Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFrom Herman Cain’s attorney, describing the new allegation:
This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate,” said attorney Lin Wood, who Cain hired after several sexual harassment allegations surfaced against him earlier this month
Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.
I wanted WJC to resign because he diddled a WH clerk. It was their relative power positions in that workplace that motivated my thinking, not the infidelity itself, about which I had no opinion for public consumption, nor was I impressed with his misdemeanor false swearing under oath in a deposition about an immaterial subject.
In theory I agree with Lin Wood, but the news loves S-E-X and I am sure there will not be a public outcry to protect the privacy of anyone in public life, ever. Of course, one party here made her conduct quite public, for whatever reason, so the genie is out of that box, so to speak.
In theory, do you agree with Lin Wood? I am curious how many of us think consenting private adult [cpa] sex is not a legitimate ground for inquiry.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Agree with Wood. The problem for Cain is splitting the hair of prior accusations of inappropriate behavior vs this (denied) allegation of consenting behavior.
LikeLike
Is everyone else seeing this post with whacky formatting, or is it just my computer?
LikeLike
The formatting is indeed whacky.We might (might) be better off if Wood were right and that were the way it worked, but I think that bridge was crossed long ago, and as much as part of me would like to agree with him, I ultimately don't. It isn't just sex but adultery, and allegedly long-term adultery by someone who seems to claim he is a very different kind of person than an adulteror.Admittedly, I have not been following the story, but if it is true then I don't feel bad for Cain at all and am glad it came out. The problem is that in this media age where Gloria Allred is an email away flase accusers are a dime a dozen.
LikeLike
I think I fixed it. Mark, I hope you don't mind, and my apologies if I reformatted out something you wanted in.
LikeLike
I see that NRO has a post containing some information about Ginger White that raises suspicions about her credibility, including apparently a default judgment against her in a libel case brought by a business partner. Hmmm.
LikeLike
Scott, yes, the formatting is inconsistent.We're at a point in the pre-primary silly season in which the media are open to printing anything smelling of 'inappropriate' behavior.Cain now has a 'media track record' revolving around S-E-X, and until he effectively puts the worms back into the can, the media will be attracted to anything of that ilk allegedly connected to him. Whether the story is anyone's business is now beside the point as far as Cain's candidacy is concerned. Wood and Team Cain need a different strategy regarding media control.
LikeLike
Personally, I don't place too much value in knowing about the extra-marital affairs of politicians, although I do think such things can inform us somewhat about the character of an individual. But certainly plenty of other people do think it is relevant information, so I think it is a legitimate grounds for inquiry. Those who don't find any value in the knowledge can discount it if it is out there and so are no worse off for knowing it, but those who do find it important cannot act on that knowledge if it is kept from them, and so are indeed worse off.
LikeLike
Folks who cannot keep their pants on are taking a mighty crazy risk when they run for president. I can't imagine what they are thinking. If it's a case of where there is smoke, there is fire, then Cain lacks an important thinking skill, when it comes to predicting a very predictable chain of causation. Not a desirable quality in a leader. From a presidential standpoint, I'd be less worried about the infidelity, or his frequent propositioning of the ladies, than I am about his apparently inability to predict or prepare for what would happen when he ran for president. If he couldn't see this coming . . .
LikeLike
qb: Ginger White that raises suspicions about her credibilityWell, women who enter into long term affairs with married men are probably going to have other issues with honesty, etc. Herman Cain's defense, that his frequent calls to her were because "he was trying to help her financially" screams "you're going to find out I've been sending her money" and "why am I in the habit of helping out women financially", etc. Herman Cain is clearly cut from the Gary Hart mode: "I dare you to catch me doing anything wrong!"
LikeLike
If this is a strike against Cain, should it be a strike against the Newt? Subquestion; could Cain make it go away by not denying the accusation & falling back on 'consenting adults?'
LikeLike
kw,I'm not sure how you can see that "clearly" at this point, but to each his own.If what she says is true, there should be a lot of corroborating evidence. It would be almost impossible for a lot of other people to have seen it going on. So we'll see what comes out.Right now, I doubt it, because her explanation for coming out doesn't add up to me, and her words don't ring true. They sound like she's read too many bodice rippers. And her description of him sounds like it isn't based on an intimate relationship.
LikeLike
bsimon:BTW…I remain curious about what it is you think is nonsense.
LikeLike
Nonsense: describing the ACA, which has substantial similarities to Republican proposals in the 90s, as socialized healthcare.
LikeLike
Nonsense: the incessant wailing about excessive tax rates & Obama as a tax-raising liberal, despite tax rates going down under the Obama admin. (Repubs are now, of course, lobbying for the payroll tax to go back up)
LikeLike
bsimon:Nonsense: describing the ACA, which has substantial similarities to Republican proposals in the 90s, as socialized healthcare.I was referring to our discussion about progressive taxation. The exchange went like this:"So can a progressive tax be fair? And if not, why?"SC: "No, because it does not treat all people equally before the law."bsimon: "Nonsense."
LikeLike
However, one should note, the Republican proposals in the 90s were, um, not well-received by many conservatives.OT: Watching John Stewart go over the Fox News reaction to Obama's atheistic Thanksgiving day YouTube video. Not enough God in the YouTube video? Really.Of course, Stewart follows it up with saying that Thanksgiving was really about pagans teaching religious zealots how to farm. Of course, that's actually not accurate, either.From this other commentary by John C. Dvorak:The Lincoln Thanksgiving was justified as a celebration of the North’s victory in winning the battle Gettysburg and had absolutely nothing to do with Pilgrims or anything of the sort. That nonsense was all reverse engineered by sentimentalists. Even the first supposed ‘Thanksgiving’ in 1621 was a three day one-shot party modeled after something called Harvest Home. It wasn’t called Thanksgiving. Harvest Home was a end of the harvest party celebrated in parts of the British Isles. This party didn’t happen again and, in fact, [as cited here], most of the invited Indian guests to the 1621 event were later butchered by the growing population of settlers.One documented ‘Thanksgiving” [cited here] was for a one-shot celebration to be held on June 20th. 1676, Thanksgiving was used more as a generic term for taking a ad-libbed holiday. There were some references to it being an occasional homage to the Pilgrims now and then, but most people thought it that part was silly. Jefferson was particularly annoyed by the notion.Again it was Lincoln who made it a yearly event and also made it stick to the fourth Thursday in November. It only changed for two years during the Franklin Roosevelt administration and moved up a week in hopes of stretching the Christmas buying pattern an extra week in hopes of helping the economy. It was already a known fact that Thanskgiving was the kick off to Christmas buying. A slew of half-baked traditionalists found the Roosevelt change an abomination since it somehow insulted Pilgrims or the D.A.R. or who knows who and was changed back after two years of bickering.I mean, speaking of nonsense.
LikeLike
Not stepping on your toes Mark, but there's nowhere else to put this.John Carney explains Europe's problem at a higher level than usually seen: "Europe's Real Problem? Deflation" http://www.cnbc.com/id/45476620 Day in, day out, he's smarter than the average bear (or columnist) Meanwhile Ezra's lead, "'I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity'" Means that the Germans have pretty much got things exactly where they want them. All that's left is the question of how much money we will pony up in the negotiations. Timmy Geithner in Europe this week should have sent a shudder down the backs of Americans, but we don't know enough to be afraid.
LikeLike
Scott: SC: "No, because it does not treat all people equally before the law."bsimon: "Nonsense."Meaning that he believes that progressive taxation treats people equally before the law, which is not an uncommon position. Thus, to say something treats people unequally before the law, when (to his perception) it clear does not is inaccurate. Or, more hyperbolically stated, "nonsense". While I'm prone to agree that progressive taxation treats people more equally in fact (if perhaps not in idealized platonic principle) than a flat tax, or a flat rate charge, given the nature of government, the need for a national defense, and the importance of an organizing structure for a functional society, neither position is, in fact, "nonsense", which by definition makes no sense whatsoever. Both positions make sense. Give starting positions and other base beliefs, one will make more sense to a given individual than another, but both ideas are based within a logical framework and, given certain precepts, make sense. Thus, the term "nonsense" is not strictly applicable.
LikeLike
Nonsense: Arguing that a sliding tax scale treats people differently. Everyone's first dollar of income is treated the same, as is each subsequent dollar earned. Some fortunate few earn enough income that they Max out their contribution to the payroll tax, for instance, but it is nonsensical to describe them as being treated differently than those whose entire income is under the cap.
LikeLike
bsimon: Nonsense: the incessant wailing about excessive tax rates & Obama as a tax-raising liberal, despite tax rates going down under the Obama admin. (Repubs are now, of course, lobbying for the payroll tax to go back up)Have tax rates gone down under Obama? I thought everything was couched as temporary tax credits. Please note, as a registered Republican, I have never once complained about Obama being a tax-raising liberal (of course, I believe in a more progressive tax structure than what we have now, one that might be a little easier on folks making $150k but a littler harder on folks making $1m and a little harder still on folks making $2m, etc). Which puts me at odds with my party, but I was under the impression that all of the tax reductions under Obama were temporary tax credits.The Bush admin went to great expense to announce a tax rebate, and then send everybody a lovely physical check, which they then needed to deposit. Never underestimate the importance of actually sending people cash money they can see, right in their hot little hands. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin:Meaning that he believes that progressive taxation treats people equally before the law, which is not an uncommon position.Thanks, but from his brief response it wasn't clear whether he thought it was nonsense to think that that unequal treatment before the law was unfair, or to think that charging different people different tax rates was an example of the law treating different people unequally before the law. I figure I should let him clarify…which I now see he has done.
