Tiberius Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 I'm still waiting for a moral justification for confiscating 52% of anyone's earnings over 10m.Moral justification is that the person paying the 52% will still live a million times higher than the many people also helped by that 52% paid in taxes that pay for health care, food, schools, jobs, economic growth, etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Moral justification is that the person paying the 52% will still live a million times higher than the many people also helped by that 52% paid in taxes that pay for health care, food, schools, jobs, economic growth, etc etc. That's the theory, but in practice how much of that 52% actually goes to people in need compared to how much is wasted on government excess? Do you know the exact amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 We have moved way beyond "moral" or "fair" when it comes to taxes. We're in the realm of "Justice" now. It's gone from elevating the poor to punishing the rich; probably since our definition of poor is considered rich for the rest of the world. We're handing out free cellphones! Our job should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I've seen several moral arguments in favor of helping the under priviledged; though I've yet to see a single moral argument in favor of confiscating 52% of a portion of someone's earning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Moral justification is that the person paying the 52% will still live a million times higher than the many people also helped by that 52% paid in taxes that pay for health care, food, schools, jobs, economic growth, etc etc. Morality defined by materialism? I've seen several moral arguments in favor of helping the under priviledged; though I've yet to see a single moral argument in favor of confiscating 52% of a portion of someone's earning. Or here's a different take on the question: At what point does a "moral" taxation become a "punitive" taxation? Or what differentiates the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's interesting how different people take it. As I've moved up in brackets, I've never felt punished for success. To me its just social responsibility to give more since I have more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Morality defined by materialism? Or here's a different take on the question: At what point does a "moral" taxation become a "punitive" taxation? Or what differentiates the two? Good question. Another might be: At what level of taxation on the rich do they get thanked for their large contribution instead of being criticized for not paying their "fair share"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) It's interesting how different people take it. As I've moved up in brackets, I've never felt punished for success. To me its just social responsibility to give more since I have more. With a flat tax, you give more as you earn more. Why do we need to have separate tax brackets - so we can feel compassionate? What makes you presume that extra tax revenue is used for social programs? With a $19 trillion national debt, wouldn't you think that the government is throwing plenty of money at the problem already? Edited January 19, 2016 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's interesting how different people take it. As I've moved up in brackets, I've never felt punished for success. To me its just social responsibility to give more since I have more. Indeed. Under Bernie's proposed "plan" I was debating if it'd be even worth it to make $10M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's interesting how different people take it. As I've moved up in brackets, I've never felt punished for success. To me its just social responsibility to give more since I have more. Did you ever earn a bonus that Congress considered confiscating via the legislative process, because they thought you earned it unfairly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Indeed. Under Bernie's proposed "plan" I was debating if it'd be even worth it to make $10M. Trust me, it's still worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Dork, just to be clear, do you believe it's "fair" to pay disproportionately more in taxes if you make more money? Trust me, it's still worth it. How many yachts can you waterski behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I've seen several moral arguments in favor of helping the under priviledged; though I've yet to see a single moral argument in favor of confiscating 52% of a portion of someone's earning. You have it I want it Give it to me Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 I've seen several moral arguments in favor of helping the under priviledged; though I've yet to see a single moral argument in favor of confiscating 52% of a portion of someone's earning. How moral is it to have an economy where only a small portion of the population are comfortable, healthy and happy? Ending progressive taxation would lead to even greater inequality and poverty. That's immoral Morality defined by materialism? Money makes the world go round. Indeed. Under Bernie's proposed "plan" I was debating if it'd be even worth it to make $10M. Ya, being on welfare would be better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 How moral is it to have an economy where only a small portion of the population are comfortable, healthy and happy? Ending progressive taxation would lead to even greater inequality and poverty. That's immoral How small is that portion, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 19, 2016 Author Share Posted January 19, 2016 How small is that portion, again? The top 20% pay 84% of income taxes. If that was eliminated or saw a major reduction to its "moral" proportions, major government programs like Medicare would not function. The elderly would be forced into poverty. So I don't know exactly the proportion, but the gap between rich and poor sure would increase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I've seen several moral arguments in favor of helping the under priviledged; though I've yet to see a single moral argument in favor of confiscating 52% of a portion of someone's earning. You didn't build that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 The top 20% pay 84% of income taxes. If that was eliminated or saw a major reduction to its "moral" proportions, major government programs like Medicare would not function. The elderly would be forced into poverty. So I don't know exactly the proportion, but the gap between rich and poor sure would increase That has nothing to do with "comfortable, healthy, and happy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 How moral is it to have an economy where only a small portion of the population are comfortable, healthy and happy? Ending progressive taxation would lead to even greater inequality and poverty. That's immoral Money makes the world go round. Ya, being on welfare would be better.... Define comfortable. While you are at it you might just as well define healthy and happy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's interesting how different people take it. As I've moved up in brackets, I've never felt punished for success. To me its just social responsibility to give more since I have more. You're welcome to give all you want. There's even a place on your tax forms that allow you to do this. The difference here...and it's a big difference...is whether we do it because we want to or because we are forced to against our will. Forcing social justice is where it falls apart, because those who force it (yes, the progressives) set it up so they, themselves, never have to participate. Just look at Obamacare, where they are ALL exempt from that abortion that was passed in the name of social responsibility. The biggest difference of all, however, is that you advocate for the federal government to be in charge of individuals' complete and total welfare, and only two kinds of people believe in that: the lazy and the corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts