The Progressive Income Tax: A Tale of Three Brothers

"The Progressive Income Tax" is one of those economic terms that gets bandied about, but few actually know what it means or how it works. This tale of three similar brothers with three different incomes (but one shared expense) helps explain the tax system under which we live. Adapted from an article by noted investor and economist, Kip Hagopian, and narrated by actress Carolyn Hennesy of "General Hospital" and "True Blood" fame, this animated story will change the way you think about how you pay your taxes.

So, let's charge in to see what your Democrats see as FAIR vs what a lot of us see as NOT FAIR. At the end, which brother was treated unfair? Was he the poorest or the most well off?

 

Well there's some truth to that. But the reality is that in many cases the rich benefit from government protection more than the poor.
If the degree of government protection and services was lowered to a level the poor could afford, with everyone paying an equal share, the rich would probably be worse off. It would also be pragmatically difficult to run a country that way, certainly if there was a war that needed to be paid for.
One of the ideas is that wealthier people have more wealth that needs to be protected (they have more to lose) so they should pay more.

Now that being said, this argument here still does not really justify a "progressive" tax rate but I'm speaking of course about a flat tax rate.
(Perhaps only income above a certain threshold should be taxed at this flat tax rate)

 

It means vertical equity is taken into account in tax. The video fails as it assumes triplets with the same opportunities. Actually progressive tax is required to redistribute such that social mobility is more likely. It therefore means efficiency can be taken into account in fiscal policy.

 

That is like you telling me that since octopus tastes good to you, by extension it must taste good to me also.

It is the deliberate and with malice theft of ones income which was earned by the worker and was not earned to level incomes for others. The lesson learned in the video missed you from what you claim.

 

There is but one tax rate I speak fairly well of, that is the FAIR Tax, But even it can't truly amount to fairness given it pays the poor a bounty to remain poor. The present system also pays the bounty to stay poor.

 

The reference to theft advertises your ideological position, but it isn't relevant at all to what I said. The video's approach would lead to a misinterpretation as it assumes that we start from the same position. We don't. Without progressivity you will be supporting intergenerational inequalities. Its support for a class system. In contrast, through progressivity, we control the income distribution (although only to a limited extent) and that control can support a meritocracy.

 

It is my thread so clearly you went off topic. So much was in that instructive video and due to your ideology, missed virtually all the lessons.

What your proposal amounts to would be like the NFL wanting parity of scores so due to a weaker team playing the stronger, awards bonus points to the weakest team.

 

Once it referred to triplets it was clearly going to be useless for progressive tax comment.

I have referred to equality of opportunity, not outcome. Doesn't the NFL at least try to achieve that with the draft? Of course I'm not interested in such inane sport, the real issue is how to support a meritocracy. Unless you have radical economic change (i.e. socialism), progressive tax is a basic requirement.

 

I agree so long as you share the woman in your life. Since you want to spread equal benefit, when will she be available?

Triplets was used to satisfy even the weakest of readers. But you offered nothing more than crying the blues.

 

This isn't an educated reply.

It was used to attempt the standard homogeneity comment used in neoclassical economics. Its nonsensical as progressive taxes are vital for inter-generational effects. That the trouble with cartoons!

 

For citizens, the taking of their earnings is theft. We have yet to vote on the theft. And you still learned no lesson from the video presented by a very excellent teacher.


Why do you suppose progressives desires are to empty the coffers of the rich while the poor escape the tax man?

There was that lesson as well.

 

Actually that isn't logical, given we all benefit from society. You could talk about the 'social wage' (where you compare tax and benefits from society), but that tends to support progressivity too.

It tends to be the poorer who lose out from society. They pay (and can't dodge or evade) and receive fewer benefits. Progressivity reduces the imbalance.

 

You are coaching people to steal. To use Government as the blunt force over humans. ACA is enforced by lawyers and courts since the public is not happy with driving them into the arms of insurance companies and fining them for resisting.

You are not helping people. You hurt them.

 

I am referring to society which we all benefit from. The rich benefit more. In terms of the 'social wage' we should tax more.

There's no blunt force. That's terribly emotional. There is simply a need to contribute as we all gain from our societies. You merely want the rich to gain more and to minimise social mobility opportunity.

