3 ms·
> Much like there's a cost associated with income inequality, so we tax the rich more to supposedly cover that cost. That's a fairly disturbing way to frame pr
by spacehome 13y ago
> Much like there's a cost associated with income inequality, so we tax the rich more to supposedly cover that cost.
That's a fairly disturbing way to frame progressive taxation. In the other examples of taxing externalities, we intentionally discourage the behavior by taxing it. Do you intend to discourage people from becoming rich by taxing it? Also, it takes both rich and poor to have inequality. Why not tax poor people more to discourage poverty?
- ihsw 13y agoThere are some economic/social theories that suggest homelessness is an adequate and necessary deterrent to poverty. However, I'm not going to address a flaw in your logic, namely that the only role of taxation is deterring undesirable behavior.
- Houshalter 13y ago>There are some economic/social theories that suggest homelessness is an adequate and necessary deterrent to poverty. Is the implication here that if homeless didn't exist, it would actually be ok to tax/punish poverty? Otherwise why even bring that up?
- drjesusphd 13y ago> Do you intend to discourage people from becoming rich by taxing it? That's not the intention, but perhaps a side-effect. A minor one, at that. I'd imagine it would be very difficult to discourage people from becoming rich. A progressive tax schedule certainly does not do much discouraging right now. Now that I answered your question, perhaps you can return the courtesy: Does there or does there not exist a high enough degree of income inequality such that there is a cost borne by society?
- fleitz 13y agoProgressive taxation? That's a good joke. In what countries that have 'progressive taxation' do the rich actually pay a higher percentage of tax on all sources of income / wealth?