Is it the purpose of taxation to punish wealth?

[Sheepdog]

^-- poll

[Sheepdog]

Any talk about whether or not the wealthy pay "their fair share" seems, to me, to miss the point entirely.

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government's various stated responsibilities. You know, police, public safety... all that jazz. So when a government taxes one class disproportionately to the benefit of another, especially to the point where it generates LESS revenue (a point Obama quibbled with, I recall), it is immoral.

[technomage]

Any talk about whether or not the wealthy pay "their fair share" seems, to me, to miss the point entirely.

The purpose of taxation is to fund the government's various stated responsibilities.

Stated or self-appointed responsibilities.


So when a government taxes one class disproportionately to the benefit of another, especially to the point where it generates LESS revenue (a point Obama quibbled with, I recall), it is immoral.

False. Morals apply to the actions of individuals--or as Kissinger noted, "Governments do not have ethics: they have interests."

More importantly, the government may tax whom it chooses. In a representative government (a republic) such as ours, the government's authority to tax is constrained by the Constitution, and by the laws dependent upon the Constitution. If the proposed tax fulfills the requirements and restrictions placed by the Constitution, then it is legal.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

I was going to vote "agree" until I read your second post. I thought that you were asking if taxes were being used to punish the wealthy in our current political climate.

[Conductor42]

No, but I don't think anyone - outside of flat out communists - would agree to that statement, not even the most liberal socialist.

[gharfish]

Aw ! Tricky OP title. Are the upper class being taxed unfairly ? There.

[Sheepdog]

Stated or self-appointed responsibilities.

well, if you are going to go back to the Constitution, then technically it's enumerated responsibilities.



False. Morals apply to the actions of individuals--or as Kissinger noted, "Governments do not have ethics: they have interests."

but are we not talking about the actions of individuals to drive the government based on this-or-that agenda? to separate the government as an entity from the people who are the government is, IMO, naive.


More importantly, the government may tax whom it chooses. In a representative government (a republic) such as ours, the government's authority to tax is constrained by the Constitution, and by the laws dependent upon the Constitution. If the proposed tax fulfills the requirements and restrictions placed by the Constitution, then it is legal.

but we are not talking about legality. "purpose" is not a legal judgment, but a values judgment. is it perfectly legal to go to a topless bar? sure, depending on municipality one finds himself in. should you? that is debatable and dependent on your moral view.

the Constitution itself recognizes that all "men" ought to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law, though in fairness this was hypocritical in the past (e.g. black slavery). i do not believe the Fathers were keen to the idea of taxing one man at a higher percentage rate than another simply because he finds himself earning a higher wage.

[Sheepdog]

No, but I don't think anyone - outside of flat out communists - would agree to that statement, not even the most liberal socialist.

That is what I would expect as well, honestly.

[technomage]

well, if you are going to go back to the Constitution, then technically it's enumerated responsibilities.

Excuse me, but the word "enumeration" only occurs in the Constitution in regard to the census and (in the 16th amendment) to taxation. Your choice of that word does not reflect "[going] back to the Constitution," but some form of political eisegesis that I do not recognize.


but are we not talking about the actions of individuals to drive the government based on this-or-that agenda?

You're right! We should impeach those who speak of taxation to punish the rich! The fact that most (if not all) of the people who speak of such things are Republican won't bother you, will it?


to separate the government as an entity from the people who are the government is, IMO, naive.

To claim that there is an agenda to "punish the rich" when no such agenda exists is, IMO, dishonest.


but we are not talking about legality. "purpose" is not a legal judgment, but a values judgment.

"Purpose" in the sense you use it is also not mentioned in the Constitution. More eisegesis?


i do not believe the Fathers were keen to the idea of taxing one man at a higher percentage rate than another simply because he finds himself earning a higher wage.

Then they should not have allowed the Constitution to be amended. But they did.

[Zero Tolerance]

Aw ! Tricky OP title. Are the upper class being taxed unfairly ? There.

The wording isn't tricky. Your pattern of thought just leans in a certain direction. I think the the poll is quite clear in the question that it asks.

[Cow Poke]

OK, I admit it! I voted YES!!!!

I was GONNA vote NO after i voted YES, but I was only allowed one vote. But - for the record, I voted FOR the war before I voted AGAINST it!

(Or something like that)

If you want LESS of something - tax it... if you want MORE of something - subsidize it!

[technomage]

If you want LESS of something - tax it... if you want MORE of something - subsidize it!

Our government sometimes operates on the principle of "If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it." :teeth:

(And yes, I stole that line from Ronald Reagan.)

[Zero Tolerance]

OK, I admit it! I voted YES!!!!

I was GONNA vote NO after i voted YES, but I was only allowed one vote. But - for the record, I voted FOR the war before I voted AGAINST it!

