3 ms·

Oh, come on. I know you get it. Taxation is a generally accepted necessary evil way to fund projects and services for the common good. A progressive tax policy

Oh, come on. I know you get it. Taxation is a generally accepted necessary evil way to fund projects and services for the common good. A progressive tax policy recognises that a person with a high income can bear a greater burden; taxing a minimum wage earner 30% of their income would have a much higher proportional effect on quality of life that someone earning, say, 200k. We seem to accept progressive taxation as fair, in the sense that it causes no more inconvenience to low earners than high earners. The comparison with a private commercial service is flawed, in the sense that engagement with it is an entirely personal choice.

msandford 11y ago
> The comparison with a private commercial service is flawed, in the sense that engagement with it is an entirely personal choice. That's exactly what a lot of people are up in arms about, they get taxed hugely but get no real say in how the money is spent. Sure they get a vote, but if your candidate loses it's not as though you're exempt from paying taxes. In some way these people are right; if they choose to engage in commerce they aren't being forced to do anything and as such "whatever the market will bear" is a good metric. Taxes aren't about "whatever the market will bear" though because you don't have a choice to not consume and therefore not pay.
oldmanjay 11y ago
A "progressive" tax policy is so named because it hijacks the positive associations of the word for political gain. Patiently explaining why we should all love the definition doesn't actually address the point being made.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it's called 'progressive' because the rate of taxation 'progresses' as income increases – not because of any association with progressivism per se.
theseatoms 11y ago
An argument I've heard for income tax progressivity is that the very wealthy have far more to lose if the state crumbled and society devolved into a state of nature. In other words, the state, by upholding the rule of law (particularly property law), is providing the ultra wealthy with a service of far greater value than that which it provides those with lower wealth/income.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  Those who are wealthy are generally not high-income (at least they can heavily tweak their income by using asset-backed loans and accrue capital gains only when it's beneficial). Those who are high income in California are generally not wealthy (as opposed to everyone's favorite high income poster boy - the NY hedge fund manager), but are subjects to windfall effect - a few years of work at below market wages in hopes for a giant payback (royalties in Hollywood, stock options of a successful tech startup in the Valley).
djsumdog 11y ago
I agree entirely. I just moved to a tech city and make totally insane amounts of money. I looked at my tax burden and it's close to 30%..and I'm totally okay with that. My take home is still insane, even after the insane housing costs. It bothers me a bit though. I'd actually rather earn less and things be more affordable. The homeless situation in the city I moved to is truly insane and unsustainable. Tech companies drive up prices. I have a friend who lives in a neighbourhood where all the homes were around $100k when she was a kid; and now the same homes can go anywhere from $500k to nearly a million! You see some of the average working class taking those big payouts and moving further from the city (and potentially driving more; increasing the traffic problem). I'd rather earn less, my housing be more affordable and things be more equal for everyone. Supply and demand for housing really drive these crazy swings in gentrification.
- jacobush 11y ago
  Move to Sweden. We are on the same curve but far behind...

msandford 11y ago

> The comparison with a private commercial service is flawed, in the sense that engagement with it is an entirely personal choice. That's exactly what a lot of people are up in arms about, they get taxed hugely but get no real say in how the money is spent. Sure they get a vote, but if your candidate loses it's not as though you're exempt from paying taxes. In some way these people are right; if they choose to engage in commerce they aren't being forced to do anything and as such "whatever the market will bear" is a good metric. Taxes aren't about "whatever the market will bear" though because you don't have a choice to not consume and therefore not pay.

oldmanjay 11y ago

A "progressive" tax policy is so named because it hijacks the positive associations of the word for political gain. Patiently explaining why we should all love the definition doesn't actually address the point being made.

matthewmacleod 11y ago
Wait, what? I'm pretty sure it's called 'progressive' because the rate of taxation 'progresses' as income increases – not because of any association with progressivism per se.

theseatoms 11y ago

An argument I've heard for income tax progressivity is that the very wealthy have far more to lose if the state crumbled and society devolved into a state of nature. In other words, the state, by upholding the rule of law (particularly property law), is providing the ultra wealthy with a service of far greater value than that which it provides those with lower wealth/income.

prostoalex 11y ago
Those who are wealthy are generally not high-income (at least they can heavily tweak their income by using asset-backed loans and accrue capital gains only when it's beneficial). Those who are high income in California are generally not wealthy (as opposed to everyone's favorite high income poster boy - the NY hedge fund manager), but are subjects to windfall effect - a few years of work at below market wages in hopes for a giant payback (royalties in Hollywood, stock options of a successful tech startup in the Valley).

djsumdog 11y ago

I agree entirely. I just moved to a tech city and make totally insane amounts of money. I looked at my tax burden and it's close to 30%..and I'm totally okay with that. My take home is still insane, even after the insane housing costs. It bothers me a bit though. I'd actually rather earn less and things be more affordable. The homeless situation in the city I moved to is truly insane and unsustainable. Tech companies drive up prices. I have a friend who lives in a neighbourhood where all the homes were around $100k when she was a kid; and now the same homes can go anywhere from $500k to nearly a million! You see some of the average working class taking those big payouts and moving further from the city (and potentially driving more; increasing the traffic problem). I'd rather earn less, my housing be more affordable and things be more equal for everyone. Supply and demand for housing really drive these crazy swings in gentrification.

jacobush 11y ago
Move to Sweden. We are on the same curve but far behind...