Inherently morally superior? That's complete bull. Every moral system has a different attitude towards how much people are expected to "give." That's just plain false that one system of taxation is morally superior to another. Under some moral systems, a regressive tax system would be morally superior to a progressive or flat tax.

Name one.

The closest to it ever put into practice was that everyone should pay an equal amount.  Which isn't really regressive in the true sense of the word since the poor and rich are still paying the same amount.

Either way... it's your opinion that treating people differntly is morally superior?

Edit: FYI the Fuedal ages used Progressive taxation.

Well, you didn't have regressive taxation per se in ancient history, but the poor were essentially expected to give and devote their lives to their leaders in many cultures (Egypt, China, Japan, Russia, etc.).  In many of those countries, the royal people were seen as gods.  The average person was expected to give their lives for that person if the need arose.  And many of the poorest people were worked into the ground like animals.  That's even worse than regressive taxation, but within the moral code of those societies that was what was proper.

I never said that treating people differently was morally superior.  Morally superior is about as relative a term as you could use.  It depends on whose morals you are talking about.

So... you can't come up with any.

EVERYONE was expecting to give up their lives for the royalty.

Because the Royal people were the government.

People are still expected to work for the government... and in many countries give their lives for it.  (see countries with mandatory military conscription.)

It's no different today.

Not every rich person was considered part of that royalty.  Only those who helped rule the kingdom.  Those who were rich and not related to the government had no such protection.  They had to pay for it.  They also had to pay more then the "little guys".

Also... all the countries used Progressive Taxation.

Well maybe not Russia.  Haven't studied ancient russia.

Rich people tend to spend less of their money?  Depends on what you mean by "spend".  Spend less on necessities like food, utilities, clothing, etc., yes.  They tend to invest most of their money in real-estate, stocks, start-ups, etc., which fuels the economy at least as much as paying for necessities.

I just love it when "poor" people try to claim that rich people are getting away with something, when the job they have was most likely created by a "rich" person.

@crumas2. In the end consumer spending is far more important to the economy than investment.

Well... I think that, 'in the end," it's all spent.  The money invested in a savings account at a bank, for instance, winds up facilitating loans to people who would buy homes, or start businesses.

Apart from the purchase of the home, or the jobs created by the business, receiving that loan from the bank frees more money for the home owner or small business owner to buy goods and services.

The money of wealthy people contributes just as much to the economy as the money of poor people.  We might still argue that taking the money away from the wealthy and using it on other things is a good idea... but we can't pretend like it comes from thin air, or that taking it away like that has no negative reprecussions.  In this case, taking it away means that the banks have less money to loan, which means it will be more difficult for the prospective home or business owner to buy their home, start their business, and/or use their other money for other stuff.

Highwaystar

We have a lot in common :)

But spending money in a store as opposed to investing it in the stock market typically has a greater multiplier effect.  For instance, I go and buy something at the store, and then whoever ends up getting that money can then invest it in the stock market.  Money that is invested in the stock market doesn't tend to have as much liquidity and recirculate as money out there being spent on consumer goods, etc.

Rich people get rich by people poorer than them spending their money.  The more overall spending in an economy the more everyone benefits (unless the spending rises to unsustainable levels obviously).

And the rich person got that way because of poor people.

There is no 'us' verse 'them' in modern economics, everyone is intertwined and dependent upon everyone else.   Sam Walton is just as dependent on 'poor' people who shop in Wal-Mart as a 'poor' person is dependent on Sam Walton for a job at Wal-Mart.