LikeLike
bsimon: Arguing that a sliding tax scale treats people differently. Everyone's first dollar of income is treated the same, as is each subsequent dollar earned. Some fortunate few earn enough income that they Max out their contribution to the payroll tax, for instance, but it is nonsensical to describe them as being treated differently than those whose entire income is under the cap.Strictly speaking, I don't thing that argument is nonsensical. That is, there is an effective tax rate that grows ever higher, even if the difference is, in truth, exceedingly minor. Thus, one might argue that people are being treated differently "under the law", due to the fact that one is, at some point, paying a higher effective tax rate. To be clear, I agree with your argument, but I don't think the argument is entirely is nonsense. Because it's not. Your logic wins, in my opinion, but the opposite argument, though in the end incomplete, doesn't strike me as an example of nonsense. Nonsense is the idea that Thanksgiving is about Native Americans teaching pilgrims how to farm. 😉
LikeLike
It's unfair. I have no more or less responsibility to fund the government a man earning half my salary. The progressive tax is based on the faulty premise that I do. Frankly, i think it's none of the gov's business what I earn — it's a complete invasion of my privacy and my financial records should be protected from government snooping.
LikeLike
KW – the payroll tax holiday is set to expire. I suspect that were it a GOP initiative, they'd lobby for making it permanent. As an Obama program, they want to reinstate those taxes.
LikeLike
bsimon: I suspect that were it a GOP initiative, they'd lobby for making it permanent. As an Obama program, they want to reinstate those taxes.Yes, well. Politicians play politics. Collectively, as an electorate, there aren't enough on either side to hold their respective parties responsible for blatant politics (in facts, generally, we reward our respective sides for naked partisanship). And the results still seem superior to all other systems previously tried, so I guess I'll have to learn to appreciate what I've got. 😉 Nova: It's unfair. I have no more or less responsibility to fund the government a man earning half my salary. The progressive tax is based on the faulty premise that I do. Or that the government will have more money if they take more of your money, if you have more money to take. I think that's the real premise, most often. Other justifications are rhetorical efforts to maintain cash flow. Frankly, i think it's none of the gov's business what I earn — it's a complete invasion of my privacy and my financial records should be protected from government snooping.In an ideal utopia, I would agree. I'm still thinking user fees would be the best approach. Departments have to live within the funding they get from their user fees, and the government knows just enough about your finances as is necessary to collect user fees. If you're going into Yellowstone, they know it because they charge you money when you get there.And charge you twice as much to get out. User fees!
LikeLike
NoVA:Frankly, i think it's none of the gov's business what I earn — it's a complete invasion of my privacy and my financial records should be protected from government snooping. I agree.
LikeLike
bsimon:Everyone's first dollar of income is treated the same, as is each subsequent dollar earned.We are not talking about how the law treats "dollar's earned". We are talking about how it treats individual people.Consider the following two laws:a) Anyone earning $10,000 in an annual period will be taxed at a rate of 25%, and anyone earning $20,000 in an annual period will be taxed at a rate of 25% for $10,000 and 50% for $10,000.b) Anyone earning $10,000 in one annual period will pay a tax rate of 25%, and anyone earning $20,000 in one annual period will pay a tax rate of 37.5%.Tell me, what is the effective, substantive difference between these two laws?
LikeLike
I've never looked into it, but I have to believe that the courts have ruled the 4th doesn't apply to the IRS. But it seems to me that if the IRS wants my financial records, they can knock on the door with a present a warrant. As it is, I guess I'm not very secure in my papers. That this makes it difficult to raise revenue is immaterial. I suppose a consumption based tax would get around this issue. Regarding user fees, Ron Swanson has you covered: "I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks. Everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swing set. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck."
LikeLike
Kevin:Or that the government will have more money if they take more of your money, if you have more money to take. I think that's the real premise, most often.That may be a premise underlying the desire for a progressive tax (and almost certainly is), but it isn't a premise that can justify a progressive tax as "fair".
LikeLike
Nova writes"think it's none of the gov's business what I earn –it's a complete invasion of my privacy and my financial records should be protected from government snooping."I suspect we'll eventually need to restructure the way we fund gov't. To a certain extent, income tax is a ridiculous way to collect revenue. I'm very open to various flavors of consumption tax instead. If a VAT didn't trigger hysterical cries of European socialism, that could make sense. I like the idea of financial transaction taxes & increased petrofuel taxes; but only in trade for wiping out the income tax code. Its not a simple process to get there but could eventually result in a more equitable system.
LikeLike
"I was under the impression that all of the tax reductions under Obama were temporary tax credits."You are correct. They are either temporary tax credits or temporary rate reductions.
LikeLike
"hat is the effective, substantive difference between these two laws?"Example b doesn't seem to account well for people making more than 20k.
LikeLike
"I've never looked into it, but I have to believe that the courts have ruled the 4th doesn't apply to the IRS. But it seems to me that if the IRS wants my financial records, they can knock on the door with a present a warrant. As it is, I guess I'm not very secure in my papers. That this makes it difficult to raise revenue is immaterial. I suppose a consumption based tax would get around this issue."The IRS gets covered by the Sixteenth Amendment, so it gets a lot of leeway. Back in the day, Progressives were honest enough to actually change the Constitution via the Amendment process when they wanted to change the Constitution.
LikeLike
"It's unfair. I have no more or less responsibility to fund the government a man earning half my salary. The progressive tax is based on the faulty premise that I do."Two options:1. Progressive taxation & Progressive voting (i.e. vote your "shares" in the government based on your tax bracket)2. One Person, One Vote, One Tax Rate.
LikeLike
It's like a riot in CPA prison here today. They're throwing calculators and threatening to delete all the spreadsheets en masse.
LikeLike
bsimon:Example b doesn't seem to account well for people making more than 20k. Actually neither do, so that is not a difference at all, substantive or otherwise.The question remains. Let's hope your seeming desire to evade it does not.
LikeLike
Back on-topic (briefly):I agree with QB @8:23 and Scott @8:35. Frankly, I don't care, but the our media/society seems to have a prurient interest in the personal lives of public figures, be they politicians or movie stars or hotel heiresses. Now we return to our regularly scheduled discussion on taxation.
LikeLike
"Not stepping on your toes Mark, but there's nowhere else to put this.John Carney explains Europe's problem at a higher level than usually seen:"Thanks for this. I'd argue it deserves it's own top level post.I think this is key:"Over in Europe, sovereign debt issued by euro zone nations also served as a money-equivalent inside the banking system. Banks were not required to hold reserves against sovereign debt. They used them as collateral for obligations, and made inter-bank payments with sovereign bonds. The bonds were, in short, as good as euros.When the markets turned against nations like Greece and Italy, the cash-equivalency of their bonds came into doubt. It was obvious that they could lose value, and quite rapidly. The debt could no longer be used as collateral, except at extreme discounts.The discounting of sovereign debt, then, meant that there was less money in the European banking system. If a one million euro bond previously held as a money-equivalent is now worth just 600,000 euros, the holder has lost 400,000 euros. Multiply that across the banking system, and you have millions of euros of money-equivalents simply vanishing."
LikeLike
@ john. there's a great Far Side cartoon about thathttp://www.rbcpa.com/accountant_street_gangs.jpg
LikeLike
"The question remains."Perhaps for you. The same is not true for me. I find your framing of the question to be inaccurate & therefore is invalid as a point of discussion. Neither of us seems likely to change minds on this; perhaps we can agree that further discussion is pointless.
LikeLike
jnc:If Carney was a boxer, they would say that pound for pound he's the best.nova:Ah yes, Hell's Accountants!
LikeLike
bsimon:The same is not true for me. I find your framing of the question to be inaccurateWhat is inaccurate?
LikeLike
"What is inaccurate?"Your apparent belief that continuing this discussion would be productive.
LikeLike
Back in the day, Progressives were honest enough to actually change the Constitution via the Amendment process when they wanted to change the Constitution.That is so like 19th century and stuff. Besides the Constitution was written like 100 years ago and no one can understand it anyway. Lighten up.Nonsense: the incessant wailing about excessive tax rates & Obama as a tax-raising liberal, despite tax rates going down under the Obama admin.What tax rates have been lowered? Do you deny that Obama wants to and has wanted to raise tax rates?
LikeLike
I am aware that the admin wants to selectively let the irresponsible bush tax cuts expire. That is different from proposing higher tax rates.
LikeLike
Mark:Where are we going on the 10 year? There's big money at stake on whether yields are up or down.
LikeLike
bsimon:Your apparent belief that continuing this discussion would be productive.You sure do like to move the goalposts. Although in this case it is more like trying to switch games. You said the framing of my question was inaccurate. Now you are pretending to have been talking about my "belief" that had nothing at all to do with the question I asked. Very bizarre.I any event, I will say that if you are not willing to defend your characterizations of my arguments ("nonsense", "inaccurate") or even entertain questions about them, you shouldn't probably make them in the first place.
LikeLike
Ah, so Obama wants to let some of the irresponsible bush tax cuts remain in place. There is a semantic difference, not a substantive one. But Obama is nothing if not all about rhetoric and smoke and mirrors.
LikeLike
No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life.For the most part I agree with this unless the information would expose rank hypocrisy (i.e. DOMA supporters having anonymous gay sex) in their political positions. I also think for the most part this is honored. Nobody is routinely asking politicians if they are faithful until there is some evidence they aren't. In Cain's case, the woman herself came forward (albeit preemptively) and said she had an affair with him. In which case asking Cain if this is true seems like a perfectly valid question. In light of the previous accusations against him, it paints a picture of a married man continually on the prowl in work related settings (Cain and White met at a NR(estaurant)A function) which adds credibility to stories of women who weren't smitten by his advances.And the NRO story about the legal problems of White are not deep investigative reporting. They were discussed at length as part of the original news story. As for evidence of the nature of the relationship, the proof she presented was compelling but hardly iron-clad. It is curious why a married man would call and text a single mother dozens of times a month at all times of the day.
