> Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate.

Which is a position completely ignorant of the marginal utility of money. No, it isn't fair that for one guy 10% could be the difference between getting by and not getting by while for the other guy 10% means no change to his lifestyle all.

No, progressives think it's fair that the burden is felt equally and that requires understanding how money works.

> 'Fair' depends strongly upon one's beliefs, and can't be objectively defined.

Fair does depend on beliefs, but some people's beliefs are objectively stupid. Anyone who denies the marginal utility of money and insists a flat percentage is fair, doesn't understand money and doesn't belong in the conversation just as anyone who believes vaccines cause autism is objective stupid and doesn't belong in that conversation. Everyone has opinions, that doesn't make them equal.

Some people also thought "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fair. Most seemingly disagreed, given how history has unfolded.

For the record, I agree with Piketty, Marx, and others of that particular persuasion. I'm all for progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance tax, all of it. But I'm also not ignorant of history...

Nor am I, and implying progressives are communists is quite intellectually dishonest.

Nor are you what? I said I agree with Piketty and Marx.

Anyhow, the example was just rhetoric. The point is that communism started because people thought it was unfair that there was a rentier class who essentially monopolized wealth because they had inherited wealth. And communism fell because people thought it was unfair that people who were lazy made the same as people who worked hard.

Studies have shown that most people in western societies prefer inequality as long as someone has less than them. They think inequality is 'fair'. Why do you think people value celebrities and rich people? People are happy with our 'lottery' system, where anyone can become rich, even if the majority don't, and even if the average struggles...

And we're back to communism again. This thread has nothing to do with communism. That you keep going there shows you can't have a serious conversation; goodbye.

Socialism, the labour movement, and communism all come from the same place.

It's funny, you're arguing for progressive taxation, but you don't understand the history behind labour movements, equal rights, welfare, socialism, etc... Or why communism is relevant in a discussion about rational choice, inequality and perceived fairness.

I do get it though - Americans have been taught to hate communism, and thus have purged an entire century of socialist philosophy from their collective thoughts.

> A conversation about the fairness of progressive taxation does not have to devolve into a conversation about communism or socialism.

Comparing different schools of economic thought absolutely relates to a discussion about rational choice and fairness.

> Communism is not relevant just because we're talking about progressive taxation and that you think is simply shows you're too biased to have an intelligent conversation.

Too biased? In what direction? Have you even been able to ascertain what my position is?

> Your arrogance is sickening. You're a kid, still in college, and you're acting like no one else has heard of history, grow up and learn to engage like an adult. Have some thoughts of your own.

Do you know me? Yet you decide to attack me. Here's a few fun facts about me: I'm not a kid, I'm 30 and have been married for 4 years, have already had a successful career and am changing pace for awhile, and I'm in university because I want to be.

What I know about you - most of your replies in this thread have been one or two liners about progressiveness, with the words 'marginal utility' occasionally thrown in.

> No one is here for a history lesson from a kid who screams communism and socialism every time tax policy is brought up.

Again, just 1 question: What do you think my opinion on taxes is?

You started off your replies by implying progressives are communists with this little nugget

> Progressives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays what they can afford.

Which is not what progressives believe, and then you went full on communist with this little nugget

> Some people also thought "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was fair.

And then you started pretending only you knew history.

I don't care what you position is, I'm replying to what you say, not what you think; I can't read your mind, only what you write.

> Do you know me? Yet you decide to attack me.

I don't have to know you to tell you you're behaving arrogantly, and I haven't attacked you, if you think I have, you don't know what attack means. I've criticized your bad behavior, nothing more.

> I'm not a kid, I'm 30

Still a kid to me bub.

> Again, just 1 question: What do you think my opinion on taxes is?

I know what your position is, you stated it

> I'm all for progressive taxation, wealth and inheritance tax, all of it. But I'm also not ignorant of history...

But that's not what we're talking about anymore because you can't stop being arrogant and have derailed any conversation to the point that I no longer care what you think. "But I'm also not ignorant of history", please, grow up, your superiority complex is disgusting.

The personal attacks in your comments are completely out of line. If you don't stop doing this I'm going to have to ban you, which I would hate, because we've both been around here for years and I've enjoyed your HN comments (especially about Smalltalk) since long before I became a moderator.

But you've been breaking the HN guidelines over and over again, and I've asked you to stop many times. You need to stop categorically if you want to keep commenting here. These rules apply to everyone, and it wouldn't be fair to other users to let you get away with it.

Well I'll stop this thread, though I don't agree I've attacked him at all; I've done no such thing and while I'll respect your wish to stop, you're wrong to claim I've attacked anyone as no such thing happened. If fact please point me at the guideline you're accusing me of breaking because I just reviewed them and I don't see anything that violates them; I am being civil and saying exactly what I would say to him in person. Pointing out bad behavior like arrogance and superiority is not a personal attack on the person, it's addressing the person's behavior.

The problem is that you're using personally uncivil language to do it, and that's not allowed.

I'd be happy to try to clarify this if you want to discuss it further, but [email protected] would be better than here.

Please stop.

While it's true that fair is hard to define objectively progressive tax rates are easy to support from quite a few underlying premises:

1) utility maximization 2) Rawlsian justice 3) fee for service model based on benefits received from government

It's actually pretty hard to justify a flat tax from most underlying axioms. I think you'd actually have an easier time justifying a flat fee where everyone pays the same $ value regardless of income.

I also contest your assertion that "Conservatives think it's 'fair' that everyone pays the same rate." While that might be true for some conservatives, political support for progressive tax rates go much beyond Democrats.