Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but those who are against progressive taxation are not proposing a zero sum game, i.e., they are not proposing that that taxes be raised on the classes below them to make up the difference. Or is you point that with theoretically less revenue, the lowest would be harmed by way of reduction in services?
|
We seem at this point to be passing in the night. Gatti and (supposedly) Sidd rightly say that progressive taxationis philosophically justifiable based on Rawls. (I'll note it's probably morally justified by the bible, but, then again, so is slavery purportedly). You're saying progressive taxation is generally unfair because it's too progressive.
Well, both can be right. In general, progressive taxes are philosophically supported by Rawls, but perhaps not to some degree.
And, I'll note, that the Reagan revolution appears to have benefitted everyone, which suggests that it meets the Rawlsian test of justice.
