Britons richer than US

[_JS]

The wealthier the individual, the more easily they can pay into the total collection to pay for this basic level of living standards for all of society.

What does ease have to do with it? If it is an societal obligation shouldn't all share the burden equally?

No. Those who can afford to pay should pay more.

[BT]

No. Those who can afford to pay should pay more.

Why?

Do they pay more for gasoline?

Do they pay more for food?

[_JS]

No. Those who can afford to pay should pay more.

Why?

Do they pay more for gasoline?

Do they pay more for food?

Gasoline has inelastic demand. So no, the price does not change with one's income level.

Yes, I have not run the data to see, but nominal spending on food does likely increase with one's income as the individuals frequent more expensive establishments and purchase more expensive products. Obviously with the exception of some products, which like gasoline have an inelastic demand (milk, for example).

The question itself is irrelevant to public taxation.

[BT]

I don't see why it is irrelevant.

They do not check w-2's at the check out line and set prices accordingly.

They do not check w-2's to determine sales tax.

So why on earth should they check w-2's when deciding what is a fair burden on society for taking care of those with less.

[_JS]

What you're really asking is why we should have progressive taxation.

First, you just helped to explain part of the reason. A percentage of every household budget is spent on price inelastic commodities. That percentage to income ratio is clearly higher as income is lower. Therefore, removing income from the poor and working class detracts from necessities whose demand by those classes will not change. In other words, they will still require those items.

Second, vertical equity. Higher incomes have higher percentages of disposable income which means that they are in a position to afford more money spent on the public.

Third, the wealthier classes receive more benefits from Government spending in terms of defense and infrastructure than do the poorer classes.

Fourth, Adam Smith and Karl Marx both agreed that taxes should be based on proportion to income. Supply-side economics and benefits for the wealthy came later from the likes of bogus economists like Laffer and Friedman. It has never been found to achieve anything more than very high income disparity and stagnant wages. Note that most economists do not support the views of Friedman or Laffer. Most support redistribution: Link

Fifth, the law of diminishing marginal returns.

[_JS]

I don't see why it is irrelevant.

They do not check w-2's at the check out line and set prices accordingly.

They do not check w-2's to determine sales tax.

So why on earth should they check w-2's when deciding what is a fair burden on society for taking care of those with less.

Because tax is not a price.

You are confusing two distinctly separate notions. Prices are determined in a much different way. You are comparing vinegar and water and then asking me why the two aren't identical.

[BT]

Do you tithe?
is tithing based on a progressive scale?

[Religious Dick]

What you're really asking is why we should have progressive taxation.

First, you just helped to explain part of the reason. A percentage of every household budget is spent on price inelastic commodities. That percentage to income ratio is clearly higher as income is lower. Therefore, removing income from the poor and working class detracts from necessities whose demand by those classes will not change. In other words, they will still require those items.

So?

Second, vertical equity. Higher incomes have higher percentages of disposable income which means that they are in a position to afford more money spent on the public.

Again, so? That someone else can afford a Porsche doesn't necessarily make them obligated to provide me with a car.

Third, the wealthier classes receive more benefits from Government spending in terms of defense and infrastructure than do the poorer classes.

So, you're telling me Bill Gates is a bigger consumer of Medicare, public education, public transportation, police protection, social security, etc. than the poorer classes?

I think he's in a position to provide most of those things for himself. Try again.

Fourth, Adam Smith and Karl Marx both agreed that taxes should be based on proportion to income.

I'd like you to show me where Adam Smith ever advocated an income tax. Excise taxes, sales taxes and tariffs by definition paid in greater proportion by people of higher income because - surprise! they're spending more money.

Supply-side economics and benefits for the wealthy came later from the likes of bogus economists like Laffer and Friedman. It has never been found to achieve anything more than very high income disparity and stagnant wages. Note that most economists do not support the views of Friedman or Laffer. Most support redistribution: Link

So, an organization of left-wing economists is polled and is shown to favor left-wing economic policies?

I'm shocked, shocked!

 

[_JS]

Do you tithe?
is tithing based on a progressive scale?

Catholics do not tithe 10% if that is what you are after. We give what we can to support the Church, the Diocese, and the Holy See as well as Catholic Charities or the poor directly. This includes time as well as financial contribution. I contribute both money and time (I help teach RCIA, as well as sponsor a converting adult) plus give time and money to the poor.

Some people do follow a formula as a percentage of income simply because that is easier for them, but it is certainly not required.

I don't think you really want to follow this course of logic out because you won't like where it takes you. The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership. The same is true with all the fruits of creation, which Catholicism believes should be shared amongst all of God's people.

[_JS]

So, you're telling me Bill Gates is a bigger consumer of Medicare, public education, public transportation, police protection, social security, etc. than the poorer classes?

No. I'm telling you that Bill Gates has more property and money to defend through Government regulation and military support than millions of poor folks do.

I'd like you to show me where Adam Smith ever advocated an income tax. Excise taxes, sales taxes and tariffs by definition paid in greater proportion by people of higher income because - surprise! they're spending more money.

Smith has many quotes supporting taxes that are based on proportion to income (or revenue as the case may be).

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

The ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the study was listed. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

What does ease have to do with it? If it is an societal obligation shouldn't all share the burden equally?

==========================================
This sounds most logical, until you think about it. Should a two-year old pay the same as a twenty-year old?
Or should the parents of the two-year old be required to pay her share? And what about those who are too old and too sickly to work?

There must always be some manner of accommodation for the different abilities of the members of a society with regard to taxes and/or other obligations.

Or, at least, that is the way it seems to me.

[BT]

I doubt a two year old draws a salary, nor do i think the elderly or too sickly to work.

JS says i should have a claim on his salary. Since your two examples draw no salary, i would not have a claim on them . And that is the accommodation you require.

[BT]

I don't think you really want to follow this course of logic out because you won't like where it takes you. The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership. The same is true with all the fruits of creation, which Catholicism believes should be shared amongst all of God's people.

You are Catholic. Do you own anything?

[sirs]

The Church does not believe that the money you have is yours but that it is a blessing from God and ultimately belongs to Him. There is no question of ownership.

I thought it belong to Ceasar??  Go figure

[_JS]

The Church is, as always, practical in such matters. She recognizes the ownership of private property insofar as it relates to temporal existence. Though the Church does recommend voluntary poverty.

Do I own anything?

Legally? Yes.
Philosophically? No.