The Ethics of a Progressive Income Tax

In morality, the discussion usually revolves around vices and virtues. In ethics, it is about right and wrong. In either case, it is hard to come up with an argument that defends a progressive tax.

What is a progressive tax? It can envisioned as a seesaw, where those on one end receive money from the government, those at the golden mean neither receive nor pay, and those on the other end pay in an increasing rate the more they make. One can envision other solutions.

The practical underpinning of the progressive tax is that those who earn more can afford to pay more. Once basic needs are met, the rest of income can be viewed as unneeded. The government also has needs. Its needs must be met from income sources, of which taxation is the primary source. If there is a difference between the government's needs and its income, some way of getting that money must be devised. It is felt to be unfair to take needed money from citizens, so the only other choice is to take unneeded money. If you are going to do that, why not take it in some escalating way, so that the burden is borne more by those who can better afford to carry the burden? That is the argument, and it is nothing if not practical. Unfortunately, practicality runs into direct conflict with principle, and there are other solutions to the problem that are principled, making this choice wrong.

There is an ethical principle of malice. Malice is the intentional infliction of harm, which could be physical, emotional, social or economic, among others. "They can afford it" is the justification of taking, but doesn't make it ethical. For example, waterboarding a prisoner to get information may be viewed as wrong, because you actually are trying to inflict harm for your own purposes, no matter how noble those purposes might be. The defense of waterboarding is that the person is in no real danger and "can survive it". Furthermore, the defense usually is that the more a prisoner knows, the more reasonable are higher levels of intentional infliction of distress. There is no ethical construct that allows separation of financial malice from physical malice. If one is wrong, then the other is wrong. So, if you support torture of prisoners based upon some heirarchy of knowledge, you have no ethical grounds to oppose a progressive tax. And if you oppose torture, then you must oppose a progressive tax on the same ethical grounds.

There is one other point. Torture can be used to prevent further harm, but a progressive tax cannot. Torture may exact information that can be used to prevent a known upcoming malicious act. Taking of money in a progressive tax does nothing to prevent upcoming malice, unless one defines malice as the fair use of an individual's income as he sees fit. So, in this comparison, a progressive tax is worse than torture, as it provides no potential benefit. It only has ethical downside.

So, what are the ethical solutions for a government that needs money? There are several options, all of which are ethical.

• A flat percentage tax that everyone pays. From the received funds, reimbursement for basic needs is given to those below a specific poverty line.
• Reduction of government size and scope. Much of what government does could be done in the private sector. A country where people stand up and volunteer to help their fellow citizens is a more ethical society than one where largesse comes from the government.
• Ask citizens to donate to the government. Charity can flow to the government if those with money see the good in what the government does. Donations could be earmarked for different branches and services, based upon an individual's desire to give.
• Raise money from other activities. A national sales tax. Use taxes (ie, highway taxes, tolls).

Much of what our government does is not based on need, but on want, and based upon theories of governance that often run into conflict with other principles and practical limitations, thereby failing to deliver on promised results. If you want and have unlimited ability to take from others to get what you want, you have malice. Not a good way to run a free society.