Taxing Comments

Commentor S., who is a tax attorney, says correctly that this question really boils down to whether there is a just level of redistribution. That is a brilliant point, and one that perfectly illustrates the silliness of the "unjust level of taxation" question. S. is correct that there probably is an answer to the question, whether redistribution is just, in a given case. But I still think I'm right that phrasing the question in terms of tax rates doesn't make any sense. We can judge the (in)justice of policies, but not really of tax rates qua tax rates (versus as proxies for policy choices).

Commentor C.L., who is definitely not a tax attorney, wants to argue that the Bill of Rights has something to do with the question. Hmmm. Must have missed that provision in the BOR.

Quoth Locke: S. 140. "It is true that governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent--i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them . . . ." And so on. As Don Herzog says in Happy Slaves, a book well worth a look, never has "i.e." done so much work for a political theorist (paraphrasing).

I think Locke has this one right (although, as S. might point out, Locke is not talking about redistributive policies). Is there another way to set tax rates? If it were a constitutional principle, would courts get involved in fashioning "balancing tests" to set tax rates? I don't know anyone who would want that.