NationStates Jolt Archive

Recognizing that financial inequality should be rectified as much as possible,

Understanding that only taxation can effectively rectify unfair income distribution,

Recognizing that taxation is a fair and just function of government,

This body:
Affirms that the use of the progressive or graduated income tax will be legal, and approves its use, with the understanding that rates will be set by the Parliament pending the approval of this proposal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the discussion thread. Vote here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431335)

I mean to make it available to view how someone voted, so all MPs, POST YOUR VOTES!!!!!!!!!

I personally approve of this proposal. However, as Member of Parliament representing the UDCP, I will first submit it to the Party for discussion, and approval by my comrades of the Party.

Maybe recreate it with a public poll?

Maybe recreate it with a public poll?
I was thinking about it...but I've already created two spam threads trying to make this one...I don't want to annoy the mods too much.

Recognizing that financial inequality should be rectified as much as possible,
Um, pretty broad and incorrect presumption. How much? Why? To what extent? What is the specific target gal which would indicate completion?


Understanding that only taxation can effectively rectify unfair income distribution,
Another broad and quite incorrect presumption.

Recognizing that taxation is a fair and just function of government,

No, on it's own merits it is very much not so. Taxation is only a method to collectively fund the basic functions of government. Beyond that it is abusive, userous and totalitarian, regardless of the end use of the money.

I propose that wealth cannot be fairly divided between persons.

How do we divide a single unique painting?

Why should a poor person gain wealth my parents intended ME to receive?

Why is a poor person noble and worthy of assistance and why is a wealthy person who worked hard for their money a scoundrel who walks on the backs of others?

How is re-distributing by force the money of our citizens going to benefit our nation's overall economic health, and at what cost to personal liberty???

Thus, I further propose that all Marxist-leaning proposals are, on their face, NOT A GOOD IDEA.

I affirm my right to be wealthier than my neighbor by voting NAY on this Proposal.

A Flat Percentage Tax- The only "fair" taxation method, my fellows.

I propose that wealth cannot be fairly divided between persons.
Yes it can.

How do we divide a single unique painting?
If you absolutely must divide it (though I don't think paintings are the issue here), you can always sell it and split the money.

Why should a poor person gain wealth my parents intended ME to receive?
Because you did not earn that wealth. You did not work for it. You don't deserve it - at least not any more than that poor person.

Why is a poor person noble and worthy of assistance and why is a wealthy person who worked hard for their money a scoundrel who walks on the backs of others?
That's just the thing: Wealthy persons don't work for their money. Don't get me wrong, the rich DO work, but they money they receive is much, MUCH more than their work is worth. That's because most of their money comes from profit, and profit comes from exploiting workers.

Also, the poor need that taxed wealth far more than the rich do. One man's food is more important than another man's luxury yacht.

How is re-distributing by force the money of our citizens going to benefit our nation's overall economic health...
I recommend you read the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, by J.M. Keynes:

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/

Basically, redistribution of wealth helps the economy because the poor have money to buy more stuff. Therefore you get an increase in demand, which brings with it an increase in supply to meet that demand. Therefore the economy grows. If the money remained in the hands of the rich, they would either save it or spend it on luxury goods, which don't help the economy nearly as much as the poor spending on consumer goods.

...and at what cost to personal liberty???
Actually, countries with the greatest degree of redistribution of wealth (Sweden, Denmark, etc.) always tend to give their citizens more personal liberty than countries with less redistribution of wealth.

I move that this motion be stricken from voting as it is too vaguely worded and very open to misinterpretation and misapplication.

Because you did not earn that wealth. You did not work for it. You don't deserve it - at least not any more than that poor person.
Out of curiousity, why does this argument only exist in one instance of Socialist thought? Here [I assume] you're saying estates should be taxed heavily, since the recipients of the money did not earn the spoils--while there is some truth to this it's inconsistent to say that here and then turn around and tell me it's acceptable that one quarter [or more!] of my time at work be effectively state-sponsored slavery to put soup in some derelect's bowl.

So we're all supposed to earn our keep all of a sudden? I thought you all hated that idea?

Out of curiousity, why does this argument only exist in one instance of Socialist thought? Here [I assume] you're saying estates should be taxed heavily, since the recipients of the money did not earn the spoils--while there is some truth to this it's inconsistent to say that here and then turn around and tell me it's acceptable that one quarter [or more!] of my time at work be effectively state-sponsored slavery to put soup in some derelect's bowl.

So we're all supposed to earn our keep all of a sudden? I thought you all hated that idea?
Actually, historically speaking, the idea that everyone should earn his/her keep has been one of the strongest themes of socialist thought. One of the big points of socialism is to give everyone a job. In a socialist system, welfare would only be used to help those who are physically or mentally unable to work.

The welfare state, as you know it today, is what you get when you combine capitalism with a few socialist elements. From a purely socialist point of view, it is inconsistent to support the welfare state.

I will not support any government policy that discriminates against any group of people no matter what their defining characteristic.

Wealth redistribution is theft, and the policy is carried out through discrimination based on income.

