Happy Progressive day!!

Originally posted by normbenign
The effective tax rate, when marginal rates were near 90% was around 20% of GDP actual revenue. Regardless of marginal rates, actual collected taxes hovers under 20% of GDP.

In quite a number of documented cases, raising tax rates on upper incomes resulted in diminished revenue, either due to reduced economic activity, or to moving away from the oppre ...[text shortened]... king the product of the successful, and gifting it to the "less fortunate, or less ambitious".

The effective tax rate, when marginal rates were near 90% was around 20% of GDP actual revenue. Regardless of marginal rates, actual collected taxes hovers under 20% of GDP.

And?

In quite a number of documented cases, raising tax rates on upper incomes resulted in diminished revenue, either due to reduced economic activity, or to moving away from the oppressive taxation.

There are also quite a number of documented cases where raising tax rates increased revenue.

The arguments you present in favor of progressive taxation are all pragmatic. Can you morally justify taking the product of the successful, and gifting it to the "less fortunate, or less ambitious".

Utilitarianism is largely about pragmatism. Perhaps you ought to read up on what it means so you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Progressive taxes, as far as I understand, have their ideological roots in the idea that taxes should only be raised on discretionary income, not on total income. Therefore, somebody with a greater discretionary income to nondiscretionary income ratio would incur a greater tax rate than somebody with a lower ratio.

Admittedly, the trick is defining discretionary income, but I'll leave that for other people.

Yes. They don't want us to have an discretionary income. After all, all you need is food and shelter and transporation to and from work to fullfil your drone existence in serving the state.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]The effective tax rate, when marginal rates were near 90% was around 20% of GDP actual revenue. Regardless of marginal rates, actual collected taxes hovers under 20% of GDP.

And?

In quite a number of documented cases, raising tax rates on upper incomes resulted in diminished revenue, either due to reduced economic activity, or to moving ...[text shortened]... m. Perhaps you ought to read up on what it means so you'll understand where I'm coming from.

People never just pay the tax. They react to it. Either by stopping the taxed activity, or sheltering the taxable income.

Tax increases almost never produce the revenues projected due to the reaction of the taxed.

Yes, utilitarian is pragmatism. I read pretty well, and both words are in my vocabulary. Is moral in yours? Theft may be considered utilitarian, but is it moral? Are you arguing the end justifies the means?

Originally posted by whodey
Yes. They don't want us to have an discretionary income. After all, all you need is food and shelter and transporation to and from work to fullfil your drone existence in serving the state.

Or looked at another way, if you are going to provide me with food, healthcare, a place to stay, transport, and education for my kids because those are my "rights" -- what do I need the job for?

Originally posted by spruce112358
Or looked at another way, if you are going to provide me with food, healthcare, a place to stay, transport, and education for my kids because those are my "rights" -- what do I need the job for?

Social status.

Originally posted by normbenign
People never just pay the tax. They react to it. Either by stopping the taxed activity, or sheltering the taxable income.

Tax increases almost never produce the revenues projected due to the reaction of the taxed.

Yes, utilitarian is pragmatism. I read pretty well, and both words are in my vocabulary. Is moral in yours? Theft may be considered utilitarian, but is it moral? Are you arguing the end justifies the means?

People never just pay the tax. They react to it. Either by stopping the taxed activity, or sheltering the taxable income.

Depends.

Tax increases almost never produce the revenues projected due to the reaction of the taxed.

Then you are looking at crappy predictions.

Are you arguing the end justifies the means?

Of course, as long as the benefits of the end outweigh the drawbacks of the means.