3 ms·
When you can single out a very small fraction of the population for a surtax, I think this violates the spirit of "no taxation without representation". If peopl
by Bostonian 5y ago
When you can single out a very small fraction of the population for a surtax, I think this violates the spirit of "no taxation without representation". If people with last names ending in A-Y supported a special tax on people with names ending in Z, that would not be right either, even if the Z's get to vote like everyone else.
- rektide 5y agoi dont agree that any special group is being singled out. this is a basic tax structure decision. our current tax schedules would be just as intolerable, even if the rate of increase in tax as income goes up is not as high now. what you seem to be proposing is that the only acceptable, non-discriminatory tax is a flat tax, likely with no exemptions, and i doubt that would treat the wealthy better than this modest adjustment. i also feel like those making over $5m a year are incredibly fantastically well represented in congress, have for my entire life been given favoritism & benefit, a constant march of tax cuts that they overwhelmingly benefit from, and that there are almost no instances of this group ever having had to make a sizable adjustment. these people are very well represented & that's the problem.
- smt88 5y ago1. "Taxation without representation" is not a law anywhere in the US. Non-citizens and DC residents pay taxes and aren't represented in Congress, for example. 2. Are you honestly trying to argue that people making more than $5M are underrepresented in politics? They are the voiceless, oppressed class we need to protect?
- monkeydreams 5y agoAny scaled taxation would TWR under your definition. Even flat taxes impose extra burdens upon the poor as the marginal value of each dollar is very high near the poverty line. Tax is the least restrictive aspect of US democracy.