Income taxation and morality

[viper37]

Not this inheritance tax shit again. There is NOTHING turning everyone into the drones read about in 1984 than the idea of punitive inheritance taxes.

The ONLY moral tax is either an income tax OR a VAT, i.e. taking your income, and taxing it at one point in its existence.

The BS done where first you are taxed when its your income, then when you spend it, then some more when you spend it on some specific shit (like fuel), then once you earn interest after saving what's left of it, and then finally when you have enough of it all and crook up and leave it to your kid - well, that may be necessary to maintain modern states, but it is pretty far from fair and moral.

The money you get paid for your work has been taxed already too. When I pay my cleaning lady, she is getting paid from the money I already paid tax on. The argument that it is somehow different with inheritance is spurious.

If my dad has $100 and in scenario one he pays me that money for some service I performed for him, and in scenario two he dies and I get this money for free, why should I pay more taxes in the former than in the latter case?

There is no double taxation here.
The money you get, your corporation is taxed at a much lower rate than you are.  And they get to reduce their taxable income by whatever they paid you.  So that portion of the money was never taxed.

[Tamas]

Cool, I get taxed extra on money I earn from working  so some trustafarian twat doesn't have to pay any tax on money his great uncle Albert inherited from his great aunt Petunia.

Well as long as that's the only moral way.

You are looking at that money as if it materialised out of nothing when your trustafarian received it. It was already taxed when aunt Petunia got it so why not let her do whatever she wants with it.

Only if she earnt it. What if she got lucky when her farm land got planning permission for residential development?

Are you suggesting we should have the state making sure nobody rises above others financially based on "luck"?

[Martinus]

LOL!  "The only moral taxes..." is the dumbest bumper-sticker idea ever.

People have a moral obligation to pay the taxes they owe.  taxes cannot be moral or immoral because they are not people, and it is people who have morals (maybe some animals as well, but that is controversial).

I agree with Marti that, from the standpoint of society, it makes the most sense to tax most highly the income from sources that are least distorted by taxes.  Inheritance pretty much tops that list, since dead people cannot change their behavior based on the taxes their estate must pay after death.  Gifts are second.  Earned income is last, because we want people to earn income by producing goods and services.

The second part of your post essentially argues morality from the utilitarian standpoint.

[Martinus]

Not this inheritance tax shit again. There is NOTHING turning everyone into the drones read about in 1984 than the idea of punitive inheritance taxes.

The ONLY moral tax is either an income tax OR a VAT, i.e. taking your income, and taxing it at one point in its existence.

The BS done where first you are taxed when its your income, then when you spend it, then some more when you spend it on some specific shit (like fuel), then once you earn interest after saving what's left of it, and then finally when you have enough of it all and crook up and leave it to your kid - well, that may be necessary to maintain modern states, but it is pretty far from fair and moral.

The money you get paid for your work has been taxed already too. When I pay my cleaning lady, she is getting paid from the money I already paid tax on. The argument that it is somehow different with inheritance is spurious.

If my dad has $100 and in scenario one he pays me that money for some service I performed for him, and in scenario two he dies and I get this money for free, why should I pay more taxes in the former than in the latter case?

There is no double taxation here.
The money you get, your corporation is taxed at a much lower rate than you are.  And they get to reduce their taxable income by whatever they paid you.  So that portion of the money was never taxed.

My money, which I use to pay my cleaning lady, my barber and my shopkeeper, has already been taxed though and I cannot deduct my expenses from the base of my taxation.

Corporations are different, but then corporations are generally subject to different rules on taxation than the general public.

[Gups]

Cool, I get taxed extra on money I earn from working  so some trustafarian twat doesn't have to pay any tax on money his great uncle Albert inherited from his great aunt Petunia.

Well as long as that's the only moral way.

You are looking at that money as if it materialised out of nothing when your trustafarian received it. It was already taxed when aunt Petunia got it so why not let her do whatever she wants with it.

Only if she earnt it. What if she got lucky when her farm land got planning permission for residential development?

Are you suggesting we should have the state making sure nobody rises above others financially based on "luck"?

Jesus Christ, what is it with you and straw men today?

[The Minsky Moment]

What does morality have to do with it?

Well, the way I see it taxation should at least not run contrary to general morality. That's why the sales tax on jewellery, cigarettes and booze is usually higher than one on food, children clothes and books.

No that is not why.
Taxes are often high on things like cigs and booze because demand is relatively inelastic, and thus for centuries it has been a very effective way for governments to raise revenue.  In addition, because it is commonly believed that lower consumption of those commodities is a net benefit (not detriment to society).  The latter belief is not cigarettes and alchohol have some deviant metaphysical status but because it is well understood that their heavy consumption harms health and produces negative externalities.

It's the same rationale for carbon taxation - I don't think anyone has suggested that the particular element on the periodic table is "evil"

[Martinus]

Cool, I get taxed extra on money I earn from working  so some trustafarian twat doesn't have to pay any tax on money his great uncle Albert inherited from his great aunt Petunia.

Well as long as that's the only moral way.

You are looking at that money as if it materialised out of nothing when your trustafarian received it. It was already taxed when aunt Petunia got it so why not let her do whatever she wants with it.

Only if she earnt it. What if she got lucky when her farm land got planning permission for residential development?

Are you suggesting we should have the state making sure nobody rises above others financially based on "luck"?

Jesus Christ, what is it with you and straw men today?

I suspect this is his moronic Hungarian bumpkin trigger. A lot of people from this part of the world have this completely naive, retarded view on taxation. I mean, his girlfriend apparently worships the right wing pro-Putin Polish "libertarian".

