Why Progressive Taxation?

That..and the founders never intended private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy.
They really never intended taxation to be used as a tool of expropriation and redistribution.
If the Founders could have anticipated the kind of wealth the industrial age would foster, and the kind of devious maneuvering and manipulation of that wealth which eventually could jeopardize the very survival of the Nation as the Constitution intends it to be, you may rest assured they would have included safeguards in the Constitution to prevent the rise of a greed-based, monied aristocracy and the dangerous accumulation of excessive wealth such as we are seeing now.
 
Probably because serious audits of just how the wealthy come by their income would really find a great deal of corruption.

That..and the founders never intended private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy.

The problem with your theory is that they had to amend the Constitution in order to collect the income tax. If the founders had been smart enough to see an aristocracy arising out of private wealth, and had intended to prevent it, they would not have prohibited direct taxation.

Just saying.

True enough. Apparently the cretins need to have everything explained to them. I would also favor an amendment that defines an indivdual's right to privacy. Since that doesn't seem to be clear enough either.
 
Probably not nothing...Otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of their way to make all direct taxes apportioned to the states for collection.

The nonsense about blacks and women is non sequitur and a non-starter.

That's sort of ridiculous given the whole revolution was about taking power away from a monarchy and giving it to the people.
 
Lowering the tax rate and broadening the tax base is the only way to have a system where all people are treated equally under the law.
 
Probably because serious audits of just how the wealthy come by their income would really find a great deal of corruption.

That..and the founders never intended private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy.

Toothy, you are wrong on so many counts.

1. I hope you read more than the title, because you haven't responded to any of the points....

2. The vast majority of millionaires earned their money, they didn't inherit same....unless their name is Kennedy.
I'm assuming that the same is true of the 271 billionaires in the country. BTW, the next closest nation has about a score of billionaires.

Imagine how rich you could be if you set your mind to it, rather than belly-achin' about other folks.

3. And here is where liberals and conservatives seriously part company.....you guys always think the worst of others. "probably....would find.....blah, blah, blah..."

BTW, they have this new thing, you seemingly never heard of...the IRS?
Sort of obviates your point.

4. "...private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy..."
An aristocracy is based, usually, on hereditary status...and, as I pointed out in #2 above, that is not the case in the US.

5. I hope you can get your mind around this: taxes is - are?- what keep folks from becoming rich....see, one is taxed on earnings, so if you own lots of stuff, like stocks, you aren't taxes on it- them?
Taxes hurt those trying to become rich, not those who made it already.

:lol:

Your post make me laugh on many levels. And reinforces my notion of the "Corporate Quisling". You do know that the last conservative President inherited his wealth and a possible candidate, Donald Trump, did the same? You do know about the whole Irony thing? Dontcha? Sweet cheeks?

Thanks for playing..
 
Lowering the tax rate and broadening the tax base is the only way to have a system where all people are treated equally under the law.

Well has not worked in the past. But heck..why not give it a whirl.

What do you think would make it work in the next iteration?
 
That..and the founders never intended private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy.
They really never intended taxation to be used as a tool of expropriation and redistribution.
If the Founders could have anticipated the kind of wealth the industrial age would foster, and the kind of devious maneuvering and manipulation of that wealth which eventually could jeopardize the very survival of the Nation as the Constitution intends it to be, you may rest assured they would have included safeguards in the Constitution to prevent the rise of a greed-based, monied aristocracy and the dangerous accumulation of excessive wealth such as we are seeing now.

They spoke out against it enough. Yeah..they probably would have.
 
The Founders never wanted a federal income tax. The Founders had it set up that States had the power to send their taxes to the Federal government.
It is Liberals who have taken away the power that states had and Liberals who put in the 16th amendment.
We would not be in this mess if we hadn't had the 16th amendment.
 
Well, then how about reversing the tax system, reducing taxes as you go up the financial ladder, to indicate to all how much we appreciate hard work, wise lifestyle choices, and entrepreneurship???