LikeLike
Scott, I made my argument. It didn't convince you. I'm not going to bang my head against the wall trying to change that.
LikeLike
"Ah, so Obama wants to let some of the irresponsible bush tax cuts remain in place."That is my understanding. I think its bad policy & the entire package should be allowed to expire.
LikeLike
bsimon:I am aware that the admin wants to selectively let the irresponsible bush tax cuts expire. That is different from proposing higher tax rates. qb:Ah, so Obama wants to let some of the irresponsible bush tax cuts remain in place. This was his campaign promise so I don't see how this is some amazing revelation. Obama has always phrased it as keeping the cuts for families making less than $250k intact. By extension that means letting them expire on people making more than that.
LikeLike
OT: I always love a good Matt Taibbi headline.Federal Judge Pimp-Slaps the SEC Over Citigroup Settlement
LikeLike
"jnc:If Carney was a boxer, they would say that pound for pound he's the best."His article also provides a nice Milton Friedman/monetarist explanation for Europe's issues and the whole inflation/deflation situation with the Euro.
LikeLike
jnc:He's too good for RS. He should get out of the tenements and join the bigtime where he belongs.
LikeLike
bsimon:I made my argument.Yes. And I would like to investigate it. I guess you are not willing to entertain questions about your thinking. Or at least not from me. Which is certainly an interesting approach to a forum such as this.SC: I say X.BS: Nonsense! I say non-X.SC: Well, let me ask you something about non-X.BS: No. You'll never convince me I'm wrong. You say X, I say non-X. What's the point?Again, if you are not willing to entertain questions about your assertions, I can only wonder why you bother to make them, especially here.
LikeLike
I get confused about what I have posted where, but I wrote about the expectation of rising oil prices by the end of December at the latest, the "risk premium" if you will. This is pretty accurate:"$100 Oil Doesn't Fully Reflect Rising Iran Tensions"http://www.cnbc.com/id/45479504
LikeLike
"If you are not willing to entertain questions about your assertions, I can only wonder why you bother to make them"You are not asking about my assertions. You are asking me about your assertion, which misrepresents the tax code. The tax code is that wages up to x value are taxed at y rate. Wages between x and z are taxed at w. Etc. The same rules apply to everyone. They don't change based on anything that differentiates you from me. If you want to get build an equal protection argument, I suggest you look at writeoffs instead.
LikeLike
"You sure do like to move the goalposts."Perhaps I am alone in finding amusement in your frustrations when the shoe is on the other foot. It means I'm sometimes small-minded, I know. I'm trying to work on it, but the refusal to agree to disagree makes that difficult.
LikeLike
"jnc:He's too good for RS. He should get out of the tenements and join the bigtime where he belongs. "Actually, I believe that Taibbi is a perfect fit for Rolling Stone. He's a muckraker of the first order, and that's what he does best. Plus any other venue would cramp his style, including limiting the necessary amount of profanity required to make his points properly.
LikeLike
John – have ten year rates stayed this low this long any time in recent memory?Thanks for the link. Did you see my note about having dinner with the head of worldwide security for Daimler finance last night? Roland thinks it will all work out and EMU will survive.
LikeLike
Money Found in Britain May Belong to MF Global About $200 million in customer money that vanished from MF Global is believed to have surfaced at JPMorgan Chase in Britain, according to people briefed on the matter. The discovery could be the most significant breakthrough in a monthlong hunt for the missing funds.During MF Global's last chaotic days, the brokerage firm overdrew an account at JPMorgan, according to another person who is close to the matter. Some investigators now believe the firm used customer funds to patch at least some of the hole, which would have been a significant breach of federal law. MF Global transferred the roughly $200 million in the days before the firm filed for bankruptcy, said the people, who requested anonymity because the investigation was incomplete.
LikeLike
From Carney:This is why fears of ECB action on European debt are so badly misplaced. Europe is experiencing a Great Contraction — the decline in the supply of its money equivalents. The size of this contraction is stunning. It includes the entire bond markets of Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal . Before long, it will include many other nations.**********************Greece and Portugal are both too small to count, according to my dinner acquaintance from Stuttgart. Spain, and especially Italy, do count. But in the case of Italy, he says their national tax revenues exceed their national expenditures if rates on IT debt are kept low. He says there is no bottomless pit there like there is in Greece, but I do not know if Roland is correct. He is German and he is inside a major German company at a high level so his view may be shared in German industrial circles, anyway.
LikeLike
I do agree with the Friedmanesque analysis of both the Fed's printing of money and the likelihood that the Eurobank will or should print money to counter deflation with inflation.
LikeLike
What does Geithner have to do with it? He is at Treasury, not at the Fed.
LikeLike
And back to Cain and S-E-X:Cain is reassessing his candidacy.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/herman-cain-re-assessing-candidacy/2011/11/29/gIQAdlGz8N_blog.html?hpid=z1'Bout time. He won't win IA, NH, or SC and lacks ground troops in other key states.Bachmann should reassess now, but probably won't until after IA. If she's not in the top three there, she'll drop out then.
LikeLike
You are not asking about my assertions. You are asking me about your assertion, which misrepresents the tax code. The tax code is that wages up to x value are taxed at y rate. Wages between x and z are taxed at w. Etc. The same rules apply to everyone. They don't change based on anything that differentiates you from me.The question didn't misrepresent anything. It simply asked whether two ways of structuring the tax rates aren't mathematically equivalent.It's obvious that they are, and that you choose not to face that reality.Ultimately, it doesn't matter which way you arrive at the result; the progressive tax does treat people unequally based on their incomes. That's the entire point of it. The rest is a semantic dodge.
LikeLike
Mark:He has been the administration's point man on this. IMF contributions don't come from the Fed.
LikeLike
Mark:On rates, not since the end of WWII.It WILL work out for the Germans, either way. For everybody else, perhaps.
LikeLike
As for Italy, yes their budget starts out with a surplus, BUT their banks are absolutely notorious, so you have no idea what they have been doing until they collapse like Dexia.
LikeLike
Scott – Some time ago, I demonstrated that flat taxers are no different than those favoring a progressive tax code. The total tax rate varies as a function of income and is therefore "unfair" by your definition.If you put in a personal exemption, you've violated the purity test. That you would favor taxing income between $50,000 and $55,000 at the same rate as income between $990,000 and $995,000 doesn't change the fact that your favored tax system is progressive. It's simply less progressive.It's nonsense to pretend that shifting to a flat tax is anything but shifting the income tax burden from high income individuals to middle to upper income individuals.BB
LikeLike
Besides, the total tax burden is nearly completely level anyways as these graphs show. The super rich are just looking for ways to lower their tax rate below that of the middle class and they have found doctrinaire conservatives to carry their water for them. It is no coincidence that the two biggest advocates for a flat tax have been Ross Perot and Steve Forbes.
LikeLike
Thanks, John.
LikeLike
Scott – Some time ago, I demonstrated that flat taxers are no different than those favoring a progressive tax code. The total tax rate varies as a function of income and is therefore "unfair" by your definition.No, if you define a fair income tax as the same rate paid by everyone on all income, they are entirely different, and the flat tax is by definition the fair one.It's nonsense to pretend that shifting to a flat tax is anything but shifting the income tax burden from high income individuals to middle to upper income individuals.You can fairly say that if you are willing to stipulate that it is entirely fair to do so, and there is no value judgment involved. But if you attach some value judgment to this, then you need to be prepared to establish that the existing progressive rates are ontologically fair and cannot be reduced in their progressivity without making them unfair.If you won't stipulate to that, then the statement itself is nonsense, and if you will stipulate, then it is rather a meaningless observation anyway.
LikeLike
"t doesn't matter which way you arrive at the result; the progressive tax does treat people unequally based on their incomes"Nonsense. That an individual's effective tax rate can be expressed multiple ways does not make it unfair. The same rules apply to everyone.Or are you arguing that various levels of income amount to protected classes?
LikeLike
Nonsense. That an individual's effective tax rate can be expressed multiple ways does not make it unfair. The same rules apply to everyone.You continue to confuse issues. Look at the statement you quoted. It doesn't say it makes it unfair; it says the result is unequal treatment based on incomes. You choose to accept that unequal treatment as fair, because "the same rules apply to everyone."Or are you arguing that various levels of income amount to protected classes?I haven't said anything about protected classes. When did this become a constitutional debate? The point I was making was that you can't avoid the fairness question based on how an overall or effective tax rate is calculated.You choose to answer the fairness question with an appeal to rules. But I can express any system of unequal treatment in equivalent terms of rules. You can let your imagination run with that. Stating unequal treatment in terms of differentiating rules only restates the problem; it does not resolve it.
LikeLike
"If you define a fair income tax as…"Translation:"If you define parameters favorable to my argument, my argument wins!"
LikeLike
"If you define parameters favorable to my argument, my argument wins!"Perhaps read a little more carefully. The argument FB made was expressly premised on Scott's definition of fairness, which I am pretty sure I accurately stated. FB was claiming that a flat tax does not satisfy Scott's definition of fairness. It clearly does. You can choose to agree with that definition or not, but your retort is completely beside the point.
LikeLike
"It says the result is unequal treatment based on incomes."Duh. The incomes are unequal. If the incomes are equal, but the taxes are unequal, there's an argument for unfairness.
