What is the argument liberals use to justify a graduated income tax?
A wealthy CEO doesn't cost the military more than a plumber. He doesn't drive more or use social services more. He doesn't use the public school more. So why does he have to pay more than him, especially when his business is already taxed? I'm trying hard to comprehend this. Why do we tax people more just because they make more?
Other urls found in this thread:
>A wealthy CEO doesn't cost the military more than a plumber
WRONG.
Poorfag detected. Why does a CEO cost the military more? Is his house on the other side of town more susceptible to Nork nukes?
Don't conflate CEO with business. A business is taxed more if it is protected by the military, like shipping near Somalia. But what about the CEO? What part of his life requires more military defense?
The wealthy businessman benefits from the system also. Without access to the banking system and markets and legal system he wouldn't be able to do business. Without access to the education system he wouldn't be able to find qualified workers. Without international stability and access to global markets provided by the military, he wouldn't be able to operate internationally.
The wealthy businessman benefits as much, if not more than the average joe from systems of government, and therefore he has a larger obligation to it
Louis > harvey
But the worker and the CEO are equally tied to the business, and equally indebted to the banking system, the markets, and the legal system. Just because one is more skilled and thus receives a higher monetary reward than the other doesn't mean that he is more indebted to the systems that enable the business. Both actors are working for the business to their best capacity, and are rewarded by the business according to their skill, so why punish the better-skilled workers just because they are better-skilled?
Certainly not military. Police, probably. However, even in NYC a CEO is just going to get a body guard. CEO of my fortune 250 pays more exponentially anyway..look at Trump 35$ million in taxes in 1 year. We need the FAIR Tax.
I agree with you. But many liberals I know would argue that it’s because as a society we are supposed to lift the poorer and less skilled up, educate them and make them a better worker and person. You know basically NatSoc, except they hate Fascists and live Commies.
>are liberals really Fascists since they always project in their name calling??
>Why does a CEO cost the military more?
Because if you're poor, you have no wealth that needs defending.
The military primarily defends persons, families, and communities. If they need to defend a business' foreign engagements, then that should come out of the business' coffers.
You're saying the business should be the entity being taxed and not the person of the owner, right? That's a pretty good point. I know there's a decent-sized faction of liberals that are pushing for less personal income tax, and more corporate income tax, with a high consumption tax, but redesigning the whole tax code like that would be a nearly impossible task, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
But the CEO benefits in lots of other ways from a strong, sane government too. I don't see a lot of super-CEOs in unstable countries like Somalia. Having the strong institutions that the US does enables very wealthy people to exist and succeed in the first place
>still implying OP only asked about the military
Okay, so SOME CEOs do need more military protection. CEOs use public transit zero, can they be except from this and other irrelevant taxes to CEOs?
Because it always feels good to use the government as an intermediary to steal from the rich and "give to the poor"
i see what you did there
see that at the top
it says "Federal Reserve Note"
if you don't like doing business with the US treasury system, under US tax law, take your business somewhere else faggot
>Why do we tax people more just because they make more?
Because there is no fair income tax system. No matter what system you use, regressive, progressive, or flat, the richest bracket earners will pay the most in absolute terms and the poorest bracket earners will pay the most in relative terms.
The problem is disposable income and that's the exact reason our founding fathers outlawed head taxes (an exact amount per person). If you tax someone $1000 per year and they're on minimum wage, that can literally make them homeless. If you tax someone $100,000 per year and they're making a 7 figure income, you've substantially taken from them, but their lifestyle is completely unaffected.
It's a paradox when approached from a moral perspective. Here is the pragmatic question that every government is forced to ask:
>How can we fund the government without fucking up the economy?
Many, many, many systems have been tried. Only three have ever been shown to work long term. The first is a self-funding government, which has several ways it can be implemented from a feudal structure to communism. The second is property taxes (still used for local governments). The third is progressive income taxes.
And the third is the only one large enough to fund modern states.
This is why moral arguments for government are retarded. Both of you start with functional points, then insult your own intelligences by trying to prove who is the shittiest person in the example.
This is why moral arguments for government are retarded. Since everyone is trying to achieve the same end in the argument (I am the good guy, you are the bad guy) you end up with a X-sided horseshoe, limited only by the number of sides people happen to be on right now.
OK.. here's the honest truth:
The so called "progressive" tax system, like all other things liberal types call "progressive," is a shit idea. Here's why:
It doesn't accomplish it's goal.. ie. rich ppl who earn more don't pay more in income tax. They employ lawyers and accountants who optimize their affairs so they pay little to no income tax.
Deductions: deductions are the bastard children of the progressive tax system. As soon as you introduce deductions, the system is finished. Because the rich will always negotiate the best deal. In addition to lawyers and accountants, they also have lobbyists on their payroll.