Could we impose my hypotheticals rather than yours?

No, because you can work very hard and make great lifestyle choices and still not be successful financially due to factors beyond your control. I know people who did everything right for the last 30 years and were wiped out in the financial crisis.

2. And, you did an excellent job of explaining why it is bogus to consider the luck factor in taxation:
"It's unmeasurable and different for everyone."

No its not. You started this thread on the principles of progressive taxation, not on the exact marginal levels. The fact that we cannot measure with precision the exact probabilities of success in life does not obviate the maxim that randomness affects outcomes. We can't measure the exact probability of an earthquake at a given place and time either, but that doesn't mean we don't accommodate for the unknown probabilities of an earthquake.



No. You merely provided a pithy example to wave aside the broad affects of randomness on people's lives without actually addressing the issue. Power goes out at night, snooze fails, the worker sleeps in and he is fired for not showing up. Betcha that's happened somewhere.



I didn't say that. It was you who dismissed the work of psychologists with sleight of hand, presuming that we should dismiss without question the work of those who dedicate their lives to the study of psychology.



Straw man. I didn't say we should raise taxes. I said we should have a progressive tax system. Nor did I say we should raise taxes ad infinitum. What I'm saying is that those who earn more should pay a higher rate of taxation because we recognize that not all of their success is due to their own effort. But I do believe that the majority of one's success if based on individual effort, and thus marginal tax rates should reflect that. I am willing to consider a flat tax where the first amount of income is tax free, which is effectively a progressive tax system.

But surely if you believe that life is all about the success one puts in, you must be for taxing inheritance at 100%, right? I mean, how can one argue that life isn't affected by randomness when someone is born with $10 million?



So, by your logic then, there are NO accentuating circumstances that affects one's life. Every single step along the way is due to the will of the individual. Every single thing around the individual is irrelevant, and the only factor which affects one's standing in life is what they do. Seriously?



Asking for an exact measurement of randomness is about as valid as measuring the exact amount of freedom. But that doesn't mean freedom, or randomness, doesn't exist.

But we do know some things which can be inferred about randomness. For example, we know that a child born to a single parent is less likely to be successful than one born to two parents. We know that a child is more likely to go to university if both parents have been to university compared to those whose parents never went. There are numerous such studies concluding that the environment affects one's upbringing.

I love how the left of center (you'll admit to that, won't you?) usually considers religion as some kind of pejorative, because it relies on faith, but has no problem using 'faith' or 'belief' when it suits their argument?

Kind of sounds like 'birthers'....

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you see that guy in my sig? That's Stephen Harper. If you don't know who he is, Google him.

5. "...ending up in poverty and not ending up in poverty is a different proposition from making $30,000 a year and making $300,000 a year."
Hey...I thought you said you understood human nature????

You mean everyone judges success the way you do?

Perhaps you should consider this definition:

"Success is what gets you closer to what you believe is important."

And, that is why individual rights are so important. We're all different.
Shouldn't society be proud of the rich, rather than use them as a cash cow?

This is a thread about taxation, isn't it? I mean, you started it. So why are you going off on this other tangent? I agree that success isn't just monetary. Start a thread about that and I'll back you up. But it's irrelevant in this thread on progressive taxation.

I have to admit, Toro....this is why I post on the board!

1. "You started this thread on the principles of progressive taxation, not on the exact marginal levels."
You use the term 'marginal levels' as though it is related to the assumed randomness, on which you base your precis....but you admit you have no way of quantifying same,...and, in fact, state that it differs for each of us!
So, should marginal rates differ for each?

2. "Power goes out at night, snooze fails, the worker sleeps in and he is fired for not showing up."
No, he's not. First, he has the union to fight for him. And secondly, randomness is universal, so guess what happened to the bosses' electricity?

3. "It was you who dismissed the work of psychologists with sleight of hand, presuming that we should dismiss without question the work of those who dedicate their lives to the study of psychology."