Oh, I guess we should abolish all laws then, because the vast majority of them apply only to people who share a certain defining characteristic. Property laws, for example, defend only people who own property. Murder laws only punish people who commit murder. Oh, the horrible, horrible discrimination! :rolleyes:

Regarding the claim that "wealth redistribution is theft and therefore wrong", I already refuted that in another thread earlier today:

1. Even assuming that wealth redistribution is theft, it makes perfect sense, and it is perfectly justified in ethical terms, when you apply the principles of Utilitarianism: Happiness is good and suffering is bad. Therefore, things that cause happiness are good and things that cause suffering are bad. Using purely economic arguments, we can show that wealth redistribution improves the lives of very large numbers of people, at a very small cost to a very small number of other people (the rich). Therefore it is good.

2. But wealth redistribution isn't theft, because the rich haven't earned their wealth. They have obtained it by exploiting the working class. Most (not all, but most) of the wealth of the rich does not rightfully belong to them in the first place. So it should be confiscated.

Oh, and in case you're wondering how exploitation works, here's a short explanation:

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

3. By the way, property is theft. How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

Can we please have a detailed proposal, not just three idealised but meaningless statements. I want to know how much you propose to tax who, why you propose this, who has to pay, is it just individuals, what about corporations, religious institutions, civil servants etc. As it stands it can not seriously be supported by anyone as it is a license to do anything.

Oh, I guess we should abolish all laws then, because the vast majority of them apply only to people who share a certain defining characteristic. Property laws, for example, defend only people who own property. Murder laws only punish people who commit murder. Oh, the horrible, horrible discrimination! :rolleyes:

I support property laws that treat every piece of property in the same way. I support murder laws that punish everyone who commits murder in the same way. I support tax laws that treat all taxpayers the same way.

1. Even assuming that wealth redistribution is theft, it makes perfect sense, and it is perfectly justified in ethical terms, when you apply the principles of Utilitarianism: Happiness is good and suffering is bad. Therefore, things that cause happiness are good and things that cause suffering are bad. Using purely economic arguments, we can show that wealth redistribution improves the lives of very large numbers of people, at a very small cost to a very small number of other people (the rich). Therefore it is good.

I would say that voting results from the sixties showed that moving all blacks out of the American South would have made a great many more people in that region happier at the expense of a minority. How does utilitarianism view that?

Voting results show that a majority of people are made happy by disallowing the marriage rights of a minority, how does utilitarianism view that?

Which rights do you suppose should be made safe from the tyranny of the majority?

2. But wealth redistribution isn't theft, because the rich haven't earned their wealth. They have obtained it by exploiting the working class. Most (not all, but most) of the wealth of the rich does not rightfully belong to them in the first place. So it should be confiscated.

Are you proposing a system where everyone recieves wealth in exchange for the labor value they provided?

Every employee works using means of production which are the property of his employer. The product of his work also becomes the property of his employer. In exchange for this, the employee receives a salary. But this salary has no connection with the actual value of the product that the employee produces, or with the work he puts into it.

Wages are only influenced by the labour market. You see, labour acts like any other commodity which can be bought and sold. The employee sells his labour, and the price he gets in return is his wage. And like any other price, it is regulated by supply and demand. Thus, an employee's wage depends only on how many people there are who are willing to take his job, and the amount of money they are willing to work for. Essentially, his wage depends almost entirely on what other people do.

Supply and demand depends on marginal utility, which directly relates to the ratio of labor value to wage value. In other words, supply and demand on the labor market ultimately breaks down to how much it would cost for the employer to buy one more labor hour, and how much that labor hour is actually worth.

As a matter of fact, in order to make a profit, the employer must always pay his employees LESS than the actual value of the products they make. Profit comes from the difference between what the worker rightfully earns and the salary he gets. This is how capitalism exploits the worker.

Actually, the employer makes his profit from well executed allocation of his resources, with his resources being the product of his/her labor, or his/her benefactor's labor.

3. By the way, property is theft. How is property created? By working to change previously-existing property in some way. Eventually, if we trace back the source of any object, we come to natural resources and the work that was used to transform those natural resources into that object.

Now, we can all agree that a person is entitled to "own" his work, but what about natural resources? Natural resources come from land. Thus, property over natural resources comes down to property over land. And if we go back in time to follow the history of ownership of land, we eventually come down to theft. How was private property over land first created? A guy with a big stick pointed to a patch of land, said "this land is mine", and proceeded to beat the crap out of anyone who tried to use "his" land.

Claiming something that noone else has or is making a claim to is not theft. If property is came upon by usurping someone else's claim then it is wrong. However, I am arguing against the government usurping someone else's claim to property.

To date, this has been the most common argument against any tax system, let alone a progressive one: "Taxes are theft because they take money away from me without my permission."

On its surface, it seems like a definitionally true argument. But like most philosophical positions, the simplest explanation is perhaps the least accurate.

First, the state does not have the same moral status as a person. Let's take the arguments from the death penalty debate. "The death penalty makes the state a murderer." From the same logical standpoint as "taxes are theft," it's a logical argument. But as the "taxes are theft" people noted on the other thread, that argument is silly, because the state definitionally has a monopoly on legitimate violence. Why is it ok for the military to quell rebellions, the police to kill violent criminals, or the justice system to execute convicts? Because the state's actions aren't judged by the same standards as that of individuals. Otherwise, prison would be kidnapping.

One could say: "But those people broke the state's rules! They're being punished!" But the state needs money to enforce those rules. Thus, in exchange for enforcing those rules, you give the state money in the form of tax.