As each income tax bracket rate is increased, it provides incentive to the rich to invest more resources to be tax efficient with any dollars earned in the higher tax brackets.
All income should be taxed the same.. same rate, no matter who earns it.
Taxing businesses to fill the treasury is a bad idea, because you can only tax businesses on profit (other systems all have the potential to drive businesses into bankruptcy, thereby eliminating the source of revenue).
Businesses taxes are good because they compel businesses to spend money rather than hoard it and in a healthy economy the cash must flow. This is why business income tax was initially implemented in the US, though early modern states also taxed businesses in a predatory fashion as part of mercantilism.
If you jack up the business tax and drop the personal income tax, businesses will divest their profits by paying their shareholders.
Holy shit this. Even the biggest, richest, douchiest CEOs seem to not realize that they are playing with fucking confetti. FRNs can't even really be called money because they are fucking instruments of debt.
This country has been officially bankrupt since 1933 and it is only a matter of time before the ponzi crashes. No amount of private security, fortified properties and bullion will stop the raging hordes from rightfully stripping the flesh off those who have enslaved them their entire lifes.
Bring it on.
This is why moral arguments for taxes are retarded. Instead of trying to accomplish any real goal, you identify a personal pet peeve list of shitheels you don't like then declare "And that's why my preferred system is good!" You are just mentally masturbating.
>A wealthy CEO doesn't cost the military more than a plumber. He doesn't drive more or use social services more. He doesn't use the public school more. So why does he have to pay more than him, especially when his business is already taxed? I'm trying hard to comprehend this. Why do we tax people more just because they make more?
Because 1% of the country owns 50% of the wealth and the top 29 richest own almost a trillion dollars.
>Because there is no fair income tax system. No matter what system you use, regressive, progressive, or flat, the richest bracket earners will pay the most in absolute terms and the poorest bracket earners will pay the most in relative terms.
This
To curb wealth inequality and redistribute the money back into the middle class through government jobs.
Except I am sure many CEOs do realize this.
>he thinks taxes pay for government spending
rich get taxed more because they have too much money. it builds on itself and warps the system, especially if they made the money through rent-seeking
Because if you tax poor people, they have to skip meals. If you tax rich people, they have to switch to a slightly cheaper brand of yacht wax.
It is done to encourage investing over hoarding, and to supplement a tax cut of middle-class/poor
The best argument that would justify a progressive tax system is that it balances out the tendency of capitalist system to create massive inequalities. The progressive income tax helps redistribute the wealth hoarded by those one-percenters where their own consumption could not possible keep up with their ability to accumulate more. Thus it aids in the re-distribution of wealth that our society requires in order to remain stable.
There is the argument if you want it. That being said, I am finding more and more that an income tax is counterproductive and downright harmful. A value-added tax is a better way to go.
>Because there is no fair income tax system.
No, the flat tax system is fair. Eliminate deductions. Everyone has the same amount of skin in the game and everyone keeps the same amount of disposable income (relatively speaking).
>head taxes
Literally no one has ever suggested a "head tax" like this. It makes no sense. To use your example with a flat tax: if you tax everyone at 10%, the minimum wage person earning $20k, for the sake of example, pays $2k and keeps 90% or $18k to spend as they see fit. The $100k earner pays $10k, to belabour the point, he get's to keep $90k. Each pay the same amount (relatively speaking) and according to their ability. Neither's lifestyle is affected.
Now as to the question, how can we fund the government without fucking up the economy... the "government" is a money destroying leviathan that will expand to consume every dollar that it collects in tax revenue. In order to control that kind of beast, you need constitutionally enshrined limits to the state's power to take from it's citizens. Like Americans say, the 1st amendment is the "freedom of speech", there needs to be a 36th amendment (no idea how many there actually are at this point) that says "no citizen shall pay more than 10% tax as compared to their earnings."
Flat tax is the way to go.
Liberals think the purpose of human existence to reduce suffering. If you take this presupposition, the whole edifice of socialism and nationalism fall apart.
The richer you are the more efficiently you can use the market which gives you a big advantage over 99% of the people in the country.
Progressive tax rates are there to add some sort of balance.
I dont think we should tax companies
They benefit the most from the current economic system. If the government was to disband and the dollar to collapse who do you think would lose more? The rich man who's business is making money largely based on an investment system or the average citizen who has to earn a living by marketing real world skills?
Government programs may support the general public, but the general public is what feeds the economy.
Its their system, they should maintain it if they want to continue raking in ridiculous profits.
>To curb wealth inequality and redistribute the money back into the middle class through government jobs.
This. With a flat tax, wealth inequality would be even worse than it currently is.