Did not. Said that they simply verify with extensive and expensive studies what we all know via common sense. Either that or they make concrete statements about inconsequential things....life the sex life of the tsetse fly.

But I did get a chuckle out of "...the work of those who dedicate their lives to the study of psychology."

4. "I didn't say we should raise taxes. I said we should have a progressive tax system."
Distinction without a difference.
Do the progressive taxes or do they not go up. See, 'raise', and 'up'....

5. "What I'm saying is that those who earn more should pay a higher rate of taxation because we recognize that not all of their success is due to their own effort.
How and in what fashion do you apply that doctrine to the poor?

6. "But surely if you believe that life is all about the success one puts in, you must be for taxing inheritance at 100%, right? I mean, how can one argue that life isn't affected by randomness when someone is born with $10 million?"

Oh....that is a winner! I congratulate you on an excellent point! Bravo!

My answer is that the few in that position represent the wishes of their families...whose efforts provided same.
But I really like your point.

7. "I have no idea what you are talking about."
Then let me elucidate: your belief in the ability to devine the extent of luck in one's success has as much proof as religious folks proof of the Divinity, or a Lefties belief in Obama's birth certificate.

8. Of course I know who Harper is...but your pic of him makes you a conservative like my pic of supergirl gives me super powers.


Based on your great point, I give you one of my fav poems, on in support of randomness:
Hap, by Thomas Hardy

IF but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: "Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!"

Then would I bear, and clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased, too, that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
--Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan....
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.
 
>

Personally I greatly dislike the whole system we've saddled ourselves with.

If I were emperor of this country I'd scrap the whole IRS, scrap all the tax laws, scrap the deductions for this, the credits for that, the exemptions for something else. Scrap the hidden taxes when the same thing is taxed multiple time at each stage of production, tax revenue for the government that the average consumer doesn't even know they are paying.

Replace it with a Constitutional Amendment that would bar all levels of government from instituting any kind of property, income, or hidden taxes on everything.

Each level of government would be allowed exactly one tax based on end user, a sales tax. One Federal tax, one state tax, and one local tax. That's it and merchants would be required by law to print each separately on the receipt so citizens would know exactly how much of their money goes to each level of government.



>>>>

And the black market would become bigger than the legal market. Great idea.
 
The Founders never wanted a federal income tax. The Founders had it set up that States had the power to send their taxes to the Federal government.
It is Liberals who have taken away the power that states had and Liberals who put in the 16th amendment.
We would not be in this mess if we hadn't had the 16th amendment.

That may or may not be true. But given the fact that the country grew beyond 13 states..and there is a good deal more of a bastardization of the Constitution on so many fronts..it's interesting to note the only things Conservatives rant on about is taxes, guns and social programs to help the needy.

Nothing..about the military, executive priviledge, signing statements, the unitary executives, wire taps, extraordinary rendition, privacy, secrecy, corporatism, etc..

And yes..Ron Paul is an exception to this..but he's not really a conservative.
 
Probably because serious audits of just how the wealthy come by their income would really find a great deal of corruption.

That..and the founders never intended private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy.

Toothy, you are wrong on so many counts.

1. I hope you read more than the title, because you haven't responded to any of the points....

2. The vast majority of millionaires earned their money, they didn't inherit same....unless their name is Kennedy.
I'm assuming that the same is true of the 271 billionaires in the country. BTW, the next closest nation has about a score of billionaires.

Imagine how rich you could be if you set your mind to it, rather than belly-achin' about other folks.

3. And here is where liberals and conservatives seriously part company.....you guys always think the worst of others. "probably....would find.....blah, blah, blah..."

BTW, they have this new thing, you seemingly never heard of...the IRS?
Sort of obviates your point.

4. "...private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy..."
An aristocracy is based, usually, on hereditary status...and, as I pointed out in #2 above, that is not the case in the US.

5. I hope you can get your mind around this: taxes is - are?- what keep folks from becoming rich....see, one is taxed on earnings, so if you own lots of stuff, like stocks, you aren't taxes on it- them?
Taxes hurt those trying to become rich, not those who made it already.