One could even go further: "Those services will pay for themselves. Parking, speeding, etc." There are a few practical problems with that: It wouldn't provide enough money, not nearly, and it would cause the police to feel the need to ticket to get themselves raises and their department more money, and would likely cause enormous levels of corruption. But we're sticking with the philosophical in this post. What's the real role of the state? To guarantee the welfare of its citizens. States arose when some people decided it would be better for everyone to combine their efforts and live under a certain set of rules. If that's the case, then a representative decision by the populace (which is what a democratic state like ours is), gets to make decisions concerning the welfare of the populace. If that's true again, taxation by popular vote isn't theft so much as any sort of majority rule is oppression. And if any majority role is tyranny, then we should get rid of democracy.

But one again could say "The state's role isn't to provide for the welfare of its citizens. It's to secure their liberty." But what is the basis of liberty? Life, right? Because you can't damn well exercise your freedoms when you're dead. Therefore, the primary concern in protecting liberty is protecting life. Thus, if the state needs to infringe the liberty to keep all your money to protect the root of liberty, life, it's justified - because that protects the most liberty overall.

But then one says "But liberty can't be measured! There can't be more or less liberty infringed upon by any action!" Except that's wrong, too. If I ban murder, I'm infringing on someone's liberty to kill someone, while protecting someone else's liberty to live their life. If I ban a harmful drug or force a company to write disclaimers, I infringe on the drug company's ability to manufacture but protect someone's liberty not to contract a debilitating disease. If I tax someone, I take away their liberty to keep every last cent of their money while potentially protecting the freedom to have one's own government (military), to be free of crime (police), to get an education, to have clean and functioning roads, and the liberty to survive (welfare, social security). Essentially, liberty in many cases is zero sum. You can't grant it to some without taking it away from others.

Can we please have a detailed proposal, not just three idealised but meaningless statements. I want to know how much you propose to tax who, why you propose this, who has to pay, is it just individuals, what about corporations, religious institutions, civil servants etc. As it stands it can not seriously be supported by anyone as it is a license to do anything.
Read the bolded parts. Those segements are known as preambles. The part after it is the operative clause. This resolution is simply to approve a progressive income tax for use. We can work on more specific things in later resolutions. We've got time, and don't want to excessively complicate things, or cause a overall good proposal to be sunk by one part that's unpopular.

I vote YEA on the grounds of diminishing marginal utility to income.
If the goal of human society is to maximise wellbeing (which I hold to be true), then progressive taxes make sense.

A very rich person gets less happiness out of having $100 than a very poor person. Therefore, if you have to take $100, it would be better for society as a whole to take it from the Rich rather than the Poor.

Additionally, so far it hasn't been seen that a progressive taxation system (which is used in most places in the Western world) actually does decrease the incentive to work in any significant way. People still prefer to work and become rich, even if that means they may have to pay 50% rather than 15% in taxes. The benefits still outweigh the losses.

As has been outlined above, taxation is not theft (remembering also that this is only about taxation, not about what it is spent on). It would be more like theft however not to pay taxes and still to benefit from the various services a government provides.

With all due respect to the Right Honorable Deleuze, this is sloppy work. The poll is not public, the wording of the proposal is vague. Please create a new thread with a public poll and try to make your proposal clearer. Nothing sticks in my craw like a poorly worded law. Thank you.

Deleuze,

You have skewed the argument we are making here. Our contention with this plan is not with the taxation, taxation is a necessity for government to operate. It is when the benefits of taxation are unequal that we have a problem. I feel that any government policies that are inconsistent in who they benefit are unethical.

First, you examine the comparison of taxes being theft and executions being murder. While the comparison holds up while only examining taxes, the equivalence breaks down when wealth redistribution is considered. When someone is executed, the state is acting in the interest of all of society, every law abiding member of society benefits when crimes are punished, therefore there is universal benefit. However, when taxes include wealth redistribution, it is not designed for the universal benefit of society. It is meant to benefit a group of society at the expense of another group. In the situation of wealth redistribution the comparison becomes: "If taxation with the purpose of wealth redistribution is theft, then genocide is murder."

As for your argument on taxation being a loss of liberty in exchange for security, you once again do not recognize that it is a group of society forsaking their liberty for the security of another group. One group of people loses liberty with no added security, while another group gains security with no loss of liberty. The liberty/security trade off you speak of does not exist wealth redistribution.

I vote YEA on the grounds of diminishing marginal utility to income.
If the goal of human society is to maximise wellbeing (which I hold to be true), then progressive taxes make sense.

A very rich person gets less happiness out of having $100 than a very poor person. Therefore, if you have to take $100, it would be better for society as a whole to take it from the Rich rather than the Poor.

Additionally, so far it hasn't been seen that a progressive taxation system (which is used in most places in the Western world) actually does decrease the incentive to work in any significant way. People still prefer to work and become rich, even if that means they may have to pay 50% rather than 15% in taxes. The benefits still outweigh the losses.

As has been outlined above, taxation is not theft (remembering also that this is only about taxation, not about what it is spent on). It would be more like theft however not to pay taxes and still to benefit from the various services a government provides.

Marginal utility does not measure units in happiness. Happiness is not a measurable value and to use it to determine taxes is ridiculous.