 

Video discussing blunt force laws.

I do not dodge from the fact that to me, Dr. Milton Friedman, now dead, lived as my hero.

So, let's hear him discuss government to either approve or not approve of Government as blunt force on the public.

My view of Government is kind of simple. For a fee, a fee we have no role in deciding, elected men and women resort to orders, called laws, and use cops, including the courts and agents such as from the IRS or FBI to seek you out for the sole purpose of punishing you.

They rob the public of truth during school years. They refuse to admit taxes are theft. So what is theft. To the alleged progressive, I am not sure what if anything they see as theft. I see theft as the power creates laws that power alone enforces and when you disobey, you end up in prison. Taxes not paid are treated as you would had you robbed some bank. But the bank robber Acts to enrich unjustly for himself or herself good only. I do not buy at all that the progressive government governs to help us all. They promote inequality. I see the rich as our agency of wealth. Were we to actually listen to them and follow them, we all could obtain wealth. Take Bill Gates for instance. When he wanted to get rich, he did not seek you nor I to turn over our money but for a product. We were never forced by laws to purchase his products. He created such an environment, it was we who wanted his products so his goal was to supply us. This is called supply side economics.

 

Let's see how Dr. Friedman handles people such as posters on the forum alleging they believe in a progressive government.

 

It started from nonsensical position. It basically said "if everyone was homogeneous, progressive taxation would be a jolly bad thing". The problem of course is that we aren't homogeneous. People get ahead simply because they have a rich daddy.

Monetarism was a disaster and the vertical phillips curve was based on rejecting an empirical relationship that wasn't really based on Keynes (and its money illusion bobbins was soon eliminated by the rational expectations garbage)

Did you support his involvement with General Pinochet's Chile?

 

You have no interest in the original premise. I happen to agree with the author of the original premise.

Let's cut to the chase. Your system has deepened the massive national debt of this country. So much so, but for other nations, we could not pay the bills of the government.

I am trying to instruct posters as to why they remain poor and though the poor do not pay too much taxes, they are not barred from school, roads, parks and yes, even prisons. Notice also the rather poor facilities offered by Government to convicts and the poor food they are told to eat. Who wants to be in prison under your wonderful version of government?

 

Given it wasn't based on rational comment, I can agree with your comment.

Wait for the world where we are all brothers and sisters! Then you can ignore intergenerational divides.

My system? That's nonsense of course. But let's also acknowledge that debts in austerity countries actually increased (basically because government typically supports the wealthy)

The arrogance that you can instruct the poor why they are poor is just tut-worthy. Note the countries that have celebrated market fundamentalism the most also have the greatest inequality and working poverty levels.

 

I have never reached the lofty heights of Oprah Winfrey, nor Bill Gates, but both prove one can arrive at the door of the extremely wealthy following not your path, but my path.

Factually, when I was still a Democrat, the chirping from Democrats was they were going to solve for us hunger and maybe global hunger. I have long passed my days as a then loyal Democrat and the same songs sang in the 1930s are sang today. We who know better are not fond of them lying to all of us.

So why me and not you? If you feel you can instruct the poor on how to get wealthy, start doing it.

 

Very interesting, but why do the countries that have most celebrated market fundamentalism also have the greatest inequality and working poverty levels?

 

Apparently you choose to completely ignore the entire continent of Africa.

 

Africa unfortunately embraced market fundemantalism. It was forced on them by the Washington Consensus.

 

Where were you informed that our society has a responsibility to mitigate intergenerational income gaps and inequality?

Where is that in any founding document for this country.

Fact is, the majority of the income gap is based on two things. Choices people make during their life, and their ability to get an education, work hard, and take risk.

What you are attempting to do, is justify your agenda by creating victims. Victimization is the downfall of this country.

 

It's actually quiet relevant.

It is proven that more attractive people are offered more opportunity. If you woman carries genes which are more attractive, shouldn't we all get the same opportunity to breed and have children who would increase their ability for success?

Maybe we can do this with intelligence too. We can force very smart and average people to breed to make sure all off spring is as equal as possible.

You perspectives on using taxes as a means of social justice are just as ludicrous as these.