2 ms·

> But saying how those who earn more should pay more, when they already do, is simply silly. I cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or genuinely don't real

• necovek 4y ago
  The fact that I do realise what they mean does not mean that I can't oppose their incorrect wording. This incorrect wording is specifically used to influence people to think that higher earners are currently paying equal or less taxes, when they are literally paying more already! I've also literally gave counter-examples why "the goals ... as [you] described" are not sufficient to justify progressive taxation being introduced: different people have different needs (and thus costs) for any of the categories of expenditure you bring up, yet this is unsolved by progressive taxation. IOW, I am looking for a better reasoned argument than just "rich people should pay even more" (when higher income does not necessarily mean richer people: we all know how really rich people can play with accounting and get by on $1 salaries). There are taxation schemes which do take a bunch of these criteria in: eg. property taxes for a lived-in home vs rented-out home, tax benefits based on the number of dependents etc. But progressive taxation is not contextual in that sense, so I want goals to be publicly stated so we can reason about whether they are a good solution or not.