Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on March 24, 2014, 02:39:15 PM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on March 21, 2014, 06:38:13 PM

considering every basic need of every individual an entitlement is called...

...basic morality. People have a right to life, and they need food and healthcare to live.

Sure, people have a right to life. But if they have inadequate food and healthcare, how am I suddenly obligated to work however hard is required to provide it for them? There's a difference between charity and entitlement. Charitable giving is moral. Forced entitlements are not. The idea that one can be said to have any sort of morality when they're forced to do something is a bit odd, really.

Quote from: westkybitcoins on March 21, 2014, 06:38:13 PM

socialism is immoral, inefficient, and unsustainable.

[citation needed]

Source: common sense

Quote

Quote from: westkybitcoins on March 21, 2014, 06:38:13 PM

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on March 21, 2014, 10:37:46 AM

So the schools and police will be better funded in wealthy areas where they already have low crime rates and good schools? Nice.

Yes. Rich people can afford to pay more for nicer things; that's life. Even if payment for those things was switched to income taxes, it wouldn't end the disparity (due to private schools and private security forces,) so demanding income redistribution to address the inequity seems a little disingenuous.

Education and protection under the law are basic human rights. Giving the children of the rich a better education than the children of the poor just entrenches the advantage they already have. The whole point of funding them via income tax is that the wealthy are forced to subsidise education and protection for those who can't afford it.

You said the point was to address inequity. Income taxes don't do that so long as private schools and private security are an option (and really, they always will be.) The rich don't have to be given better stuff, they just buy it.

So if the inequity will continue to exist, what's the problem with using property taxes rather than income taxes if one is to fund public schools?

Quote

Quote from: westkybitcoins on March 21, 2014, 06:38:13 PM

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on March 21, 2014, 10:37:46 AM

Quote from: westkybitcoins on March 21, 2014, 08:00:09 AM

Nothing close to a solid argument to justify an income tax yet.

Do you really mean income tax, or is your problem really with any tax where the rich pay progressively more than the poor?

I have a problem with all taxes.

But if taxes are going to exist, there are far better options than income taxes, regardless of whether regressive or progressive. One would think the intrusiveness alone should cause people to demand a change; but I suppose once people become use to a status quo, it will be defended, regardless of the wrongness of it.

The alternatives to income tax you've proposed don't have any advantages other than fixing the 'problem' that the rich seem to be paying more than the poor without getting as much in return.

Yes, that is a problem. If you're going to justify taxes by saying it's "for society," then how in the world does paying more but getting the same make any sense? If I'm your neighbor, and we use the same public school system (let's presume that this is someplace that income taxes actually pay for schools,) and it costs $X to pay for that school, there's several different ways to split up the cost of that. The only possible rationales for making those with higher incomes pay more are ideological: that they "should" pay more. It's a common opinion, but it's one that turns simple theft into wealth redistribution.

Justifying taxes is one thing. Justifying wealth redistribution is another.

Quote

Your system of taxes just brings us closer to everyone paying for themselves, which by your own admission is what you want anyway.

Of course. That's the ideal, after all.