LikeLike
QB, here's how Scott framed the discussion:I was referring to our discussion about progressive taxation. The exchange went like this: "So can a progressive tax be fair? And if not, why?" SC: "No, because it does not treat all people equally before the law." bsimon: "Nonsense." Clearly a tax code that treats all income up to a point as taxable at rate x and the next block at rate y is treating everyone equally. That some people never reach tax rate y is irrelevant. The law treats everyone the same.
LikeLike
Duh. The incomes are unequal. If the incomes are equal, but the taxes are unequal, there's an argument for unfairness. Getting you to stick to a point seems to be hopeless, so I will stop trying now. Clearly a tax code that treats all income up to a point as taxable at rate x and the next block at rate y is treating everyone equally. That some people never reach tax rate y is irrelevant. The law treats everyone the same. Saying "clearly" isn't an argument. You just ignored everything I said.
LikeLike
QB: "No, if you define a fair income tax as the same rate paid by everyone on all income, they are entirely different, and the flat tax is by definition the fair one."Blade: The flat tax fails on that claim. Every flat tax proposal I have seen combines a large personal exemption with flat rates above that exemption. The so-called flat tax is in fact a progressive tax with 2 bands. 0% taxation up to the personal exemption and then 30% or so on all income above the exemption.The current system has 0% taxation for income up to a certain point, 10% up to another point, 25% up to a third point, etc. You might be arguing for a simpler system, but you are not arguing for one qualitatively different. Reducing the number of bands from 5 to 2 is not a moral argument.But heck, I'll play the same game. A $40,000 personal exemption plus $10,000 for each additional family member. The marginal rate above that is 50%. Oh boy! I just created a "fair" tax system by your definition. I suspect most liberals would be happy with it too. I should run for office!I think the current system has too many bands and I hold with contempt any so-called millionaires tax. I also think the current system probably undertaxes my family. Going back to a previous thread, that makes me a hypocrite. Ah, but a fair one.BB
LikeLike
This argument is fundamentally over the definition of "fairness" which has been in dispute since at least the days of Socrates and Plato writing about what constituted "Justice" in The Republic. Unless you agree on a definition of "fair" (and I expect that if you drill down to first principles, that you don't) you won't be able to reasonably determine if a given tax code meets the definition. For those in favor of Progressive taxation, I would suggest a social experiment:The next time you order a pizza, have a combined dinner tab or some other shared bill in a social setting, rather than divide it up based on who consumed what and how much each portion of the check cost, ask everyone to state their income and split it up by ability to pay. I don't think you will find many people who view this as "fair".
LikeLike
"Saying "clearly" isn't an argument. You just ignored everything I said."Sorry for that. I find the notion that progressive taxes are somehow unfair to high income earners so ridiculous I have trouble taking you guys seriously.
LikeLike
"Sorry for that. I find the notion that progressive taxes are somehow unfair to high income earners so ridiculous I have trouble taking you guys seriously. "I find the notion that the services the government provides to me justifies taking the amount of my income that it does just as ridiculous.
LikeLike
Sorry for that. I find the notion that progressive taxes are somehow unfair to high income earners so ridiculous I have trouble taking you guys seriously.It's not really us that you don't take seriously. It is careful and serious thought that you don't take seriously, as this exchange just showed. If you look back at this thread and the earlier one on progressive taxes, I took the care to make your arguments more carefully than you did yourself, and acknowledged the different positions that can be taken.Thinking about your positions and opposing ones isn't something you appear interested in doing, but at least we've established that now.
LikeLike
QB, the feeling is mutual.
LikeLike
"Inequality," as it is being linguistically dragooned by the community organizers in the WH and DemMedia axis, is, uh, relative. I, tao, compare my status to you, 1percenter or 99.It's actually none of my damn business, unless the comparee is doing something illegal to get to his divers percent.It is not a moral issue. Breaking!…life is not fair.The only fair categorical outcome must be equal wealth for everybody. Outcome via taxation, a policy that won't affect equality one damn click, kicked off a helluva ruckus awhile back.Think that's a political winner?{golly, Sargent, is turning into a patchouli punk}
LikeLike
"Sorry for that. I find the notion that progressive taxes are somehow unfair to high income earners so ridiculous I have trouble taking you guys seriously."Charming. Way to demonstrate tolerance for opposing views. Textbook example we can all learn from.
LikeLike
tao,100% right.FB,I agree, a tax with personal exemptions isn't really flat. That wasn't part of the hypothetical, and it doesn't change the fact that rate structures that yield the same results are equivalent.Oh boy! I just created a "fair" tax system by your definition.No, you didn't. I don't know where you get that idea.My family is not undertaxed; of that I have no doubt.
LikeLike
One more illustration, if you will allow me, please.To me, income is not a personal and arbitrary classification like race, or gender. It is a variable, not in any way integral to me. I was the same person the year I paid over $400K in taxes as I was in less successful years.Thus, I too cannot take the arithmetic argument that the first and last dollar of income should be taxed at the same level seriously, as an argument related to justice or "fairness". I am not income. Income is just money. Any taxation system that raises the funds necessary to provide the desired level of services [and what that level should be is another issue], but that is not confiscatory or counterproductive or grossly inefficient and that does not treat similarly placed persons differently will not cause me to lose sleep or claim "injustice" or "inequality".BTW, I could take an argument for flat tax with no exemptions and no distinctions between forms of income seriously if it were posed as the model of efficiency and simplicity.There is a lot to be said for simplicity and efficiency.But you already knew that I thought this. See y'all tomorrow.
LikeLike
Mark:Thus, I too cannot take the arithmetic argument that the first and last dollar of income should be taxed at the same level seriously, as an argument related to justice or "fairness". I am not income. Income is just money.I write the check, not my "income". Income is not taxed. Individuals are taxed based on the income they make. It is linguistic shorthand to speak of "taxing income", but it does not represent a literal reality, so it is a conceptual error to think that questions of justice or fairness do not apply simply because the tax applies to "income", not individuals. I was the same person the year I paid over $400K in taxes as I was in less successful years.But did the government provide you with more services/benefits the year you paid over $400k than in less successful years?The notion that what an individual is forced to pay for a given service should be divorced entirely from the benefit provided by that service is an odd one indeed. In any event, it is certainly subject to questions about fairness or justice.Beyond that, the whole notion of "annual income", from which the notion of "first dollar earned" is derived, is entirely arbitrary. If I make $500,000 this year and $50,000 next year, should I pay more or less tax over the two year period than someone who makes $275,000 in each of the two years? Why should 276,000th dollar he makes get taxed as his "first" dollar earned, while mine gets taxed as the 276,000th, just because I made it on July 1 while he made it on January 1st? It is arbitrary and (sorry Mark) unjust/unfair.And, manifestly, it results in different treatment of different people. That anyone denies this obvious fact is, frankly, astonishing to me.
LikeLike
Scott – on the accounting principle that interest on debt gets paid first, most years I just contribute to the interest on the national debt, paying investors back in China and elsewhere, or, perhaps, the social security fund in a bookkeeping transaction. A few times I have contributed to a nose cone on a missile, or several yards of pavement on a US Interstate Highway, or perhaps the school lunch program.Different people situated differently ARE OF COURSE treated differently. For me the problem is only when persons similarly situated are treated differently.
LikeLike
bsimon:That an individual's effective tax rate can be expressed multiple ways does not make it unfair.No one said it did. The point in showing that the same thing can be expressed in different ways was to deomonstrate your claim about equal treatment to be false. Obviously people are treated differently depending upon their income. That is the whole point of a progressive tax.Again, that anyone actually disputes this is, to me, astonishing.The same rules apply to everyone."Applying" is different than "treating". As I mentioned the other day, consider a law that taxed people "progressively" based on their religion. Christians pay one rate, Jews another, Muslims another, etc. Such a law would "apply" to everyone equally. Would you consider that such a law actually treated everyone equally? I'm guessing you would not. A progressive tax based on income is no different.
LikeLike
Mark:For me the problem is only when persons similarly situated are treated differently.Two points:First, in my above example, over a 2 year period both peopel are similarly situated but are treated differently. Hence by your standard that is a problem. One which can only be rectified by eliminating the progressivity of the tax.Second, Jim Crow laws treated people situated similarly the same. People situated in black skin were treated one way, and people situated in white skin were treated another way, but people situated simiilarly were not treeated differently. Nevertheless, I suspect you would still find such laws to be problematic.If you don't like that example, consider my example to bsimon of "preogressive" taxation based on religious affiliation. Would that be problematic, despite treating people situated similarly the same?
LikeLike
Mark:on the accounting principle that interest on debt gets paid first, most years I just contribute to the interest on the national debtI'm not sure why you think this. In 2010 interest on the national debt came to $197 trillion. Individual income tax receipts totalled $809 trillion. So on the principal that an individual's income tax payment funds specific spending programs in the same ratio as all tax receipts, at least 80% of your tax payment went to things other than interest on the debt.
LikeLike
I was the same person the year I paid over $400K in taxes as I was in less successful years.Wow, I had no idea you were such an oligarch, Mark! That's a good year.
LikeLike
scott, 197 trillion/809 trillion?And an income tax based on religion could hardly be called an income tax. Why would income tax discern a difference between income levels based on anything but income. Personally, I don't find anything offensive about a progressive tax system other than the fact that it has gotten so complicated with so many deductions and exemptions that I don't think we can pretend it is either fair or efficient. If we can get the same or similar revenue stream with a different system that doesn't penalize poor people and put the onerous duty of supporting the government on the backs of people barely surviving I say let's do it. There are lots of ideas out there but I do think some are more reasonable than others. However, I believe as with many of our discussions the point is somewhat moot as I find it highly doubtful there is political will to do anything other than tinker, that seems to be what they all do best. I mean, hello, re-election?