:lol:

Your post make me laugh on many levels. And reinforces my notion of the "Corporate Quisling". You do know that the last conservative President inherited his wealth and a possible candidate, Donald Trump, did the same? You do know about the whole Irony thing? Dontcha? Sweet cheeks?

Thanks for playing..

"Your post make me laugh on many levels."
If you can do that you should sign up for the talent show!

"... the last conservative President...'
Who would that be, in your estimation?

And, that's Mrs. Sweet cheeks to you!
 
Those that gain much from the system, should pay a larger amount back into the system.

Also, there is a simple answer. If you are working at entry level wages, just keeping a roof over your head, and food in your belly is a daily challenge. Any loss in income due to taxes directly affects the basics in your life.

If you have a yearly income in seven figures or better, a 10% loss of income, might mean choosing a Bentley instead of a Rolls.

Or, more colloquial, ya gotta prime the pump, sister.

Why do people who get nothing out of the system have to pay into it at all?
 
Toothy, you are wrong on so many counts.

1. I hope you read more than the title, because you haven't responded to any of the points....

2. The vast majority of millionaires earned their money, they didn't inherit same....unless their name is Kennedy.
I'm assuming that the same is true of the 271 billionaires in the country. BTW, the next closest nation has about a score of billionaires.

Imagine how rich you could be if you set your mind to it, rather than belly-achin' about other folks.

3. And here is where liberals and conservatives seriously part company.....you guys always think the worst of others. "probably....would find.....blah, blah, blah..."

BTW, they have this new thing, you seemingly never heard of...the IRS?
Sort of obviates your point.

4. "...private industry to lead to an neo-aristocracy..."
An aristocracy is based, usually, on hereditary status...and, as I pointed out in #2 above, that is not the case in the US.

5. I hope you can get your mind around this: taxes is - are?- what keep folks from becoming rich....see, one is taxed on earnings, so if you own lots of stuff, like stocks, you aren't taxes on it- them?
Taxes hurt those trying to become rich, not those who made it already.

:lol:

Your post make me laugh on many levels. And reinforces my notion of the "Corporate Quisling". You do know that the last conservative President inherited his wealth and a possible candidate, Donald Trump, did the same? You do know about the whole Irony thing? Dontcha? Sweet cheeks?

Thanks for playing..

"Your post make me laugh on many levels."
If you can do that you should sign up for the talent show!

"... the last conservative President...'
Who would that be, in your estimation?

And, that's Mrs. Sweet cheeks to you!

Well I am sure you are shoo-in for Annie Oakely..

And the last conservative President..was George W. Bush. The fact that conservatives have disowned him..doesn't take conservative away from him.

And I do hope "Mr." Sweet Cheeks keeps you happy so he can keep his body bullet free.:lol:
 
Well, then how about reversing the tax system, reducing taxes as you go up the financial ladder, to indicate to all how much we appreciate hard work, wise lifestyle choices, and entrepreneurship???

Could we impose my hypotheticals rather than yours?

No, because you can work very hard and make great lifestyle choices and still not be successful financially due to factors beyond your control. I know people who did everything right for the last 30 years and were wiped out in the financial crisis.

2. And, you did an excellent job of explaining why it is bogus to consider the luck factor in taxation:
"It's unmeasurable and different for everyone."

No its not. You started this thread on the principles of progressive taxation, not on the exact marginal levels. The fact that we cannot measure with precision the exact probabilities of success in life does not obviate the maxim that randomness affects outcomes. We can't measure the exact probability of an earthquake at a given place and time either, but that doesn't mean we don't accommodate for the unknown probabilities of an earthquake.



No. You merely provided a pithy example to wave aside the broad affects of randomness on people's lives without actually addressing the issue. Power goes out at night, snooze fails, the worker sleeps in and he is fired for not showing up. Betcha that's happened somewhere.



