Question Description
It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice It is true that developments since the last war in Britain have so increased the progressive character of the income tax as to make the burden of taxation progressive throughout and that, through redistributive expenditure on subsidies and services, the income of the very lowest classes has been increased... by as much as 22 percent. But the latter development is little dependent on the present high rates of progression but is financed mainly by the contributions of the middle and upper ranges of the middle class.All arguments in support of progression can be used to justify any degree of progression. Its advocates may realize that beyond a certain point the adverse effects on the efficiency of the economic system may become so serious as to make it inexpedient to push it any further. But the argument based on the presumed justice of progression provides for no limitation, as has often been admitted by its supporters, before all incomes above a certain figure are confiscated and those below left untaxed. Unlike proportionality, progression provides no principle that tells us what the relative burden of different persons ought to be. It is no more than a rejection of proportionality in favor of a discrimination against the wealthy without any criterion for limiting the extent of this discrimination. Because there is no real rate of progression that can be demonstrated by formula, it is only the newness of the principle that has prevented its being carried at once to punitive rates. But there is no reason why a little more than before should not always be represented as just and reasonable.It is the great merit of proportional taxation that it provides a rule which is likely to be agreed upon by those who will pay absolutely more and those who will pay absolutely less and which, once accepted, raises no problem of a separate rule applying only to a minority. Even if progressive taxation does not name the individuals to be taxed at a higher rate, it discriminates by introducing a distinction that aims at shifting the burden from those who determine the rates onto others. In no sense can a progressive scale of taxation be regarded as a general rule applicable equally to all. In no sense can it be said that a tax of 20 percent on one persons income and a tax of 75 percent on the larger income of another person are equal. Progression provides no criterion whatever of what is and what is not to be regarded as just. It indicates no halting point for its application, and the good judgment of the people on which its defenders are usually driven to rely as the only safeguard is nothing more than the current state of opinion shaped by past policy.Q.Which of the following is an effect of the progressive-income tax?a)It has increased the income of the lowest classes by as much as 22 percent.b)It provides a principle by which taxation may be limited.c)It limits discrimination against the wealthy.d)It applies generally to all.e)It cannot be carried to punitive rates.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.