Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux
I think it started with Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations" 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... Teddy Roosevelt was the next big proponent of a progressive income tax, with basically the same argument.....the lower one's income, the greater that income is needed for basic necessities....thus, they should be taxed at a lower rate than those with greater disposal income.
The progressive income tax has been around for 80+ years and supported by Democrats and Republicans presidents alike...the issue has been the rate at which the tax rates should rise with income. |
In addition there are three other arguments in favor of progressive taxation.
1. Whether by accident of birth or hard work, the rich benefit more from the system as a whole. Ergo, they should pay more into it.
2. In the glory days of the Roman Empire, being a taxpayer was considered a badge of honor. "On my shoulders rests the state." When that attitude faded, so did the empire, as aristocracy faded to oligarchy, and duty faded to privilege.
3. That's where the money is.