(Or something like that)

If you want LESS of something - tax it... if you want MORE of something - subsidize it!

lol.

[Cow Poke]

Our government sometimes operates on the principle of "If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it." :teeth:

(And yes, I stole that line from Ronald Reagan.)
That's good! I forgot that one!

[fiddlin-john]

Indoors or out, no one relaxes
In March, that month of wind and taxes,
The wind will presently disappear,
The taxes last us all the year.
-Ogden Nash

It is that time of year again to be punished...even though I ain't rich.

As I heard it said just today: I know the rich man has problems, I just wouldn't mind having his problems instead.

[Sheepdog]

Excuse me, but the word "enumeration" only occurs in the Constitution in regard to the census and (in the 16th amendment) to taxation. Your choice of that word does not reflect "[going] back to the Constitution," but some form of political eisegesis that I do not recognize.

bullcrap. have you actually read the Constitution?


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment.

the actual word may not be used as you think I would expect, but the concept is there.


You're right! We should impeach those who speak of taxation to punish the rich! The fact that most (if not all) of the people who speak of such things are Republican won't bother you, will it?

if you are done hyperventilating, then let me say: I am not a Republican, I am probably more inline with the Constitutional or Libertarian parties, and yes Republicans (and any other politician) who fails to uphold the constitution should be removed from office.


To claim that there is an agenda to "punish the rich" when no such agenda exists is, IMO, dishonest.

no such agenda exists? my my my you are naive.

go back and read some of what FDR had to say about the rich. that the Democrats aren't so overt these days doesn't mean the agenda isn't floating in the background.


"Purpose" in the sense you use it is also not mentioned in the Constitution. More eisegesis?


"purpose" in the sense that I used it is not in the context of the Constitution, but in the general sense of morality vs. the law. perhaps it is you who has the eisegesis problem, i.e. reading into my words that which isn't there.


Then they should not have allowed the Constitution to be amended. But they did.

what pray tell in the Constitution calls for a heavy graduated or progressive income tax? that is not from the Constitution, it's from the Communist Manifesto.

there is an income tax in the Constitution. it was amended in, back when we amended the Constitution rather than reading crap into it that isn't there.

[technomage]

bullcrap. have you actually read the Constitution?

Many, many times.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Tenth Amendment.

the actual word may not be used as you think I would expect, but the concept is there.

Not really. There is a difference between "delegated" and "enumerated"--indeed, quite a substantial one.


if you are done hyperventilating, then let me say: I am not a Republican, I am probably more inline with the Constitutional or Libertarian parties,

Oh, what a choice--legalize marijuana, or condemn the 16th amendment as "fraudulent." You seem to be trying to make a choice between innate arrogance and abject stupidity--or are you going for the best of both?


and yes Republicans (and any other politician) who fails to uphold the constitution should be removed from office.

The problem is this: your idea of "uphold the constitution" has little to do with what the Constitution actually says.


no such agenda exists? my my my you are naive.

go back and read some of what FDR had to say about the rich. that the Democrats aren't so overt these days doesn't mean the agenda isn't floating in the background.

You accept the swill and stupidity promulgated by the Constitution Party and the Libertarians, and you call me naive? Dear Lord and Lady, Sheepdog, I thought you took the concept of Newspeak of Orwell's 1984 as the fiction that it is, not as a mission statement!

In short, I don't care what quote-mined collection of drivel you've read: there is not an agenda to "punish the rich" in American politics.


"purpose" in the sense that I used it is not in the context of the Constitution, but in the general sense of morality vs. the law. perhaps it is you who has the eisegesis problem, i.e. reading into my words that which isn't there.

You are the one who said it. If you don't want your words used against you when you say something stupid, I would suggest you choose your words more carefully.


what pray tell in the Constitution calls for a heavy graduated or progressive income tax?

The 16th amendment gives Congress the authority to do so. If you don't like it, move somewhere that's not under US law.


that is not from the Constitution, it's from the Communist Manifesto.

Citation needed ... or is this just another bit of hyperbolic blather on your part? Oh, and don't try to wrest "From each according to his ability" into some form of "proof text" for progressive taxation--at his drug-addled worst, even Rush wasn't stupid enough to try to make that argument.


there is an income tax in the Constitution. it was amended in, back when we amended the Constitution rather than reading crap into it that isn't there.

Considering your past statements just in this thread, I'd say that for you to accuse others of "reading crap into it that isn't there" is a bad case of projection.

[fiddlin-john]

Although I find Silent Running's posts unnecessarily angry, and perhaps a bit nauseating in their feigned bluster, I have to agree with the central point.