I didn't say that. It was you who dismissed the work of psychologists with sleight of hand, presuming that we should dismiss without question the work of those who dedicate their lives to the study of psychology.



Straw man. I didn't say we should raise taxes. I said we should have a progressive tax system. Nor did I say we should raise taxes ad infinitum. What I'm saying is that those who earn more should pay a higher rate of taxation because we recognize that not all of their success is due to their own effort. But I do believe that the majority of one's success if based on individual effort, and thus marginal tax rates should reflect that. I am willing to consider a flat tax where the first amount of income is tax free, which is effectively a progressive tax system.

But surely if you believe that life is all about the success one puts in, you must be for taxing inheritance at 100%, right? I mean, how can one argue that life isn't affected by randomness when someone is born with $10 million?



So, by your logic then, there are NO accentuating circumstances that affects one's life. Every single step along the way is due to the will of the individual. Every single thing around the individual is irrelevant, and the only factor which affects one's standing in life is what they do. Seriously?



Asking for an exact measurement of randomness is about as valid as measuring the exact amount of freedom. But that doesn't mean freedom, or randomness, doesn't exist.

But we do know some things which can be inferred about randomness. For example, we know that a child born to a single parent is less likely to be successful than one born to two parents. We know that a child is more likely to go to university if both parents have been to university compared to those whose parents never went. There are numerous such studies concluding that the environment affects one's upbringing.

I love how the left of center (you'll admit to that, won't you?) usually considers religion as some kind of pejorative, because it relies on faith, but has no problem using 'faith' or 'belief' when it suits their argument?

Kind of sounds like 'birthers'....

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you see that guy in my sig? That's Stephen Harper. If you don't know who he is, Google him.

5. "...ending up in poverty and not ending up in poverty is a different proposition from making $30,000 a year and making $300,000 a year."
Hey...I thought you said you understood human nature????

You mean everyone judges success the way you do?

Perhaps you should consider this definition:

"Success is what gets you closer to what you believe is important."

And, that is why individual rights are so important. We're all different.
Shouldn't society be proud of the rich, rather than use them as a cash cow?

This is a thread about taxation, isn't it? I mean, you started it. So why are you going off on this other tangent? I agree that success isn't just monetary. Start a thread about that and I'll back you up. But it's irrelevant in this thread on progressive taxation.

good exchanges....so let me ask a Q to you both-

based on a luck factor, randomness..fate, should we find or assign a quantitative mechanism to account for this(?), to those that it MAY effect or could have effected, well, how do we account for those whom due to the law of averages would never suffer this random effect negatively?

Further- randomness, luck etc. comes in to flavors...good/ad....so, imho, its a wash.
 
The Founders never wanted a federal income tax. The Founders had it set up that States had the power to send their taxes to the Federal government.
It is Liberals who have taken away the power that states had and Liberals who put in the 16th amendment.
We would not be in this mess if we hadn't had the 16th amendment.

That may or may not be true. But given the fact that the country grew beyond 13 states..and there is a good deal more of a bastardization of the Constitution on so many fronts..it's interesting to note the only things Conservatives rant on about is taxes, guns and social programs to help the needy.

Nothing..about the military, executive priviledge, signing statements, the unitary executives, wire taps, extraordinary rendition, privacy, secrecy, corporatism, etc..

And yes..Ron Paul is an exception to this..but he's not really a conservative.

for Christ sakes the US history didn't start in 2001.
 
Well, then how about reversing the tax system, reducing taxes as you go up the financial ladder, to indicate to all how much we appreciate hard work, wise lifestyle choices, and entrepreneurship???

Could we impose my hypotheticals rather than yours?

No, because you can work very hard and make great lifestyle choices and still not be successful financially due to factors beyond your control. I know people who did everything right for the last 30 years and were wiped out in the financial crisis.



No its not. You started this thread on the principles of progressive taxation, not on the exact marginal levels. The fact that we cannot measure with precision the exact probabilities of success in life does not obviate the maxim that randomness affects outcomes. We can't measure the exact probability of an earthquake at a given place and time either, but that doesn't mean we don't accommodate for the unknown probabilities of an earthquake.



