution of wealth is lessened due to the inherent imbalance of the system. It further reinforces lines that have been drawn between the wealthy and the poor, and the justification for those lines in each group's mentality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You didn't read what I said. I said we revolted because of taxes not income taxes.

Yet this is a discussion on income taxes. And we revolted because of a lack of representation. We had nothing against taxes in general.

There was an income tax during the Civil War. It was later ruled unconstitutional. Hence the need for a Contitutional Amendment when it was reenacted in 1917.

Hmmm, you are correct about the income tax during the Civil War. But it was ruled unconstitutional after the court had originally ruled it constitutional. And the date of the 16th Amendment was actually 1913 (I looked it up), so it wasn't for WW1, because it hadn't even started in Europe at that time.

http://www.archives.gov/publications...x_records.html

The Civil War taxes were not immediately repealed at the end of the war but continued in force until 1872, when the Grant administration sponsored the repeal of most of the "emergency" taxes. The tax on whiskey remained in force. Between 1868 and 1881 the U.S. Supreme Court responded to challenges regarding the validity of the Civil War taxes on dividends, real estate, inheritances, and income tax by upholding the constitutionality of those taxes. 2 Fifteen years later the Populists attempted to revive the income tax and Congress passed a law providing for a new 2 percent tax on incomes over $4,000. But the Supreme Court surprised the nation, reversing its earlier decision and declaring the law unconstitutional in 1895. This ruling, declaring that an income tax is a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional, led to the ratification of the sixteenth amendment in 1913.

I said they were relatively insignificant UNTIL the 50's - 60's.

http://www.taxhistory.org/Articles/taxjustice.htm

Incorrect:

Policymakers broadened the base, increasing the number of taxpayers tenfold between 1939 and 1945. They also established a highly progressive rate structure, with rates reaching 94 percent for the richest taxpayers. Together, these changes made the individual income tax a fiscal workhorse; between 1939 and 1945, revenues soared from $1.0 billion to $18.4 billion.

We made it thru the Depression without it.

The rich were taxed a good amount during the Depression. How else did we pay for such a massive expansion in government?

And besides, we are in "some sort of Socialist state right now"

Bollocks! If you actually saw a socialist state (ie, Eastern Europe during the Cold War), you probably wouldn't be saying such things. After all, you have bought many things today, I bet, that are products of a market system.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

what about a graduated progressive tax? is that better than straight up progressive tax?

[Sandman]

The rich don't need all their money. Simple, really. They'd never, ever voluntarily donate enough to stop the poor dying by the thousand.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DataAeolus
Interesting enough, the people behind the scene of the revolution were the wealthy landowners, not the common man in the taverns.

The revolution started among dirt farmers who wanted debt relief. The Founding Fathers got involved in order to coopt the revolution from it's natural levelling impulse. Of cuorse, they had been laying the ideological groundwork for over a decade before the farmers revolted.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[
Yet this is a discussion on income taxes. And we revolted because of a lack of representation. We had nothing against taxes in general.

You stated that there would be a revolution if it weren't for these taxes. My point was that the only revoluition in my country's history was about taxes. And the revolt wasn't that they wanted more.

Hmmm, you are correct about the income tax during the Civil War. But it was ruled unconstitutional after the court had originally ruled it constitutional. And the date of the 16th Amendment was actually 1913 (I looked it up), so it wasn't for WW1, because it hadn't even started in Europe at that time.

Sorry about being off by a couple years but the point is still valid, It was illegal for most of the history of this country and the country prospered without a revolt for more taxes.

Incorrect:

Policymakers broadened the base, increasing the number of taxpayers tenfold between 1939 and 1945. They also established a highly progressive rate structure, with rates reaching 94 percent for the richest taxpayers. Together, these changes made the individual income tax a fiscal workhorse; between 1939 and 1945, revenues soared from $1.0 billion to $18.4 billion.

It was broadened and laid the horrible foundation for what was to come but was still relatively insignificant. I'm sure people were told during WWII that the tax was needed to finance the war. In fact, I probably got my history mixed up a little and thought it was Civil War and WWI when we were told that lie when it was actually Civil War and WWII.

The rich were taxed a good amount during the Depression. How else did we pay for such a massive expansion in government?