Taxation does not exist in any sense as a punishment toward the rich. The program of taxation is simply a revenue raising effort to enable the wheels of government to turn. The effort of supporting government business required money, and the plain truth is as the government gets more bloated (as it did under George W.) it eventually grows ravenously hungry (as it seems to be with Obama). But the system, though not created to punish anyone in its purpose, naturally goes to the trough most plentiful. To say that the "rich" carry a greater burden of the tax code is clear. So, though the code's purpose is not to punish, the collective effect certainly seems punitive in its application.

[technomage]

Although I find Silent Running's posts unnecessarily angry, and perhaps a bit nauseating in their feigned bluster, I have to agree with the central point.

Dang it! That's what I get for going for second-hand feigned bluster!

:hehe:

[Cow Poke]

...To say that the "rich" carry a greater burden of the tax code is clear. So, though the code's purpose is not to punish, the collective effect certainly seems punitive in its application.

Hmmm.... well said, FJ. And I really felt the sting this past year. My company "went public", and there was a distribution ... let's call it a nice bonus, or "windfall" to senior management. As my check was presented to me, i was stunned that the actual amount of the check was 40% LESS than the intended "award". OUCH. And, as I'm doing my taxes, having paid heavily into "the till" all year, I still owe! But, you're right... while the "intent" of the code is not "to punish", WHY do i feel so WHOOPED!!!!! :wink:

I owe, I owe, so off to work i go....

[fiddlin-john]

Hey PUP, I hear ya. For the first time in my life, after having Uncle Sam pillage every paycheck I make, I was informed that he ain't done taking. I used to have a less cynical view of taxes, that's what happens when you get refunds. This year, I'll be trying to figure out how to come up with an extra 7Gs out of a paycheck the government already gets 20% of.

Well, I guess that's just the burden of being a rich white man in America. Never mind the house, the kids, the employees, the personal note, etc...

[Cow Poke]

Hey PUP, I hear ya. For the first time in my life, after having Uncle Sam pillage every paycheck I make, I was informed that he ain't done taking. I used to have a less cynical view of taxes, that's what happens when you get refunds. This year, I'll be trying to figure out how to come up with an extra 7Gs out of a paycheck the government already gets 20% of.

Well, I guess that's just the burden of being a rich white man in America. Never mind the house, the kids, the employees, the personal note, etc...

But you DO feel appropriately guilty for not paying MORE, right? And you DO realize that you could be even more patriotic if you paid more taxes, Yes?

[joel]

Citation needed ...

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. "
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html


Perhaps people don't advocate "punish the rich" in those very words, but that is what many people do advocate. I hear people advocating the use of tax not just for fiscal or budgetary objectives but also for the purpose of reforming conditions according to "social justice," e.g., fighting income inequality (which amounts to fighting wealth). What else could be the purpose of a progressive income tax, or more extreme proposals such as to tax away all income above a certain amount?

[technomage]

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. "
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Thank you for the citation, but I cannot thank you for re-introducing me to the drivel from which it sprang. :wink:

So, Sheepdog, you consider 35% tax to be a "heavy" tax?


Perhaps people don't advocate "punish the rich" in those very words, but that is what many people do advocate.

Joel, you do realize that this sentence contradicts itself? "Perhaps people don't advocate X, but X is what many people do advocate?" I assume you mean "Perhaps not all people advocate X..."?


I hear people advocating the use of tax not just for fiscal or budgetary objectives but also for the purpose of reforming conditions according to "social justice," e.g., fighting income inequality (which amounts to fighting wealth). What else could be the purpose of a progressive income tax, or more extreme proposals such as to tax away all income above a certain amount?

What other purpose? To place everyone on a "level playing field." Now, you know, and I know, and even Sheepdog knows, that such ideas of a "level playing field" are mainly advocated by those who have kept such an open mind that their brains fell out, but to categorize such thinking as "punishing the rich" makes copious use of what could be called "the mind-reader's fallacy": namely, the assumption that the accuser knows the motives of the accused.

The only other factor that it could be is rhetoric--the characterization of one's opponents using the worst possible terms, so as to (at worst) dehumanize them.

[joel]

So, Sheepdog, you consider 35% tax to be a "heavy" tax?

I don't know about Sheepdog, but I sure do. That's over 1/3! That's working from January into May for the government before getting to keep anything you earn. I think the tax on my paycheck is too heavy--it is my largest item of expenditure in a year (who knows how much sales and other taxes I pay add up to)--and I'm not even up to the 35% bracket. That's heavy. Think of 35% of other things--35% of your time, 35% of your blood--it's a significant amount.



Joel, you do realize that this sentence contradicts itself? "Perhaps people don't advocate X, but X is what many people do advocate?" I assume you mean "Perhaps not all people advocate X..."?
No, you misread. The key phrase was "in those very words." No, people use euphemisms and rhetoric, perhaps even convincing themselves.



