A Moral Argument for Progressive Taxation

It is by force. If you don't pay, they bring guns to collect. I've seen it.

Progressive taxation is totally immoral. You are the ignorant one. Progressive taxation drives the class warfare you thrive on. It's sick. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What about regressive taxes? Do they drive class warfare?

Duh. Of course they do. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion.

We have progressive taxation. About two pages down is the marginal tax rate table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

The whole "we don't have progressive taxation" is Democratic Socialist bullshit. They simply want more. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Actually, when all taxes are considered, our system is unfaotunately only mildly progressive.

http://www.norstad.org/politics/prog...manifesto.html

Also note that our tax system makes minimal adjustments to our already unprecedented inequality.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2006/03...income_31.html

How is it moral to take something from someone who earned it, to give to someone who did not by use of force? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah like when most of our Federal taxes goes to law enforcement and the military, both of which don't do a damn for the security of anyone.

We'd have a balanced budget if we'd return to the marginal rates under Reagan.

And we'd have a surplus and start paying down the debt if we'd eliminate Federal law enforcement and get rid of the military. We don't need any ancraft carriers, submarines, or mechanized divisions anymore. All that's bullshit.

IOFFORD actually makes a good point. What if there was something called the pussy tax? Who pays the tax? The provider or the hobbyist? Lets say it is like a corporate tax and the provider has to pay a pussy tax. The tax could come in two forms; a straight forward tax like a property tax because the provider has the ability to sell pussy whether she does or does not, or how much she sells. She has to pay a set figure because of the assessed value of the property. The other way is a percentage on what is sold. In either event what is a provider to do? Just like a corporate entity the provider was add a few or raise prices enough to cover the pussy tax. In the end, the hobbyist like any good customer ends up paying the tax.

What happens if the local wives get a bug up their butts and demand an increase in the pussy tax (they are exempt)? The local authorities double the pussy tax and guess what? The provider passes that increase on to the customer again. This may put the price outside what a hobbyist can spare or get away with. They stay home. The provider starts losing business. A little bit at a time at first but a loss is a loss. Some providers may feel a little bit put out for just trying to earn a living and Dallas sounds like a great location so some providers find greener pastures. The hobbyist finds himself limited in his choices. Some hobbyist find the rate increase (to cover the pussy tax) too high so they hit the road and find their pussy a few hours away (outsourcing the work). The local government sees revenue go down with the loss of providers and decides that they have to raise the pussy tax again to cover the losses. More providers leave and more hobbyists look for cheaper pussy down the road. Evenutally the industry is destroyed. No pussy, no pussy tax, and very few are happy.

I love paying taxes, especially when our Govt uses it to have a good time..... 1.1 billion to keep Mrs. O HAPPY is cheap....
Just to be clear, the Govt never spends money it doesnt have to.
Never any waste.
Obama care kicks in soon and we can all witness the efficiency of big govt., im so excited , as a matter of fact i will probably pay in extra on my tax bill just in case they need it..
Just think ,if we hire 100 million fed workers, they pay more tax, we hire more , so on and so on - its a big happy circle ....

JD Barleycorn presents a pussy tax scenario.

That scenario is EXACTLY what happened with the luxury tax on yachts.

Oh, and TTH, if you feel that you have a moral obligation to pay more taxes than you are currently paying, NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU.

You don't HAVE to take all those deductions if you don't want to.

We'd have a balanced budget if we'd return to the marginal rates under Reagan. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Completely wrong.

In those days, we collected total federal tax revenue of around 18% of GDP, give or take a little. In fact, that percentage has been more or less constant for decades, up until the recent downturn when revenues dropped sharply in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. Since we're spending close to 25% of GDP at the federal level, we'd still be left with a rather large gap.

And we'd have a surplus and start paying down the debt if we'd eliminate Federal law enforcement and get rid of the military. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Wrong again! Care to try for strike three?

Actually, when all taxes are considered, our system is unfaotunately only mildly progressive. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, our tax system, taking into account all tax types (income, payroll, property tax, sales tax, gasoline taxes, VAT, etc.) is far more progessive that the type of system typical of a European social democracy like France. It's just that total taxes levied as a percentage of income are lower across the income distribution here in the U.S., but the disparity is widest for the lower income groups.

This graph is a real eye-opener for many people: