PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
In another thread, the interesting dichotomy came up, one group of folks stating that an individual's money is not really his, but shared with the government, while others compared taxation with theft, and the government to thugs.
Well, taxes are, as the old saw goes, as ineluctable as death...
...but should they be progressive...is that a bad choice of words? OK...graduated depending on income?
1. Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system, and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have. Blum and Klaven, jr., The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.
2. The argument is advanced based on a) improvements in the general welfare, and b) allowing the degree of inequality results in injustice between individuals.
a. Whose general welfare? Instead, the welfare of one group is improved at the expense of the welfare of another group. What are the additional benefits that the wealthy receive for the surrender of wealth?
b. As to the injustice between individuals, this presupposes that the income of the wealthy is undeserved, in the sense that it was due to factors such as monopoly, fraud, duress, and chance. First, these charges must be supported, and then, some correlation shown between the amount of such income and the rate of progressive taxation. Otherwise, the implication is that all persons with large income had the same proportion of undeserved income
3. Where in this discussion is the question of personal responsibility in achieving success or of the free markets hand in distributing rewards? Or is the assumption that these factors dont exist? Why not presume that the richer person merited his wealth?
4. The explanation is that the weakness of the economic basis for the tax pales in comparison to the political basis.
a. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of societys wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State. Bertrand de Jouvenel, The Ethics of Redistribution, p. 73
Well, taxes are, as the old saw goes, as ineluctable as death...
...but should they be progressive...is that a bad choice of words? OK...graduated depending on income?
1. Professors at the University of Chicago law school, Blum and Kalven examined and found very little support for progressive taxation as the possible rationale for desiring to lessen economic inequalities within the confines of a private enterprise and market system, and found, on the contrary, that since there have been enormous increases in wealth, even among the poorest, and yet the issue of inequality has become more outspoken, It initially appears that what is involved is envy, the dissatisfaction produced in men not by what they lack but by what others have. Blum and Klaven, jr., The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation.
2. The argument is advanced based on a) improvements in the general welfare, and b) allowing the degree of inequality results in injustice between individuals.
a. Whose general welfare? Instead, the welfare of one group is improved at the expense of the welfare of another group. What are the additional benefits that the wealthy receive for the surrender of wealth?
b. As to the injustice between individuals, this presupposes that the income of the wealthy is undeserved, in the sense that it was due to factors such as monopoly, fraud, duress, and chance. First, these charges must be supported, and then, some correlation shown between the amount of such income and the rate of progressive taxation. Otherwise, the implication is that all persons with large income had the same proportion of undeserved income
3. Where in this discussion is the question of personal responsibility in achieving success or of the free markets hand in distributing rewards? Or is the assumption that these factors dont exist? Why not presume that the richer person merited his wealth?
4. The explanation is that the weakness of the economic basis for the tax pales in comparison to the political basis.
a. As government taxes more and subsidizes more, a greater portion of societys wealth passes through its hands. Individuals and families have less income to dispose of as they see fit. redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State. Bertrand de Jouvenel, The Ethics of Redistribution, p. 73