Tax The Rich?

[jonah bear]

I have noticed that there is some discussion over the use of escalating tax brackets in the Canadian currency thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it.

I had previously had a BIG problem with escalating tax brackets because I felt it stifled productivity. Those who have the coin can roll it if you know what I mean.

However, in the context of the Canadian tax system, we must consider the most basic objective of an economy. Pass the buck around the circle as many times as possible. An economy thrives on rotation and savings slow down the rotation. Who has the savings? The rich, of course! So, in this sense it seems as if escalating tax rates on upper income brackets make sense.

What about the productivity problem I mentioned above? Well, in Canada (and, I imagine, the U.S.), anyone who gives a hoot about productivity is investing their $ in businesses which inevitably become corporations. This money is sheltered at a low private corporation rate to the extent that it is invested to produce 'active business income'. This is a nice offset to conquer the threat to productivity.

So, in the end, those who pay the higher taxes are those who are 'sitting' on their money. The only notable, and perhaps, unfair exception are rental properties. Rental income is considered 'passive' and is automatically taxed at the highest marginal rate (there are certain exemptions but they are tough to meet). I object to this on the grounds that providing rental services is anything but 'passive'. Most landlords I know are spending a lot of time running these businesses. A topic for another day, perhaps.

It is my humble opinion that the escalating tax % on upper tax brackets is conducive to productivity. If they are going to provide relief, provide it to the small and mid-size businesses who still fuel 85% of our economy (though you would never know it with the overshadowing attention given to TSX listed companies).

Does anyone have thoughts on this matter? Have I missed a major pitfall of high tax rates on high income?

[$cirisme]

What, you think that when people save their money, it goes into a literal bank vault and does nothing?

Your premise is extremely flawed.

[Crow]

Cir, everyone knows that the bank just prints some money when those small and medium business need to borrow capital in order to produce goods.

[$cirisme]

Cir, everyone knows that the bank just prints some money when those small and medium business need to borrow capital in order to produce goods.
This is why I ought to become a banker. :smile:

[Crow]

All you need is a scanner and a good inkjet printer.

[Jnthn]

As a matter of principle, I don't like the idea of higher tax brackets. I could be persuaded that there's a case for a discounted tax rate for those on low incomes, but I think that can be better dealt with by tax allowances.

My gut feel is that higher tax brackets only act as an incentive to move to tax avoidance and even tax evasion, something that is a realistic prospect to those with a higher income.

On a parallel note, when I've talked about the matter, some Christians conflate higher-rate tax paying with the onus placed on the rich. This is not the same thing. The State is a secondary conduit for the social responsibilities of the Church.

J

[$cirisme]

Besides, this is America. You think our problem is that we're saving too much and buying too little? :rofl:

[jonah bear]

What, you think that when people save their money, it goes into a literal bank vault and does nothing?

Your premise is extremely flawed.

I don't think that it is a flawed premise.

As a person who is involved in the tax preparation business, I see the bulk of investment income flows to seniors who have done well for themselves over the years. What do seniors tend to invest in? T-bills, bonds, GIC's, and high interest bank accounts (i.e. the bank vault).

Also, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I mention those who wish to spend their vast disposable income can increase the productivity of their communities, states (or provinces), and nation by investing in businesses. In my region, we have a group based out of Halifax, Nova Scotia who are called the 'Angel Investors'. This is a group of retired entrepreneurs who have decided to take a portion of their vast savings and invest in 'high-rolling' industries who they feel have a good chance of providing a desired extension to the economy. Now this captures the spirit of economic sustainability and maintains the economy (remember, passing the buck is germane to the survival of the economy). This busts the bubble of savings.

Besides, this is America. You think our problem is that we're saving too much and buying too little?

Good point!

No, it is a matter of spending too much on non-productive assets. If those dollars that were being wasted were to recycle into productivity (i.e. business) thus creating sustainable jobs and a tangible return to the investor (in exchange for that 2-week 'high' that they would have otherwise gained from investing these same $ in a PS3).

Solution = recycle dollars more into business, get taxed less. Lower brackets get benefit by increased employment.

I think that the system, while flawed in many other areas, works in this regard.

[jonah bear]

As a matter of principle, I don't like the idea of higher tax brackets. I could be persuaded that there's a case for a discounted tax rate for those on low incomes, but I think that can be better dealt with by tax allowances.

My gut feel is that higher tax brackets only act as an incentive to move to tax avoidance and even tax evasion, something that is a realistic prospect to those with a higher income.

On a parallel note, when I've talked about the matter, some Christians conflate higher-rate tax paying with the onus placed on the rich. This is not the same thing. The State is a secondary conduit for the social responsibilities of the Church.

J

The big problems with tax evasion, IMO, come from the cash economy. This will exist irrespective of tax brackets. I'm sure that the powers are interested in removing cash from our lives because it is so easy to hide from the taxman.

I'm a big advocate for low-to-no tax on small to mid-size biz corporations. Higher tax on passive income (to encourage investment) and low-to-no tax for lower incomes. Your idea of tax credits are a good way to handle the plethora of unique circumstances in the financial lives of the low-to-middle income earners.

[Teallaura]

Um, don't investments in T-bills, bonds and bank accounts get used in the form of grants (in the case of T-bills) or loans? Why must an investment be high (or higher) risk in order to stimulate the economy?

[nomad]

yeah.

You seem to have a strange understanding of what things like T-bills, bonds, and even savings accounts are. The money doesn't just go into some vault, where money magically gets added to them. Where do you think the interest on that savings account comes from anyways?

Businesses (or municipalities) sell bonds in order to raise money, in order to do something with it. I.E. - they are going to spend it and invest in business. T-bills are the same thing (you know that massive trillion dollar debt the federal government has? well, a good portion of it is in t-bills), it ends up being money the government spends which goes back into the economy.

Even savings accounts don't get retained by the bank. You know all those credit cards and mortgages the banks issue? Well, they are (at least partially) funded by savings (i don't know the actual percentages, things like fannie mae have changed the source of capital some). The bank only has to keep some small percent of savings onhand to deal with day-to-day operations, it has been as low as 2% to my knowledge, the rest gets issued as mortgages, small business loans, etc.

This is why bank runs are such a big deal... if 10% of your depositors come on any given day looking for their money, the bank just doesn't have that kind of cash reserves, and can't call in its loans.

Most 'rich' people are not sitting around on a ton of cash anyways, it's usually invested in the stock and bond markets (how much of Bill Gates' billions is in microsoft stock? about 900 million shares, or over $30 billion dollars). You can't just pull it out and repurpose it, it doesn't work that way. You might be able to argue that money in the stock market isn't really 'doing anything', maybe, but I don't think you can say that for the bond markets.

[$cirisme]

I don't think that it is a flawed premise.

As a person who is involved in the tax preparation business, I see the bulk of investment income flows to seniors who have done well for themselves over the years. What do seniors tend to invest in? T-bills, bonds, GIC's, and high interest bank accounts (i.e. the bank vault).

No, if there's interest there is no way in hell they are just sitting in the bank vault collecting cobwebs.

Interest is your share of the profits when your investments/savings get used in other capital-producing ventures.

And, don't forget, that capital is an essential part of the economy. If nobody saved and invested, the government would not have money to flush down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, companies could not build factories, etc.

Our entire economy would crumble without savings and investments.

The real "problem" (if you want to call it that) is that a huge part of our savings and investments do not come from Americans but foreigners. Which is why the dollar isn't doing so hot right now.

Also, you seem to have missed the part of my post where I mention those who wish to spend their vast disposable income can increase the productivity of their communities, states (or provinces), and nation by investing in businesses. In my region, we have a group based out of Halifax, Nova Scotia who are called the 'Angel Investors'. This is a group of retired entrepreneurs who have decided to take a portion of their vast savings and invest in 'high-rolling' industries who they feel have a good chance of providing a desired extension to the economy. Now this captures the spirit of economic sustainability and maintains the economy (remember, passing the buck is germane to the survival of the economy). This busts the bubble of savings.

Investing and savings is good for the economy was my entire point.

So you're just being self-contradictory then? :huh:



No, it is a matter of spending too much on non-productive assets. If those dollars that were being wasted were to recycle into productivity (i.e. business) thus creating sustainable jobs and a tangible return to the investor (in exchange for that 2-week 'high' that they would have otherwise gained from investing these same $ in a PS3).

Did you just say that money is being wasted by being saved and invested?

I know you just didn't say that it's being wasted by buying cheap crap because your theory of economic development absolutely depends on it.

[Paintbucket]

Sure tax the rich. Tax everyone 20% or so. That's fair.

[jonah bear]

Um, don't investments in T-bills, bonds and bank accounts get used in the form of grants (in the case of T-bills) or loans? Why must an investment be high (or higher) risk in order to stimulate the economy?

Investments in T-bills, bonds and bank accounts are investing money in....you guessed it, banks!

Granted banks do invest in mutual funds, so it could be argued that they are stimulating the economy but they are, most certainly, not investing in small business (just try to get a loan sometime if your a small business owner).

Putting our future growth into only a few pots (big corporations who are publically listed) don't generally bring about growth.

[jonah bear]

You seem to have a strange understanding of what things like T-bills, bonds, and even savings accounts are. The money doesn't just go into some vault, where money magically gets added to them. Where do you think the interest on that savings account comes from anyways?

It comes from the banks investment in public companies (through mutual funds or other investments). Tell me how much of this comes from small to mid-size businesses.

