What is the rationale behind a move to impose a progressive taxing system in countries? The world we live in today is based on human rights which are grounded in the principles of freedom and choice, so based on that, why should someone be forced to pay more money if he earns more than the rest of his countrymen?

I've heard people say 'it's because they have to give back to the society - without it they would never be as well off as they are now'. That's wrong. Society doesn't give you anything that it wouldn't give to everyone else, so why should you now, after using the tools are your disposal to make a decent earning, pay more than the average person does? Why shouldn't a 'flat' tax be the norm? The people currently earning alot are earning because of their ingenuity, intelligence and probably a bit of luck - but those aren't things that people should have to pay to have and use. People should not have to pay because they are smart, or more skillful than their colleagues, or any other attribute which would otherwise be considered a 'positive' one.

Another argument I've heard is that they should contribute to the society because they are experiencing the benefits. This is a weak argument - the more you earn the more likely you are to not be experiencing the benefits of paying taxes because the money you pay will be heading towards things such as public transportation, healthcare and education - things which a person earning well would not depend on as much as someone not earning as well as he is.

A similar line of argument follows from the above by people saying that people well-off should be trying to help the underprivileged, foster care in the community and develop communities - opinions which I agree with - however, isn't the point of a tax self-defeating if this is the ultimate goal? How is a person supposed to feel if they are forced to do something? It'd be like being forced to do charity - something which would certainly not foster care in the community or encourage a situation where the well-off would want to help the underprivileged.

So, what is the rationale behind progressive taxes? And is it justifiable?

The idea is that if you are rich and well off you should contribute to the rest of Society - and since you are richer you can pay more

SIMPLE!

The rationale is that progressive taxation is fairer on those who earn lower incomes. A flat rate tax impacts unfairly on people with lower incomes. Their need to access healthcare or other state-run services is no less, and some might say, is probably greater than those on much higher incomes, who can afford to pay for private medical insurance etc.

Is it morally/ethically justifiable? Yes - in so far as one accepts there is a moral duty to look after your fellow man - if you saw a weak, defenceless old man getting kicked to s*** by some thugs in the street, would you walk on by? I know that metaphor stretches things a fair bit, but it's meant to...to provide some food for thought.

I disagree with the term 'fairer'. It's more for than fair. However, even though there is a need to take care of those on the lower income scale, there is evidence of government run-agencies being inefficient to the point where it'd be arguable that if no taxes had been paid to run that agency, the average person would have been better off.

Regarding the flat tax, I reckon the impact is the same since it is the same % of income. (unless I misunderstood what you meant by impact)


You would not be forced to help the man though...

I wish

Had an interesting ethics seminar today about taxes so I thought it'd make for an interesting thread on here.

Cannot be arsed arguing the point with you Apisith. Just join the Tories and shut the f*** up.

EDIT: 

A flat tax is a % of income that has to be paid in tax, so it's impossible for it to be more than the minimum income unless it was something daft like 101% - which would mean everyone (including footballers and pop stars) would have to pay everything they earn plus 1% of that to the govt.

And I was hoping to push this thread into the more philosophical area, rather than discussing the effects of implementing it today in this day and age.

You want police, a defence force, roads, sewers, teachers, nurses.................   

SOMEONE has to pay - and why shouldn't the better off help the less well off?   Or do you prefer simple greed as a way of running society???

If you do don't complain when the poor break your door down and swing you from the nearest lampost............
   

If you want to extend this rationale then the well-off should be forced to doing more for the poor since it obviously isn't working. Do you propose a system where all goods and services are subsidised for the poor and taxed for the rich? Is that the way to go? Where's the egalitarian spirit in that?

And everyone will pay if you impose a simple flat tax rate. And they will all receive the same benefits as well, even if the marginal benefits are greater for the poor than they are for the rich.

Everyone is for taxing unless it is them that gets taxed

Imo, the only reason the tax rate is ridiculously high in Britain is because the govt is inefficient with the allocation of the tax money and thus regularly 'wastes' it.

Everytime a govt scheme goes bad, all the money wasted could have been bus fares, wages to teachers etc. etc.

The only people that need protecting are the weak, old and the children.

Apisith, the notion of social justic implicit in a progressive tax is derived from Aristotle.

Concepts of equity in the western world derive mainly from his work, which has underpinning it the notion that if people are equal they pay/recieve the same amount and if they are unequal they pay/receive in proportion to the inequality, hence the progressive tax.

To understand why it can be seen as 'just' you have to remember that a principle needs an objective. 'What are we trying to acheive?'. Have a look at John Rawls and the 'Veil of ignorance' for a bit of insight on this.

Once you as a society have agreed what you want to achieve then the role of government becomes clear. Again you can draw on Aristotle and the concept of 'eudaimonia' or 'flourishing'. If we all agree that people should have equal opportunities to 'flourish' then you have to define what is required for that to occur. Housing, education, health, liberty etc.

The problem lies in the fact that we are not in a Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance', we know the current distribution of resources and we know that this distribution is unequal. Therefore, if everyone should have the same ability to flourish, redistribution of resources is required, hence the progressive tax.

Now, how do we know that everyone believes in the principle of 'having an equal opportunity to flourish in life'. From a basic point of view it sounds reasonable and a nice principle. But how do we know that this is the objective we should pursue.

You have a government, so you can vote. The problem with all this is that Arrow won the Nobel prize for economics in 1958(?) demonstrating the 'Impossibity' of summarising society' views into one 'objective' (equal opps to flourish/eudaimonia), also known as a 'social welfare function'. The impossibility theorem still holds back a truly democratic process to define the objectives of society and hence wholly justify progressive taxation.

The arguments continue to be won at the abstract level. Send the cheque in the post.

Just got told my bonus which sounded okay gross.

Unfortunately the tax I pay is disgusting.

Terrible as this is but I grudge the amount of tax I pay and if the tories put tax cuts in their manifesto I'd start to seriously look.

That being said, the system itself is fairer in principal.

Jeez, I'm getting middle aged and middle class!