LikeLike
lms:And an income tax based on religion could hardly be called an income tax.First, I didn't call it an income tax. Second, it certainly could be called an income tax, just one with progressivity based upon religion rather than amount of income.But most importanly, it's not the name that is relevant. Call it whatever you want. It is the principle behind it, ie taxing people at different rates based on some characteristic, that is relevant to the point.Why would income tax discern a difference between income levels based on anything but income.I am not proposing that such a thing should be done. I am simply trying to illustrate the absurdity of claiming that a progressive tax does not treat different people differently, while also tyring to display the unjustness/unfairness of the principle behind it.
LikeLike
lms:197 trillion/809 trillion?Sorry, billion. I'm not so good with numbers.
LikeLike
consider my example to bsimon of "preogressive" taxation based on religious affiliationI assume you meant "progressive" income tax here so it seems to me you're adding in a "characteristic" other than income which makes no sense. Essentially, you seem to be saying it's unfair that people with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate, that it is unjust. Many of us disagree as income is not some arbitrary characteristic when dealing with an income tax system. I think there are other aspects of the system that are unfair but I don't believe progressiveness is one of them, although as I mentioned I'm open to suggestions other than a flat tax which I think ends up being more regressive than anything else.
LikeLike
lms:I assume you meant "progressive" income tax here…No. I meant an income tax with progressivity based on religion rather than on income level.So, for example, all atheists pay 30% tax on their income. All Jews pay 20% tax on their income. All Christians pay 10% tax on their income. And all Muslims pay 0% tax on their income.In principle this is exactly the system we now have.
LikeLike
lms:other than a flat tax which I think ends up being more regressive than anything else. How can a flat tax be regressive? It is, by definition, neither regressive nor progressive. It is flat.
LikeLike
scottWhy would you suggest and income tax based on anything other than income as a fictional comparison? In principle, it is nothing like the system we have now as it's an arbitrary characteristic that has nothing to do with income. I understand you think the progressive system we have is unfair but why not just say so rather than make weird comparisons that have nothing to do with income levels?
LikeLike
lmsinca: with so many deductions and exemptions that I don't think we can pretend it is either fair or efficient.No tax system capable of funding any government of any size (that is, capable of doing something like running a judiciary, enforcing contracts, and providing for the national defense) is going to be "fair". Pursuit of "fair" taxation is chasing a Will-o-Wisp. Although any system can be more efficient, I think that's a difficult matter to achieve with the tax code. At least if it continues to be written by legislators, most of whom are lawyers. 😉 Of course, there are always other approaches. We used to raise a great deal of revenue via tariffs–but new tariffs would be seen as unfairly impacting importers and/or exporters. So that's out . . .
LikeLike
lms:Essentially, you seem to be saying it's unfair that people with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate, that it is unjust.That is precisely what I am saying.Many of us disagree as income is not some arbitrary characteristic when dealing with an income tax system.Whether or not it is arbitrary has nothing to do with my argument that it is unjust, so I don't see how pointing out that it isn't arbitrary would lead to the conclusion that it is just.Clearly making progressivity a function of income is not arbitrary. But having a non-arbitrary reason for treating one demographic differently from another demographic is no reason to think the disparate treatment is justified.
LikeLike
Scott: How can a flat tax be regressive? A flat tax without poverty exemptions would have a dramatic impact on people with low incomes while being virtually invisible to those with high incomes. That would be the textbook definition of regressive, unless I'm missing something. Even a flat tax with some poverty exemptions is going to have a more severe financial impact on the middle class than on the upper classes. Ergo, it is regressive. Unless I'm missing something. A tax on religion, rather than income level, is an entirely different thing. It's an apples-to-carrots comparison, and whatever is meant to be illustrated by the metaphor is obfuscated by the strangeness of the comparison. Income levels are clearly related to income tax. Adjusting a tax based on the level of income is a clear and understandable relationship. Adjusting your income tax based on your religion, gender, color of your skin, or marital status, is much more arbitrary. Or the fact you've chosen to service a mortgage . . . the raft of available deductions that are tangentially related to income, if at all, would seem much better points of comparison than income levels, which have a clear and demonstrable correlation to income.
LikeLike
More unfair than progressive income tax? Property tax! Think about.
LikeLike
* think about it.
LikeLike
Re the Flat Tax, most of the proposals I have heard or read about only tax earned income and depending on the exemptions per family/individual income, can become quite onerous on poorer families. I suppose I'd have to know more specifics of an actual plan that you propose to give you further detail. Not every flat tax plan is just like the other.
LikeLike
Scott, you are unable to see the difference between a distinction drawn on income and a distinction drawn on race or skin color. Thus I can never convince you that we view distinctions based on race as invidious because race is an inherent human characteristic that does not make one person different from another in some way that allows for one person to be treated as less than another. I can never convince you that distinctions drawn on income are based on transitory circumstances that have nothing to do with who we are. I might as well be commenting to a Klingon and you to a Romulan.I did not mean the example about interest payments literally. The bigger picture is that I was responding to was your implication that we buy for personal consumption when we pay taxes.
LikeLike
lms:Why would you suggest and income tax based on anything other than income as a fictional comparison?As I said, to illustrate a principle.it is nothing like the system we have now In principle it is exactly like the one we have now.Persons with characteristic X will pay A% of income in taxes.Persons with characteristic Y will pay B% of income in taxes.Persons with characteristic Z will pay C% of income in taxes.This generic description describes both our current and my hypothetical tax system.I understand you think the progressive system we have is unfair but why not just say soI have, several times.…rather than make weird comparisons that have nothing to do with income levels?In order to see if bsimon holds his claim about the lack of disparate treatment in a progressive tax as a matter or principle or convenience.
LikeLike
ScottEssentially, you seem to be saying it's unfair that people with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate, that it is unjust."That is precisely what I am saying."Good, we agree that's what you're saying. I don't think you need to add arbitrary characteristics into the debate to make your point. Originally, the argument, as I read it was whether a progressive income tax system is just or fair. I believe it is a system that generally works (whether you think it's fair or not) but has been so distorted through exemptions and deductions that it's no longer working as designed. I think we could lower tax rates and simplify the system we have with both a better and more fair result. Generally, life and taxes are not necessarily described as fair. No matter how the tax system is designed it will never be "fair" when the government takes money from us and spends it on things we neither want or need individually. As a nation we need to have a revenue stream though to pay for stuff, lol.
LikeLike
Kevin:Pursuit of "fair" taxation is chasing a Will-o-Wisp.It is one thing to say that fair taxation cannot be ultimately achieved. It is quite another to argue that a given tax is not unfair or unjust.If defenders of a progressive tax said "Hey, I know it isn't really just/fair, but this is the only way the government can pay for all the things I want it to pay for," then we wouldn't be having this disucssion (although we would certainly be having a different one.)But what I hear is that a progressive tax is defended on grounds that it is just, using arguments that would be rejected if used in other similar contexts. I find that problematic.
LikeLike
Mark:Scott, you are unable to see the difference between a distinction drawn on income and a distinction drawn on race or skin color. Sure I can. I just don't think the difference is particularly relevant regarding the justness of government discrimination based on those distinctions. They may be relevant in terms of the degree of unjustness, but Thus I can never convince you that we view distinctions based on race as invidious because race is an inherent human characteristic that does not make one person different from another in some way that allows for one person to be treated as less than another.You don't need to convince me of that. I know it already. So what you seem to be saying is that you think Jim Crow laws were unjust/unfair for reasons other than simply similarly situated people being treated differently. I thought that might be the case, which is why I offered an alternative example, the progressive tax based on religion. Note that this tax would not be an example either of treating one person as "less" than another (unless you think our current tax system treats higher income earners as "less" than lower income earners) nor of basing such treatment on an inherent human characteristic. I can never convince you that distinctions drawn on income are based on transitory circumstances that have nothing to do with who we are.Again, you don't need to convince me, because I am already aware of it. What you need to convince me of is why the distinction between transitory circumstances and non-transitory circumstances renders government discrimination against individuals based on the former justifiable while discrimination based on the latter unjustifiable. BTW, I remain curious how can it be just that the 276,000th dollar one person earns is taxed at one rate while the $276,000th dollar another person earns is taxed at a different rate, simply because they were earned in a different calendar year.
LikeLike
lms:I don't think you need to add arbitrary characteristics into the debate to make your point.I agree!But I might find it useful to consider a hypothetical example in order to investigate whether the claims being offered by someone else are based on a held principle or based on simply convenience related to the subject at hand. Which, interestingly enough, is exactly what I did.
LikeLike
"Essentially, you seem to be saying it's unfair that people with higher incomes are taxed at a higher rate, that it is unjust."That is precisely what I am saying.""The next question seems to be: Why is it unjust or unfair?
LikeLike
bsimon:The next question seems to be: Why is it unjust or unfair?That was already asked, and already answered. You, in turn, claimed my answer was "nonsense", but then refused to engage substantively when I tried to examine this contention of yours.
LikeLike
Your answer is that different rates for different incomes is inherently unfair, if I understand you correctly. Why is that unfair?
LikeLike
bsimon:Your answer is that different rates for different incomes is inherently unfair, if I understand you correctly.My answer was and is that it is an example of law treating people unequally.You think this is "nonsense". This can be for one of two reasons:1) You think the law treating people unequally is/can be perfectly fair.2) You think a progressive tax does not treat people unequally.You originally objected on grounds of number 2. I tried to investigate this objection, but you declined, quite adamantly.
