7 ms·

This simply speaks to the impetus behind progressive taxes: that each additional dollar has decreasing marginal utility. Therefore, to extract the maximum amoun

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).
- RockIslandLine 7y ago
  "I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" Note that this thinking only applies to nations which are currency users, not currency issuers. For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy. If government spending creates money where does the money the government spends come from?
    - RockIslandLine 7y ago
      Are you unclear on the meaning of create?
      - yesforwhat 7y ago
        What gives it value? If you free spend and free print money to pay for said spending, the value goes away. Quite quickly, as well.
        RockIslandLine 7y ago
        That's why you have taxes to destroy money and control inflation. There are good reasons why budgets should be close to balanced most of the time.

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).
RockIslandLine 7y ago
"I want higher taxes because the government can do better things with the money" Note that this thinking only applies to nations which are currency users, not currency issuers. For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy.
- vageli 7y ago
  > For a nation with it's own fiat currency (currency issuers) government spending creates money, and the role of taxes is not to fund spending. Taxes fulfill other roles, like controlling inflation and expressing social policy. If government spending creates money where does the money the government spends come from?
  - RockIslandLine 7y ago
    Are you unclear on the meaning of create?
    - yesforwhat 7y ago
      What gives it value? If you free spend and free print money to pay for said spending, the value goes away. Quite quickly, as well.
      - RockIslandLine 7y ago
        That's why you have taxes to destroy money and control inflation. There are good reasons why budgets should be close to balanced most of the time.