4 ms·

Absolutely you can distinguish. The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their

Absolutely you can distinguish. The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. Inverting the original question semantically doesn't mean that you've provided a valid counter-example.

DuskStar 7y ago
> The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. So what does this mean for people who support progressive tax brackets? Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others - and specifically that those better off should pay more than they do.
- Voloskaya 7y ago
  > Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others What's your point? They also think they should pay a higher share of their income than others.
  - dorchadas 7y ago
    Yep. And if they make more, they think they should pay an even higher share. Which, notes, will still leave them with more money. Hell, my roommate pays as much in taxes than I make, yet he still comes home with more money than I do.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    I think the point is that by the GGP's (defterGoose's) standards, that's not differentiable from someone who just hates the rich. (And, frankly, if I started saying that the optimal tax brackets would be 99% for all income over $200k and 1% for all income $50k-$200k, the fact that I would pay more than some other people would not be particularly relevant)
- defterGoose 7y ago
  This simply speaks to the impetus behind progressive taxes: that each additional dollar has decreasing marginal utility. Therefore, to extract the maximum amount of value for society in aggregate, it makes the most sense to put the highest taxes on money that has the least utility. You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    I don't see the relevance here. Upthread you were saying that it was impossible to distinguish "wanting lower taxes because taxes are bad" and "wanting lower taxes because I want more money". Holding similar standards of evidence would make it impossible to distinguish "I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" or "I want higher taxes because of the marginal utility of money" from "I want higher taxes because fuck the rich". You then suggested that you could tell the higher-tax positions apart by the speaker's willingness to comply with the increased taxes. But in a progressive tax system, the speaker is proposing higher tax rates for others than for themselves - which is very similar to "making(sic) a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated". Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      No, the person proposing the progressive tax is simply saying that there is an optimal, non-zero level of taxation that creates the best outcome for society as a whole. This person could be at the top or bottom bracket with no effect on the argument. The richest in our society actually generally agree with that notion, cf. Gates, Buffett, as well as those who have the most to "gain" directly through distribution of public services. And yes, even though it wasn't my point to begin with, it is possible to distinguish ideologies in the case of wanting higher taxes vs in the case of wanting lower taxes by outcome. In the case of wanting lower taxes, without regard to ideology, both payers would want the taxes on themselves to tend to zero. In the case of higher taxes, the ideologies do differ by outcome in that the ideological party will want to pay something herself, whereas the disgruntled party would have to impose taxes on "the rich" and not on themselves (relatively) to achieve a desirable outcome (this assumes they don't "hate" themselves as well).

DuskStar 7y ago

> The person who hates everyone better off than themselves would have to make a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated. The person who believes taxes are good for society would of course happily (or at least voluntarily) pay their share of whatever the mandated tax was. So what does this mean for people who support progressive tax brackets? Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others - and specifically that those better off should pay more than they do.

Voloskaya 7y ago
> Since they think they should pay a smaller share of their income than others What's your point? They also think they should pay a higher share of their income than others.
- dorchadas 7y ago
  Yep. And if they make more, they think they should pay an even higher share. Which, notes, will still leave them with more money. Hell, my roommate pays as much in taxes than I make, yet he still comes home with more money than I do.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  I think the point is that by the GGP's (defterGoose's) standards, that's not differentiable from someone who just hates the rich. (And, frankly, if I started saying that the optimal tax brackets would be 99% for all income over $200k and 1% for all income $50k-$200k, the fact that I would pay more than some other people would not be particularly relevant)
defterGoose 7y ago
This simply speaks to the impetus behind progressive taxes: that each additional dollar has decreasing marginal utility. Therefore, to extract the maximum amount of value for society in aggregate, it makes the most sense to put the highest taxes on money that has the least utility. You could also make the argument along other lines, such as that the wealthiest individuals have benefitted most from the cohesion/quality of the society, and should therefore be most responsible for its upkeep in kind.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  I don't see the relevance here. Upthread you were saying that it was impossible to distinguish "wanting lower taxes because taxes are bad" and "wanting lower taxes because I want more money". Holding similar standards of evidence would make it impossible to distinguish "I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" or "I want higher taxes because of the marginal utility of money" from "I want higher taxes because fuck the rich". You then suggested that you could tell the higher-tax positions apart by the speaker's willingness to comply with the increased taxes. But in a progressive tax system, the speaker is proposing higher tax rates for others than for themselves - which is very similar to "making(sic) a special exemption for themselves so that all their money wouldn't be taxed away too and leave them at best on an even playing field with those they (previously?) hated". Making the exemption wider doesn't really escape your earlier argument.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    No, the person proposing the progressive tax is simply saying that there is an optimal, non-zero level of taxation that creates the best outcome for society as a whole. This person could be at the top or bottom bracket with no effect on the argument. The richest in our society actually generally agree with that notion, cf. Gates, Buffett, as well as those who have the most to "gain" directly through distribution of public services. And yes, even though it wasn't my point to begin with, it is possible to distinguish ideologies in the case of wanting higher taxes vs in the case of wanting lower taxes by outcome. In the case of wanting lower taxes, without regard to ideology, both payers would want the taxes on themselves to tend to zero. In the case of higher taxes, the ideologies do differ by outcome in that the ideological party will want to pay something herself, whereas the disgruntled party would have to impose taxes on "the rich" and not on themselves (relatively) to achieve a desirable outcome (this assumes they don't "hate" themselves as well).