4 ms·
He is promoting progressive taxation as an enabler of social justice, not individual justice. There's a difference. He acknowledges your point that the debate
by apinstein 17y ago
He is promoting progressive taxation as an enabler of social justice, not individual justice. There's a difference.
He acknowledges your point that the debate on flat vs progressive tax rates is a virtue vs social justice debate.
He also is debunking the idea that higher taxes hurt the economy, which is the OMG BE SCARED argument that the right uses to try to lower taxes (without a commensurate reduction in spending) in order to grow the economy and (eventually) increase the tax base. I recently wrote a similar article about this particular point (http://www.reasonablyopinionated.com/2010/02/tax-revenues-tax-cuts-and-gdp.html http://www.reasonablyopinionated.com/2010/02/tax-revenues-ta...) because the only thing that ever happens in modern history when taxes are lowered is horrible deficits. As the Slate article points out, there isn't a strong correlation between tax rates and GDP growth.
Personally I am on the side of Buffet and Spitzer on this issue and do support progressive taxation, precisely because of the social justice argument. I believe in equal opportunity, but abhor the idea of forcing equal outcomes.
What really irks me about the anti-progressive-tax crowd is how they don't even acknowledge the benefits the rich get from such a system: efficient and reliable infrastructure, political stability, and a large middle class (ie customer base). If the government did not make those investments, the overall pie would likely be smaller.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoCould you explain what you mean by "social justice"?
- apinstein 17y agoOh sorry I meant to... "Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
- yummyfajitas 17y agoThat article doesn't really explain what social justice is, nor does your quoted sentence. What does "justice on a social scale" mean? Does it mean that groups (on the "social scale") are granted the same rights as individuals? I.e., make corporate [1] personhood a fundamental concept rather than a convenient interface? The only really concrete idea I get from the wikipedia article is that an unjust government is illegitimate (without explaining what "unjust" means), and that somehow equality of outcome is desirable. [1] By corporate, I mean any large explicitly defined group of people, not strictly limited liability corporations.
- apinstein 17y agoTo me it means ensuring equal opportunity for all citizens. Historically that's included women's suffrage, ending slavery, civil rights legislation, public education, OSHA-type worker protections, fiscal policies that allow for upward mobility via opportunity and hard work, etc. I am sure others would include additional programs in the definition, but I think that anything crossing the line from providing equal opportunity to equal outcomes (ie quota programs) crosses the line of equitable treatment in the other direction.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoHow is that any different from regular justice? Women's suffrage, ending slavery and civil rights all seem like nothing more than individual justice. Also, I'm not sure how OSHA-type protections support equality of opportunity. How does removing the ability to negotiate workplace safety with one's employer create equality of opportunity? And also (more to the point), how does progressive taxation create equality of opportunity?
- apinstein 17y agoHmm good point. I was very busy today and didn't think too hard about my answers.... I think social justice is more about equality of individual justice as applied to people in different classes. I guess that's how I'd answer that. So OSHA requires protections for low-"class" workers that rich people would do if they were doing the work... something along those lines.