Businesses (or municipalities) sell bonds in order to raise money, in order to do something with it. I.E. - they are going to spend it and invest in business. T-bills are the same thing (you know that massive trillion dollar debt the federal government has? well, a good portion of it is in t-bills), it ends up being money the government spends which goes back into the economy.

I'm not seeing how incurring massive amounts of debt to be used for government spending helps the economy.

I would rather have a surplus with little to no debt. The gov't can't help the economy if it is defaulting on it's interest payments.

Even savings accounts don't get retained by the bank. You know all those credit cards and mortgages the banks issue? Well, they are (at least partially) funded by savings (i don't know the actual percentages, things like fannie mae have changed the source of capital some). The bank only has to keep some small percent of savings onhand to deal with day-to-day operations, it has been as low as 2% to my knowledge, the rest gets issued as mortgages, small business loans, etc.

I don't know how things work in the U.S. but the Canadian banks are not small business lendors. We have crown corporation banks that fill the gap when the entrepreneur needs working or long term capital.

The chartered banks invest their money into publically listed companies. A stifling effect on an economy that is 85% driven by small to mid-sized companies.

Most 'rich' people are not sitting around on a ton of cash anyways, it's usually invested in the stock and bond markets (how much of Bill Gates' billions is in microsoft stock? about 900 million shares, or over $30 billion dollars).

See, though, this is exactly the point. Bill Gates puts his $ into Microsoft, a huge public company. How much of an effect does that have on the overall economy? Well, it's arguable but we see what effect consolidation has on the businesses (lost jobs and 'economies of scale' where people pay the price for efficiencies). The huge corporations amass assets and, in the process, stop the dollars from trading hands.

You can't just pull it out and repurpose it, it doesn't work that way. You might be able to argue that money in the stock market isn't really 'doing anything', maybe, but I don't think you can say that for the bond markets.

Why not? I just argued for stock market stagnation problems.

The same definitely applies to the bond markets. It's basically like this, place monies with the few and the economy stagnates, spread monies to the many (i.e. small businesses) the economy thrives.

[rogue06]

My biggest objection to higher tax brackets is that it appears to punish productivity and I thought we want people to produce more. So we end up punishing the type of behavior we ought to be encouraging. Further it seems that many people support the idea of raising taxes on the rich until they discover just who the government considers to be "rich."

[jonah bear]

No, if there's interest there is no way in hell they are just sitting in the bank vault collecting cobwebs.

No, that's true, but it's not being circulated. It's being pooled into large corp's and banks.

Interest is your share of the profits when your investments/savings get used in other capital-producing ventures.

See above.

And, don't forget, that capital is an essential part of the economy. If nobody saved and invested, the government would not have money to flush down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan, companies could not build factories, etc.

LOL - I hear ya! I understand that there needs to be some savings but the more productive an individual can make their dollars the better. It is easier to cash in the chips then it is to invest and wait for the return. With a moving economy, savings can be generated quicker than a return on investment.

Our entire economy would crumble without savings and investments.

I don't advocate a complete abolition to savings. However, excess cash in consolidated pools results in dead (or dying) economy.

The real "problem" (if you want to call it that) is that a huge part of our savings and investments do not come from Americans but foreigners. Which is why the dollar isn't doing so hot right now.

The Chinese in particular hold a lot of U.S. currency. That should give one pause for fear. I agree.

Investing and savings is good for the economy was my entire point.

So you're just being self-contradictory then?

Perhaps I didn't communicate it properly then. Investing in small to mid-size business (not stocks, bonds, or T-Bills) is, IMO, the heart of a thriving economy.

Did you just say that money is being wasted by being saved and invested?

No, I thought it was quite clear that I said spending $ on non-productive assets is wasting money.

I know you just didn't say that it's being wasted by buying cheap crap because your theory of economic development absolutely depends on it.

I don't think so Tim. Show me how my theory depends upon that.

[jonah bear]

Sure tax the rich. Tax everyone 20% or so. That's fair.

LOL & Amen! - They actually talked about a flat tax rate in this country but it never gained traction (they were talking about 30% accross the board).

Possibly the flat-tax has some merit, I haven't thought the implications through well enough. I think, in the end, the lower incomes would end up suffering for a flat rate but I don't know for sure. It's an interesting proposition. Our Income Tax Act is over 2,500 pages long. It's a spider's web of confusion!

[nomad]

It comes from the banks investment in public companies (through mutual funds or other investments). Tell me how much of this comes from small to mid-size businesses.


I think you really have a flawed understanding of what a bank is.

Banks do not typically invest in mutual funds. Individual americans hold about 90% of american mutual fund assets:

http://www.ici.org/factbook/05_fb_sec4.html

Of that remaining 10%, banks only own about a third of it, mostly money market mutual funds.
Banks do underwrite stock IPOs and do manage mutual funds, but they don't actually invest their own money it, any more than the savings you put into your savings account belong to the bank.

I don't understand your other question; most small businesses are not public, and so cannot be owned by or invested in by anyone, bank or otherwise.


I'm not seeing how incurring massive amounts of debt to be used for government spending helps the economy.
I would rather have a surplus with little to no debt. The gov't can't help the economy if it is defaulting on it's interest payments.


Not the point. You claimed that T-bills go to a bank. They do not. The money goes to the government, who then makes a promise to pay it back to you. If you are suggesting that you'd rather have small business loans than T-bills, well, I won't disagree with you there, but that's not what you were saying originally.


I don't know how things work in the U.S. but the Canadian banks are not small business lendors. We have crown corporation banks that fill the gap when the entrepreneur needs working or long term capital.

The chartered banks invest their money into publically listed companies. A stifling effect on an economy that is 85% driven by small to mid-sized companies.


(do you have a source for that 85% number?)

I'm not sure you understand how it works in Canada either, since apparently it appears to be similar to how it works here. When you say the 'crown corporation banks' - perhaps you meant the CSBF?
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/csbfp-pfpec.nsf/en/h_la00365e.html

Perhaps when you said it came from banks you didn't realize what you were saying. Where do you think the money comes from for these 'fill the gap' loans? If you said it comes from the government, you'd be wrong. The money comes from - you guessed it - partner banks (of which the CSBF lists 1351 private sector lenders which it works with). The CSBF does not actually give any loans, it only guarantees them against nonperformance. This means that the bank can take on a bit higher risk than it would otherwise.

In the US, there is the SBA which works the same way, only guaranteeing loans, not usually given them itself, pretty much the same thing that Fannie Mae does for mortgages (and with much the same effect, as far as I can tell - drastically extending the amount of credit available).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Business_Administration

But in both the US and Canada, banks certainly are involved in small business loans. They aren't just going to give you money for asking - they have a responsibility to their owners and members (which may be the same people) to make a good faith effort to ensure performance of the loan - but they certainly do. Small business can be anywhere from 10% to 50% of a bank's loan portfolio, depending on the size of the bank and the orientation (some banks are not good, but some large banks such as Wachovia and Bank of America have been noted for their efforts in this area). You can find their small business lending pages easily.

In general, the more sure your venture, the easier to get a loan. Nothing complicated. In Silicon Valley, there are venture capitalists just waiting around to invest money in small businesses that look profitable; the risk is very high but so is the potential reward there. Banks don't intentionally avoid any particular kind of loan or investment; their main criteria is if you will pay the loan back.


See, though, this is exactly the point. Bill Gates puts his $ into Microsoft, a huge public company. How much of an effect does that have on the overall economy? Well, it's arguable but we see what effect consolidation has on the businesses (lost jobs and 'economies of scale' where people pay the price for efficiencies). The huge corporations amass assets and, in the process, stop the dollars from trading hands.


???? That last line is a bit confusing.

Let's walk through this again. First of all, Bill Gates didn't put his $ into Microsoft, exactly. He started a small business, which eventually got big enough he needed capital. He did an IPO and allowed other people to own parts of his business. Enough people did so that his piece of it became very valuable. He did not have 30 billion dollars and buy Microsoft stock; he owned a lot of worthless microsoft stock which later became worth 30 billion dollars.

I'm not going to pretend to understand how the stock market works. But it's clear that if, for instance, Bill Gates decided to sell 10 billion dollars of Microsoft stock, it would be impossible. The daily trading volume of Microsoft stock is, on average, about 77 million shares. At today's stock price (36-37 dollars) that would be less than 3 billion dollars. But it doesn't work exactly that way - that's the existing trading volume. Trying to add that many sales at once would cause the stock price to plummet. And then you'd get nowhere near the amount you were looking for.

The shares exist, they can only be destroyed by being 'bought back' by the company (at a market cap of 336B? not likely to happen). Otherwise, they are only bought by someone else. It's not like this money is actually available for use elsewhere. In some ways, it's not even real. The stock is created at the IPO where the company can raise money for capital improvements, and since you actually own a piece of the company, it's happened before where a 'vulture capitalist' will swoop in, buy a majority (or total) stake in a company, and sell its assets for more than they paid for the company.

Efficiencies, in fact any kind of corporate adjustment, are going to have gains for some and losses for some. I don't see what that has to do with our discussion.

