5 ms·

Care to elaborate on why you "disagree with the premise of progressive taxation"? The only arguments I've encountered to date are morality-based and stem from

Care to elaborate on why you "disagree with the premise of progressive taxation"? The only arguments I've encountered to date are morality-based and stem from a world view that says all taxes are immoral. Leaving the issues of government waste and the morality of taxation aside, I don't see how anyone can dispute the fact that an extra $10,000 (pick any number) per year means a lot less to someone making $500,000 than it does to someone making $40,000. If there are going to be taxes, it seems almost obvious (I dislike that word but am using it here) that they should be progressive.

bmelton 15y ago
A person making $500,000 a year paying 10% of his income to taxes would pay $50,000 in taxes. A person earning $40,000 a year paying 10% of his income in taxes would pay $4,000 in taxes. This isn't progressive taxation, it is linear, as both parties pay the same amount in taxes. I _do_ disagree with the premise of taxes on the whole, but I am comfortable paying 'an equal share'. Progressive taxation, which I abhorrently disagree with, is when you penalize the higher income for having earned more. Are they better able to burden the load? Perhaps, but now we're punishing success, and removing the incentives for the lower income families to strive for more, both because they're less likely to reap their rewards (due to the progressive taxation) and because the needs of the poor are better met by the taxes of those richer than them. What this also gets does is foster more of the environment that we have, where federal waste becomes more eggregious and tax dollars are diverted even more to the benefit of those paying the lion's share, leaving the lower class even worse off, which generally leads to their crying for even more progressive taxation. Again, this is just my understanding of how things will work. Your opinion may vary.
- msellout 15y ago
  Having a higher marginal tax rate is not a penalty. Among other things, progressive taxes balance the regressive nature of disposable income. As the article mentions, people with double the income do not have double the expenses. With a flat/linear tax, a wealthier person pays a smaller portion of their disposable income in taxes than does a poor person. You could also see progressive taxes as counteracting the winner-take-all phenomena of the market. Taxes should be progressive to the extent that luck affects market outcome.

bmelton 15y ago

A person making $500,000 a year paying 10% of his income to taxes would pay $50,000 in taxes. A person earning $40,000 a year paying 10% of his income in taxes would pay $4,000 in taxes. This isn't progressive taxation, it is linear, as both parties pay the same amount in taxes. I _do_ disagree with the premise of taxes on the whole, but I am comfortable paying 'an equal share'. Progressive taxation, which I abhorrently disagree with, is when you penalize the higher income for having earned more. Are they better able to burden the load? Perhaps, but now we're punishing success, and removing the incentives for the lower income families to strive for more, both because they're less likely to reap their rewards (due to the progressive taxation) and because the needs of the poor are better met by the taxes of those richer than them. What this also gets does is foster more of the environment that we have, where federal waste becomes more eggregious and tax dollars are diverted even more to the benefit of those paying the lion's share, leaving the lower class even worse off, which generally leads to their crying for even more progressive taxation. Again, this is just my understanding of how things will work. Your opinion may vary.

msellout 15y ago
Having a higher marginal tax rate is not a penalty. Among other things, progressive taxes balance the regressive nature of disposable income. As the article mentions, people with double the income do not have double the expenses. With a flat/linear tax, a wealthier person pays a smaller portion of their disposable income in taxes than does a poor person. You could also see progressive taxes as counteracting the winner-take-all phenomena of the market. Taxes should be progressive to the extent that luck affects market outcome.