Marginal utility does not measure units in happiness. Happiness is not a measurable value and to use it to determine taxes is ridiculous.
I'm aware of that. However, it describes a fairly similar thing - and despite what some radical economists have proposed, I would still say that a single mother with 4 children's utility gained from receiving $100 is higher than Bill Gates' utility from $100.
I used the word "happiness" to help those along who don't know the economic definition of the concept of utility.

I'm aware of that. However, it describes a fairly similar thing - and despite what some radical economists have proposed, I would still say that a single mother with 4 children's utility gained from receiving $100 is higher than Bill Gates' utility from $100.
I used the word "happiness" to help those along who don't know the economic definition of the concept of utility.

I will not argue with you about marginal utility, I actually agree that marginal utility exists and that taxation should reflect it. However, I still do not support this as the motivation is wealth redistribution.

You have skewed the argument we are making here. Our contention with this plan is not with the taxation, taxation is a necessity for government to operate. It is when the benefits of taxation are unequal that we have a problem. I feel that any government policies that are inconsistent in who they benefit are unethical.
I was initially analyzing the statement that taxation is theft, which had previously been stated. However, if you read the post, it moves into a justification for the progressive tax:

If the state's purposes is to provide for the welfare of its citizens, a measure deemed by those citizens to provide the maximum welfare is an acceptable state function (I'm not going to get into minority rights here; but suffice to say, provisions protecting those are more valuable than any one policy, so don't go with the stupid 51%, 49% argument). That means those citizens decide who has to pay what. Period.

Look at that last line. A flat tax is much more inconsistant in who it benefits because it causes the rich to pay much less than the poor. If you read Leonstein's post, he explains why your statement goes much more to our side than yours.

That entire post is a logical chain; each part following from the one before it. To dispute one point, you have to dispute a link or the entire post.

First, you examine the comparison of taxes being theft and executions being murder. While the comparison holds up while only examining taxes, the equivalence breaks down when wealth redistribution is considered. When someone is executed, the state is acting in the interest of all of society, every law abiding member of society benefits when crimes are punished, therefore there is universal benefit. However, when taxes include wealth redistribution, it is not designed for the universal benefit of society. It is meant to benefit a group of society at the expense of another group. In the situation of wealth redistribution the comparison becomes: "If taxation with the purpose of wealth redistribution is theft, then genocide is murder."
This universal benefit language in your post is a joke, for a few reasons. First, your precious "fair tax" is specifically designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, as it allows them to be opulent while the poor starve. That ties nicely into my next objection, the zero-sum argument. Almost no policy can help everyone. There's a tradeoff in both of these policies as to who is helped, so you can't make the sort of sweeping generalization you do. Finally, it is. Ever heard of demand-side economics and Keynes?

As for your argument on taxation being a loss of liberty in exchange for security, you once again do not recognize that it is a group of society forsaking their liberty for the security of another group. One group of people loses liberty with no added security, while another group gains security with no loss of liberty. The liberty/security trade off you speak of does not exist wealth redistribution.
Yes, it does. If you tax the rich more than the poor, you are able to fund programs like welfare, which save the life of the poor and restrict the rich's ability to buy Bentleys instead of Mercedes. That's a liberty tradeoff. Progressive taxation is the paradigmatic example of liberty tradeoff; a tradeoff which is always between two groups.

Liberty/security is not the tradeoff I'm talking about in this post. That concerns things like the Patriot Act and public park surveillance. Read it again.

You also conceed that life is the most important liberty to preserve. If that's true, then all I have to do is prove that more lives are saved with a progressive tax then any other system. And that's not hard to do.

I will not argue with you about marginal utility, I actually agree that marginal utility exists and that taxation should reflect it. However, I still do not support this as the motivation is wealth redistribution.
Well, the only way taxation can reflect diminishing marginal utility is by taxing the rich more than the poor, in order to "hurt" everyone equally - which is what we want.
And wealth redistribution is not part of the proposal, although marginal utility does make sense there too, the discussion would just have to shift towards a utilitarianism vs objectivism-style philosophical grudge-match. Because if you want the whole of society to do as well as it possibly can, then it does make sense to put money where it does the most good, if you believe there is no "society" other than a set of individuals, then that may be different.

Const, the statement "Property is theft" is a blatant contradiction. Theft, being the seizure of material goods from a proprietor party, cannot exist without property. You can't use a term or concept to endict its antecedant base.

Look at that last line. A flat tax is much more inconsistant in who it benefits because it causes the rich to pay much less than the poor. If you read Leonstein's post, he explains why your statement goes much more to our side than yours.

That entire post is a logical chain; each part following from the one before it. To dispute one point, you have to dispute a link or the entire post.

I don't support any income tax. I think that manages to dispute enough. A flat tax is not just taxation and neither is a progressive tax aimed at wealth redistribution.

This universal benefit language in your post is a joke, for a few reasons. First, your precious "fair tax" is specifically designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, as it allows them to be opulent while the poor starve. That ties nicely into my next objection, the zero-sum argument. Almost no policy can help everyone. There's a tradeoff in both of these policies as to who is helped, so you can't make the sort of sweeping generalization you do. Finally, it is. Ever heard of demand-side economics and Keynes?

My version of a "fair tax" would offer the rich the same return on their tax dollars as the poor get.

No policy can help everyone, but any policy that excludes benefit to a particular group is unethical.

What argument are you going to make with Keynes?