LikeLike
"…. providing for the national defense) is going to be "fair"I think it can be. add up the bill and divide by the number of citizens and start sending out invoices. everyone pays the same dollar amount is the only fair system.
LikeLike
"You think a progressive tax does not treat people unequally."Yup. I still think that. The rules are the same for everyone. The year I sold my duplex I paid a higher rate on some of that income than I'm accustomed to; same as anyone else would. How is that unequal? Using your $10k example, you pay the same rate on your first $10k of income as someone who makes only $10k. I think we agree that that's clearly fair. On the 2nd $10k you pay a different tax rate; he pays no taxes, because his income stopped at $10k. I don't understand how that is unfair.
LikeLike
NoVA: I think it can be. add up the bill and divide by the number of citizens and start sending out invoices. everyone pays the same dollar amount is the only fair system.Well, I don't think a system like that would work. I agree that it's the only "fair" system, but I will make my recipe comparison again: a recipe that makes a cake with equal quantities of salt, sugar, flour, eggs, oil, and water might be a "fair" recipe but would not make a good cake. Similarly, a system that charges everybody the same amount without exception ends up resembling Zimbabwe (and somebody is still getting out without paying their "fair share"). But even if a flat charge system would actually work, if implemented, it's never going to be implemented. It's simply not going to happen. So, like most utopian visions, it's mostly a mental exercise. The folks in government, which author the tax code, will never, ever do it.
LikeLike
bsimon: The next question seems to be: Why is it unjust or unfair?Progressive taxation is unfair because it treats people differently based on income. If you make more money, not only do you pay more for the same "good or service", so to speak, but you pay more as a percentage, unless your Warren Buffet or Elizabeth Warren. This does not seem to fit the classic definition of "fairness", anymore than requiring attractive women to "put out" more because of their greater attractiveness than other women would be "fair". However, the role of taxation is to provide government with revenue in a sustainable manner with maximum compliance, not meet every groups arbitrary idea of fairness.
LikeLike
Kevin:a recipe that makes a cake with equal quantities of salt, sugar, flour, eggs, oil, and water might be a "fair" recipe…The term "fair" as we have been using it, ie as a synonym for "just", makes no sense in this context. Notions of justice or fairness apply to interactions between human beings, not to cake recipes.
LikeLike
"a recipe that makes a cake with equal quantities of salt, sugar, flour, eggs, oil, and water might be a "fair" recipe but would not make a good cake"If we're trying to "bake" government, it's not supposed to taste good. if fact, the worse it tastes the better. that way you only choke down the smallest morsels and fire the chefs as often as possible.
LikeLike
Scott: But what I hear is that a progressive tax is defended on grounds that it is just, using arguments that would be rejected if used in other similar contexts. I find that problematic.I don't think there is any way to establish that progressive taxation is perfectly fair, or even close to perfectly fair. Primarily because I don't believe that it is, but even if I did, I would have to acknowledge that there is some personal bias in my assessment, because what makes it "fair" to me has to involve how important I think many different factors are–especially the disparate impact taxes have on the poor, the middle class, and the rich, especially as regards things such as "quality of life", which is, in itself, and ambiguous idea.
LikeLike
bsimon:Yup. I still think that.Then I will try again.Consider the following two laws:a) Anyone earning $10,000 in an annual period will be taxed at a rate of 25%, and anyone earning $20,000 in an annual period will be taxed at a rate of 25% for $10,000 and 50% for $10,000.b) Anyone earning $10,000 in one annual period will pay a tax rate of 25%, and anyone earning $20,000 in one annual period will pay a tax rate of 37.5%.Tell me, what is the effective, substantive difference between these two laws?
LikeLike
NoVAHockey: If we're trying to "bake" government, it's not supposed to taste good.I suppose not. Because the better it tastes, the fatter we're all going to get!
LikeLike
Scott: Consider the following two people. One drives on a toll road. The other does not. The first one has to pay a dollar to drive on the toll road. The other does not.This is arguably unfair, but seems equivalent to progressive taxation. Or, two people drive on a toll road. One drives on it three times, the other one only once. The first one pays 3 dollars, while the first one only pays 1. Yet the person who drove on it 3 times did not do 3 times the wear-and-tear to the road (perhaps he even drives a smaller, lighter vehicle and actually did less) . He consumed no additional resources driving 3 times versus one, yet he paid 3 times as much as the person who drove on the road a single time. This seems unjust to me. But, if I'm collecting the tolls, I have no real desire or way to easily remedy this injustice. That's apropos of nothing, I'm just thinking in the abstract, because I've got a migraine coming on. Yay!
LikeLike
"because what makes it "fair" to me has to involve how important I think many different factors are–especially the disparate impact taxes have on the poor, the middle class, and the rich"see, i think the disparate impact is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Kevin;Primarily because I don't believe that it isExcellent. We agree.but even if I did, I would have to acknowledge that there is some personal bias in my assessment, because what makes it "fair" to me has to involve how important I think many different factors areI don't think it is nearly as complicated as you think, particularly with regard to government action. There is a difference between thinking that a specific outcome is desireable and thinking that the means to achieve it are just. You may not find it desireable that Nazis be allowed to march in Skokie, Illinois, but surely it would have been unfair/unjust if the government treated them different than anyone else by not allowing them to march.Likewise, you may not find it desireable that the cost of government be distributed equally between low income and high income earners, but it is just as surely unfair/unjust for the government to treat high income earners differently than low income earners by forcing them to pay more for the same services.
LikeLike
"BTW, I remain curious how can it be just that the 276,000th dollar one person earns is taxed at one rate while the $276,000th dollar another person earns is taxed at a different rate, simply because they were earned in a different calendar year."This raises good argument for income averaging, in a stair-stepped rate environment. I am a proponent of income averaging.
LikeLike
"what is the effective, substantive difference between these two laws?"The same as the last time you asked. Why is it unfair that someone is untaxed on income they do not make?
LikeLike
Kevin:This is arguably unfair, but seems equivalent to progressive taxation.I don't understand how it is either unfair or analagous to progressive taxation.This seems unjust to me.Direct payment for the use of a good or service seems perfectly fair/just to me. I don't understand at all why you would find it unjust.because I've got a migraine coming onI sympathize, man. I've suffered those since I was in highschool. Dreadful, although I have figured out how to manage them better, and they have decreased in frequency/severity over the years. I know when it is coming on (I get the weird vision/aura thing happening) and I take a bunch of advil…advil seems to work best for me. Good luck.
LikeLike
bsimon:The same as the last time you asked. The last time I asked, you responded thusly:Example b doesn't seem to account well for people making more than 20k.As I pointed out last time, this is simply incorrect. Neither a nor b accounts for people making more than 20k, so this is not a difference at all, much less a substantive one.So now we are caught up. It was at this point yesterday that you refused to engage seriously or substantively anymore. I'd welcome a change today.Why is it unfair that someone is untaxed on income they do not make?It isn't.
LikeLike
Mark:This raises good argument for income averagingHow would this work?
LikeLike
Kevin:This does not seem to fit the classic definition of "fairness", anymore than requiring attractive women to "put out" more because of their greater attractiveness than other women would be "fair". And lms thinks my analogies are weird.
LikeLike
"Why is it unfair that someone is untaxed on income they do not make? It isn't."Then why is progressive taxation unfair?Everyone who reaches the same income levels pays the same taxes on that income. You agree that it is fair to not be taxed on income one does not make. So where's the unfairness?
LikeLike
Scott, we used to have income averaging in merica and it was repealed theyear before I made five times as much as I did in any other year, to my chagrin.Essentially, if you had a "big" year you would average it with your four previous years and figure your tax as if the excess in year five was spread over the five years, giving you the benefit of a much lower bracket in the big year and slightly higher brackets for the four previous years.You could repeat this process every time you had a big year that made it worthwhile, even in successive years.
LikeLike
"It is just as surely unfair/unjust for the government to treat high income earners differently than low income earners by forcing them to pay more for the same services."Ahhh. Now we're getting to the heart of the issue. Perhaps that discussion is best left for another day – do people of different income levels receive the same services from government?
LikeLike
bsimon:Then why is progressive taxation unfair?For the reason I already stated. I know you object to that reason, but you seem unwilling to have your objection tested/investigated. Certainly, in any event, you have thus far been unable to answer the question I put to you above with anything other than what is an obviously false answer, as I have pointed out twice now.If you can come up with an actual and substantive difference between the two hypothetical laws, I would very much like to hear it. In the absence of that, however, I think we both understand the implications to your objection.
LikeLike
Mark:You could repeat this process every time you had a big year that made it worthwhile, even in successive years. That certainly seems a lot more, er, fair than our current system. Although in such a system I think you ought to be able to spread it out over future years, as well. So if you had 8 years of steady, high income, the first 4 years could be averaged aginst the previous 5, and the last 4 coud be averaged against the future 5.
LikeLike
Scott, your objection is in direct conflict with your agreement that people should not be taxed on income they do not earn.As I have stated several times your analogy is flawed because it misrepresents how taxes are calculated. The IRS does not calculate an individual tax rate for each of us. It is calculated by brackets. Therefore your example b is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Put differently; if you are arguing that the examples amount to the same thing, you should be able to explain why the first is unjust without citing the second. Why is it unjust to assign different tax rates to different income brackets?