No. You merely provided a pithy example to wave aside the broad affects of randomness on people's lives without actually addressing the issue. Power goes out at night, snooze fails, the worker sleeps in and he is fired for not showing up. Betcha that's happened somewhere.



I didn't say that. It was you who dismissed the work of psychologists with sleight of hand, presuming that we should dismiss without question the work of those who dedicate their lives to the study of psychology.



Straw man. I didn't say we should raise taxes. I said we should have a progressive tax system. Nor did I say we should raise taxes ad infinitum. What I'm saying is that those who earn more should pay a higher rate of taxation because we recognize that not all of their success is due to their own effort. But I do believe that the majority of one's success if based on individual effort, and thus marginal tax rates should reflect that. I am willing to consider a flat tax where the first amount of income is tax free, which is effectively a progressive tax system.

But surely if you believe that life is all about the success one puts in, you must be for taxing inheritance at 100%, right? I mean, how can one argue that life isn't affected by randomness when someone is born with $10 million?



So, by your logic then, there are NO accentuating circumstances that affects one's life. Every single step along the way is due to the will of the individual. Every single thing around the individual is irrelevant, and the only factor which affects one's standing in life is what they do. Seriously?



Asking for an exact measurement of randomness is about as valid as measuring the exact amount of freedom. But that doesn't mean freedom, or randomness, doesn't exist.

But we do know some things which can be inferred about randomness. For example, we know that a child born to a single parent is less likely to be successful than one born to two parents. We know that a child is more likely to go to university if both parents have been to university compared to those whose parents never went. There are numerous such studies concluding that the environment affects one's upbringing.



I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you see that guy in my sig? That's Stephen Harper. If you don't know who he is, Google him.

5. "...ending up in poverty and not ending up in poverty is a different proposition from making $30,000 a year and making $300,000 a year."
Hey...I thought you said you understood human nature????

You mean everyone judges success the way you do?

Perhaps you should consider this definition:

"Success is what gets you closer to what you believe is important."

And, that is why individual rights are so important. We're all different.
Shouldn't society be proud of the rich, rather than use them as a cash cow?

This is a thread about taxation, isn't it? I mean, you started it. So why are you going off on this other tangent? I agree that success isn't just monetary. Start a thread about that and I'll back you up. But it's irrelevant in this thread on progressive taxation.

good exchanges....so let me ask a Q to you both-

based on a luck factor, randomness..fate, should we find or assign a quantitative mechanism to account for this(?), to those that it MAY effect or could have effected, well, how do we account for those whom due to the law of averages would never suffer this random effect negatively?

Further- randomness, luck etc. comes in to flavors...good/ad....so, imho, its a wash.

That is an interesting question, significant because it goes to the very core of liberalism.
FDR attempted to apply the concept of equality to economics, and that is where he, and they, went astray.

The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. Thus, progressive taxation.

Kurt Vonnegut dealt with the premise in a satirical way:

“And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War
 
Last edited:
The Founders never wanted a federal income tax. The Founders had it set up that States had the power to send their taxes to the Federal government.
It is Liberals who have taken away the power that states had and Liberals who put in the 16th amendment.
We would not be in this mess if we hadn't had the 16th amendment.

That may or may not be true. But given the fact that the country grew beyond 13 states..and there is a good deal more of a bastardization of the Constitution on so many fronts..it's interesting to note the only things Conservatives rant on about is taxes, guns and social programs to help the needy.

Nothing..about the military, executive priviledge, signing statements, the unitary executives, wire taps, extraordinary rendition, privacy, secrecy, corporatism, etc..

And yes..Ron Paul is an exception to this..but he's not really a conservative.

for Christ sakes the US history didn't start in 2001.

Sometimes you're silly.
 
No, because you can work very hard and make great lifestyle choices and still not be successful financially due to factors beyond your control. I know people who did everything right for the last 30 years and were wiped out in the financial crisis.