Corporations do not amass assets, in the way you are assuming. It sounds like you think these assets are going to large corporations and then just sitting idle? Not exactly. When Intel (where I work) invests $4B into a new silicon fab, they end up with a 4 billion dollar fab, but that 4 billion dollars got spent into other businesses, both large and small. And it's not a nonperforming asset either - it's an essential part of a commercial, manufacturing operation. The fact that it's a large corporation has nothing to do with it. Even the laptop I am typing on right now (owned by my employer) is an asset that allows me to get my work done (and post on tweb :) Corporations owning assets don't 'stop the dollars from exchanging hands', because acquiring the assets is money exchanging hands in the first place.

Corporations have little incentive to just sit around on a large pot of money. They usually either return it to their owners via dividends, or invest it in capital improvements (keeping the dollar moving, as you would say), or invest it in other companies (sometimes small ones) which will then spend it on their own capital improvements.


The same definitely applies to the bond markets. It's basically like this, place monies with the few and the economy stagnates, spread monies to the many (i.e. small businesses) the economy thrives.

You don't seem to understand the bond markets either. Banks don't own the bond money either, they just underwrite the bond offering. A company, municipality, or other governmental authority wants to raise money, so they will issue bonds. Individual investors buy the bonds and give the money to the company, which promises to pay the money back with interest. The interest on the bond varies with the risk assumed by the bond. The cost of trading a bond back and forth can vary as well. But at no time does the money go to the bank, and while banks invest in bonds more than in stock or mutual funds, individual investors still own the majority, and most institutional ownership is through mutual funds who own bonds for hedging, afaik. Since mutual funds are mostly owned by individual investors, these bonds are also owned mostly by individual investors.

This is just like stock, except that the money that the company spends on its capital improvements comes from the bond issue instead of from a stock IPO or from profits.

Do you have any real data to support your last assertion about spreading the money around more? I too believe in small business, and so do both the Canadian and US governments apparently since they have both made efforts to enable small business, but I don't think anything you'd said so far actually supports your argument. So far, except for the fact that about half of all small businesses fail (which means spending of unearned income, i.e. 'moving a dollar' that was never actually made), I don't see how small business moves the money around any more than a big business.

[$cirisme]

No, that's true, but it's not being circulated. It's being pooled into large corp's and banks.

Now you're just moving the goal posts. Saved and invested money is not 'pooled' anywhere. It is loaned out to companies so that the companies can put it to productive use. Interest is not magical. The interest you earn is your share of the profits from your money being put to economic work.

Take economics 101 sometime. This is all very basic stuff.

LOL - I hear ya! I understand that there needs to be some savings but the more productive an individual can make their dollars the better. It is easier to cash in the chips then it is to invest and wait for the return. With a moving economy, savings can be generated quicker than a return on investment.

Choosing an investment platform has nothing to do with productivity, but risk. Bank accounts and bonds are not very risky so you don't get as much interest. Stocks are much riskier so you (potentially) get more profit.

Either way, it's the person who gets the loan that determines the productivity of your dollar. And it's in his best interests to make it more productive than the interest he pays to use that money.

I don't advocate a complete abolition to savings. However, excess cash in consolidated pools results in dead (or dying) economy.

Please cite your source that says there is too much saved in America today.

The Chinese in particular hold a lot of U.S. currency. That should give one pause for fear. I agree.

Which is why Americans aren't saving enough!

The Chinese are picking up the slack of our economy. If Americans saved enough, we wouldn't need as much foreign investment.

Perhaps I didn't communicate it properly then. Investing in small to mid-size business (not stocks, bonds, or T-Bills) is, IMO, the heart of a thriving economy.

Your O is not good enough. And I notice you dropped your bank account thing. Where do you think most small businesses get their money?

The bank.

Where does the bank get their money?

From us.

This is why savings is not unproductive.

No, I thought it was quite clear that I said spending $ on non-productive assets is wasting money.

But you didn't say what those non-productive assets are. Because savings and investments are very productive. They drive our economy. Without it, we would have no economy.

I don't think so Tim. Show me how my theory depends upon that.

Who's Tim?

Well, you've already said that transactions end when you put your money in the bank, and that economic well being depends on money "trading hands"—so by definition the only way your theory works is if people buy more stuff.

Both your tent poles are built in quicksand, however.

[nomad]

hey jonah, we're really piling on you here :) so I just wanted to say that, i think it's good that you are thinking about these things, you just need a little more research. it sounds like you've got a vague notion - promoting small business is important - and an even more vague idea of why this is so.

Maybe you should invest more time into determining exactly what percent small business is of the economy (measured any way you want to measure it... GDP, GNP, wages, employment rates, whatever), and then work backwards and determine what exactly is the problem, if any.

I think you'd be surprised to find out that yes, small business is important and yes, both the US and Canada actually do pretty well with it. I'm reading a book right now called _The Mystery of Capital_ by Hernando de Soto (who knew, a conquistador economist :) and so far it's mostly about all the legal barriers to starting a business and/or owning land (i.e. legalizing capital) in other countries. It's pretty scary - in Egypt, the procedure to gain access to desert lands for construction and register these property rights takes 77 steps involving 31 different entities, and can take 6-14 years. In Haiti, you lease land for 5 years before you are allowed to buy it, and acquiring a sales contract takes about 4000 days and consists of 111 steps. The US and Canada, compared to that, have very little barrier to starting a small business.

There are possibly things that could be done to reduce those barriers further; perhaps that is a good place to look.

[joel]

we must consider the most basic objective of an economy. Pass the buck around the circle as many times as possible.
I would say production is the most basic objective of an economy.


Have I missed a major pitfall of high tax rates on high income?
One that I have thought of before is that I am investing via my 401k for my retirement, but when I pull it out at the end, it will be treated as regular income, and then I'll have to pay a higher tax rate on it than if I had earned the income in smaller chunks over a larger period of time (which, in fact I did!). Say I pull it all out at once. Then there is the illusion that I am a huge income earner that year, and get taxed out the wazoo.
If I'm understanding it correctly.

[joel]

Sure tax the rich. Tax everyone 20% or so. That's fair.
I'd prefer 2%. Or 0.2%.
Why even a percentage? Just divide up the bill equally among everyone.

[Jimmy Higgins]

My biggest objection to higher tax brackets is that it appears to punish productivity and I thought we want people to produce more. So we end up punishing the type of behavior we ought to be encouraging. Further it seems that many people support the idea of raising taxes on the rich until they discover just who the government considers to be "rich."
I've yet to hear someone holding back on productivity because of the tax bracket. A person that can make $5 million is going to make $5 million and pay whatever in taxes, whether it's 20% or 38.6%. In fact... the higher the tax bracket, in theory, the harder a person will work to make up for the higher tax rate.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd prefer 2%. Or 0.2%.
Why even a percentage? Just divide up the bill equally among everyone.That'd be hard because Republican Presidents have had a hard time staying within budget since Nixon.

[joel]

I've yet to hear someone holding back on productivity because of the tax bracket. A person that can make $5 million is going to make $5 million and pay whatever in taxes, whether it's 20% or 38.6%. In fact... the higher the tax bracket, in theory, the harder a person will work to make up for the higher tax rate.
That is a grave misunderstanding of human behavior. People respond to incentives. The higher tax rate decreases the incentive to work harder. A person works harder when there is more to gain by the harder work, not when there is less to gain.
Suppose one additional unit of effort is worth $100 to Alice--that is, she values it at $100, and if she were to exert that unit of effort with nothing in return, she would consider it equivalent to a $100 loss. That means that she will not be willing to put in that extra unit of effort with an expected return of less than $100. Suppose she is able to enter into an exchange with someone else, exchanging her unit of effort for $100 or more. If we then tax that echange, so that Alice's gain is less than $100, then she will not enter into the exchange, and the world will have lost that productivity. There is always a deadweight loss with any tax. The greater the tax, the greater the loss. And a progressive tax increases the diminishing of returns.



I'd prefer 2%. Or 0.2%.
Why even a percentage? Just divide up the bill equally among everyone.
That'd be hard because Republican Presidents have had a hard time staying within budget since Nixon.Then turn it around. Bill everyone at the beginning of the year, and don't allow the government to borrow any money. Make it impossible for the government to spend any money that they don't have in the bank.

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is a grave misunderstanding of human behavior. People respond to incentives.Exactly, and a person that makes $5 million a year, regardless of the 20% to 38.6% tax rate, will take home lots of money to spend on lots of fun, cool and possibly even shiny stuff.

The higher tax rate decreases the incentive to work harder. A person works harder when there is more to gain by the harder work, not when there is less to gain.Yeah... and if a person makes $2 million, they have an incentive of taking home over 60 cents to the dollar of every additional buck they make. So if they earn another $2 million, their incentive is another $1.2+ million. That's a lot of money!

Suppose one additional unit of effort is worth $100 to Alice--that is, she values it at $100, and if she were to exert that unit of effort with nothing in return, she would consider it equivalent to a $100 loss. That means that she will not be willing to put in that extra unit of effort with an expected return of less than $100. Suppose she is able to enter into an exchange with someone else, exchanging her unit of effort for $100 or more. If we then tax that echange, so that Alice's gain is less than $100, then she will not enter into the exchange, and the world will have lost that productivity. Suppose this... I make up stuff... give it arbitrary meaning and post it in a form of an allegory... does that give it any particular meaning? Probably not. Your example above is void of meaning. My text above is the true story.

Then turn it around. Bill everyone at the beginning of the year, and don't allow the government to borrow any money. Make it impossible for the government to spend any money that they don't have in the bank.Yeah... and lets make it a law that people shouldn't be mean to each other. And we'll pass universal health care that will be funded on warm thoughts and happy dreams. Any other ludicrous ideas you've got their? Government is not going to change how it funds itself.

