Mill

Within John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment," much is said on topics of being happy/unhappy and decision making being just or unjust. Specifically, Mill tackles this idea in Chapter five, which deals with justice and utility. The first question Mill will toss around is about being just or unjust to give a superior remuneration based upon skill or talent. Mill states that he sees two sides of justice working. On a positive note, Mill states that society will gain from the laborer. If this man/woman does a good job then society owes him for his deeds. Basically, if a great job is done, then one shall receive a great pay for the great job. It would be ruled unfair in the workers mind in such that he/she receive the same pay for someone who has done less. So basically one shall be rewarded with ones labor. Mill also states the negative side to this question. This is whoever does a job in equal, whether that is his best or not shall be paid in equal. But this being said will not be the laborers fault for this. This lye in the superior who may be doing the remuneration. This then may come down to ones own personal belief whether or not they feel pay should go to the individual or shall lye within the community. This question is just a lead-in question to what Mill is getting to in the next paragraph. Mill will go on to talk about just and unjust of different methods within the tax system and ways of paying these taxes. The issue of taxes becomes a big argument in chapter five for Mill.

Mill states three possible ways taxes can be applied. The three are having the same amount for everyone to pay, or having the same percentage, or having higher percentage for the higher income families. Mill makes his different arguments accordingly. "It is reckoned justice, not injustice, that a dealer should charge to all customers the same price for the same article, not a price varying according to their means of payment" (Mill p.58). This same can be applied to taxes, why should a higher income group have to pay more than their counterparts, if all goods are the same price. If everyone lives in a fair system, this would create hostility among the higher incomes making them feel unequal for something these families should not be. Basically society then would be saying that to reward them with being a much harder working group, which the higher income family needs to pay more money, and that is wrong. If taxing the rich was the case, where would be the incentive? The rich may work less, and then save less. There would be no incentive. On the flip side of things, the poor may likewise do the same. Poor may then not work as much and save less because week in and week out may be relying on a welfare check that would be supplied by taxes from the rich. And who is to say that the rich will not donate their money to needy causes. If the rich are taxed, they may feel less obligated to contribute to society. So in the long run, this may not be the answer.

Another method of taxation is applying the same amount for everyone. This may seem an ideal method but in reality it is not. This may also go back to incentive. The question is where would the incentive be for a rich man to work hard and have to pay and earn all the same as a poor man. This would create unhappiness within the community among the rich and the poor. The rich will have no incentive to work hard anymore and the poor may not be able to meet the goals set by the taxes. They may end up owing more money then they would be able to pay. "People feel obliged to argue that the state does more for the rich man than for then for the poor, as