Summations Only

To be fair to rueh, we are discussing the merits of progressive taxation versus flat-rate taxation, not progressive taxation versus a poll tax. So the marginal utility we're discussing is of one percent of income, not of one dollar.

Oh, I think that's unfair. Why shouldn't people strive to succeed in business the same way as they strive to succeed in other fields? If people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates (both of whom, by the way, have called in public for higher taxes for the rich) are good at what they do, is it "mentally unstable" for them to go on doing it instead of quitting after the first few million? What should they do with the rest of their lives --- something that doesn't make money and that they're not very good at?

I think that psychologically we may well be talking about something like that. I don't think we have to do some special psychoanalysis in the case of making money to figure out why someone who can do something well would go on doing it.It is likely that some of them are in fact jerks, but then this is true of many people.

Well, are you an anarchist?If not, then there should be a government and the government should get its money from somewhere. What we are discussing here is where it should get the money from. I thought we were discussing income tax, not taxes on corporations. Exactly how will Paris Hilton pass on the cost of her taxes to consumers?

I'm British by birth, but I have never used the supposedly British system of -illions and nor has any British person I've ever discussed it with; nor do British scientists or British newspapers use that system. Billion, trillion, quadrillion and so forth involve multiplying by a thousand, by the common consent of the English-speaking peoples, and the sooner we all get over it the better.

Without looking into the details of your examples, I agree that public money is sometimes spent inefficiently --- the same as private money, which is what actually got us into this mess.Perhaps government should be smaller and do less. But that is a question totally orthogonal to the question of where the government should get the money from to do the things that it does.Let us suppose that everything you've listed was a bad idea. Does it follow from that that it should be paid for by a flat-rate tax rather than by progressive taxation? If (for example) it is bad for the government to subsidise Amtrak, does it follow from that conclusion that the poorest American should pay the same proportion of his income as the richest American to do so?If we grant that this spending really is useless, then should we pay for it by taking away the money that the poor man was planning to spend on food or by taking away the money that the rich man was planning to spend on an oil-painting of his favorite French Poodle? Because in the latter case we're taking away money that would have been spent on something useless and spending it on something useless, whereas in the former case we're taking away money that would have been spent on something useful and spending it on something useless. You wish to suggest that some government spending is useless --- but the more that this is the case, the greater the moral case for taking it from the rich rather than the poor.Maybe if it's that useless it shouldn't be taken from anyone, but that's not what we're debating.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, thank you. You have been courteous, intelligent, and completely wrong. This is exactly what I require in an adversary.

That would leave two questions up to him --- whether we are dogpiling, and whether he deserves to be an object of your pity.

Having read your posts over, you seem to be employing a new sort of fallacy which there isn't yet a name for.You seem to believe:(1) That the tax system should be less progressive.
(2) That the total amount of GDP paid to the government should be smaller.Now, it is fair enough that you should believe both these things. But you also seem to believe that they are connected. When I argue for progressive taxation you come back at me by arguing for small government. But the only connection between flat-rate taxation and small government is that right-wingers like them both. In principle we could have a really small government which was funded exclusively by millionaires. Indeed, that stipulation would help to keep government small.

Well, the Teabaggers have come up with a well-thought out response. They're going to destroy capitalism. One business at a time. Specifically, their own businesses.

No.

Thank you for saying so. I think that every association of human beings is a bunch of incompetent boobs. It's just that we don't have any other options, like hiring Martians.Nonetheless, there is something to be said for the government. People like to run it down, but I notice that those people (let's call them conservatives for the sake of convenience) still turn to the government when they actually want something done. When, for example, they wanted to invade Iraq, they didn't put their hands in their own pockets to hire an army of private mercenaries. They put the government's hands in taxpayers' pockets to pay for that most federal of institutions, the U.S. Army, to do the job that they wanted doing.So by and large I find their rhetoric inconsistent. When they want something doing, and want it done well, they do in fact want it to be done by the government and funded by the taxpayer. When I hear any conservative advocating the abolition of the Army, I shall start to think that he is sincere.But what happens instead is that if I suggest in the mildest tones that maybe we could try to fight against disease the same way we fought against Saddam Hussein and his imaginary WMDs, then the conservative will denounce me as an un-American Marxist. But my solution to disease is exactly the same as his solution to the imaginary WMDs --- I say, let the government do it. The only difference is that I want to tackle a real problem that actually kills Americans rather than an imaginary problem that someone made up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But could we not admit that nothing is done particularly well?"There is no straight thing made out of the crooked timber of humanity."Let's admit our shared cynicism about the capacity of human beings to be competent. But that doesn't get us anywhere --- it doesn't allow us to decide between anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-syndicalism or comunism or fascism or social democracy or direct democracy or representative democracy or anything else. Because once we've admitted the problem, we still do not have the option of putting our society in the hands of hyper-intelligent Martians. Alas. Everything we do will in fact be decided by fallible human beings, one way or the other.Now, if you had actual data suggesting that mercenaries paid by private investors would be better at war than the U.S. Army paid for by taxpayers ... then this would be a great time for you to present that data.But no-one believes that. The people who shout about how government is ineffecient and how they want free markets and low taxes and small government still wanted Iraq to be invaded by a government agency controlled by the government and paid for through taxes levied by the government. Perhaps you're an exception, but 99% of them don't even believe what they're saying.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To be precise, what he says is rather them than the poor.Do you actually disagree?If you do, then the solution is in your own hands. Write to Paris Hilton's lawyers, and explain that you are deeply concerned that the tax burden falls more heavily on the rich than on the poor. Enclose a check towards the payment of her taxes. Your conscience, at least, will be clear.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.