Is a tax break for the rich immoral?

[poop]

Ok, here is how I interpret the tax cut which heavily benefits the rich:

1. The rich get a break
2. Therefore, the rich are more productive
3. Hence, the less well off benefit

I think that is how the overall argument for tax cuts for the rich work.

The reason that it is immoral is that the rich do not necessarily have to get a tax break to be more productive. The break is an incentive. So let's look at this as if a rich guy was talking to a poor person:

1. I need a tax break
2. I can be more productive
3. You will benefit (job, scientific advance, stronger economy)

Ok, so the rich guy is in control of premise 2. He can be mor productive without a tax break. He is rich already (taxed or not). So is this blackmail of the government? Does the rich guy have the right to not be as productive unless he gets rewarded?

This was an approach to a particular tax situation in Brittain that I read about in Philosophy. I thought it was interesting enough to discuss here.

I do not necessarily stand by this argument or against it. I am still thinking about it. I wanted to see what you guys thought.

 

[iamwiz82]

the rich deserve the same tax break the middle class gets. Of course they will be receiving more back, since they put more in.

If the entire country gets a tax break, the citizens are more well off in all areas, while the govt. itself loses out.

 

[poop]

Well, the middle class cannot necessarily be more productive (broad term used purposefully) without a break. The rich generally can.

And the poor, well...

 

[iamwiz82]

thats why i said a tax break makes all more productive.

 

[cipher00]

I seem to recall that in the mid 70's the Swedish top marginal tax bracket was 110%. Now, that's a bit of a disincentive right there.

Taxation is simply an evolved method whereby we fund our government. I think it's perfectly alright for three of us to get together to decide that the wealthiest two should share income with the poorest. What I do find immoral is three of us getting together and the poorest two decide that the wealthiest share income with them. Or perhaps five getting together and the middle three deciding that the wealthiest give up income to the poorest.

Wait a minute...now I'm confusing myself...Maybe that's what we're doing now.