[joel]

Exactly, and a person that makes $5 million a year, regardless of the 20% to 38.6% tax rate, will take home lots of money to spend on lots of fun, cool and possibly even shiny stuff.
True. And if the person did not initiate force or fraud, then they will have earned it.


Yeah... and if a person makes $2 million, they have an incentive of taking home over 60 cents to the dollar of every additional buck they make. So if they earn another $2 million, their incentive is another $1.2+ million. That's a lot of money!True. No one is disputing that. The point is the difference in production.


Suppose this... I make up stuff... give it arbitrary meaning and post it in a form of an allegory... does that give it any particular meaning? Probably not. Your example above is void of meaning. My text above is the true story. ??? As I said, no one disputes your text above. My text was not an allegory. It is simply a fact, is the issue at hand, and applies to everyone. Can you refute any part of it?
No offense, but it sounds to me as if you have never taken a course in economics.


Government is not going to change how it funds itself.If so, then this whole thread would be an exercise in futility. If we have reached a state where it is impossible for the people to change how the government funds itself (even by revolution), then the founders of the U.S. have failed, and we are living under a tyranny.

[Jimmy Higgins]

True. And if the person did not initiate force or fraud, then they will have earned it.Maybe.

??? As I said, no one disputes your text above. My text was not an allegory. It is simply a fact, is the issue at hand, and applies to everyone. Can you refute any part of it?What is to refute? An imaginary person who perceive's their effort at an imaginary rate.

Fact remains, people will always try to earn more money. The only reason they would stop is if the tax rate were so high, that the additional money they were making didn't go to their pockets... like 80 or 90% tax rates. Truth is, they still take home 60+%, which 60+% of millions of dollars is still millions of dollars.

No offense, but it sounds to me as if you have never taken a course in economics.Well, I don't take offense to it, seeing I didn't take any economics courses in college. No offense, but I don't think you under economics yourself. You want to treat an allegory like it has meaning in reality. People will always try to make more money until they don't see the extra money they are making.

[joel]

Fact remains, people will always try to earn more money.
Not if the extra money is worth less than the extra cost.


What is to refute? An imaginary person who perceive's their effort at an imaginary rate.
...
No offense, but I don't think you under economics yourself. You want to treat an allegory like it has meaning in reality.It wasn't an allegory. It is true for every rational person, and for any unit of work (such as an hour of a particular type of work), and any price (such as a particular dollar amount). I am sorry if the way I explained it was confusing to you. It is simply a matter of cost & benefit. If the cost of an action is greater than the benefit, then people won't do it. This limits every action anyone does, because of the law of diminishing returns. If you increase the cost of an action (e.g., by imposing taxes), then people will do less of it because it lowers the point (in the diminishing returns) where cost equals benefit.

Another way to see this is in terms of supply and demand. A tax places a wedge between supply and demand. From the supplier's (employee) perspective, it appears as if demand has dropped. From the demander's (employer) perspective, it appears as if supply has dropped. Thus less quantity will be produced and exchanged

I recommend that you go get a good book on microeconomics.


People will always try to make more money until they don't see the extra money they are making.That is not true. People will stop trying to make more money earlier than that--when the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit.

[Sheepdog]

I have noticed that there is some discussion over the use of escalating tax brackets in the Canadian currency thread and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it.

I had previously had a BIG problem with escalating tax brackets because I felt it stifled productivity. Those who have the coin can roll it if you know what I mean.

However, in the context of the Canadian tax system, we must consider the most basic objective of an economy. Pass the buck around the circle as many times as possible. An economy thrives on rotation and savings slow down the rotation. Who has the savings? The rich, of course! So, in this sense it seems as if escalating tax rates on upper income brackets make sense.

What about the productivity problem I mentioned above? Well, in Canada (and, I imagine, the U.S.), anyone who gives a hoot about productivity is investing their $ in businesses which inevitably become corporations. This money is sheltered at a low private corporation rate to the extent that it is invested to produce 'active business income'. This is a nice offset to conquer the threat to productivity.

So, in the end, those who pay the higher taxes are those who are 'sitting' on their money. The only notable, and perhaps, unfair exception are rental properties. Rental income is considered 'passive' and is automatically taxed at the highest marginal rate (there are certain exemptions but they are tough to meet). I object to this on the grounds that providing rental services is anything but 'passive'. Most landlords I know are spending a lot of time running these businesses. A topic for another day, perhaps.

It is my humble opinion that the escalating tax % on upper tax brackets is conducive to productivity. If they are going to provide relief, provide it to the small and mid-size businesses who still fuel 85% of our economy (though you would never know it with the overshadowing attention given to TSX listed companies).

Does anyone have thoughts on this matter? Have I missed a major pitfall of high tax rates on high income?

Keynesian economics was an absolute disaster, and you do well to stay as far away from it as possible.

no one takes their savings and hides it under a rock anymore. if you do, you actually lose wealth due to inflation (that is, your money loses value over time). most people who have savings reinvest it in some form or another, which frees up capital which goes towards economic activities, which increases employment needs and makes higher wages more tolerable. in other words, your savings is might be financing a poor laborer's prosperity as well.

tax bracketing weakens the incentive to work towards making "the next dollar." the affect is to punish some people for being more successful or working harder than others. it also removes wealth which could be reinvested into the economy, and therefore the work force. Now, if the government could be trusted to use that money wisely-- that is to say, it could be trusted to always use those funds to benefit society, it wouldn't be a problem. but we know better.

[joel]

Now, if the government could be trusted to use that money wisely-- that is to say, it could be trusted to always use those funds to benefit society, it wouldn't be a problem.
That's more than I'm willing to grant.
1) There is always a deadweight loss to society with every tax. (This is not a failing of government, just an inevitable result of taxes).
2) Tax is a euphemism for the taking, by force, of that which rightfully belongs to another--that is, stealing.

[NeilUnreal]

It's psychologically possible that higher tax rates spur increased productivity in some cases. If I need $1M to be happy and I am taxed at a 50% rate, I may work twice as hard to make that $1M as I would in a scenario where I was not taxed.

It all depends on the psychological elasticity of my wants vs. my desire to work.

-Neil

[joel]

It's psychologically possible that higher tax rates spur increased productivity in some cases. If I need $1M to be happy and I am taxed at a 50% rate, I may work twice as hard to make that $1M as I would in a scenario where I was not taxed.
No, because your level of happiness decreases with the extra cost.
Without tax you want the $1M to give you a particular level of happiness. You would have put in the effort to earn >$1M, but you chose not to, because the cost of doing so outweighed the benefit. Thus the chosen level of $1M is the point where cost equals benefit.

Adding an additional cost (tax) to producing >$1M is not going to reverse the cost-benefit analysis. The cost of producing >$1M will outweigh the benefit to a larger degree than before. Indeed the cost-benefit analysis on the original $1M is worse. Before, the benefit equaled the cost. Now the cost of producing $1M is greater than the benefit of doing so (i.e., you will be less happy than before the tax.) Therefore you can increase your happiness only by reducing your amount of production, not by increasing it.

One exception is if, without the tax, the cost-benefit difference for producing >$1M was due to opportunity costs that are lost if less than $1M are earned. That is--that it is a greater benefit to you to put your additional productive powers to alternative use such as supporting various industries, volunteering with a charity, etc. If the tax causes those opportunity costs to decrease, then there is a possibility of the individual increasing his original production effort, as you suggest. However, this comes at the cost of whatever it was that the individual would have done otherwise, such as increasing his own happiness, supporting various industries and giving to charity. So this still results in an overall decrease in productivity and happiness--never a net increase.

[NeilUnreal]

Cost benefit analysis needs to take into account that my psychology may not fit neatly into a curve.

The curve could have thresholds. If I need $1M to be happy, I will work to make $1M or be unhappy regardless of the the expenditure of effort. $500K may simply leave me unhappy, not half-happy. This is often the case when people "trade up" for houses or cars; they don't trade up incrementally in a continuous curve. There are threshold points where they might make a decision to expend more effort even if proportionally more goes to taxes.

Likewise, if I have unlimited wants, I will continue to work to supply them, regardless of the cost. In that case, the curve would be so shallow as to have no psychological effect. I will always seek to increase the amount of income even in the face of diminishing returns.

I'm not arguing that traditional economics never works, I'm just pointing out that it is based on assumptions that do not hold in all situations. We know that people do expend less effort in regressive tax situations. However, we also know that people will continue to expend effort even when the net rate of return diminishes (and sometimes past the point where the return diminishes to zero).

-Neil

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not if the extra money is worth less than the extra cost.The extra cost won't be more than any of the previous work. People getting paid millions are obviously being well compensated for their work.

I recommend that you go get a good book on microeconomics.Problem is this, you are using imaginary values that aren't proportional to the existing situation.

That is not true. People will stop trying to make more money earlier than that--when the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit.I guess I haven't made the most obvious of points. Once we are in the millions of dollars of income, there isn't another tax rate hike. So I guess, what I want from you, is evidence that people stopped working harder to avoid a tax rate threshold increase.

[joel]

The extra cost won't be more than any of the previous work. People getting paid millions are obviously being well compensated for their work.
No, what I was saying is that the total cost increases (because they have to do more work, give up more of their time, etc.), but the total benefit does not.


Problem is this, you are using imaginary values that aren't proportional to the existing situation.
??