[Martinus]

What does morality have to do with it?

Well, the way I see it taxation should at least not run contrary to general morality. That's why the sales tax on jewellery, cigarettes and booze is usually higher than one on food, children clothes and books.

No that is not why.
Taxes are often high on things like cigs and booze because demand is relatively inelastic, and thus for centuries it has been a very effective way for governments to raise revenue.  In addition, because it is commonly believed that lower consumption of those commodities is a net benefit (not detriment to society).  The latter belief is not cigarettes and alchohol have some deviant metaphysical status but because it is well understood that their heavy consumption harms health and produces negative externalities.

It's the same rationale for carbon taxation - I don't think anyone has suggested that the particular element on the periodic table is "evil"

You must be joking now. Surely carbon taxation is based on the moral judgement made on those who contribute to global warming through carbon emissions. 

And health influence judgement is moral judgement.

[HVC]

Cool, I get taxed extra on money I earn from working  so some trustafarian twat doesn't have to pay any tax on money his great uncle Albert inherited from his great aunt Petunia.

Well as long as that's the only moral way.

You are looking at that money as if it materialised out of nothing when your trustafarian received it. It was already taxed when aunt Petunia got it so why not let her do whatever she wants with it.

Only if she earnt it. What if she got lucky when her farm land got planning permission for residential development?

Are you suggesting we should have the state making sure nobody rises above others financially based on "luck"?

Jesus Christ, what is it with you and straw men today?

He probably has some inheritance coming his way

[Martinus]

Cool, I get taxed extra on money I earn from working  so some trustafarian twat doesn't have to pay any tax on money his great uncle Albert inherited from his great aunt Petunia.

Well as long as that's the only moral way.

You are looking at that money as if it materialised out of nothing when your trustafarian received it. It was already taxed when aunt Petunia got it so why not let her do whatever she wants with it.

Only if she earnt it. What if she got lucky when her farm land got planning permission for residential development?

Are you suggesting we should have the state making sure nobody rises above others financially based on "luck"?

Jesus Christ, what is it with you and straw men today?

He probably has some inheritance coming his way

A goat, two beets and half a shack in a swamp.

[HVC]

He still has to keep the government from taking one of the beets his ancestors worked so hard to harvest

[The Minsky Moment]

You must be joking now. Surely carbon taxation is based on the moral judgement made on those who contribute to global warming through carbon emissions. 

I am equally if not more perplexed with this statement.
The idea of taxing carbon is not to inflict punishment on people who drive cars, or heat their houses, because they are immoral for doing so.  That would be pretty silly.
The idea of taxing carbon is that the price paid to use carbon doesn't reflect the heavy costs that burning it imposes generally.

The point of carbon taxation is to arrest global warming which is harmful.  Not to cast moral judgment on people (i.e. just about everyone) who uses carbon-based energy.

[alfred russel]

There has to be some way to limit wealth transfer between generations. Otherwise, you will end up with a bunch of superwealthy twats who have done nothing but control a significant percentage of the wealth - an aristocracy without the benefits of good breeding or noblesse oblige.

I can only think of a few solutions to this problem:

1) Wars that destroy everyone's wealth
2) social revolutions
3) massive inflation
4) wealth taxes
5) inheritance taxes

#5 seems the least obnoxious.

[Tamas]

Cool, I get taxed extra on money I earn from working  so some trustafarian twat doesn't have to pay any tax on money his great uncle Albert inherited from his great aunt Petunia.

Well as long as that's the only moral way.

You are looking at that money as if it materialised out of nothing when your trustafarian received it. It was already taxed when aunt Petunia got it so why not let her do whatever she wants with it.

Only if she earnt it. What if she got lucky when her farm land got planning permission for residential development?

Are you suggesting we should have the state making sure nobody rises above others financially based on "luck"?

Jesus Christ, what is it with you and straw men today?

I suspect this is his moronic Hungarian bumpkin trigger. A lot of people from this part of the world have this completely naive, retarded view on taxation. I mean, his girlfriend apparently worships the right wing pro-Putin Polish "libertarian".

Not only that is not true no matter how often you repeat it, you fucking worshipped, at least as of about a month ago, the court comedian of Trump, so maybe you are not the perfect person to make this argument.

And on this it is you who are completely off of every natural human instinct on this one. If you were not some faux-nihilistic toe-sucking corporate lawyer, who is so out of touch with the real world that managed to worship the one political demographic which absolutely 100% despises every aspect of your existence, then you would know that a lot of parents work and keep bettering their lot in the hopes of offering an easier life for their descendants. Forcefully removing that option is one of the least moral ways to coerce income for the state.

[Martinus]

You must be joking now. Surely carbon taxation is based on the moral judgement made on those who contribute to global warming through carbon emissions. 

I am equally if not more perplexed with this statement.
The idea of taxing carbon is not to inflict punishment on people who drive cars, or heat their houses, because they are immoral for doing so.  That would be pretty silly.
The idea of taxing carbon is that the price paid to use carbon doesn't reflect the heavy costs that burning it imposes generally.

The point of carbon taxation is to arrest global warming which is harmful.  Not to cast moral judgment on people (i.e. just about everyone) who uses carbon-based energy.

Ok maybe my understanding of the concept of morality is broader and includes an utilitarian calculus (maybe it's a language thing for me).

Anyways, for me, prompting people towards socially beneficial outcomes (such as working instead of counting on inheritance) is a moral judgement.