Yes it does. If you tax the rich more than the poor, you are able to fund programs like welfare, which save the life of the poor and restrict the rich's ability to buy Bentleys instead of Mercedes. That's a liberty tradeoff. Progressive taxation is the paradigmatic example of liberty tradeoff; a tradeoff which is always between two groups.

Liberty/security is not the tradeoff I'm talking about in this post. That concerns things like the Patriot Act and public park surveillance. Read it again.

First, taxation is about personal tradeoffs, not tradeoffs between groups. If tradeoffs between groups are acceptable then so is slavery. One group of people trade their liberty for the economic security of another group, and economic security is what you are talking about in the tradeoff.

Well, the only way taxation can reflect diminishing marginal utility is by taxing the rich more than the poor, in order to "hurt" everyone equally - which is what we want.

A consumption tax is the only form of taxation I support.

And wealth redistribution is not part of the proposal, although marginal utility does make sense there too, the discussion would just have to shift towards a utilitarianism vs objectivism-style philosophical grudge-match. Because if you want the whole of society to do as well as it possibly can, then it does make sense to put money where it does the most good, if you believe there is no "society" other than a set of individuals, then that may be different.

Recognizing that financial inequality should be rectified as much as possible

Wealth redistribution is the central motivation of this proposal.

And what about society is more than a set of individuals?

I don't support any income tax.
What is your alternative, because you obviously wouldn't argue for the "theft" of government services by the populace?
And if you think it is viable, then all we need is a proposal to debate on.

What is your alternative, because you obviously wouldn't argue for the "theft" of government services by the populace?
And if you think it is viable, then all we need is a proposal to debate on.

I support a consumption tax. Tax money should be used to secure the market for all participants, so people should be taxed on how much they use it.

Unfortunately, the rush to argue over wealth redistribution negated my vote to not discuss this issue.

A consumption tax is the only form of taxation I support.
But that would have the exact same outcome: Rich people pay more tax than poor people.

Wealth redistribution is the central motivation of this proposal.
Granted. Nonetheless, the proposal should probably be debated on its' merits rather than its' intention, afterall, it doesn't actually make no provision other than to accept progressive income taxation as the acceptable system to use. It doesn't even set any rates.

And what about society is more than a set of individuals?
If it is, then there is a case to be made for a utalitarian idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" - ie for the Rich to fork out more than the Poor.

But that would have the exact same outcome: Rich people pay more tax than poor people.

...the proposal should probably be debated on its' merits rather than its' intention, afterall, it doesn't actually make no provision other than to accept progressive income taxation as the acceptable system to use. It doesn't even set any rates.

I support the consumption tax because it is based directly on how much a person uses the economic protections of government and society. A progressive income tax will be an arbitrary percentage assigned base on how much a third party decides is needed to help the poor.

If it is, then there is a case to be made for a utalitarian idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" - ie for the Rich to fork out more than the Poor.

The greater good for everyone is for government to treat everyone equally, not to work to impose equality.

The greater good for everyone is for government to treat everyone equally, not to work to impose equality.
But we've already seen that for everyone to be "hurt" equally, the Rich would have to be taxed higher than the Poor.

And if you feel a consumption tax is the way to go, then feel free to propose one. It's a free country, I guess.

I clearly, being part of the NSCL party, support Vittos Ordinations arguments here, except that I have some additional issues that I would like to bring forward.

I will not argue with you about marginal utility, I actually agree that marginal utility exists and that taxation should reflect it. However, I still do not support this as the motivation is wealth redistribution.

I will however pick up a point about marginal utility. This argument is always made on the side of the government in proposing progressive taxation. However marginal utility is only ever considered in the revenue side of things, not in the service provision. Why is this? Because when you start to try to apply marginal utility to health care, or education, then people suddenly see how wrong the whole concept is.

Let us look at what happens if services are provided on the same basis that this progressive taxation is calculatred on, marginal utility.

Education. This child is not too bright. He is not mentally disabled or anything like that, just not the smartest kid that has passed through the school. Well that means that he is not going to be able to make full use of the education potential available here, so it would be a waste to provide it. We should just teach him to read, write and do some basic sums. That way we can dedicate the time of our specialist literature teachers to his cousin who is a child genius. If we do this then we take away from the first kid something he really doesn't need and give it to someone who can get much higher utility out of it. We are sure that Mr and Mrs Einstein would agree that young Albert is better off being prepared to enter a trade, he doesn't show any academic talent after all.

Health. Hey Joe. We've got a big RTA comming in, various teenagers that will need beds. Go kick some of the geriatrics out. If they die we lose less than if these kids that wrapped themselves round a telegraph poll street racing die.

See - marginal utility is a form of discrimination, it is a way of saying that this has less value here than it will have there. It is the antithesis of equality. It is easy to say that one dollar means less to someone with 200,000 than to someone with 50. However this is not the case. That dollar still buys the same quantity of food, the same medicine, the same book. It has exactly the same value, regardless of who it belongs to.

If you want to provide a safety net, so that people don't starve, so that everyone has a suposed 'dignified life' (if living on government charity can ever be dignified that is) then make your arguments for wealth redistribution, but do not argue for marginal utility unless you are willing to use the same marginal theory of measures when it comes to providing services.

@ Deleuze. While this is an interesting debate, it HAS to be a public poll to be valid. We have had in every poll so far, non MPs voting as MPs.

