Is it ethical to make rich pay more taxes?

by Lore 98 Replies latest jw friends

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    The fundamental reason this is promoted is the Marxist notion of redistribution of wealth - to the ultimate goal of eliminating the distinct economic classes.

    #2 of Marx's 10 Planks in his Manifesto:

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    How are things working out in the Scandinavian countries.

    Do you mean the liberalizing Scandinavian countries? They are moving in a direction opposite to ours.

  • james_woods
    james_woods
    Leaving two classes: government and citizen.
    -Sab

    Which is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union and Cuba under communism.

    #2 of Marx's 10 Planks in his Manifesto:

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    Exactly, BTS - but somehow the name "Adam Smith" does not carry the same negative connotations as the name "Karl Marx"...even if the basic idea is in fact Marxist.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Wow, more stunning dishonesty from BTS. Folks, Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation. It's just a fact. He didn't propose the current American form of progressive taxation, but he advocated for VERY progressive taxation (he didn't want wages taxed at all). BTS is using weasely words and selective quotes to claim the opposite.

    That's just plain.bald.faced.lying.

  • pedal power
    pedal power

    Fu-k, I am agreeing with 69

  • Lore
    Lore

    Wow, more stunning dishonesty from BTS. Folks, Adam Smith advocated progressive taxation. It's just a fact.

    In the interest of doing your work for you:

    "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

    From - The Wealth of Nations

    Why you can't provide evidence yourself while calling others liars and claiming they don't do their research is beyond me.

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety

    SixOfNine is full of shit, and can't back anything he says up. Adam Smith did not favor progressive taxation. Period. He favored proportional taxation. A flat tax is proportional (everybody pays the same proportion of that which is taxed), a progressive tax is not. Case closed.

    Read it:

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch02b.htm

    The following chapter is linked downpage from my link. He covers rents, income, profit from investments, consumption, and land taxes.

    Smith rejects income taxes on capital, wages, and professional income.

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch02b-3.htm

    Wages:

    "If direct taxes upon the wages of labour have not always occasioned a proportionable rise in those wages, it is because they have generally occasioned a considerable fall in the demand for labour. The declension of industry, the decrease of employment for the poor, the diminution of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, have generally been the effects of such taxes. In consequence of them, however, the price of labour must always be higher than it otherwise would have been in the actual state of the demand: and this enhancement of price, together with the profit of those who advance it, must always be finally paid by the landlords and consumers.

    A tax upon the wages of country labour does not raise the price of the rude produce of land in proportion to the tax, for the same reason that a tax upon the farmer's profit does not raise that price in that proportion.

    Absurd and destructive as such taxes are, however, they take place in many countries."

    He only favors taxing the income of officials in goverment.

    He favors a tax system that is in proportion to income, but not a tax on income itself. He also argues against a hard to understand tax system, like our own, where you have to hire professionals to figure out what you owe and even then good luck.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Which is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union and Cuba under communism.

    No one can agree, that's where the "problem" lies: diversity.

    -Sab

  • ABibleStudent
    ABibleStudent

    I feel that the rich should at least pay a flat tax rate the same as all citizens and no corporate taxes, which are passed on to either consumers or shareholders. Of course the rich will pay more than the average citizen, because they either spend more or earn more. Paying taxes and who gets what share of federal spending brings emotional arguments about what is fair. I am not rich and I do not feel like paying taxes so that the governments can redistribute it to other people. About 2/3 of the federal budget is spent on programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment/welfare, paying the interest on the national debt. In the future more than 2/3 of the federal budget will be spent on social programs as the cost for Healthcare increases.

    I don't like the status quo and I feel that not many other people would agree with how I would like to replace the income tax with a retail sales tax, reduce spending, and reduce our national debt. I believe that it is possible to get out of this mess that has been developing since the 1930's, but everyone would have to be willing to take more personal responsibility for their actions (or lack of actions), reduce their demands for more, and think of how to make things better for everyone instead of just for themselves. I am willing to pay taxes for social programs, but I want people who benefit from those programs to take personal responsibility to reduce costs by living heathier lives, getting a marketable education, at least working part-time in some job, and not having children while in those programs. I am willing to pay for government programs for the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development, but I want politicians and bureaucrats to make more strategetic decisions instead of knee-jerk decisions that cost more in the long-run and cut special interest (i.e., pork-barrel) spending.

    Would the Federal Government have spent $663.7 billion dollars on the war on global terror, if America was energy independent? In America wars happen because America was attacked, special interest groups convinced the government to attack another country or group of people (i.e., Native American Indians), and another country or organization attacked a country that America pledged support to. Some wars are avoidable and some are not. I feel that the Invasion of Iraq and Afganistan could have been avoided if America was not dependent on strategic items such as oil.

    Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

    ABibleStudent

    The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures: [ 8 ]

    Deficit

    The total deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.42 trillion, a $960 billion increase from the 2008 deficit.

    The 2009 budget deficit would represent 12.3% of gross domestic product, [ 9 ] the largest share since World War II. [ 10 ]

  • TheClarinetist
    TheClarinetist

    A progressive tax does the most good for the least amount of harm. From that perspective it is ethical. A 1-2% tax increase on the rich would create the maximum amount of revenue with minimum difference in lifestyle, while decreasing the rate on the poor would hardly matter. However, when you take it much beyond that you might start getting into questionable territory.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit