• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the purpose of taxation?

What is the most important goal of tax collection?

  • Collect revenue in such a way as to minimize wage disparity

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Collect Revenue from certain groups and not from others

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,487
Reaction score
39,816
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obviously you want a tax code that accomplishes multiple things; but when two goals conflict, one has to win. So what, at the end of the day, wins?
 
to give me money
 
None of the above.

The first and foremost purpose of taxation is to pay for the services, functions, and operations that the society have deemed important.
 
all that is covered under "collect necessary revenue"
 
all that is covered under "collect necessary revenue"

You did not offer that option. The only correct option is "collect revenue for government operation and programs", which you did not include.
 
You missed another option - Collect necessary revenue needed without concentrating so much wealth at the top that it adversely affects the ability of middle class consumers to be consumers which is necessary for a prosperous economy.
 
all that is covered under "collect necessary revenue"

Yes, but it doesn't fall under “Collect necessary revenue in such a way as to maximize growth” nor “Collect necesssary revenue in such a way as to incentivize positive behaviors”.
 
You did not offer that option. The only correct option is "collect revenue for government operation and programs", which you did not include.

that is assumed. however, many different tax schemes can do that - you pick which scheme based on what guides your taxation philosophy.

claiming that taxes are for collecting revenue for government is a tautology. What should guide HOW we go about doing so?
 
You missed another option - Collect necessary revenue needed without concentrating so much wealth at the top that it adversely affects the ability of middle class consumers to be consumers which is necessary for a prosperous economy.

that sounds like either the "wealth distribution" or "wage disparity" options.
 
All taxation is harmful. Therefore, the goal of taxation must be to collect the necessary revenue while doing the least harm and getting the most value.
 
that is assumed. however, many different tax schemes can do that - you pick which scheme based on what guides your taxation philosophy.

claiming that taxes are for collecting revenue for government is a tautology. What should guide HOW we go about doing so?

So you are not asking the question that you asked? Because the only purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government and it's programs. None of the rest is a purpose of taxation.
 
that sounds like either the "wealth distribution" or "wage disparity" options.

Except that is neither wealth redistribution or wage disparity. It is progressive taxation.
 
None of the above.

The first and foremost purpose of taxation is to pay for the services, functions, and operations that the society have deemed important.
I think most people are interpreting the question wrong... from at least the way I understand it.
I think its specifically asking about the method of tax collection not the purpose of tax itself.

Like what is the most important method/goal of tax collection. The goal of a tax is to gain revenue, but there is also a separate goal for which method of tax collection you choose.
like balancing wages as such to make it more "fair".
or to structure taxes in a way to promote economic growth.
or to structure it so white people don't have to pay taxes and all the other groups need too b/c their lazy.
...just a few examples from the options we were given in the poll.
 
Last edited:
Except that is neither wealth redistribution or wage disparity. It is progressive taxation.

The only purpose and effect of “progressive taxation” is to take more from those at higher income levels, in order to give more to those at lower levels. How is this not “wealth redistribution”?

It seems to me that you are playing here a dishonest semantic game, denying that a thing is one thing, by calling it by a different name which means exactly the same as the name that you deny.
 
Last edited:
The only purpose and effect of “progressive taxation” is to take more from those at higher income levels, in order to give more to those at lower levels. How is this not “wealth redistribution”?

You're half right, the purpose of progressive taxation is to take more from those who earn more. How that tax is spent is completely irrelevant to how it is collected.
 
So you are not asking the question that you asked? Because the only purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the government and it's programs. None of the rest is a purpose of taxation.

interesting. so you do not care if we have a national sales tax v a progressive income tax?
 
You're half right, the purpose of progressive taxation is to take more from those who earn more. How that tax is spent is completely irrelevant to how it is collected.

and that is precisely why catawba is incorrect - and reducing wealth disparity is not equivalent to a progressive income tax code.
 
The only purpose and effect of “progressive taxation” is to take more from those at higher income levels, in order to give more to those at lower levels. How is this not “wealth redistribution”?

Because the government is not taking money from the rich and giving it to those at lower levels. The government is taxing the rich more to fund the government because they derive the most benefit from the services provided by the government.

It seems to me that you are playing here a dishonest semantic game, denying that a thing is one thing, by calling it by a different name which means exactly the same as the name that you deny.

Based on your assumption of what progressive taxation is, I can see why you would think that.
 
interesting. so you do not care if we have a national sales tax v a progressive income tax?

That is not what I said. They do however both serve the same purpose, raising revenue for the government and it's programs. So if your question is what it is stated, what the tax is or how it is administered is irrelevant for the question.
 
and that is precisely why catawba is incorrect - and reducing wealth disparity is not equivalent to a progressive income tax code.

You didn't say wealth disparity in your poll, you said wage disparity. Totally different in the context of taxation.
 
Because the government is not taking money from the rich and giving it to those at lower levels. The government is taxing the rich more to fund the government because they derive the most benefit from the services provided by the government.

but that fails to match you earlier argument:

Catawba said:
Collect necessary revenue needed without concentrating so much wealth at the top that it adversely affects the ability of middle class consumers to be consumers which is necessary for a prosperous economy.

which A) seemingly requires redistribution of wealth and B) is based upon the flawed notion that for the rich to be rich, the middle class must be poorer.
 
That is not what I said. They do however both serve the same purpose, raising revenue for the government and it's programs. So if your question is what it is stated, what the tax is or how it is administered is irrelevant for the question.

[later edited to conform forum rules]
 
Last edited:
Because the government is not taking money from the rich and giving it to those at lower levels. The government is taxing the rich more to fund the government because they derive the most benefit from the services provided by the government.

Actually the reasoning behind progressive taxation is to minimize the harm of taxation. The argument is that those who make more are less harmed by a higher tax level. To illustrate, if you are making just enough to pay your bills with your base salary and no taxes, any taxes at any level is very harmful. If you are making twice what you need for basic necessities, any tax rate under 50 % is less harmful than any tax at all on the first person.
 
Back
Top Bottom