I guess I haven't made the most obvious of points. Once we are in the millions of dollars of income, there isn't another tax rate hike.
??


So I guess, what I want from you, is evidence that people stopped working harder to avoid a tax rate threshold increase.
People don't produce an infinite quantity. They stop somewhere. They stop at the point where the marginal cost equals the mariginal benefit because beyond that point the marginal cost is greater than the marginal benefit, and they have no reason to produce more. If taxes increase, then the marginal cost goes up, thus reducing the point where the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, what I was saying is that the total cost increases (because they have to do more work, give up more of their time, etc.), but the total benefit does not.What are your talking about? A person works more, gets paid more, the total benefit does increase, ie the higher salary.

People don't produce an infinite quantity. They stop somewhere. They stop at the point where the marginal cost equals the mariginal benefit because beyond that point the marginal cost is greater than the marginal benefit, and they have no reason to produce more.I don't work two 40 hour jobs because I wouldn't have any time to myself, not because of tax concerns. Most other people (read everyone else), probably fall into the same camp. Even if I wasn't taxed a dime, I wouldn't work 80 hours a week doing two full time jobs.

[joel]

Cost benefit analysis needs to take into account that my psychology may not fit neatly into a curve.

The curve could have thresholds. If I need $1M to be happy, I will work to make $1M or be unhappy regardless of the the expenditure of effort.
I think you do have a point here. I had to think on it overnight before I figured out what you meant. There is a case in which a person would work the same amount as before, even with an increase in cost: the case where the perceived marginal cost is discontinuous, e.g., suddenly drops off at the point where you have received $1M. Then, if the marginal cost function passes through the gap of that discontinuity, then changes to the cost, within that gap, will neither increase nor decrease the amount of production.

That got me part of the way. I still couldn't figure out how the production could actually increase. Then I realised what you meant--that you are talking about a situation in which the perceived benefit actually increases when cost increases--that the marginal benefit is a function of the cost. So, the way this could work is if the discontinuity (sudden drop) of the marginal benefit is due to a psychological factor that makes the benefit of receiving >$1M much lower than receiving the last dollar of the $1M (for whatever reason). And, that the psychological reduction in marginal benefit will lessen when cost goes up. This would cause production to increase. But note, though, that this effect will only last until the cost reaches the top of the discontinuity gap. And that the gap will shrink as cost goes up, thus this effect won't tolerate much change in cost. By the time the cost increases to the point of the top of the original gap, production will be back to the point it was originally (but with the producer less happy than before).

So this occurance will happen if all of the following are met:
1) The producer has a discontinuity in marginal benefit.
2) The marginal cost function happens to pass through that discontinuity.
3) The producer's perceived marginal benfit to the right of the discontinuity will increase if cost increases.
4) The increase in cost is small enough to keep the marginal cost curve passing through the original discontinuity.

Only if all 4 conditions are met will the production increase. So, yes, there is a possibility, as you say. But I say that if you sum over lots of people, the proportion of people who meet these conditions is small enough that the result will be an aggregate reduction in production. You will have a majority of producers who reduce their production. And you will have lots of producers who drop out of the market altogether.

Also note that even for those who increase their production, their overall happiness decreases. They expend more cost than before for the same $1M. So who benefits from the increased production? The employer, perhaps, based on various factors. Mostly the government. And we also must not forget to take into account the deadweight loss due to the tax.


Likewise, if I have unlimited wants, I will continue to work to supply them, regardless of the cost.
Everyone has unlimited wants. But no one produces an unlimited quantity. We are limited by the cost.


In that case, the curve would be so shallow as to have no psychological effect. I will always seek to increase the amount of income even in the face of diminishing returns.
I'm not sure what you mean by "so shallow".

[joel]

What are your talking about? A person works more, gets paid more, the total benefit does increase, ie the higher salary.
I assumed we were still talking about the case of receiving the same X dollars before and after the tax. In that case, your work goes up to balance the cost, but the benefit remains the same, thus your net benefit shrinks. Or, alternatively, if you keep the work the same, then your total cost stays the same, but your benefit shrinks.


I don't work two 40 hour jobs because I wouldn't have any time to myself, not because of tax concerns. Most other people (read everyone else), probably fall into the same camp. Even if I wasn't taxed a dime, I wouldn't work 80 hours a week doing two full time jobs.
True. Your opportunity costs are part of the cost.
Number of hours worked are not the only factor of your cost. Also included is how productive you are during those hours, and what effort you exert.
None of this negates the fact that tax is a factor of the cost.


Oh, and don't forget that all of this talk about benefits and costs is a secondary matter. No benefits or costs can justify the injustice of stealing. And tax is stealing.

[nickcopernicus]

Joel:
Oh, and don't forget that all of this talk about benefits and costs is a secondary matter. No benefits or costs can justify the injustice of stealing. And tax is stealing.
Nick:
Interestingly enough, Joel, my "political affiliation," is very close to yours. Much of my philosophy comes from Ayn Rand (yeah, her and those crazy objectivists), but I disagree with her on some stuff, so I'm not an objectivist. In any case, Libertarians and objectivists share similar views with the government.

Taxes aren't "stealing" unless a government forces you to stay in the country. You're free to leave. "Taxes" are (as someone once said) "the price we pay for civilization."

Can you imagine how much a private company would have to charge to drive on their road? Imagine all highways were all owned by private companies.....that would be ridiculous.

So while I agree that many taxes aren't needed, I'd not call them all "stealing."

Cheers,

Nick

[Jimmy Higgins]

I assumed we were still talking about the case of receiving the same X dollars before and after the tax. In that case, your work goes up to balance the cost, but the benefit remains the same, thus your net benefit shrinks. Or, alternatively, if you keep the work the same, then your total cost stays the same, but your benefit shrinks.But it isn't going to shrink significantly.

Oh, and don't forget that all of this talk about benefits and costs is a secondary matter. No benefits or costs can justify the injustice of stealing. And tax is stealing.I find that hard to believe. You must be stealing roadways when you drive on them if you don't think you should pay for them.

[joel]

Nick:
Interestingly enough, Joel, my "political affiliation," is very close to yours. Much of my philosophy comes from Ayn Rand (yeah, her and those crazy objectivists), but I disagree with her on some stuff, so I'm not an objectivist. In any case, Libertarians and objectivists share similar views with the government.
Same here. I really like a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, but I don't agree with all of it. We should discuss Rand more in another thread.


Taxes aren't "stealing" unless a government forces you to stay in the country. You're free to leave.Now that is an interesting concept.

First of all, I heard somewhere that the U.S. claims income taxes on its citizens for, like 10 years after they renounce their citizenship. If that is true, then there isn't really a simple freedom to leave the U.S.

So, what if there is no place on earth where I can exercize my right to property?

If I own land, then I think what you say is wrong because no one has the right to give me the ultimatum of leaving my property or taking my property, upon threat of force. No individual has such a right, and the only rights that exist are individual rights.

If I don't then presumably I have entered a contract with someone else who does own land such that I am allowed to live on their land. I suppose if all land owners refused to rent or sell me land unless I paid a certain amount of money to the government, then I would justly have no choice but to pay it or leave or die. Of course, that would be equivalent to them raising the price and them voluntarily giving the extra value to the government, which would be a perfectly acceptable way to fund the government.


Can you imagine how much a private company would have to charge to drive on their road?Their cost would be no more than we pay in taxes for the road--probably less.


Imagine all highways were all owned by private companies.....that would be ridiculous.How so?


So while I agree that many taxes aren't needed, I'd not call them all "stealing."How do you differentiate between the two kinds of taxes?

[joel]

But it isn't going to shrink significantly.
What? If I am taxed 25%, then my benefit of every work I do shrinks by 25%. That is huge.


I find that hard to believe. You must be stealing roadways when you drive on them if you don't think you should pay for them.
I did not say that I don't think I should pay for them. Roads must be paid for. If it was paid for by stolen money, then the rightful owner of the road are those from whom the money was stolen. But merely their claiming their rightful ownership does not make up for the injustice done, if they intended to use the money for a different purpose. Nor does it make it an injustice to use the road, because they are the rightful owners.

[nickcopernicus]

Same here. I really like a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, but I don't agree with all of it. We should discuss Rand more in another thread.
Nick:
That's awesome. I'll try to start a thread in Philosophy soon. Particularly, her views on morality and the Virtue of Selfishness
Joel:
Now that is an interesting concept.

First of all, I heard somewhere that the U.S. claims income taxes on its citizens for, like 10 years after they renounce their citizenship. If that is true, then there isn't really a simple freedom to leave the U.S.

So, what if there is no place on earth where I can exercize my right to property?
Nick:

Well, as to the taxes.... I currently am an American citizen working overseas. The first $80,000 of the $106,000 that I've made this year is non taxable. I'll only be taxed for $26,000 this year (minus deductions). As far as if an American citizen gives up his or her citizenship, he or she must only pay taxes for money earned while in the United States. What you are referring to is that one cannot simply move to another country to avoid taxes that one owes because that person made that money whilst being an American citizen.

As to the land taxes, if I remember correctly, all land is "ultimately" government owned, else you'd be considered a soverign country. It's similar to how Dukes or Lords in the Middle Ages ultimately owned their province, yet they had tennants, (farmers, merchants, ect) who sorta kinda owned the land. My point is that one should think of property tax as a sort of "rent" that one pays to the government. if one really "owned" the land, then the police and Army would not have jurisdiction there.

