Wealth Tax
A Procedural Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36446/rlfp152Keywords:
wealth tax, equality, exploitation, Coercion, Structural InjusticeAbstract
In this article, I defend a procedural justification for the wealth tax, and criticize what I have called the outcome-approach. On the outcome-approach, the wealth tax is justified on the ground that it is an effective means to achieve an outcome, or a state of affairs, that we might consider just. That outcome or state of affairs would be equality. I argue that this approach leads to unjust or unituitive results, as it burdens all agents equally, being the case that not all agents should be burdened equally. This is because it ignores the history of transactions that led to the creation of taxed wealth. The procedural approach that I defend, in contrast, looks both at the fairness of transactions, and the result they have generated, and is based on the idea that the wealth tax should burden some agents more than others, depending on whether or not they have met standards of fairness in the past. Those standards of fairness are basically exploitation, oppression, and structural injustice.
Downloads
References
Crisp, Roger. 2003. “Equality, Priority, and Compassion.” Ethics 113 (4): 745–63.
Dimitriu, Cristian. 2020. “Crítica moral de Capital e Ideología, de Thomas Piketty” [Moral Critique of Capital and Ideology, by Thomas Piketty]. Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía Política, 1–21.
Forst, Rainer. 2013. In interview by Katrin Flikschuh, Rainer Forst and Darrel Moellendorf. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric (6): 46.
Huang, Chye-Ching, & DeBot, Brandon. “Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved 28 June 2023. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax
Murphy, Liam, & Nagel, Thomas. 2002. The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nozick, Robert. 1975. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
O’Neill, Martin. 2017. “Survey article: Philosophy and public policy after Piketty.” Journal of Political Philosophy 25 (3): 343–375.
O’Neill, Martin, & Williamson, Thad (eds.). 2014. Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons.
Parfit, Derek. 1997. “Equality and Priority.” Ratio 10: 202–221.
Pogge, Thomas. 2005. “World poverty and human rights.” Ethics & International Affairs 19 (1): 1–7.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
Robeyns, Ingrid. 2022. “Why limitarianism?” Journal of Political Philosophy 30 (2): 249–270.
Saez, Emmanuel, & Zucman, Gabriel. 2020. “For the sake of justice and democracy, we need a progressive wealth tax.” In “Forum, Taxing the Superrich,” Boston Review, March 17, 2020. https://bostonreview.net/forum/gabriel-zucman-taxing-superrich/
Scheffler, Samuel. 1982. The Rejection of Consequentialism. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofía Política

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.