Taxing the rich

24 Jul, 2019 at 09:43 | Posted in Politics & Society | 6 Comments

 

6 Comments

  1. In fact, the whole theory of taxation as a justifiable expedient rests
    upon two propositions; first that the poor are poor because the rich are
    rich, and therefore that the poor would become richer by making the rich
    poorer; and secondly, that it is a justifiable procedure to have a
    system of accumulating riches, and to recognize that this system is
    legitimate, while at the same time confiscating an arbitrary portion of
    the accumulated riches. The latter proposition is very much the same
    thing as saying that the object of a game of cricket is to make runs, but if
    you make more than a small number they will be taken off you.
    .
    Please allow me to emphasize the point that I am in complete
    agreement with those who contend that some individuals are unduly
    rich, just as I am absolutely confident that taxation is not the remedy.
    .
    C. H. Douglas, “Dictatorship by Taxation” (1937)

    Comment by Robert S Mitchell— 24 Jul, 2019 #

    • I’m not sure I would agree that your two propositions have anything to do with the theory of taxation. Indeed I am not sure there is one. Most countries have a civil service (and often elected leaders) who are paid. Taxation is simply the means by which money is transfered from the private sector to the public sector to allow them to be paid.

      Who you tax and how you work out the taxation charge may have some theoretical basis, but it started off by looking for people who had money they could afford to pay – so in the UK it was only the rich who were taxed until more recent times when we have had a more universal tax base. We don’t tax the rich to make them poorer, we tax them because they have money.

      As to the second; there are lots of arguments about redistribution of wealth and whether it can be accumulated and passed on to later generations – but I don’t think there is a general proposition which we all agree is the starting point.

      Comment by Huw Williams— 30 Jul, 2019 #

      • Douglas starts the cited piece by saying a tithe is the only moral tax, and the most ancient. A sort of flat tax on producers.
        .
        Seignorage pays more bank salaries than fees. Governments should use money creation, and indexation to maintain real purchasing power, rather than taxation and interest rate manipulations.

        Comment by Robert S Mitchell— 31 Jul, 2019 #

        • Apologies for my ignorance, but the reference to “moral” and “tithe” did not (and still does not) appear on my screen. But again, that is a point of view which does not seem to be supported by trying to state “axioms” for a theory of taxation.

          As to money creation, I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying scrap taxation and just issue more money? Whilst I know that governments can run deficits, I would have thought the level of government deficit if you don’t have any taxation income might have serious economic consequences.

          And surely seignorage is not that important. If the cost of producing money was close to its value, we would stop producing it. If I have understood it correcly the largest economic effects of money creation are about creating debt, not about printing notes or coins.

          Comment by Huw Williams— 31 Jul, 2019 #

  2. Both my wife and were the first in our family to achieve higher education. We both came from relative poverty. We are now through hard work, perseverance, and luck, wealthy financially and we have not forgotten where we came from. There was once a time when we needed welfare to survive as we persued higher degrees with small children. We have no problem paying our fair share. We both think taxes should be progressive, not regressive. It is time the wealth pay their fair share.

    Comment by Rob— 24 Jul, 2019 #


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.