If you don't like that, there are third world countries (specifically in Africa) where you can pretty much just go out in the middle of the wildernes and "claim" the land.
Joel:
If I own land, then I think what you say is wrong because no one has the right to give me the ultimatum of leaving my property or taking my property, upon threat of force. No individual has such a right, and the only rights that exist are individual rights.
Nick:
Well, since private property is still owned by the state government (which is in turn subject to the Federal Government), your objection does not apply. Unfair? Maybe...but your taxes also pay for the police and Army that is used to protect your land from foreign and domestic enemies. Rand would argue that the Government's job is to protect the rights of the people....It's not done for free.
Joel:
If I don't then presumably I have entered a contract with someone else who does own land such that I am allowed to live on their land. I suppose if all land owners refused to rent or sell me land unless I paid a certain amount of money to the government, then I would justly have no choice but to pay it or leave or die. Of course, that would be equivalent to them raising the price and them voluntarily giving the extra value to the government, which would be a perfectly acceptable way to fund the government.
Nick:
The world is a very large place Joel; I'm confident that you could find someplace acceptable. Given, not everyone is able to just up and go wherever the hell they want to...but I grew up poor. I did not like my conditions, and I had to sacrafice short term wants for long term goals.
Joel:
Their cost would be no more than we pay in taxes for the road--probably less.
Nick:
That's unlikely. Not just because building roads are extremely expensive. A regular two lane bridge can cost upwards of $2,000,000. How much would a company have to charge to use the bridge to make a profit? Since the government is a non-profit (or at least in principle) org, it needs no profit.
Let's say we have a river. Do you really think it practical to have 4 seperate companies try to build bridges (all having to use the cheapest materials BTW) and "competing" with each other for customers to cross at a particular point?

There are two main advantages a public road system has to a private road system.

1. The government is allegedly an NPO (we've discussed this)

2. land ownership.
I have a friend who worked for the rail roads in Kansas. he told me that one of the most expensive things about building train tracks was not the material..but the land (50 feet on both sides of the rail) that the company had to buy. Railroads are considered the most effecient form of transportation, but STILL, the government subsidizes railroads. I'm confident that there are more kilometers of public roads then raliroad tracks. Think of the land costs.
Who is going to buy a 300KM stretch of nothingness in the middle of Montana to build a highway? Since the Govnerment already owns the land, they get a VERY LARGE discount on building roads.

I'm afraid that a private road system would only work if we all had flying cars and needed few roads.
Joel:
How so?
Nick:
for reasons listed above.
Joel:
How do you differentiate between the two kinds of taxes?
Nick:
Consider presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5)(Republican). He proposes a Fair Tax. He would like to elminate all income taxes, including corporate, and investment earnings like capital gains, in favor of a 23% sales tax.
At first blush, I thought he was full of crap. But a significant reduction in government spending along with people getting all of their money would actually work.

23 or even 25 percent at first blush seems very expensive for a sales tax, but Countries like Germany charge 19% (just increased from 16% this year) and they do well enough. Huckabee also says that he would give refunds to the very, very poor who would not be able to afford it.

Also, If I were in the United States right now, I would be taxed 9.9% by my state (Oklahoma). and 28% (74,200–154,800) (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0106989.html) from the Federal Government, plus social security and medicare.

So I would alreday be paying about 40% per year, or about $41,000 in taxes! THEN, I'm still taxed on every thing that I buy at the local level (Oklahoma on average is about 8% IRRC)

So a fair tax would almost half my taxes. Since I don't go out buying crap all the time, It would be even less.

That's a good example of taxes not being "stealing." No one makes people buy stuff. And Huckabee says that it's only for new goods. It's not a bad deal. Unfortuantely, some of Huckabee's other stances on other stuff prevent me from "going for him."

Cheers,

Nick

[Jimmy Higgins]

What? If I am taxed 25%, then my benefit of every work I do shrinks by 25%. That is huge.Umm... do you have a job? If so, then your point isn't that valid.

I did not say that I don't think I should pay for them. Roads must be paid for. If it was paid for by stolen money, then the rightful owner of the road are those from whom the money was stolen. But merely their claiming their rightful ownership does not make up for the injustice done, if they intended to use the money for a different purpose. Nor does it make it an injustice to use the road, because they are the rightful owners.
Oh, it is so hardliving in America, where our money is stolen from us. Why don't you move to Mexico or find another developed nation with lower taxes if you think you are being done so much injustice.

[joel]

Nick:
That's awesome. I'll try to start a thread in Philosophy soon. Particularly, her views on morality and the Virtue of Selfishness

Cool. I'm not an expert on Rand yet. I've read a bunch of articles written by Objectivists on various political issues, and I am currnently reading Atlas Shrugged (I'm most of the way through), which is the first thing that I have read that she herself wrote.


As to the land taxes, if I remember correctly, all land is "ultimately" government owned, else you'd be considered a soverign country.Ah, that's a premise that I don't accept. I tend to agree with the Rand/libertarian principle that there is no such thing as a collective right, only individual rights. The government (i.e., the collective) has no rightful claim to land or to anything else. A just nation is a group of individuals (usually living on contiguous land) who consent together to be governed (i.e., to protect their rights and defend themselves against outside aggressors, not to allow a governing body to own the land.)


Rand would argue that the Government's job is to protect the rights of the people....It's not done for free.I am currently wavering on that issue--whether it is just to tax to protect rights.


Nick:
That's unlikely. Not just because building roads are extremely expensive. A regular two lane bridge can cost upwards of $2,000,000. How much would a company have to charge to use the bridge to make a profit? Since the government is a non-profit (or at least in principle) org, it needs no profit.Ah, you are worried about profit. That's not very Rand-like of you. :wink:
Profit is what causes the right jobs to get done--it's what brings the supply to the demand (and does so in a just way, as well as tending to do so more efficiently than government).


Let's say we have a river. Do you really think it practical to have 4 seperate companies try to build bridges (all having to use the cheapest materials BTW) and "competing" with each other for customers to cross at a particular point?Isn't that for them to decide?


Who is going to buy a 300KM stretch of nothingness in the middle of Montana to build a highway?The one who sees an unmet demand (which implies opportunity for profit).


I'm afraid that a private road system would only work if we all had flying cars and needed few roads.I don't think I agree. But I do think flying cars would be sweet.


Nick:
Consider presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee (http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5)(Republican). He proposes a Fair Tax.
Consider presidential hopeful Ron Paul. He proposes to "eliminate the IRS and all income tax and replace it with nothing." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkPUeFtLrPM


That's a good example of taxes not being "stealing." No one makes people buy stuff.That same reasoning can be applied to income tax--no one is forced to earn income. Income tax is just sales-tax on employment. If you want to sell me a good, and we agree on a price, no one has the right to demand money from us because of the exchange. Just because the stealing is conditional upon some action does not undo the fact that it is stealing. If neither party in the exchange consents to give their own property, then it is stealing.

[joel]

Umm... do you have a job? If so, then your point isn't that valid.
:shrug:


Oh, it is so hardliving in America, where our money is stolen from us. Why don't you move to Mexico or find another developed nation with lower taxes if you think you are being done so much injustice.
I never said that America was more unjust than other countries. Just that stealing is unjust. What is your point? That a little injustice is okay?

[decoski]

What's with libs like Jimmy with their class warfare emotionalism? Does sticking it to the rich make your life any better? No. It makes it worse and the rich aren't getting any poorer to make you FEEL better. I'll tell you why. Raise the taxes on the rich and now your $ 18.99 oil change now costs $19.99. Your plumbing bill now goes from $25 to $27. Get it? Wake up America!

[joel]

What's with libs like Jimmy with their class warfare emotionalism? Does sticking it to the rich make your life any better? No. It makes it worse and the rich aren't getting any poorer to make you FEEL better. I'll tell you why. Raise the taxes on the rich and now your $ 18.99 oil change now costs $19.99. Your plumbing bill now goes from $25 to $27. Get it? Wake up America!
Yep, it's impossible to impose a tax that affects only/mostly the rich.
Another good example of a wrongheaded attempt to tax the rich is a luxury tax. Only rich people buy luxury items, so it only affects them, right? But the demand for luxury items is very elastic, and the supply of luxury items is much less elastic. Taxes fall most heavily on the less elastic--thus a luxury tax falls much more heavily on the middle-class producers of the luxury items than on their customers.

[nickcopernicus]

Cool. I'm not an expert on Rand yet. I've read a bunch of articles written by Objectivists on various political issues, and I am currnently reading Atlas Shrugged (I'm most of the way through), which is the first thing that I have read that she herself wrote.
Nick:
I've recently acquired Atlas Shrugged. When I finish it (havent' started but I'm a relatively fast reader), we can chat about it.
Joel:
Ah, that's a premise that I don't accept. I tend to agree with the Rand/libertarian principle that there is no such thing as a collective right, only individual rights.
Nick:
I understand. I was simply making an observation as to why the government is able to tax the land that a person "owns."
Joel:
The government (i.e., the collective) has no rightful claim to land or to anything else. A just nation is a group of individuals (usually living on contiguous land) who consent together to be governed (i.e., to protect their rights and defend themselves against outside aggressors, not to allow a governing body to own the land.)
Nick:
In order for a government to claim itself soverign, borders must be defined.
Joel:
I am currently wavering on that issue--whether it is just to tax to protect rights.
Nick:
Well, simple economics tells us that economics is about balancing needs with resources.
The government is giving the people a service...protection; and people are paying for it. Sure, we could have NO government and people just hire mercenaries to protect their rights...but that would pretty much be anarchy. If a society wants to survive, then there must be collective compromises. Here is where me, the objectivists, and the libertarians are somewhat at odds.

