Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination - Page 13

Kidicious · February 26, 2004, 16:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Wrong

Money comes in only two forms - wealth and income.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 26, 2004, 16:34

Who said I was in favor of taxation period.

Edit - for decorum sake.

Kidicious · February 26, 2004, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Who said I was in favor of taxation period.

How do you guys get away with this tripe?

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 26, 2004, 16:42

'Bout the same way you guys get away with personal attacks.

Kidicious · February 26, 2004, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
'Bout the same way you guys get away with personal attacks.

I will refrain

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 26, 2004, 16:52

Not a prob.

I just like messin with you.

Kidicious · February 26, 2004, 17:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Not a prob.

I just like messin with you.

I like doing that too, but obviously you were the one messing with me that time. That's why I got frustrated.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 26, 2004, 17:46

All seriousness aside,

The reason why I find property taxes more repugnant than income or other taxes. Is that for all other forms of taxes one can see that they are transactional. Stamps, sales tax, tarriffs,income, and even sales tax represent governement involvement in some form of transaction, be it mail delivery, import/export, payment for services rendered, heck even inheritance tax is a transactional as it implies a transfer of property from one party to another. Implicit in this is that the governement has some form of interest in the proper execution of these transactions.

Property tax on the other hand is nontransactional. It is merely a cost of owning property and hence is merely a means for local governments to aquire monies without a rationale.

I fully realize taxation is necessary, doesn't mean I don't think it evil tho' 'specially since I think it grossly inefficient.

Kidicious · February 26, 2004, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
All seriousness aside,

The reason why I find property taxes more repugnant than income or other taxes. Is that for all other forms of taxes one can see that they are transactional. Stamps, sales tax, tarriffs,income, and even sales tax represent governement involvement in some form of transaction, be it mail delivery, import/export, payment for services rendered, heck even inheritance tax is a transactional as it implies a transfer of property from one party to another. Implicit in this is that the governement has some form of interest in the proper execution of these transactions.

Property tax on the other hand is nontransactional. It is merely a cost of owning property and hence is merely a means for local governments to aquire monies without a rationale.

I fully realize taxation is necessary, doesn't mean I don't think it evil tho' 'specially since I think it grossly inefficient.

Transactions are economic activity. The govts intrerest should be to promote them, not tax them.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 26, 2004, 17:53

Agreed. Which is another reason why one argues to cut taxes whenever possible.

I would think you of anyone would be sympathetic to the plight of the poor elderly (on fixed incomes) barely making ends meet having their homes taken away from them because they can't meet propety tax payments.

Kidicious · February 26, 2004, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Agreed. Which is another reason why one argues to cut taxes whenever possible.

I would think you of anyone would be sympathetic to the plight of the poor elderly (on fixed incomes) barely making ends meet having their homes taken away from them because they can't meet propety tax payments.

You mean they sell their homes.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 26, 2004, 17:58

No that they are coerced under duress to sell their homes, in many cases simply to pay off back property taxes with no money for their pockets (after transactional taxes that is.)

Az · February 26, 2004, 18:38

Quote:

Azazel,

Ethical is not the same thing as just. Utilitarian ethics allow the kidney to be taken because it gives the recipient a greater benefit than the harm to the person whom the kidney was taken from. Just ethics do not allow this because benefits must be equal.

a) maybe so, but it's not the MOST ethical solution, anyway, and thus it is unethical.

b)so being just is treating everyone equally? even those who are guilty and those who're not, of a crime, for example?

Kidicious · February 27, 2004, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

b)so being just is treating everyone equally? even those who are guilty and those who're not, of a crime, for example?

Everyonr should be treated equally. That means that if someone harms someone else the victim should get justice, that is they should be compensated for their loss (if possible) or the perp should pay for his crimes.

Az · February 27, 2004, 22:07

That WOULDN'T be treating the guilty people and the innocent people equally, would it. IT would be just, and ethical, yes, but you wouldn't be treating them equally.

Kidicious · February 27, 2004, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No that they are coerced under duress to sell their homes, in many cases simply to pay off back property taxes with no money for their pockets (after transactional taxes that is.)

Maybe it's unfair to increase retired people's taxes like that since they paid tax on their income while they were working, but property tax is still so much better for the economy, and in my view fairer over all.

If you think about it a lot of retired folks live in the same house that they lived in with their children. That house would better serve a larger family. When you tax the property it makes people think, "do I really need all this property" or "am I using this property most productively." When you tax people's income and spending they always think, "should I earn this much" or "should I spend this much." Taxing income and spending results in less economic activity, but taxing property often results in better use of property. Either it's used more productively or it produces more utility for the user.

Kidicious · February 27, 2004, 22:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

That WOULDN'T be treating the guilty people and the innocent people equally, would it. IT would be just, and ethical, yes, but you wouldn't be treating them equally.

Why not? Who recieves a greater benefit or pays a higher price?

Az · February 27, 2004, 22:19

AHA! as you see, complete equality is not only impossible, it's bad. you have other things that you have to take into account, and while still acknowledging, their happiness is equally important, you realize that the ethical thing to do is to discriminate, and prefer the one ( the innocent ) over the other ( the guilty )

That was my entire point. Thus what we strive for is not that everyone would be equally happy, but that there would be generally as much happiness in the world as possible.

Kidicious · February 27, 2004, 22:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
AHA! as you see, complete equality is not only impossible, it's bad. you have other things that you have to take into account, and while still acknowledging, their happiness is equally important, you realize that the ethical thing to do is to discriminate, and prefer the one ( the innocent ) over the other ( the guilty )

That was my entire point. Thus what we strive for is not that everyone would be equally happy, but that there would be generally as much happiness in the world as possible.

It's not a matter of prefering the innocent over the guilty. The guilty commit a crime. That is, the innocent pay a price for the actions of the guilty. The equitable thing to do is make the guilty pay a price equal to the price that the innocent paid. It's not equal outcomes, it's equal treatment. If you commit a crime you pay for it. If you help society you benefit from it. That's justice.