Allowing many people to have a shot at being uber-wealthy is dangerous
Making the uber-wealthy share the load would be bad for the economy
The middle class do not have as much of an influence on politics as the wealthy do
The idea that the middle class pay the most crippling amount of income tax is a myth
A few wealthy, a few more middle class and many lower class citizens is best
the bottom 50% make about 12.5% of the income
they sure use far more than 12,5% of the government services.
uh how has the government coddled me? I pay far more than I use.
and where does the nonsense that if you cannot afford something you should be able to get it without paying for it come from?
Turtle - you keep gloating that a certain poster has not made a sound argument in favor of progressive income taxes. If you need any solid reasons for it please read this article
Progressive tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here are but a few within the limits of the rules
You should really read the entire section as it has many more.The higher one's income, the greater the fraction of it that tends to consist of economic rent rather than rewards for any commensurate contribution to production. By definition, economic rent is a factor payment exceeding that required to place a factor in its most productive use, so it can be taxed away entirely without impairing wealth production. Consequently, in the absence of taxes specifically levied on economic rent, a steeply progressive tax on the highest incomes can be expected to fall almost exclusively on economic rent, minimizing the excess burden of such taxation.
In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.
It contains an entire section with nothing but good reasons to support a progressive income tax.
You are most welcome and I am happy to help.
Last edited by haymarket; 08-23-11 at 08:27 PM.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
Let me try again Haymarket
I disagree with the progessive income tax because it encourages the many to vote for more spending because they don't have to pay for it.
it also assumes many things I reject. I think if people are forced to pay for the government services they want, they won't vote for more and more government
you want more and more government
I do not
Last edited by upsideguy; 08-23-11 at 08:34 PM.
An Immoral Tax - WSJ.com
We are so habituated to the progressive income-tax that most conservatives, fiddling at the margins, fail to focus their ire on the basic immorality of that progressive income-tax, and the social damage it has caused.
For decades, progressive economists have tried to make what one called "the uneasy case for the progressive income tax" -- without success. That is why the debate about President Bush's tax reforms does not go nearly deep enough. The problem is the progressive income tax itself, and how it has become a cornerstone of the punish-the-rich mentality of the Democratic Party.
the second article has a rather sound destruction of the "benefits" argument for progressive income taxes
First, the basic premise of the protection theory is flawed. Government protections extend to much more than property. The Founding Fathers made clear their vision for America in the Declaration of Independence when they spoke of the “unalienable rights” of all Americans to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There is no basis for believing that a low-income person’s life is worth more or less to an individual (as contrasted with an insurance actuary, an economist, or a jury assessing damages in a wrongful death case) than the life of a high-income person. The same is true for liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The American military and other protective agencies and institutions of government exist to protect and preserve these rights for all Americans equally, regardless of how rich or poor they are.