Which were in response to your claim in post #5 that your scenario showed “two people making identical use of the system.”
I don’t care. It is a bad argument no matter who uses it. Just because they brought it up doesn’t mean you can use it to argue against against taxation, because the concepts are unrelated, as I explained.
Are you talking about the OP? The scenario was based on two brothers living identical lives, that used identical resources, to each produce a drawing. The point being that the income they earned wasn’t based on previous benefits from the tax system. One didn’t go to a state funded art school, or use more roads.
If I compared a surgeon to a plumber the initial response would have been about how the surgeon went to university etc. thus benefited more from tax services.
Now that the two brothers have income, the responses seem to be that the richer brother might more tax services (post 18) in the future.
If you (general you) are that bothered by the concept of “two people making identical use of the system” consider just one artist. His drawing could sell for either $100 or $1million. His past use of tax services aren’t factored into his income tax. Nor will his future use. So “use” has nothing to do with the justification.
Okay, I agree it’s a bad argument.
Past and future use of government services have nothing to do with the progressive tax brackets, but the relative derived benefit of income is often cited to respond to the claim some antitaxers make that the wealthy don’t get as much from the system as the poor get in the form of social services. Also used in this thread as a response to the proposition that the million dollar sale wouldn’t immediately avail the more successful artist a higher level of utilization of gov’t guarantees.
Although you say that you’re OK with an income tax, your comments here definitely convey the message that you’re most definitely NOT OK with an income tax. If you have an income tax, then the guy who made $1 million is going to pay a lot more than the guy who made $100. If you’re not OK with that, then you’re not OK with an income tax, despite what you said.
First, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with asking for a justification, and me asking doesn’t make me pro or anti anything. Consider the theory of evolution, undeniably correct. But when asked, a person should be able to justify it, using sound logic and reasoned arguments. If you are going to believe in something (like progressive income taxes) you should also be able to justify it, with sound logic and reasoned arguments.
As for the scenario in the OP, and what I’m “okay with,” the problem is neither. Both brothers represent failed logic.
The first brother pays so little in taxes it makes me wonder why we’d bother having him pay anything at all. As many have pointed out, that $10 hurts him way more than $10/100/1000 from the rich brother, and provides nothing to the coffers.
The second brother in my view is paying an obscenely large amount, and will continue to pay more as his income increases. Which makes me wonder if there is ever a point where we’d stop asking for more. I don’t mean not paying taxes, I mean more in the marginal sense of when he earns additional income.
It just doesn’t wash. The two concepts are unrelated, as Ravenman pointed out.
If you want to know my personal views I much prefer property taxes, but at this point I’m not interested in a comparison of the two. I can justify a higher valued property paying higher taxes. That makes sense to me. Variations in income tax don’t, because the services/benefits derived don’t correlate–that is to say a person making 10 times more or 10 time less doesn’t use/benefit 10 times more or less.
Supposing I accept your argument temporarily, answer this:
The OP describes a scenario of two people of identical backgrounds, using identical tools and materials, producing two things that, while superficially the same, have different values to different buyers.
And then you say that both of these people receive the same services from the government, and should pay the same to get them. Why? I say the government should take advantage of the same flexible pricing structure that the artists did. If two drawings can have different values to different buyers, the government (while providing services that are superficially similar) can have different values to different taxpayers.
Yes it is. Would you mind answering it.
Someone who only received $100 income in a year would not pay any income tax.
Since I was asked to answer this question:
Being paid to protect property isn’t a direct function on the value of the property. How much I pay you would depend a lot more on the difficulty of protecting the property.
As a security guard, I would demand a higher salary to protect a liquor store in a crime-ridden neighbourhood, compared to the equivalent store in an area with lower crime stats. Same property value, different risk assessment, different pay.
So there is your answer, how does this relate to the different amounts each brother pays in income taxes? You’ve made a good argument for each paying different amounts of insurance, but that’s about it.
Oh my god you’re right!
I’m not objecting to the prices paid for the paintings - that’s a given, and I assume they are reasonably valued. I assume that these brothers are not rich, or even well off, otherwise the value of the $100 painting is just about zero as money, but perhaps more to someone who really wants to sell a painting to say he did so.
Taxes have nothing to do with how much society values work. It is purely a matter of how much money they get. The fuck-off banker who gets a bonus for nearly destroying the economy doesn’t get taxed at a higher rate than the inventor who actually does some good.
I don’t agree with the benefit from society argument, since that is so hard to value. What I do support, and which has been mentioned with no response, is that since we are all equal members of society we should support that society at equal levels, which does not mean equal dollar amounts or even equal percentages. If we doubled the taxes on each, and the money was their only income from the month, would the relative impacts be the same? Not hardly. That is why the $100 income wouldn’t actually be taxed, since any money taken from it would hurt more than $100K from the million dollar income. You clearly aren’t going to tax the $1M brother to the level where he has to worry about paying the rent and for his next meal - any tax on the $100 guy is that level. So the rich guy still does better, which is fine. He just shouldn’t get greedy about it, and act like a higher tax rate is going to cause great pain.