What other purpose? To place everyone on a "level playing field."
That is not a different purpose. That would fall under the category of "reforming conditions according to 'social justice'", as I said. Knocking someone down to achieve or maintain a "level playing field" is tantamount to punishment for being to high--for 'violating' the "level playing field."



Now, you know, and I know, and even Sheepdog knows, that such ideas of a "level playing field" are mainly advocated by those who have kept such an open mind that their brains fell out, but to categorize such thinking as "punishing the rich" makes copious use of what could be called "the mind-reader's fallacy": namely, the assumption that the accuser knows the motives of the accused.

The only other factor that it could be is rhetoric--the characterization of one's opponents using the worst possible terms, so as to (at worst) dehumanize them.If the government takes money from someone (on threat of force) because they did X, this confiscation is punishment for X.

The government takes money from you (upon threat of violence) if you speed or jaywalk or whatever. That's punishment.
The government takes money from you (upon threat of violence) if you earn an income more than a certain amount in a year (and a greater percentage, the more you make). That's not punishment for earning an income more than a certain amount in a year?

A penalty is a loss, forfeiture, suffering, disadvantage, etc. imposed on someone. A tax is certainly those things, and a penalty. By definition it is not voluntary. If a penalty is inflicted whenever someone does X, then that is punishment for X. I don't think it is incorrect to say that a progressive income tax punishes the earning of a larger income, regardless of motive.

But different types of taxes could be considered punishment to greater or lesser degrees. A head tax is probably least appropriately called punishment. If someone advocates a more punishing tax when there are alternatives, then I can only assume that they are advocating the punishment for its own sake.

Even if we don't want to use the word "punish" because it is pejorative or "rhetoric," the point is still that schemes of taxation are advocated for purposes other than merely that of financing government spending.

[technomage]

If the government takes money from someone (on threat of force) because they did X, this confiscation is punishment for X.

The government takes money from you (upon threat of violence) if you speed or jaywalk or whatever. That's punishment.
The government takes money from you (upon threat of violence) if you earn an income more than a certain amount in a year (and a greater percentage, the more you make). That's not punishment for earning an income more than a certain amount in a year?

A penalty is a loss, forfeiture, suffering, disadvantage, etc. imposed on someone. A tax is certainly those things, and a penalty. By definition it is not voluntary. If a penalty is inflicted whenever someone does X, then that is punishment for X. I don't think it is incorrect to say that a progressive income tax punishes the earning of a larger income, regardless of motive.

But different types of taxes could be considered punishment to greater or lesser degrees. A head tax is probably least appropriately called punishment. If someone advocates a more punishing tax when there are alternatives, then I can only assume that they are advocating the punishment for its own sake.

Even if we don't want to use the word "punish" because it is pejorative or "rhetoric," the point is still that schemes of taxation are advocated for purposes other than merely that of financing government spending.

If I wanted to give an example of "rhetoric," I could do no finer a job than you just did. However, in case you were not aware, I do not consider the term to be a compliment, nor do I consider its use to be honest.

[joel]

If I wanted to give an example of "rhetoric," I could do no finer a job than you just did. However, in case you were not aware, I do not consider the term to be a compliment, nor do I consider its use to be honest.
I was not being intentionally dishonest. If you think I am mistaken, then please point out the error. If you think I'm being dishonest, then explain specifically how.

[technomage]

I was not being intentionally dishonest.

I know. Somehow, that makes it worse.

The big problem, as has been noted before, is that "The only thing worse than a scoundrel is a man of principle." You are a man of principles, and of conviction, and I respect that, even though I am firmly of the opinion that the principles you stand for have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with people--people you have listened to, and whom you respect--who want something for nothing, and who have persuaded you that what they want is their "right," and yours.

I would be willing to point out what I perceive as your errors ... but in the past, when I have done so, you have argued with some points, and completely ignored (or at least gave no feedback) on others. That is a very frustrating position to be in when in a discussion with someone.

[joel]

I know. Somehow, that makes it worse.

The big problem, as has been noted before, is that "The only thing worse than a scoundrel is a man of principle." You are a man of principles, and of conviction, and I respect that, even though I am firmly of the opinion that the principles you stand for have nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with people--people you have listened to, and whom you respect--who want something for nothing, and who have persuaded you that what they want is their "right," and yours.

I would be willing to point out what I perceive as your errors ... but in the past, when I have done so, you have argued with some points, and completely ignored (or at least gave no feedback) on others. That is a very frustrating position to be in when in a discussion with someone.
I'm curious what you think this "something for nothing" is.
Go ahead with pointing out the errors. If I am making an error I want to correct it. I will try to respond to all your points. If you feel I am not properly acknowledging or taking into account any of your points, then let me know. I don't recall the particular past circumstances.

[technomage]

Let's start with a new thread in the Basketball court. It will be tomorrow before I get a chance to post it, but I'll start working on it tonight.