Also I did see the two lines at the bottom off the proposal. As I said I want more details. Who, Where, Why and How is taxation to work?

-snip-
That is one of the best points I have seen so far. Well done.

Indeed, marginal utility's logical conclusion would be to equalise the value everyone gets out of anything. Which would mean that some people die.
Even more curiously, that is exactly the outcome a capitalist system without regulation would move towards...

But, there are other considerations involved as well. My personal ethics (which are more or less rule utilitarian) would not allow me to let people die, or to make some miss out on education, not the least because it would be a waste of human resources.

Additionally, the value even the smartest kid gets out of the extra education is limited, after a while the money might really be better spent on the dumb kid, rather than teach the genious even more intricate things about Nuclear Fission and Metaphysics.

For the time being I would have to say that your point is valid, although your conclusions are not. Letting old people die, or make kids miss out on university is "worse" than making wealthy people pay more taxes than poor people.

So maybe at some point I'll be able to pull something more concrete out of my arse (ouch), but for now I'll have to tolerate that bit of cognitive dissonance and wait for further information...

Damn, what a cop out.

If you want to see a nice little argument betweenmyself and Deleuze re: Utilitarianism, check out http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424611 if you haven't already.

EDIT: Now I can see that you posted in it. Oh well. Gotta plug my stuff! :D

Damn, what a cop out.
Hehe, yeah.
Gimme a day or two, I might think of a proper response. Right now, I'm not in thinking mode at all...

I'll vote shortly, when my Party has decided whether to approve this.

In the meantime, I'm transmitting to you Eutrusca's vote against this proposal on his behalf.

That is one of the best points I have seen so far. Well done. Thank you. It is only the result of taking the system impicit in progressive taxation and applying it generally. Do you really want me to extend it to policing, prisons, military, utilities etc as well? Because I can if ypou don't get it.

Indeed, marginal utility's logical conclusion would be to equalise the value everyone gets out of anything. Which would mean that some people die.
Even more curiously, that is exactly the outcome a capitalist system without regulation would move towards...
Agreed. Which is why I find it very strange that the anti-capitalists propose it for a taxation system. An authoritarian conservative (small c) capitalist would indeed be happy with using marginal utility as a general rule. A socialist, with their innate interest in equality can not, for any reason seriously consider marginal utility as a valid point, without sacrificing this equality of treatment principle on purely emotional grounds.

But, there are other considerations involved as well. My personal ethics (which are more or less rule utilitarian) would not allow me to let people die, or to make some miss out on education, not the least because it would be a waste of human resources.
If it is a rule, then apply it. A true rule utilitarian has to decide whether they are following a marginal utility rule, in which case medical treatment for the middle aged and elderly with adult children is a waste, or whether they are following a equal treatment rule in which case progressive taxation is wrong. I know this is just repeating the argument, but it is stating it as baldly as possible.

Additionally, the value even the smartest kid gets out of the extra education is limited, after a while the money might really be better spent on the dumb kid, rather than teach the genious even more intricate things about Nuclear Fission and Metaphysics.
You have to compare the utility lost by taking the money from the taxpayer to that gained by teaching anything at this point. Have fun with the comparison. And if this is true of education, what about health?

For the time being I would have to say that your point is valid, although your conclusions are not. Letting old people die, or make kids miss out on university is "worse" than making wealthy people pay more taxes than poor people.
You missed the point. Congratulations. We do not argue that old people should be allowed to die, nor that kids should have to miss out on high school (no one even mentioned university). We argue that everyone should be given the same opportunities. Either there is no state health system - the same service provided for everyone, or there is one that does not discriminate between the citizens. Now if no discrimination is an essential point, and it seems to be central to the platforms of nearly all the parties here (MOBRA excepted) then it is contradictory to support progressive taxation. Marginal utility discriminates, that is not open to debate, it is a fact.

Now you can set aside your principles of equality if you like, just be aware that you are doing so, and that having done so, the principle is not worth anything. Me - I prefer to retain a principle of equality and as such I can not countennance progressive taxation.

So maybe at some point I'll be able to pull something more concrete out of my arse (ouch), but for now I'll have to tolerate that bit of cognitive dissonance and wait for further information...[/QUOTE]

Well, if we must continue debating this poorly constructed proposal (the poll isn’t even public), I vote nay.

Well, if we must continue debating this poorly constructed proposal (the poll isn’t even public), I vote nay.

I will create a new public poll that links to this thread for the discussion. It seems unfair to just discard the arguments already made. I will link to it from here, and ask that Deleuze links to it from the first post here as well.

This is the best solution I can think of at the moment.

Public Poll here. Please revote on this poll MPs (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431335)

I will create a new public poll that links to this thread for the discussion. It seems unfair to just discard the arguments already made. I will link to it from here, and ask that Deleuze links to it from the first post here as well.

This is the best solution I can think of at the moment.

Public Poll here. Please revote on this poll MPs (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431335)
Thanks. That's what I was planning on doing.

Vote on the other poll. There is a link in the first post now. If you have aslready voted here, please vote again there. (Public poll as required)

(Although I am a non MP, on that not, when are the next elections scheduled for?)
I agree with this proposal. But I think taxation should vary on the economic climate ( I am aware that this usually happens anway, in that taxes are often cut in recessions, but they are not always raised in times of plenty)

I say that taxes and public spending should be linked so that the government can save up large surpluses in boom years, and then when harder times roll around, the government can provide employment and prop up the economy with public spending binges.

