by Lore 98 Replies latest jw friends
Smith was wrong about a number of things, like his labor theory of value (he should have read more from the Salamanca School from the Late Middle Ages), but a progressive income tax is not among them.
Karl Marx is still considered a brilliant political theorist, but he has also been proven to have been outstandingly wrong.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. The rich should pay more tax but at the same rate as anyone else. If someone earns $50,000 a year and someone else earns $500,000 the higher earner will pay 10 times more tax. Why increase the tax rate in addition?
"but a progressive income tax is not among them."
Oh look, BTS is lying again. Imagine that. This discussion centers around the nature and fairness or lack thereof of "progressive tax". You throwing the word "income" in between "progressive" and "tax", as if it were important to the argument, is a form of lying.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly.
lol. Your point would be clear to a 5 year old. That's also about when it should stop being intellectually appealing to anyone.
Why increase the tax rate in addition?
The fundamental reason this is promoted is the Marxist notion of redistribution of wealth - to the ultimate goal of eliminating the distinct economic classes.
Just answer the question Lore. Why do you think Adam Smith disagreed with you?
No. I don't have to respond to your laziness when I've already asserted you are using a logical fallacy.
You don't get to just come in here, not read anything, claim that I haven't thought it through in a few sentences and then expect me to write you a freaking novel on the subject while you're not actually bringing anything to the discussion yourself.
What specific arguments of his do you find most compelling?
What policies that he advocated would you like to implement?
What is the ethical justification for these?
Either be specific or bug off.
Lore (red text mine):
The three reasons I hear most often are:
1: They may have "earned" their wealth but they don't may not deserve it!
2: The taxes fund government programs which benefit rich people more than the same as poor people like roads and military.
3: If we don't tax them more then they'll get too powerful. - Than what's government even for?
All three of these reasons show lack of basic understanding of wealth generation or even government for that matter. Do not put an ounce of validity to any of those statements since they lead no where.
-Sab
Oh look, BTS is lying again. Imagine that. This discussion centers around the nature and fairness or lack thereof of "progressive tax". You throwing the word "income" in between "progressive" and "tax", as if it were important to the argument, is a form of lying.
No lying here. A direct quote:
" The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch02b.htm
That isn't a progressive tax (hint, the word "proportional").
The fundamental reason this is promoted is the Marxist notion of redistribution of wealth - to the ultimate goal of eliminating the distinct economic classes.
Leaving two classes: government and citizen.
-Sab
How are things working out in the Scandinavian countries.
