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."

(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."

(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.