No, Ravenman pointed out that the higher benefit the wealthy get from the government isn’t related to the reason for a progressive income tax. I pointed out in this later post why some of us are wasting time following your false proposition about equivalent use of government regardless of income. I suppose I should have realized this red herring would be used to obfuscate the issue.
So in the same post where you’re dismissing marginal utility as a factor in taxation, you’re using the concept to argue against a progressive tax structure. You need to decide whether you hold it to be relevant. If it’s relevant to your argument against progressive taxation (and yes, dammit; you’re not “questioning” the idea, you’re arguing against it), then it’s damn sure appropriate to refute your position.
And note, for Og’s sake, that refuting your false assertions is not the same as explaining the reason for progressive tax brackets. Nametag and Ravenman, among others, explained that already:
Voyager also deals with the basic question more than adequately in his last paragraph above. If it’s really just a question of “why”, then there’s your answer. But I don’t think a GQ type answer is what you’re looking for. It would be interesting (or, less tedious) if you could come up with a better argument than “but everyone gets equal benefit from the government so paying a percentage of income is unfair.”
This hypothetical scenario suffers from two problems: first, the universe is actually stochastic in nature, whereas the example given is purely deterministic. This means that the whole line of questioning about how and when you decide to hire more bailiffs/other resources to provide for protection based on the transitory value of the artworks is bunk. It is micromanaging the government down to a ridiculous level. Second, the scenario quoted in the OP is so unlikely in real life (remember the whole deal with statistics involved in real life?) that we can tax Mr. Hundred Dollar at 0% and Mr. Million Dollar at 90% and not bat an eyelash: tough noogies bra. Next time try being more normal 
In conclusion, the hypothetical scenario is so far out removed from reality that we can safely concede any points you want to prove. But at the same time realize that we concede these points in a universe where the area of a circle is pi*r^2.5 . Frankly, it’s abundantly clear that ANY and ALL taxing structures will always have some individuals who feel abused by the system, and you will always be able to point to them to argue against that particular taxing structure, so what’s the point of this whole exercise? Why don’t we create/analyze a hypothetical scenario where the vast majority of the population falls under? It would be much productive.
To me the idea of what is “fair” is pointless. We tax people who make more money at a higher rate because it is practical. If we taxed everyone at the same rate and kept our same level of services then we would substantially raise the taxes of 95% of Americans. Or we could have a low, flat rate and have virtually no government services at all. From a practical standpoint, neither of those make sense. Having no government services would actually make the lives of the rich worse. There would not be an educated workforce, consumers wouldn’t have money to spend on products and services, disease and crime would be rampant, etc.
Having a progressive tax system with non-confiscatory rates is just a good system that has worked well. For some reason the right is bound and determined to reject what has worked and replace it with some fiction of what they thought we used to have, even though we didn’t.
Historically the government has gotten revenue from high tariffs, a greater share of revenue from corporations, and higher tax rates on wealthy individuals; none of which the right wants to return to.
In your example, the government needs $100,010 dollars to provide services.
Where do you propose they get the money from if not the one with the means to be taxed?
FWIW, in real life, so to speak, the loser twin pays nothing in Federal income tax and may be eligible for a tax credit; the lucky twin pays around $320,000 on a net income of a million dollars.
The answer is: if everyone paid the goverment for their share of services they received, (assuming that everyone used the same amount of services for simplicity) the person with a lower income would be considered having a regressive tax. Regressive taxes are big political No No.
To the OP…Ability to pay aside…use of government services aside…
Break it down to a dollar. One dollar earned pays $.10 tax.
Scenario 1
Brother #1 earns $100, pays $10. It’s just $1 a hundred times. It just happened to be all at once.
Brother #2 earns $1,000,000, pays $100,000. It’s just $1 a million times. It just happened to be all at once.
Scenario 2
Brother #1 earns $100, pays $10. Every day for 10,000 days. On each occurrence he pays his $10.
Brother #2 earns $1,000,000, pays $100,000. This happens only one time.
Each dollar earned in each scenario for each brother pays a $.10 tax. How is any of this unfair?
Just to complicate things, of course, is that, while Icarus’s logic fits the scenario set up by the OP, it doesn’t fit the income tax structure in the US. The OP sets up a proportional tax, where everyone pays 10% of his income. The US income tax is progressive, whereby the more money you make, the greater a percentage of his income you pay.
And, the justification for this, as others have said, is that the rich can afford to pay more than the poor.