Its Keynesian economics my friend,

I will however pick up a point about marginal utility. This argument is always made on the side of the government in proposing progressive taxation. However marginal utility is only ever considered in the revenue side of things, not in the service provision. Why is this? Because when you start to try to apply marginal utility to health care, or education, then people suddenly see how wrong the whole concept is.
This is the wrong way of looking at marginal utility. It's designed to be applied solely in extreme cases, such as life and death versus a tiny amount of a down payment on a brand new Ferrari. Using a concept outside the realm it was designed to be used in obviously makes it seem stupid. If I were to make arguments about the moral status of an unborn fetus on a gay marriage thread, people would make fun of me. That's because you're applying the argument to a concept and area that it doesn't belong to. More explanation on each of your examples.

Let us look at what happens if services are provided on the same basis that this progressive taxation is calculatred on, marginal utility.
Deal.

Education. This child is not too bright. He is not mentally disabled or anything like that, just not the smartest kid that has passed through the school. Well that means that he is not going to be able to make full use of the education potential available here, so it would be a waste to provide it. We should just teach him to read, write and do some basic sums. That way we can dedicate the time of our specialist literature teachers to his cousin who is a child genius. If we do this then we take away from the first kid something he really doesn't need and give it to someone who can get much higher utility out of it. We are sure that Mr and Mrs Einstein would agree that young Albert is better off being prepared to enter a trade, he doesn't show any academic talent after all.
It's funny. Your own post explains why the conception of marginal utility doesn't justify what you're talking about. We can't know if someone is going to be academically gifted or not. Our tests are simply too flawed. Therefore, the equal oppurtunity provided by equal access to education provides the overall most utilty, particularly in a marginal sense, by granting education to the people who most need it.


Health. Hey Joe. We've got a big RTA comming in, various teenagers that will need beds. Go kick some of the geriatrics out. If they die we lose less than if these kids that wrapped themselves round a telegraph poll street racing die.
Marginal utility isn't one of those things you can just apply to something like education or health care the way you do it and consider outside the greater societal system. Marginal utility is an inherently utilitarian argument that assumes a "greater good" mindset. If that's true, then you have to consider what course of action provides the greatest marginal utility overall. In this case, a society that disrespects the elderly loses a valuable source of knowledge and creates uncertainty in the populace which decreases a desire to stay and serve the country. That results in overall less utility. The conclusion is thus that health care should not discriminate the elderly. Greater utilitarianism functions as a check on subportions of it.

See - marginal utility is a form of discrimination, it is a way of saying that this has less value here than it will have there. It is the antithesis of equality. It is easy to say that one dollar means less to someone with 200,000 than to someone with 50. However this is not the case. That dollar still buys the same quantity of food, the same medicine, the same book. It has exactly the same value, regardless of who it belongs to.
Wrong, and remember that this discussion is in the context of taxation. If I make 200,000 a year, I already have all the medicines and food I need. Being taxed out of more than that to provide food for the unemployed and starving takes away luxury money from me and gives food/medicine money to the poor. Sure, I could buy medicine. But I already have the resources to do that and still be well off. They don't. So there's a significant practical difference. That also explains why marginal utility is an leveller rather than a discriminatory practice.

If you want to provide a safety net, so that people don't starve, so that everyone has a suposed 'dignified life' (if living on government charity can ever be dignified that is) then make your arguments for wealth redistribution, but do not argue for marginal utility unless you are willing to use the same marginal theory of measures when it comes to providing services.
Above as to why a) that comparison shouldn't be made and b) it's wrong.

This is the wrong way of looking at marginal utility. It's designed to be applied solely in extreme cases, such as life and death versus a tiny amount of a down payment on a brand new Ferrari. Using a concept outside the realm it was designed to be used in obviously makes it seem stupid. If I were to make arguments about the moral status of an unborn foetus on a gay marriage thread, people would make fun of me. That's because you're applying the argument to a concept and area that it doesn't belong to. More explanation on each of your examples.
So you accept that it is OK to use one standard when it suits you but to drop it when it is inconvenient. Either the concept of marginal utility is one that you find worthwhile, and it was not just designed for taxation purposes as it is about the fractional benefit gained by adding one more unit of anything, not just money, and you are going to apply it, or it is a concept that does not have any real application, it is purely theoretical and you are not going to apply it. Either that or you are in a position where you are going to apply whatever theory is convenient to obtain the predetermined ends that you have in mind. If this is the case, then I for one would not wish to vote for a party that has such little compunction about dropping their ideals when they don't work out as you like.

However, you have managed to miss the central point altogether here in the opening. We will see if you picked up later on.


It's funny. Your own post explains why the conception of marginal utility doesn't justify what you're talking about. We can't know if someone is going to be academically gifted or not. Our tests are simply too flawed. Therefore, the equal opportunity provided by equal access to education provides the overall most utility, particularly in a marginal sense, by granting education to the people who most need it.
Granted, we can not know the future. This applies though to the financial as well as to the educational side of things. You can not know if that one dollar that you removed from the hands of an entrepreneur was the one that he needed to invest to make that critical breakthrough. If you are concerned all of a sudden with the future consequences of your actions, then you have dropped the rule side of the rule utilitarianism and are using straight outcome utilitarianism, which as you well know is untenable because of this problem. If you are using the marginal utility rule to justify progressive taxation, then why do you drop this rule for education. There is no explicit reason to do so that you have mentioned so far.

