Fans of taxation like the idea that the “rich” should pay more for the privilege of accessing public goods than the non-rich. Fine, cool, I get it. Then how come fans of progressive taxation don’t also promote laws that require discrimination in all prices according to income? I mean more than saying that the rich should spend more on a house (because it is bigger and in a nicer neighborhood) but rather than for items that are identical in every aspect, the rich should pay more.
Imagine – a jar of peanut butter costs you $3.19 and the rich dude down the street gets his grocery bill and that same jar ends up costing him $14.49. That’s progressive! I am not asking for illustrations of when we do this, nor am I interested in the economics behind this, I am proposing it merely as a philosophical question. Is this, in fact, what the progressives would want to see? I’d like to see it happen too – for consistency’s sake, that’s all.
Here are the previous entries in the series:
- If people respond to higher taxes by working more … then let’s tax the poor more!
- Who really benefits more from the provision of public services and goods?
- What if the public goods are non-rivalrous in consumption?
- Should the rich … be … subsidized?
- On the logical consistency of the argument – doesn’t the government rely on “the rich” for its very existence?
- A challenge to envious class warriors (note this does not mean all those in favor of taxes do so out of envy, I am directing this at those who seem to have that as a motivation).
- The rich are not a sentient entity.