Why should rich people pay a greater share of their wealth to taxes?

Do you have an ethical argument in favor of taxing progressive taxation or not?

I haven't seen an ethical argument by you or anyone else here that shows that it isn't; just nebulous claims that it's 'unfair' to take different amounts from different people.

I can see that you have no problem exempting those under the poverty line from taxes; how can you be for that, but be against charging additional taxes to those over the 'rich' line?

They are two sides of the same coin:

we justify taking less or no taxes from the poor, because they can't possibly afford to pay the same rates as everyone else without causing massive disruption to their lives. We justify taking more taxes than the rich, because they most certainly an afford to pay higher rates than everyone else without causing even minor disruption to their lives.

We are all entitled to profit somewhat off of the money earned by everyone else in society. That's how the social compact, and the concept of a shared society, works.

Can you point to any country who has a truly flat tax, which seems to be what you are proposing (with the exemptions for the poor, noted) who has experienced success with their system? Where it can be shown to have greatly benefited all members of society for them to do so? I have looked at the list of countries who employ a flat tax rate, and they are most decidedly not economic leaders of our world...

Is it wrong to make much more money than other people? If so, why?

If someone makes much more money than me, am I entitled to some of it? If not, why?

You get more, you should pay more.

Can you imagine the complexity of the situation you describe here?

As it is, I don't understand the moral basis for arguing that more money should be left with people who aren't harmed in any way by taking it

I don't see anything wrong with the majority deciding a minority pays less but I see potential abuses when the majority decides a minority should pay more.

What is your point? Flat tax is certainly not popular, progressive tax is called a populist position for a reason and the bottom line is that it's more popular than flat tax is.

Quote:

We are all entitled to profit somewhat off of the money earned by everyone else in society. That's how the social compact, and the concept of a shared society, works.

This is an interesting concept, if it's not just a general feeling you have and is argued at greater length elsewhere I would be interested in seeing the arguments.

Does that sentiment extend to property rights?

The premises are inferential, of course, but very plain.

Don't be a whiner, i wasn't trying to make you look bad.

Conservatives often attempt to suggest that taxes "punish" the wealthy and are intended to redistribute wealth. I was bemused to see you advance such arguments.

I haven't been "ranting" about taxes, "but then again this isn't really a [statement] so much as an attempt to portray me negatively."

In fact, i've been making posts which directly address the costs and benefits of small businesses, and the inordinate benefits which large earners derive--directly or indiractly--from infrastructure and public saftey services. At no time did i indulge a rant, or introduce any sort of "us and them" argument.

Neither the title nor your opening post called for ethical arguments, and you know as well as i do that trying to make people in such a discussion hew to a narrow path is, as it is popularly expressed, the equivalent of herding cats.

Finally, i've already made an ethical case--perhaps you weren't paying attention.

You get more, you should pay more.

Yes, in my opinion it does; but this is in large part because I advocate a much more socialist societal structure than the current one we have, informed by different values and morals. I understand that not everyone feels that way, but I think there would be several large advantages for humanity gained by moving to such a system, especially given our population growth and limited resources.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, in my opinion it does; but this is in large part because I advocate a much more socialist societal structure than the current one we have, informed by different values and morals. I understand that not everyone feels that way, but I think there would be several large advantages for humanity gained by moving to such a system, especially given our population growth and limited resources.

Meh, I've lived the hippy dream (grew up in a 100% socialistic society, far more than places like the USSR) and don't recommend it.

As a quick side note (I don't want to get too distracted by socialism) do you not think that taking that too far will merely reduce the total pie to share in the first place?

That's funny; the Conservatives here spend all their time arguing that there is a much greater potential abuse when the majority decides a minority should pay less. I hope that sheds a little light on the argument for you that one is correct and the other is not.

Quote:

What is your point? Flat tax is certainly not popular, progressive tax is called a populist position for a reason and the bottom line is that it's more popular than flat tax is.

How can you even ask what my point is?

I asked if you could provide any evidence that the system you propose is one which works in the real world, and the answer seems to be that you cannot or are unwilling to do so.

From an ethical point of view, as a citizen who is interested in the continued existence and expansion of our economy, the question of whether or not such a system works or not is of the greatest importance.

It does no good to chase some mythical sense of 'fairness' if you crash your economy or limit your ability to succeed in the process.

Your interests are of little concern to me. If you find what i post uninteresting, don't waste your time and mine by responding.

I don't pretend to know every detail of how such a system would work, but I think it's worth discussing.

If someone makes much more money than me, am I entitled to some of it? If not, why?

Um, you title says "Wealth". I am flat against confiscating wealth. I hope you meant income.

Robert Gentel wrote:

If someone makes much more money than me, am I entitled to some of it? If not, why?

It seems you are conflating taxation with wealth redistribution.

The people who are conflating it are the ones who justify progressive tax on the basis of it being "retribution" for various social injustices or a way to prevent the rich from accumulating too much wealth. I am the guy who disagrees with those arguments and am trying to illustrate why.