The difference being permanence. A man will always be a man (with admitted exceptions). A black person will always be black (with admitted exceptions). But a poor college student might someday be a rich engineer.
Let's take an example from the private sector. If I overdraft my account, I get a fee. Overdraft fees are overwhelmingly charged to poorer account holders. Is that discriminatory? Now, if overdraft fees were exclusively reserved for black clients, would that be discriminatory?
Your example A: no; Your example B: yes; however...
You're equating financial success with having don something
wrong, ie over-drafting an account. This is consistent with the liberal premise that the rich are somehow evil and therefore need to be penalized.
And it goes beyond fees and penalties. The higher your balance in a CD, the higher the rate of interest.
A CD does not change it's maturity rate over time. A person, however, typicality does change their income over time.
Likewise with credit cards, the higher the debt, the greater the rate of interest.
Your equating personal income with somehow owing the government something based on the value of that income instead of the government actual needs to operate
(which necessarily precludes Obama'Care et-al)
Your financial success, your income, is not something you owe the government. You did not take money from the government the way one does a credit card company, with the promise to pay it back + a service fee.
Your net value not something which the government first owns and then decides to disperse to you. It is yours first, and the government has the
privilege to be reimbursed the cost of providing
basic services. The government's costs do not increase the more you earn the way a credit card company is taking more risk the more you borrow from them. Government costs are lowered, however, the higher income you have. Given that, the more income you make, the less tax you should have to pay, since your not drawing on government services nearly as much.
If you want a progressive taxation, then we're going to treat it like insurance classifications. You will be placed in a category with other '
similarly-situated' people, and your tax rate will be based on the risk to the government of that category. We will have a whole new tax version of a FICO score for you to determine not only your premiums, but also what benefits you can draw.
Just as a young, healthy individual who does not have a dangerous habbie or usual occupation will pay a lower premium rate then an older smoker who sky-dives, so will *some* lower income groups pay a greater % in taxes then richer groups. The more likely you are to draw from government assistance, the more taxes you will pay. Working hard and elevating yourself to a better risk category rewards you with lower taxes. Those who choose to sit around and never do anything with their lives will be punished through higher taxes accordingly.
Or we can just charge everyone a flat % across the board.
Then there's the nature of equality itself. Is it more fair that everyone pay the same rate or the same amount? Is it fair that one mail clerk makes $14/hour and one makes $8/hour?
While I advocate taxing consumption over income
(which will actually get more money out of the rich then taxing their income), either way everyone should be charged the same %. The more you earn, the higher total amount of taxes you pay. The more you buy, the more total amount of taxes you pay.
