Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
No. This is not a zero-sum argument where the existence of government's protections justifies any taxation rates that the government wants.
Instead, I think Sidd's point is an allusion to John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance theory that makes the argument for, among other things, progressive taxation.
Gattigap
|
Funny, I don't think Sidd used the term veil, rawls, or original position. I'll let him speak for himself, but the argument seemed to be that everyone owes the government a debt of gratitude because without it they couldn't accumulate the wealth they do. I've already dealt with that one, so let's move on.
Rawls's argument is a different one altogether. It's not a question of what do people owe government, but rather what government owes people. And the general idea is that it owes the weakest the most. FWIW, the theory is one of justice. The veil of ignorance is simply a mechanism used to reach the reasoned end.
Furthermore, using this mechanism, or theory, still has to be done in a circumspect manner. I'll use a local example. DC has seen property values rise immensely in recent years. In particular, in the wealthy part of the city. As a result, property tax revenues have skyrocketed (not hard .96*3X > .96*X). Naturally, those whose property values have gone up the most have had their taxes go up the most. Well, DC council is considering a bill to reduce the property tax rate. Sounds good, right? Everybody has lower taxes! Not so fast--the majority of the benefits (i.e., gross reduction of taxes) accrues to the richie riches. Big surprise--if you pay more taxes, you get a bigger cut when the cut comes. Objection!
So, we already have progressive taxation. Are you saying Rawls would justify any level of progressive taxation? I doubt it. Even Rawls could see that there are dynamic incentive effects that even people in the worst original position would want everyone to have, to ensure a better level for everyone.