LikeLike
"If you can come up with an actual and substantive difference between the two hypothetical laws, I would very much like to hear it. In the absence of that, however, I think we both understand the implications to your objection."Assume parallel universes or parallel tax years, whichever. Universe A has the progressive tax structure you proposed and universe B has the flat structure you proposed as equivalent. Scott, if you only make $10K in Universe A you pay less tax than you do if you only make $10K in universe B. If you make the exact amount you posed as the higher number where you predetermined an equal result you pay the same tax in both universes. If you make more than the sum you posed as the break even point you presumably pay more in the progressive universe.The difference is obvious, substantive, and also at the heart of your contention of unfairness or injustice, as well as at the heart of the counterargument. It also contributes to the sense that KW and I have that a wide range of imperfect taxes exist that are acceptable; but any tax that is confiscatory, or counterproductive in that it discourages work, or inefficient in that it has too many rules and exceptions, or inequitable in that it treats similar incomes differently, is unacceptable. Personally, I buy Smith's argument for exempting the poor, but I do not argue "moral" grounds. Personally, I'd like to scrap income taxation for transactional taxation, sin taxes, and tariffs.I would not make a moral argument about those taxes, either. Not cig and alcohol taxes, not MJ taxes if we ever have them, not any taxes. Taxes are a bloody necessity, not a moral obligation.
LikeLike
bsimon: do people of different income levels receive the same services from government?No. People of identical income levels do not individually receive the same services, or benefit identically, as other people. The examples have been given in the past about the wealthy people who benefit from the military protecting international oil interests, or roads provided along which fat cats ship their products, but many people of high incomes are not shippers or petrochemical magnates, nor do they use much more services than someone paying much less in taxes. Yet they pay as much as other people with high incomes who personally, or whose businesses, benefit much more from the Interstate system or the American military or government grants.
LikeLike
Which is to say, individuals receive different levels of government "product" generally. It's not just people of differing income.
LikeLike
Personally, I'd like to scrap income taxation for transactional taxation, sin taxes, and tariffs.Don't like the sin taxes. if something is that much of a public health problem, it should not be treated as a revenue source.
LikeLike
"Although in such a system I think you ought to be able to spread it out over future years,"So how would you know your future income before the fact when your return became due?But I like averaging as long as we have brackets and if there were a way to average forward then I would be for it if it were not too cumbersome. I thinkreviewing from year ten back to big year 6 and averaging and asking that your overpayment for year six as spread over the years 7-10 be credited to tax liability in year 10 could work, but it seems a little cumbersome.
LikeLike
NoVAH, you would let cigs and MJ ride b/c we are too fine to give credence to our bad habits by taxing them?
LikeLike
Kw- al valid points, which underscore the many flaws of using income tax as a primary funding source. On the plus side, its a reasonable assumption that nearly everyone will have income & thus contribute to the funding of gov't.The question remains – what is a simple & fair way to spread the costs of gov't?
LikeLike
I am scrambling with work and shouldn't be here at all. Wanted to drop one philosophical note on the tax debate.One thing the debate itself illustrates is the limitation of rationalism in providing definitive answers to questions of justice. One reason (I think) I am a conservative. But that's a big topic suited for grad school.
LikeLike
But that's a big topic suited for grad school.Well thank God we don't have that to go through again. Do we know justice when we see it? Apparently not.
LikeLike
Mark — I don't think there should be a special category of taxes for "undesirable" activities. if there's a sales tax these products should be taxed like any other. I see no reason to slap a penalty on them b/c some people don't like them. Not saying I know anything first hand here, but the NY state tax on cigarettes made them much more expensive per pack than those in VA.
LikeLike
Nova, agreed. Here in MN the sin taxes are the first place the lege turns when there's a revenue shortfall.
LikeLike
Not saying I know anything first hand here, but the NY state tax on cigarettes made them much more expensive per pack than those in VA.————————-So…Take any category of unhealthy activities that cannot be successfully banned without imposing a police state: Alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, gambling.We have history with these. We have tried prohibition. We have perverted local justice systems for them. Why not decriminalize and tax at the highest level the market will bear?
LikeLike
bsimon:Ahhh. Now we're getting to the heart of the issue.No, the heart of the issue is disparate treatment, as I have stated several times. That the benefits provided by government services are enjoyed equally by all, or are at least individually indeterminable (due to their nature as public goods), has been an assumed premise.If we assume that one person or demographic actually receives more government benefits than another person or demographic, then it may well be true that disparate treatment is justified. But given the amount of wealth transfers that occur under the guise of government service, I suspect that assumption is far more likely to do damage to rather than to help the cause defending progressive taxation.As I have stated several times your analogy is flawed because it misrepresents how taxes are calculated.This is not true, but in any event my analogy doesn't purport to represent anything. I simply presented two hypothetical methods of calculating income tax owed and asked you if there was a substantive difference between them.. You have not provided any difference yet.The IRS does not calculate an individual tax rate for each of us. It is calculated by brackets. Therefore your example b is irrelevant.In fact the the actual tax brackets are far more akin to example B than A. You don't use the brackets to look up what you owe on the "first" X dollars you earned, then the next X dollars, and so on. They provide a table, and you look up the total amount of taxable income you have, and it gives you a single number, much like my example B gives you a single percentage to apply to your income. Indeed, for income over $100,000, the brackets work exactly like my example B, ie for a given amount of income, a percentage is provided by which you are instructed to multiply your income to calculate the tax. So it is very odd that you think the actual tax brackets make my example B "irrelevant". Very odd indeed.if you are arguing that the examples amount to the same thing…Do you at long last acknowledge that they do?…you should be able to explain why the first is unjust without citing the second.The notion you have challenged is that the tax treats people unequally. That is the issue I am addressing right now, not that it is unjust. Since you refuse to acknowledge that the first method does treat people unequally, I am introducing a hypothetical method that results in precisely the same treatment as the first, in the hopes that you will see that if the second treats people unequally, as it obviously does, the first, which again results in precisely the same treatment, must necessarily also be said to treat people unequally.The herculean effort you are putting into avoiding my question suggests to me that you understand this, and simply don't want to acknowledge it.
LikeLike
"Why not decriminalize and tax at the highest level the market will bear?"I separate the two issues in my mind. We decriminalize because the activities are not the threat to public health that the prohibitionists claim they are. full stop. How we best raise revenue is a different story. using taxes as a way to control behavior that a slice of the population doesn't like is something I can't get behind (obviously the tax code is riddled with this problem beyond the sin tax issue).
LikeLike
Mark:We have perverted local justice systems for them. Why not decriminalize and tax at the highest level the market will bear?You don't have to twist my arm. Alas, neither party seems interested in taking that approach.
LikeLike
Kev, we cannot even get the libertarian NoVAH on our side. 😦
LikeLike
gotta take care of something, but I'll dig up the link later to a story that I equate with the "sin tax" argument — essentially, a MADD-type organization in Ohio (?) objected to taxis offering free rides to drunks b/c it means they would go unpunished. better they get behind the wheel so we can pull them over and fine/imprison them than everyone get home safely. see you all later.
LikeLike
"In order to see if bsimon holds his claim about the lack of disparate treatment in a progressive tax as a matter or principle or convenience."One way to judge whether or not something is "fair" is are people willing to participate in it without coercion? I.e. In real life you rarely see people dividing a shared bill that they enter into voluntarily, such as a meal check or homeowners dues, by ability to pay. The only time you see this sort of behavior justified is when you can use the coercive power of the government (or a criminal enterprise) to force people to pay.
LikeLike
"Re the Flat Tax, most of the proposals I have heard or read about only tax earned income and depending on the exemptions per family/individual income, can become quite onerous on poorer families. I suppose I'd have to know more specifics of an actual plan that you propose to give you further detail. Not every flat tax plan is just like the other."The only flat tax proposals I'd support treat earned and unearned income the same (i.e. capital gains, dividends and wages). So I'm not in favor of the 9-9-9 plan. I'd also set the corporate income tax to the same as the individual rate to help prevent arbitrage by self incorporating. I'd set the personal exemption to a level equal to the IRS's cost to collect the tax. I.e. don't file taxes if it costs more for the system to process it than the government will net out in revenue. Any subsidies to the poor should be done through cash payments, not the tax code.
LikeLike
"Since you refuse to acknowledge that the first method does treat people unequally"Largely because it does not."I am introducing a hypothetical method that results in precisely the same treatment as the first"Except it does not. If my explanations have been unclear, perhaps mark's is not.Your argument seems to hang on a perceived injustice in having graduated tax brackets. You haven't explained why that is unjust, except via a hypothetical that does not match the tax system that you say treats people unequally. It does not.
LikeLike
"Kev, we cannot even get the libertarian NoVAH on our side. :-("I'm not sure where we disagree. I'm not saying they should be exempt from taxation. I object to the punitive nature of the taxes.
LikeLike
"In order to see if bsimon holds his claim about the lack of disparate treatment in a progressive tax as a matter or principle or convenience." Classy.
LikeLike
"In real life you rarely see people dividing a shared bill that they enter into voluntarily, such as a meal check or homeowners dues, by ability to pay."I view the progressive income tax said an imperfect but necessary proxy for determining who has benefitted most. To use the meal example, is it more fair to split the bill evenly, or get separate checks? Servers prefer the simplicity of one bill, but customers often view separate checks as more equitable.For gov't services, how do you establish who's derived the most benefit? Its pretty tough to assign a user fee for military protection, or a functioning judicial system. Income is one way; perhaps there are better ones out there.