Rand and the objectivists, as well, as some libertarians, seem to insist the diochtomy of Egoism Vs Altruism (Rand) or Capitalism Vs Socialism. I agree that the more capitalistic/individualistic, the better; mostly because capitalism and egoism allow for more freedom, HOWEVER, I think trying to go 100% capitialism is impractical the same way that 100% communism is also impractical.

In other words, Taxes for things like police, the military, and the road aren't "stealing" because you are getting value for value.
Joel:
Ah, you are worried about profit. That's not very Rand-like of you. :wink:
Nick:
I am not "worried" about profit. Profit is a very good thing. It is a reward for hard work. I am saying that owing roads is not a profitable industry.
Joel:
Profit is what causes the right jobs to get done--it's what brings the supply to the demand (and does so in a just way, as well as tending to do so more efficiently than government).
Nick:
On most things....I agree. But the fact remains that this would not be the case wit private roads. If RAILROAD companies need government substidies, what makes you think that private road owner companies would do any better? Since in this case, the government....already owns the land, they can do so at a much cheaper price...and can actually get the job done. I do agree, however, that many states do a horrible job of keeping their roads in good repair.
Joel:
Isn't that for them to decide?
Nick:
Yes. But I'd like to know if you think it would be practical. I would also like to know how much you think the toll for crossing a $2,000,000 bridge would be.
Joel:
The one who sees an unmet demand (which implies opportunity for profit).
Nick:
Uhhh, I don't think you are getting my point here.
Joel:
I don't think I agree. But I do think flying cars would be sweet.
Nick:
Well, the road "industry"...would not fare very well from what I know about roads and bridges.
Joel:
Consider presidential hopeful Ron Paul. He proposes to "eliminate the IRS and all income tax and replace it with nothing." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkPUeFtLrPM
Nick:
Yes, Ron Paul's ideology aligns with the majority of my own. I do, think, however, that he is smoking MJ if he thinks that he can eliminate all taxes. I'm curious as to where exactly does he expect to get the money to run the government from.
Joel:
That same reasoning can be applied to income tax--no one is forced to earn income. Income tax is just sales-tax on employment. If you want to sell me a good, and we agree on a price, no one has the right to demand money from us because of the exchange. Just because the stealing is conditional upon some action does not undo the fact that it is stealing. If neither party in the exchange consents to give their own property, then it is stealing.
Nick:
Huckabee said that this would only apply to new goods. So a person sells a car to another person, then there would be no tax.

As I said before, "Taxes" are the price of civilization. Sure, I've never needed the fire department to come and put out a fire for me (though many small towns have volenteer fire depos), but you ARE gettting services for the tax money that you pay. Or do you expect the government to work as slaves...for free?

Look do we need a government? I would say yes.
What is the government's role? To protect the rights of the people..right?
Should the government and its officials (police, Military, congress, ect) do it for free? If yes, then you expect the government to be slaves...which is wrong
If No, then where is the government supposed to get this money from?


Cheers,

Nick

[FreezBee]

TAX IS THEFT

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's with libs like Jimmy with their class warfare emotionalism? Does sticking it to the rich make your life any better?The rich pay approximately an equal share of taxes with respect to the amount of wealth they control in the country. So no, the rich aren't getting it stuck to.
No. It makes it worse and the rich aren't getting any poorer to make you FEEL better. I'll tell you why. Raise the taxes on the rich and now your $ 18.99 oil change now costs $19.99. Your plumbing bill now goes from $25 to $27. Get it? Wake up America!Wake up? You are the guy dreaming. All this talk about unfair taxation when the rich pay about as much as all else when looking at the percentage of wealth they control.

I never said that America was more unjust than other countries. Just that stealing is unjust. What is your point? That a little injustice is okay?Yes, a little injustice is always fine. :ahem: Your argument that bad you need to be making with that strawman? Taxation isn't stealing because for the price of your taxes you get representation.

[joel]

I understand. I was simply making an observation as to why the government is able to tax the land that a person "owns."
Granted that may be the claim for why they are able, but it is not a rightful claim.


In order for a government to claim itself soverign, borders must be defined. Yes, by the individuals consenting to be governed--joining together for their common defense.


Well, simple economics tells us that economics is about balancing needs with resources.
The government is giving the people a service...protection; and people are paying for it. Sure, we could have NO government and people just hire mercenaries to protect their rights...but that would pretty much be anarchy. If a society wants to survive, then there must be collective compromises. Here is where me, the objectivists, and the libertarians are somewhat at odds.And I think the government does have a good service to perform. What about allowing an individual to choose to opt out of supporting the justice system, but then does not get to use the court system, and the state will not prosecute crimes committed against the individual, but protects the rights of the paying citizens (and those who cannot pay)?


In other words, Taxes for things like police, the military, and the road aren't "stealing" because you are getting value for value.But it is stealing if that is not how you wanted to use your value. I could take a bunch of your money, and give you an equal value of, say, styrofoam cups. That would be an injustice, if you did not consent to the exchange.


Nick:
I am not "worried" about profit. Profit is a very good thing. It is a reward for hard work. I am saying that owing roads is not a profitable industry.sure it is. They would be toll roads, of course, with the price being set where the supply and demand cross, or where marginal cost crosses marginal revenue.
If a road is not profitable, then that implies that there is not enough demand to pay for it, in which case it would be wasteful to build it, and probably should not be built.


If RAILROAD companies need government substidies, what makes you think that private road owner companies would do any better? Why do they need subsidies?


Since in this case, the government....already owns the land, they can do so at a much cheaper price...The government still has to pay the land-owner. But, yes, I guess the eminent domain compensation is usually less than the price at which the owner would willingly sell. So, yes, that aspect may make it more expensive in cost to the builders. (Note that the savings in cost to the government in eminent-domain seizures comes at a cost to the land owners, and could be considered a tax that doesn't show up in the books.)


Nick:
Yes. But I'd like to know if you think it would be practical.
But that's the point. Such things should not be decided by central planners. If the 4 companies decide it is practical because there is enough demand, then let them do it. If not, then they won't.


I would also like to know how much you think the toll for crossing a $2,000,000 bridge would be.Depends on the demand. If 10,000 cars pass over per day, and you charge $1 toll, then it would be profitable within a year.


Nick:
Uhhh, I don't think you are getting my point here.Then what was your point? Who else would buy a stretch of nothingness? If there is no profit to be made, because there isn't enough demand, then no one will do it.


Nick:
Yes, Ron Paul's ideology aligns with the majority of my own. I do, think, however, that he is smoking MJ if he thinks that he can eliminate all taxes. I'm curious as to where exactly does he expect to get the money to run the government from.Reducing spending. The ad says all we'd need to do is reduce spending to that of a decade ago; I don't know whether that is true, but we could certainly do it by reducing spending. BTW, he didn't say "all taxes" but income tax. And without increasing other taxes.


As I said before, "Taxes" are the price of civilization. Sure, I've never needed the fire department to come and put out a fire for me (though many small towns have volenteer fire depos), but you ARE gettting services for the tax money that you pay. Or do you expect the government to work as slaves...for free?Definitely not. The question is whether payment can be voluntary (i.e., by seeing what service you get in exchange)


Look do we need a government? I would say yes.
What is the government's role? To protect the rights of the people..right?
Should the government and its officials (police, Military, congress, ect) do it for free? If yes, then you expect the government to be slaves...which is wrong
If No, then where is the government supposed to get this money from?Yes, that is the government's role.
No, it should not be done for free.
Ideally the people would voluntarily support the necessities for a just society. If government is limited to its proper role, then the cost won't be very great (much lower than todays tax levels). It is possible that voluntary donations would suffice. If not, what do you think of my "opting out" system?

[joel]

Yes, a little injustice is always fine. :ahem: Your argument that bad you need to be making with that strawman?
Why is a little injustice fine? (or were you being sarcastic? In which case, explain why it is just.)
And what strawman? I was just pointing out that you can't justify your actions by saying, "Hey, I'm not as bad as that guy!"

Taxation isn't stealing because for the price of your taxes you get representation.

Not just that, but social programs, state-controlled education, state-controlled health care, eminent domain seizures, FCC, gun control, etc., all payed for with people's money without their consent. Even if I grant that taxation in exchange for representation and protection of individual rights is not stealing, most government spending is still stealing.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not just that, but social programs, state-controlled education, state-controlled health care, eminent domain seizures, FCC, gun control, etc., all payed for with people's money without their consent. Actually, all of that stuff came about from the Representation that our tax dollars lead to.

Even if I grant that taxation in exchange for representation and protection of individual rights is not stealing, most government spending is still stealing.It is not stealing if the elected reps are passing laws the people that elected them wanted to.