I'm talking from memory here and don't have time to look up all detals but even your sources say it built up during the war years (1939-1945) not during the depression. If I remeberr an economist came along named Keynes who convinced Roosevelt to fund massive programs thru deficit spending. (another dangerous precedent)

[

Bollocks! If you actually saw a socialist state (ie, Eastern Europe during the Cold War), you probably wouldn't be saying such things. After all, you have bought many things today, I bet, that are products of a market system.

There are different degrees of Socialism. The US isn't as socialist/communist as Cold War Russia or Eastern Europe but it is still socialist. Redistribution of wealth thru a progressive tax system is an element of a socialist society.

And I still stand by the point that there havn't been any revolutions in free-market socieites because taxes weren't high enough.

I also stand by my point that societies are more prosperous and content when they are more free not less free. Societies are more prosperous and content when governments take as little of the people's money as possible.

[David Floyd]

I'm sure people were told during WWII that the tax was needed to finance the war. In fact, I probably got my history mixed up a little and thought it was Civil War and WWI when we were told that lie when it was actually Civil War and WWII.

There was an income tax in WW1, as well. Which only makes me wonder whether, without an income tax, the US would have gotten involved in wars like that to begin with. Hmmm....another point against income taxes...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Graduated Progressive Income Tax

First $35,000 taxed at 0%
Next $25,000 taxed at 10%
Next $20,000 taxed at 20%
Next $60,000 taxed at 30%
any income above $140,000 taxed at 35%

(or something to that effect)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sandman
The rich don't need all their money. Simple, really. They'd never, ever voluntarily donate enough to stop the poor dying by the thousand.

It doesn't require donation, to say so is to reinforce the idea that the current distribution of wealth is the right one. Distribution is the problem, and re-distribution after the fact doesn't solve it even if it does help negate some of the symptoms. It covers up the real problem, and does so in a manner which further reinforces it.

[GePap]

To all the liberterians- think it so imoral, then stand up and fight the system- stop paying your taxes..but be ready to deal with the results of your actions as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You stated that there would be a revolution if it weren't for these taxes. My point was that the only revoluition in my country's history was about taxes.

Yes in modern times if you didn't have progressive taxes you'd have a revolution.

And the revolution was only about taxes in the same way that Schindler's List was only about Jews. It was about representation!

It was illegal for most of the history of this country and the country prospered without a revolt for more taxes.

Yes, and the Communist Manifesto wasn't written until the 1850s, which was what really galvanized the working classes.

There were plenty of demonstrations which were prevented from reaching revolt only by use of the military. I'm sure che could detail it for you. Such as the union riots in the late 1800s, such as the ones in Chicago which had to be put down by Pinkerton men.

But go ahead, go to a flat tax and see if you don't get any revolts. Hehe.

but was still relatively insignificant.

I'm sure those 1% didn't think so.

I'm talking from memory here and don't have time to look up all detals but even your sources say it built up during the war years (1939-1945) not during the depression.

Yes, INCREASES in taxes during the war years. But there had to be substantial taxes during the Depression to cover the cost. It wasn't total deficit spending, or else the deficit would have skyrocketed higher than it did.

There are different degrees of Socialism. The US isn't as socialist/communist as Cold War Russia or Eastern Europe but it is still socialist. Redistribution of wealth thru a progressive tax system is an element of a socialist society.

Only if you think any government program is enough to make a country 'socialist'. Open markets is an element of a capitalist society. And socialism and capitalism are diametrically opposed, so I'm saying the 1st world is totally capitalist.

And I still stand by the point that there havn't been any revolutions in free-market socieites because taxes weren't high enough.

Weimar Germany? Debt load was crushing, a lot of it because they couldn't raise the funds to pay the reparations (ie, their taxes were too low). Bourgeois Russia? That was a free market society for the 6 months it existed. Inter-war Italy?

Fact is, most free market societies realized real quick that they had to provide social programs to prevent social unrest (such as the 1846 revolutions). Why do you think they all did it? Especially when you had a great communist power bloc staring you in the face.

[Ned]

That is exactly what we have in the US, Lawrence.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

oh really? haha i didnt know that.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Is a progressive tax system discrimination aginst rich people?

No, it's discrimination against the poor.

[Dauphin]

Keeping graduated progressive taxation at a static level is a great way of raising tax revenues without actually raising taxes. Its a stealth tax raise that few will notice.