tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post7848151124113952944..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Justice and taxationAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48897572722680603142010-08-11T11:33:48.959-05:002010-08-11T11:33:48.959-05:00I hadn't thought of the possibility of a defic...I hadn't thought of the possibility of a deficit being in itself an injustice. But maybe one should say that the undertaxing is unjust. Maybe what one should say is that the combination of undertaxing and spending more than one has is unjust, and the undertaxing only contributes to the injustice.<br /><br />But I don't know how plausible that would be in a case where justice requires one to spend as much as one does.<br /><br />So a better thing to do would be to admit that maybe there can be cases where the undertaxing is directly unjust and some are overtaxed. In those cases, although there is a reason of justice not to raise the taxes across the board--because of those who are overtaxed--this reason could be overridden by reasons of justice to other people (such as future generations who would have to pay the debts or lenders whose loans would not be repaid). But it remains true that there is a reason of justice not to raise the taxes across the board.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-88890849765269778832010-08-11T10:47:04.225-05:002010-08-11T10:47:04.225-05:00Hmm, I still think your conclusion comes from the ...Hmm, I still think your conclusion comes from the asymmetry of your assumption, which I wouldn't agree with.<br /><br />By "x is taxed too little" I assume we mean "someone else, whether another taxpayer or future generations through debt incurred is paying for something that x should have payed for." Therefore, while there is no injustice to x, there is with certainty an injustice to one or more other (unspecified) individuals.<br /><br />Let's quantify your example. Suppose a fictional state has needs of $30, and has a population of 10. Suppose our definition of "fair tax" is that each person should pay $3, and there should be no deficit spending, as this would be injustice to future generations.<br /><br />In fact B pays $10, 9 others pay $1, and $11 is deficit spending. So B is taxed too much (by $7), and the others are taxed too little (by $7). <br /><br />An across the board tax increase of $1 means B pays $11, the others pay $2, and there is now a deficit of $1. So B is now taxed too much by $8, the others are taxed too little by $1, but now there is less injustice in the deficit (under our assumptions of fair).<br /><br />I would say this across the board tax increase has reduced injustice, completely ignoring spending.Nick Fortescuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11154498742042292761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18826802066895698282010-08-11T08:42:58.877-05:002010-08-11T08:42:58.877-05:00There is no injustice to x in x's being taxed ...There is no injustice to x in x's being taxed too little. Of course, if x is taxed too little, this may <em>result</em> in an injustice, in that there may be insufficient revenues to pay for things that justice requires or there will be a temptation to overtax someone else. In the scenario where everybody is undertaxed, there is no injustice intrinsic in the undertaxing, but an injustice may result from the insufficiency of revenue. <br /><br />Now take an extreme scenario where B is overtaxed, and everybody else is undertaxed. An across-the-board tax increase will directly increase the injustice to B, and will not directly decrease anybody's injustice. So there is a reason of justice not to put that tax increase in place. At the same time, the across-the-board tax increase may indirectly decrease other injustices, by increasing revenues and making it possible to feed the hungry, have better paid and hence (hopefully) less corruptible public officials, etc. So there may be <em>on balance</em> reasons of justice for the increase, just as in the cases I consider in the post. But it is still true that there is <em>a</em> reason of justice not to do that increase.<br /><br />By the way, here is a principle that would somewhat strength the weak conclusion of my post: <br /><br />(*) One may only go against a reason of justice for the sake of other reasons of justice.<br /><br />But I am inclined not to accept (*).Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-48730228088478839972010-08-11T05:14:15.097-05:002010-08-11T05:14:15.097-05:00You assume in your first paragraph that it cannot ...You assume in your first paragraph that it cannot be true that everyone is taxed too little, and then derive in your second that across the board tax increases cannot be just. An across the board tax increase is saying that everyone is taxed too little.<br /><br />Or maybe more strictly speaking, an across the board tax increase says that there are more people who are taxed too little than are taxed too much. So you example in the second paragraph of A and B is too simple - the across the board tax increase says there are more A's than B's, possibly many more.Nick Fortescuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11154498742042292761noreply@blogger.com