Marginal utility isn't one of those things you can just apply to something like education or health care the way you do it and consider outside the greater societal system. Marginal utility is an inherently utilitarian argument that assumes a "greater good" mindset. If that's true, then you have to consider what course of action provides the greatest marginal utility overall. In this case, a society that disrespects the elderly loses a valuable source of knowledge and creates uncertainty in the populace which decreases a desire to stay and serve the country. That results in overall less utility. The conclusion is thus that health care should not discriminate the elderly. Greater utilitarianism functions as a check on sub portions of it.
Apply your own arguments to the taxation side please. If they are good here, then they are good there. "If that's true, then you have to consider what course of action provides the greatest marginal utility overall." So what is the greatest marginal utility overall on the money side, take money away from individuals and invest it through a cumbersome and expensive bureaucracy or allow the individual to use that dollar as best as he or she can? I know the answer to that, but do you?


Wrong, and remember that this discussion is in the context of taxation. If I make 200,000 a year, I already have all the medicines and food I need. Being taxed out of more than that to provide food for the unemployed and starving takes away luxury money from me and gives food/medicine money to the poor. Sure, I could buy medicine. But I already have the resources to do that and still be well off. They don't. So there's a significant practical difference. That also explains why marginal utility is an leveller rather than a discriminatory practice.
Sorry but the argument I am presenting is about the nature of marginal utility, it is not specifically about taxation. How do you know that someone who makes 200,000 a year has all the medicines and food that they need. You don't, you are assuming. But that is irrelevant anyway. The point is that marginal utility is inherently discriminatory, whether you can see it or not. It says that this unit has less value here than there. What is the difference between here and there that creates this difference in value. Apparently it is the number of similar units that are located there. This means that a person is less valuable in a city than in the country, that a vote means less in the USA than it does in the UK etc. What you are missing here is that you want to be discriminatory with regard to wealth, but claim to be doing this in the name of fairness and equality. It does not matter one iota whether a person has 10 dollars or 10,000,000 dollars with respect to the actual value of the dollar in their hands. It still buys the same things, it still has the same real value. You are trying to argue that the dollar is less useful to one than the other, but it patently is not. It has exactly the same real utility. What you are really saying is that one has much more than the other so we will treat the two people differently, we will discriminate between them, we will sacrifice our basic principle of equality because it is convenient for us.

Above as to why a) that comparison shouldn't be made and b) it's wrong.
Nothing has been shown as to why the comparison should not be made or is wrong. What has been shown is the desire to set double standards. That is the hypocrisy of socialism. It seeks to promote equality by discriminating.


If we take a sensible comparison, between a person (A) who earns 25,000 a year and a person (B) who earns 205,000 a year. If we use a flat tax scheme (which I do not support by the way) with a tax free allowance of 5,000 and a rate of 15% then person A pays 3,000 in tax and person B pays 30,000 in tax. The rich pay more anyway with flat taxation, why should they be discriminated further against? The marginal utility argument is busted as it discriminatory, and it is applied only selectively, so there is no reason to impose progressive taxation.

The system I prefer would actually result in person B paying higher rates of tax, but through their own choice. If you use a purchase tax on non essential goods, then what is taxed is the surplus disposable income. Let us make some basic assumptions. Food, basic housing, clothing, essential transport, insurance, pensions etc. , the necessities in other words cost about 18,000 a year. So person A has 7,000 disposable income while person B has 187,000. If we assume a purchase tax of 20% on non essentials (and this includes investment as that is buying money, definitely a non essential) then Person A now pays 1,400 while person B pays 37,400. See what has happened? We have treated them equally, but A pays 1,600 less than under a flat tax system while B pays 7,400 more.

Understanding that only taxation can effectively rectify unfair income distributionOh really? Taking everyone's money so they all have the same amount is fair?

Recognizing that taxation is a fair and just function of governmentHere I must disagree. The government is taking your money for its own use. Although it can be put to good use, it is far more likely that it will go somewhere the citizens do not want it to. If taxation must occur, the people themselves should decide where they want their money to go, not the government. It should be a function of the people and not their government (although I equate the one with the other).


Affirms that the use of the progressive or graduated income tax will be legal, and approves its use, with the understanding that rates will be set by the Parliament pending the approval of this proposal.What will this affect and how?

There are 12 MPs that have voted here and only 7 that have voted on the public poll. Please re vote if you only voted here on the poll linked to in Deleuze's first post.

Well, this proposal has, sadly, failed, due to only nine MPs having voted on it one way or the other.

I am led to wonder how any legislation can ever be expected to pass through Parliament if MPs do not vote. The entire procedure is set up on the expectation that all MPs will vote.

Well, this proposal has, sadly, failed, due to only nine MPs having voted on it one way or the other.

I am led to wonder how any legislation can ever be expected to pass through Parliament if MPs do not vote. The entire procedure is set up on the expectation that all MPs will vote.
Indeed.
Everyone lost interest in this one fairly quickly. Maybe we could get the mods to stick parliamentary debates to the top of the list?