The Progressive Income tax

Originally posted by normbenign
Your obvious, isn't so obvious to everyone. A wealthy person may live in a gated mansion, with all sorts of alarms and security, including guards.

Who gets the most benefit from police protection? The guy living in the mansion, or the single mom, where the police are routinely called for burglaries, fights with her boyfriends, and accusations that h ...[text shortened]... f services for themselves, and still pay for the public ones at much higher rates than the poor.

That is trivial.

Without society, no one could be wealthy. There'd be no money to pay guards or build mansions or whatever. The very existence of society is the only thing that allows differential states of wealth, so therefore if you are wealthy you have benefited from the existence of society. This is not to say that in some cases that your own attributes may contribute to obtaining that wealth (though often they do not); it is to say that the very existence of society is a prerequisite to wealth.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is trivial.

Without society, no one could be wealthy. There'd be no money to pay guards or build mansions or whatever. The very existence of society is the only thing that allows differential states of wealth, so therefore if you are wealthy you have benefited from the existence of society. This is not to say that in some cases that your own attr ...[text shortened]... often they do not); it is to say that the very existence of society is a prerequisite to wealth.

Is a Progressive tax a prerequisite for living in a society?

Originally posted by whodey
Is a Progressive tax a prerequisite for living in a society?

Of course not. But levels and specifics of taxation are a legitimate area of legislation by the People's elected representatives. In fact, most people are bothered more by the idea that corporations and the wealthy aren't paying enough then by your outrage over the mildly progressive nature of the overall US tax system.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-taxes/

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course not. But levels and specifics of taxation are a legitimate area of legislation by the People's elected representatives. In fact, most people are bothered more by the idea that corporations and the wealthy aren't paying enough then by your outrage over the mildly progressive nature of the overall US tax system.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-taxes/

How much taxation is enough?

Answer: It is never enough.

Originally posted by whodey
How much taxation is enough?

Answer: It is never enough.

If you says so. The share of US GNP going to taxes is about the same as it was in the early 1950s.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course not. But levels and specifics of taxation are a legitimate area of legislation by the People's elected representatives. In fact, most people are bothered more by the idea that corporations and the wealthy aren't paying enough then by your outrage over the mildly progressive nature of the overall US tax system.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-taxes/

The Holy Bible proposes an equal percentage be given by all people. So as one earns more he gives more even though he gives the same percentage as everyone else. The Holy Bible also proposes that we be charitable givers to the poor and needy. It makes it more difficult to be cheerful givers when the government is taking a much higher percentage from us than it does for others. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible proposes an equal percentage be given by all people. So as one earns more he gives more even though he gives the same percentage as everyone else. The Holy Bible also proposes that we be charitable givers to the poor and needy. It makes it more difficult to be cheerful givers when the government is taking a much higher percentage from us than it does for others. 😏

however it also says that there should not be income inequality. also the holy bible might not be the best book from which to take economic advice for the modern days.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible proposes an equal percentage be given by all people. So as one earns more he gives more even though he gives the same percentage as everyone else. The Holy Bible also proposes that we be charitable givers to the poor and needy. It makes it more difficult to be cheerful givers when the government is taking a much higher percentage from us than it does for others. 😏

Jesus in the Holy Bible says to pay your taxes ("render to Caesar what is Caesar's" - Matthew 22:21) and that a rich man has as much chance of going to Heaven as a camel does of passing through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24). So helping them out by relieving them of most of their wealth would be good for their soul.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is trivial.

Without society, no one could be wealthy. There'd be no money to pay guards or build mansions or whatever. The very existence of society is the only thing that allows differential states of wealth, so therefore if you are wealthy you have benefited from the existence of society. This is not to say that in some cases that your own attr ...[text shortened]... often they do not); it is to say that the very existence of society is a prerequisite to wealth.

It is trivial, but real. Sure if wealth is measured by money alone, without it no wealth could exist, however it is my belief that some isolated individuals may possess wealth which is not attainable in a society.

If anything, your argument says that the wealthy contribute more to society anyway by whatever activity which made them wealthy, for example Bill Gates whose wealth was generated by his business which almost everyone uses with their computers, save those who benefited by Jobs work.

To say the wealthy owe anything additional is pure jealousy. Some are more beholding to society than are others. For example, you profession is totally linked to the nation's legal system, could not exist without it. Mine prior to retirement was only tangentially linked to society by FDA regulations, and taxes. Others, have almost no link to society, other than providing services to other individuals.

In remote areas, people seem to do pretty well without society, in fact they miss out on stuff like crime, taxes, noise, and I could go on.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible proposes an equal percentage be given by all people. So as one earns more he gives more even though he gives the same percentage as everyone else. The Holy Bible also proposes that we be charitable givers to the poor and needy. It makes it more difficult to be cheerful givers when the government is taking a much higher percentage from us than it does for others. 😏

There are plenty of examples of inequality in the Holy Bible. I'm sure you can supply more than I could.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course not. But levels and specifics of taxation are a legitimate area of legislation by the People's elected representatives. In fact, most people are bothered more by the idea that corporations and the wealthy aren't paying enough then by your outrage over the mildly progressive nature of the overall US tax system.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/10/5-facts-on-how-americans-view-taxes/

People's attitudes and beliefs on taxation are often based on myths propagated by people all over the spectrum. People will generally favor taxes that they don't have to pay. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Originally posted by normbenign
People's attitudes and beliefs on taxation are often based on myths propagated by people all over the spectrum. People will generally favor taxes that they don't have to pay. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored.

I have spoken to plenty well-to-do people in Northern Europe who didn't seem to mind the highly progressive tax rates.

Of course, they were also benefiting from the massive wealth created through income redistribution.

Originally posted by quackquack
You aren't protecting someone when you allow the government to take their money through taxes. The money should belong to the person who has it and for you to decide. It is bad enough that we give each person a different bill but to make those who already contribute the most to may a higher percentage of their income as well is simply unfair and should be stopped immediately.

So you figure there should be what, a volunteer government? How would they get money for such things as roads, schools, military, things that go over the heads of individual states like the US. There is a common interest in a country made of smaller states to not be attacked by another country.

I think you would agree with that.

So with that in mind, a country with a volunteer government, how would that government be expected to deal with an overall threat like that?

Are they to expect each state to be making some bit of the common defense, like Alaska makes bullets, Florida makes rifles, New York makes tanks, Georgia volunteers to make fighter jets?

Is that the kind of situation you want?\

Suppose Alaska says 'we don't want to make bullets, let someone else make them, leave us alone.

What does that volunteer government do then?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Jesus in the Holy Bible says to pay your taxes ("render to Caesar what is Caesar's" - Matthew 22:21) and that a rich man has as much chance of going to Heaven as a camel does of passing through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24). So helping them out by relieving them of most of their wealth would be good for their soul.

Exactly, because the state is your task master and God is your salvation.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
however it also says that there should not be income inequality. also the holy bible might not be the best book from which to take economic advice for the modern days.

also it might help if you stop talking about a book you know nothing about and for which you have no respect.