4 ms·
You’re just filling in my equation with very unlikely numbers. When considering the cost of administration, you have to remember that the the marginal cost of
by marcoperaza 8y ago
You’re just filling in my equation with very unlikely numbers.
When considering the cost of administration, you have to remember that the the marginal cost of administration caused by the new company is much lower than the resulting average cost.
You’re right that there might still be a moral problem though. Perhaps it is unfair that some pay full tax and others don’t. I’m inclined to agree, but the tax code is full of such inequities to begin with: deductions for tuition, mortgages, health care, children; exemptions from sales tax for certain kinds of goods; luxury and sin taxes; wealth taxes on land but not other property; progressive taxation of income; etc.
Unless we move to a flat tax applied uniformly, that won’t change.
- toyg 8y agoYou are mixing unfairness among theoretically equal actors (regular businesses vs Amazon) and disparities that are supported by societal values. Progressive taxation is a moral imperative to correct excessive disparity; marriage allowances promote fertility and societal stability; and so and so forth. You are free to make the argument that targeted tax breaks can be worth the cost to the rest of society, but you cannot brush off the entirety of tax laws as morally unjust when the exact opposite is true.
- agensaequivocum 8y ago> Progressive taxation is a moral imperative to correct excessive disparity. That relies on the premise that disparity is evil. What is the argument for that?
- toyg 8y agoHistory, including contemporary. The most unequal societies are the most troubled ones.
- agensaequivocum 8y agoThree questions: 1. Unequal in what respect? 2. Which countries are you speaking of? 3. Is the inequality the necessary cause of the trouble?