No its not. You started this thread on the principles of progressive taxation, not on the exact marginal levels. The fact that we cannot measure with precision the exact probabilities of success in life does not obviate the maxim that randomness affects outcomes. We can't measure the exact probability of an earthquake at a given place and time either, but that doesn't mean we don't accommodate for the unknown probabilities of an earthquake.



No. You merely provided a pithy example to wave aside the broad affects of randomness on people's lives without actually addressing the issue. Power goes out at night, snooze fails, the worker sleeps in and he is fired for not showing up. Betcha that's happened somewhere.



I didn't say that. It was you who dismissed the work of psychologists with sleight of hand, presuming that we should dismiss without question the work of those who dedicate their lives to the study of psychology.



Straw man. I didn't say we should raise taxes. I said we should have a progressive tax system. Nor did I say we should raise taxes ad infinitum. What I'm saying is that those who earn more should pay a higher rate of taxation because we recognize that not all of their success is due to their own effort. But I do believe that the majority of one's success if based on individual effort, and thus marginal tax rates should reflect that. I am willing to consider a flat tax where the first amount of income is tax free, which is effectively a progressive tax system.

But surely if you believe that life is all about the success one puts in, you must be for taxing inheritance at 100%, right? I mean, how can one argue that life isn't affected by randomness when someone is born with $10 million?



So, by your logic then, there are NO accentuating circumstances that affects one's life. Every single step along the way is due to the will of the individual. Every single thing around the individual is irrelevant, and the only factor which affects one's standing in life is what they do. Seriously?



Asking for an exact measurement of randomness is about as valid as measuring the exact amount of freedom. But that doesn't mean freedom, or randomness, doesn't exist.

But we do know some things which can be inferred about randomness. For example, we know that a child born to a single parent is less likely to be successful than one born to two parents. We know that a child is more likely to go to university if both parents have been to university compared to those whose parents never went. There are numerous such studies concluding that the environment affects one's upbringing.



I have no idea what you are talking about.

And you see that guy in my sig? That's Stephen Harper. If you don't know who he is, Google him.



This is a thread about taxation, isn't it? I mean, you started it. So why are you going off on this other tangent? I agree that success isn't just monetary. Start a thread about that and I'll back you up. But it's irrelevant in this thread on progressive taxation.

good exchanges....so let me ask a Q to you both-

based on a luck factor, randomness..fate, should we find or assign a quantitative mechanism to account for this(?), to those that it MAY effect or could have effected, well, how do we account for those whom due to the law of averages would never suffer this random effect negatively?

Further- randomness, luck etc. comes in to flavors...good/ad....so, imho, its a wash.

That is an interesting question, significant because it goes to the very core of liberalism.
FDR attempted to apply the concept of equality to economoics, and that is where he, and they, went astray.

The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. Thus, progressive taxation.

Kurt Vonnegut dealt with the premise in a satirical way:

“And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War

Sheesh.

Quoting Vonnegut? And completely out of context too.

Vonnegut was very much against Corporatism. Trying reading some of his books every once in a while.
 
:lol:

Your post make me laugh on many levels. And reinforces my notion of the "Corporate Quisling". You do know that the last conservative President inherited his wealth and a possible candidate, Donald Trump, did the same? You do know about the whole Irony thing? Dontcha? Sweet cheeks?

Thanks for playing..

"Your post make me laugh on many levels."
If you can do that you should sign up for the talent show!

"... the last conservative President...'
Who would that be, in your estimation?

And, that's Mrs. Sweet cheeks to you!

Well I am sure you are shoo-in for Annie Oakely..

And the last conservative President..was George W. Bush. The fact that conservatives have disowned him..doesn't take conservative away from him.

And I do hope "Mr." Sweet Cheeks keeps you happy so he can keep his body bullet free.:lol:

Otherwise Mr.Big SHOT would be a holey-warrior....rather than home with a full metal daiquiri...

....is that a tet offensive?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top