LikeLike
Mark:Assume parallel universes or parallel tax years, whichever. Universe A has the progressive tax structure you proposed and universe B has the flat structure you proposed as equivalent. Scott, if you only make $10K in Universe A you pay less tax than you do if you only make $10K in universe B.No. In my example, the tax rate on $10k was 25% in both universes. There was no difference. That was the whole point…to show that, since the same treatment can be achieved by two different calculation methods, the calculation method is not relevant to how people are ultimately treated by the tax. If every dollar I make is subject to tax rate X, while every dollar you make is subject to tax rate Y, clearly we are being treated unequally. It doesn't matter how that effective rate was determined, whether dictated outright or calculated on a "first" X dollars, "next" X dollars basis.So how would you know your future income before the fact when your return became due?You wouldn't, obviously. I don't know how to make it work. A rebate or deduction on future taxes, I suppose. I was just thinking that the last year of high income shouldn't be subject to less averaging simply because it was preceded by 4 years of high income, if it then gets followed by several years of low income.
LikeLike
bsimon:Except it does not.You keep saying this, but every time I ask you to show how they differ, you can't/won't do so. I think we both know why.except via a hypothetical that does not match the tax system that you say treats people unequally.I actually linked to the tax brackets which show they are pretty much identical to the hypothetical. Notably, you have ignored this. Again, I think we both know why.Its pretty tough to assign a user fee for military protection, or a functioning judicial system. Income is one waySo is hair color.
LikeLike
jnc -"I'd set the personal exemption to a level equal to the IRS's cost to collect the tax. I.e. don't file taxes if it costs more for the system to process it than the government will net out in revenue. Any subsidies to the poor should be done through cash payments, not the tax code. "That is an excellent efficiency argument.
LikeLike
Its pretty tough to assign a user fee for military protection, or a functioning judicial system. Income is one wayscott"So is hair color."No, it's not. User fees and or taxes at least relate ostensibly to "income" or money. Hair color, religion and sexual attractiveness are un-related.
LikeLike
scott -"No. In my example, the tax rate on $10k was 25% in both universes."Oh. I see that. But I do not understand how that is achieved, so I subconsciously rejected it.
LikeLike
If you answer that is achieved by fiat, and is done by a table of tax owed for every income level, I reply that it is no different than the bracket system and provides no comparison. Thus it is a graduated tax on the same principal. It does not add to the conversation. You think a flat tax is more "just", some think it is more "unjust", I do not think it to be a question of justice or morality, as I have said.
LikeLike
lmsinca: No, it's not. User fees and or taxes at least relate ostensibly to "income" or money. Hair color, religion and sexual attractiveness are un-related.Well, we could have a hair color tax, but it makes a lot less sense and, in any case, is not a serious proposal and isn't likely to be.If we can't have a sexual attractiveness tax, could we at least have a lack-of-sexual-attractiveness deduction?
LikeLike
"I actually linked to the tax brackets which show they are pretty much identical to the hypothetical."The tax tables are a perfect example of how everyone is treated identically. If your AGI is between x and y, pay z. Doesn't matter who you are, the rules are the same. The inequitableness of this system escapes me.
LikeLike
"I view the progressive income tax said an imperfect but necessary proxy for determining who has benefited most. "This is a fine argument for progressive taxation in support of shared public services such as roads, parks and the military. It's much more problematic as a method to fund entitlement programs where part the purpose is redistribution of income. I clearly do not benefit by paying higher taxes just to have the government cut a check to someone else.
LikeLike
"I clearly do not benefit by paying higher taxes just to have the government cut a check to someone else."Its not so clear to me. At the crassest level, if a welfare check is keeping people off the street, they are out of the way of hardworking taxpayers. Some of the more productive programs help people get back on their feet & become productive members of society. This is particularly true of programs targetted at low income children. A couple thousand dollars spent early can deliver huge returns when those kids grow up & join the workforce.
LikeLike
"The tax tables are a perfect example of how everyone is treated identically. If your AGI is between x and y, pay z. Doesn't matter who you are, the rules are the same. The inequitableness of this system escapes me."I don't think I should have to pay more for a TV, a pizza, or a hair cut based on my income versus someone who makes less. Why should I have to pay more for government?You can fund a road through tolls or progressive taxes. You can make an argument that tolls are a fairer way to fund this as how much you pay is based on who actually derives the benefit from using the road.
LikeLike
"I don't think I should have to pay more for a TV, a pizza, or a hair cut based on my income versus someone who makes less. Why should I have to pay more for government?"See earlier post about income being an imperfect proxy for benefits received. The cost of a small cheese pizza is different from a large 3 topping.If not income, what? New technology has opened up alternatives that would have been impossible to implement in the past.
LikeLike
The tax tables are a perfect example of how everyone is treated identically. If your AGI is between x and y, pay z.You don't see a contradiction here, but the statements are contradictory. By definition everyone is not treated identically, because "[i]f your AGI is between x and y, pay z," but if your AGI is between y and y+n1 you pay z+n2.Many of us understand your argument that "everyone is subject to the same rules." What you either don't want to acknowledge or fail to see is that those rules sort people for unequal treatment. Indeed, only one of the rules ultimately applies to each person, so it isn't even true that the same "rules" apply to everyone. Different rules apply to different people.
LikeLike
"What you either don't want to acknowledge or fail to see is that those rules sort people for unequal treatment."Or you could more courteously say that I do not view different tax rates as inequitable. But I understand that may not be in your nature.
LikeLike
Or you could more courteously say that I do not view different tax rates as inequitable. But I understand that may not be in your nature.I very clearly and yet again acknowledged that you view "the rules" as constituting equal treatment. I've said several times that there isn't a rationalistic way to prove that one view or the other is just. But you are the only person who is completely unwilling or unable to accept that there is a different way to look at the issue at all.Perhaps someone else is able to state that difference more clearly than I just did, but I can't, so I will leave you with that.
LikeLike
"See earlier post about income being an imperfect proxy for benefits received. The cost of a small cheese pizza is different from a large 3 topping."I don't view it as a proxy at all. The fact that I earn more money than someone else has little or nothing to do with what the Federal government spends money on. In terms of services received, those who have higher incomes actually receive less in government services than people with lower incomes so you can't make an argument that progressive taxation is somehow based on benefits received. It's based on ability to pay.A flat tax is more just/fair in that if you want to start a war or subsidize health insurance, then everyone pays more for the "benefits" received from those actions, not just some people.
LikeLike
Also, what thread is complete without a link?Paul Krugman on this argument:"But the truth is that we are a deeply divided nation and are likely to remain one for a long time. By all means, let’s listen to each other more carefully; but what we’ll discover, I fear, is how far apart we are. For the great divide in our politics isn’t really about pragmatic issues, about which policies work best; it’s about differences in those very moral imaginations Mr. Obama urges us to expand, about divergent beliefs over what constitutes justice."A Tale of Two Moralities
LikeLike
"A flat tax is more just/fair in that if you want to start a war or subsidize health insurance, then everyone pays more for the "benefits" received from those actions, not just some people."Isnt it just another arbitrary method of allocating costs that charges the wealthy more than people with lower incomes? To use the restaurant analogy, the waiter still asks your income before splitting the bill. The difference is that there's no weighting by income; but one's share is still determined by income.If that is more equitable than a progressive tax, it is only marginally so – and concedes the point that those with higher incomes should pay more.
LikeLike
What is it about Mark posts the attract comments like moths to a flame?
LikeLike
Who turned off the ability to comment on this post? If there was some legitimate reason to turn them off, let me know, otherwise, for know, I've turned it back on.Mark:If you answer that is achieved by fiat, and is done by a table of tax owed for every income level, I reply that it is no different than the bracket system…Yes. That was precisely the point. To establish that there is no difference between a tax rate by fiat for each individual income level and a graduated tax on marginal dollars earned resulting in an effective net rate.Again, bsimon argued that the graduated tax treats people equally in that each marginal dollar earned is taxed at the "same" rate for everybody. But that is just computational semantics. What matters is the effective rate at which every dollar is effectively taxed. And plainly that is different for different people making different incomes.It is plain to see that in method B two different people with two different incomes are treated in two different ways. That is to say, they are treated unequally. Since, as you rightly point out, there is no difference between method A and method B, it must therefore also be true that method A also results in unequal treatment of different people, despite the fact that its computation is designed to give the appearance of equal treatment. bsimon (and perhaps others) would likely argue that even method B treats people equally in that the disparate treatment based on income level applies to all people equally. But I have already addressed this argument in a previous comment in which I applied this argument to a slightly different context, to see if he still would maintain that it did not result in unequal treatment. That question remains unanswered.
LikeLike
jnc:One way to judge whether or not something is "fair" is are people willing to participate in it without coercion? Quite right.
LikeLike
bsimon:Doesn't matter who you are, the rules are the same.I've addressed this arguement already (and posed to you a question which remains unanswered). That the rule applies to all doesn't change the fact that the rule itself prescribes unequal treatment.
LikeLike
lms:User fees and or taxes at least relate ostensibly to "income"No they don't. The protection afforded by the armed forces does not change depending on one's income level, just as it does not change based on one's hair color. Income is used as the primary method of taxation not because it has any correlation with or relation to the services which they fund, but rather because it is an easy method of determining ability to pay. It is as simple as that. As a practical matter, using income to determine one's share of the burden of funding governemnt may make some sense. But as a matter of justice, it makes as much sense as using hair color.
LikeLike
As a practical matter, using income to determine one's share of the burden of funding governemnt may make some sense. But as a matter of justice, it makes as much sense as using hair color.And yet you support a flat tax based on income to fund the government rather than hair color.
LikeLike
lms:And yet you support a flat tax based on income to fund the government rather than hair color.Within the context of a system in which the burden of funding the government will be distributed based on income, I support a flat tax. Outside of that context, however, I agree with NoVA. All people should pay the same $ amount, regardless of income level.
LikeLike
Or hair color.
LikeLike