[decoski]

The IRS is Unconstitutional. We need a limited government as our Constitution insists. The truth, Jimmy, according to IRS data, 86% of federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay 39%, up 2% from 2000 when President Bush took office. The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "In 1980, when the top income tax was70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
When does it stop, Jimmy?
So here's your task: A. Define "rich". B. Specify how much more taxes they should pay to make it "fair." C. Show how raising taxes on the evil rich will make the lives of those under them any better financially, than would by simply eliminating the unconstitutional income tax. D. If you can't show C., then explain your reasoning why the rich should have to pay more. E. Show how and where having a bigger government does anything better than does a limited federal government and a free market system (besides the functions for it specified in the Constitution).
We need to get back to the nation that our Founders intended. Not this out-of-control, over-regulated Nanny State.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The IRS is Unconstitutional. We need a limited government as our Constitution insists. The truth, Jimmy, according to IRS data, 86% of federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners. And the top 25% of income earners own about 86% of the wealth in this country.

The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes. The top 1% pay 39%, up 2% from 2000 when President Bush took office.Interesting. Do you know what that means? The misleading stats should be drawing an obvious conclusion for you.
The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "In 1980, when the top income tax was70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html
When does it stop, Jimmy? Where does it stop? I'll say this. Can you look at numbers and visualize them? You see, this is an important deal because it allows you to envision something important about the one-sided misleading statistics you just gave. The richest 1% paid only 19% of income taxes in 1980. Now they pay 39% (36.5% according to my source, the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/61xx/doc6133/03-01-EffectiveTaxRates.pdf), of which all my data is from). You seem to be missing a huge piece of this picture, because as you noted, the tax rate was 70% then, much lower now. So how could the richest pay more in taxes as a percentage of all taxpayers if their tax rate decreased so much? Honestly, alarms should be going off in your head! In order for them to pay more in taxes with the tax rate in half, they'd need to make more than twice the income! There is something missing from your article.

No really, I think you need to understand this point. In 1980, the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 22.3%. In 1980, the top 1% paid 17.4% of the total Federal Income tax bill. In 2000, the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 24.2%. In 2000, the top 1% paid 36.5%. Oh wait... check that out! The effective income tax rate in 1980 was 22.3% and 24.2% in 2000. For those who have a difficulty with numbers, that means the rate increase about 10% in 20 years. You'd swear it had increased 10004585209% during the Clinton Administration.

With that low increase over 20 years, their percentage paid of total income taxes went up from 17.4% to 36.5%. So, lets look at the numbers. The effective tax rate barely increased, but their share percentage on the Federal Income Tax doubled. You know, if I thought you could put 1 and 1 together, I'd end here, but I don't think you can, so I must continue.

What do all these scary numbers mean? It means that the top 1%'s income has increased at a substantially higher rate than that of the rest of the country. So the reason why they are paying more in 2000 than in 1980 is not because of the tax rates increasing, but because they have a lot more money now.

Don't just trust my words, look at the numbers. Look at page 11 of my link above. It shows the average percentile household income. Look at the middle quintile (top 40%-60%). In 1980, their pre-tax income in 2002 dollars was $45,200. In 2000, it went up 13% to $51,100.

The top 1%'s pre-tax income in 1980 was $474,400. In 2000, it had gone up an incredible 183% to $1,345,500.

So do you see? Please tell me you see and understand this! The middle quintile's income went up 13% in the last 20 years. The top 1%'s income went up 183%. The federal income tax burden barely increased. Henceforth, the reason why the top 1% pays so much now is that they make a lot more money now than they did in 1980, not because of this mythical income tax hike.

We need to get back to the nation that our Founders intended. Not this out-of-control, over-regulated Nanny State.No, what this country needs is for people to get their information and education from numbers and books, not AM radio and partisan op-eds.

[decoski]

And the top 25% of income earners own about 86% of the wealth in this country.

Interesting. Do you know what that means? The misleading stats should be drawing an obvious conclusion for you.
Where does it stop? I'll say this. Can you look at numbers and visualize them? You see, this is an important deal because it allows you to envision something important about the one-sided misleading statistics you just gave. The richest 1% paid only 19% of income taxes in 1980. Now they pay 39% (36.5% according to my source, the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/61xx/doc6133/03-01-EffectiveTaxRates.pdf), of which all my data is from). You seem to be missing a huge piece of this picture, because as you noted, the tax rate was 70% then, much lower now. So how could the richest pay more in taxes as a percentage of all taxpayers if their tax rate decreased so much? Honestly, alarms should be going off in your head! In order for them to pay more in taxes with the tax rate in half, they'd need to make more than twice the income! There is something missing from your article.

No really, I think you need to understand this point. In 1980, the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 22.3%. In 1980, the top 1% paid 17.4% of the total Federal Income tax bill. In 2000, the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 24.2%. In 2000, the top 1% paid 36.5%. Oh wait... check that out! The effective income tax rate in 1980 was 22.3% and 24.2% in 2000. For those who have a difficulty with numbers, that means the rate increase about 10% in 20 years. You'd swear it had increased 10004585209% during the Clinton Administration.

With that low increase over 20 years, their percentage paid of total income taxes went up from 17.4% to 36.5%. So, lets look at the numbers. The effective tax rate barely increased, but their share percentage on the Federal Income Tax doubled. You know, if I thought you could put 1 and 1 together, I'd end here, but I don't think you can, so I must continue.

What do all these scary numbers mean? It means that the top 1%'s income has increased at a substantially higher rate than that of the rest of the country. So the reason why they are paying more in 2000 than in 1980 is not because of the tax rates increasing, but because they have a lot more money now.

Don't just trust my words, look at the numbers. Look at page 11 of my link above. It shows the average percentile household income. Look at the middle quintile (top 40%-60%). In 1980, their pre-tax income in 2002 dollars was $45,200. In 2000, it went up 13% to $51,100.

The top 1%'s pre-tax income in 1980 was $474,400. In 2000, it had gone up an incredible 183% to $1,345,500.

So do you see? Please tell me you see and understand this! The middle quintile's income went up 13% in the last 20 years. The top 1%'s income went up 183%. The federal income tax burden barely increased. Henceforth, the reason why the top 1% pays so much now is that they make a lot more money now than they did in 1980, not because of this mythical income tax hike.

No, what this country needs is for people to get their information and education from numbers and books, not AM radio and partisan op-eds.

You are yet to answer my questions. How much tax on the rich (after you define where that class starts) is "fair?" Let's start with that one. Then go through the rest of my questions above. I'd like to see how getting the rich to pay more will make those below them better off financially. Oh, I know it makes you liberals FEEL better if the rich get soaked. Why not do the constitutional thing and just eliminate the IRS and income taxes completely? Then all are better off.

[Jimmy Higgins]

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

All that time. What in the world was I thinking?! People like Decoski don't think. They follow. Why did I bother using numbers and actual sources that trustworthy to argue a point when they weren't going to read it? I'm such a fool.... an idiot!

You are yet to answer my questions. How much tax on the rich (after you define where that class starts) is "fair?" Let's start with that one. Then go through the rest of my questions above. I'd like to see how getting the rich to pay more will make those below them better off financially. Oh, I know it makes you liberals FEEL better if the rich get soaked. Why not do the constitutional thing and just eliminate the IRS and income taxes completely? Then all are better off.Dude you are either the best troll or the best follower the right-wing could ever ask for. Consider this my parting post to you.

[Jimmy Higgins]

A little something for the lurkers. Some data to chew on. Lots of numbers get tossed around in these sorts of threads. The stuff below is from the CBO.

As follows are the average salaries for each quintile and their Total Effective Federal Tax Rate in 2002.

0% to 20% - $14,400 - 4.6%
20% to 40% - $33,600 - 10.8%
40% to 60% - $51,100 - 14.4%
60% to 80% - $75,900 - 18.7%
80% to 100% - $175,000 - 26.1%

top 1% - $938,100 - 32.7%


Flat tax? Yeah. Let's set it at the top 1% rate. Who's for that? :teeth:

[decoski]

AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

All that time. What in the world was I thinking?! People like Decoski don't think. They follow. Why did I bother using numbers and actual sources that trustworthy to argue a point when they weren't going to read it? I'm such a fool.... an idiot!

Dude you are either the best troll or the best follower the right-wing could ever ask for. Consider this my parting post to you.

Run, coward. People are just seeing you for who you are: a left-wing Kool-Aid drinker who has contempt for the wealthy, and refuses to answer direct questions that expose you for the class warfare clown that you are. One last chance: how does soaking the rich make those making less money any more financially secure?

[$cirisme]

Interesting things to think about Jimmy, as usual. Thanks.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Run, coward. People are just seeing you for who you are: a left-wing Kool-Aid drinker who has contempt for the wealthy, and refuses to answer direct questions that expose you for the class warfare clown that you are. One last chance: how does soaking the rich make those making less money any more financially secure?Dude, you obviously didn't read anything I typed. According to the numbers, the rich aren't getting "soaked".

[zorathruster]

In my opinion taxation is designed toward a society not toward or for specific individuals. Taxation is a method where by a society can accomplish those goals it deems necessary. That society provides for individuals in asymetries. Some get a lot, some get very little comparatively. Some provide a lot, some provide very little. When citizens feel they are not getting a fair quantity for their input they get disheartened at the whole system.

Yes the goose eats too much, but don't kill the goose... erst wise there will be no golden eggs.

[decoski]

Dude, you obviously didn't read anything I typed. According to the numbers, the rich aren't getting "soaked".

Even so, you want to soak them. Why? What purpose would that serve. Answer my questions when you have the courage.

[joel]

Actually, all of that stuff came about from the Representation that our tax dollars lead to.
That does not make it just.


It is not stealing if the elected reps are passing laws the people that elected them wanted to.
The only way it would not be stealing is if it were passed by unanimous vote of the people, and applied only to those who voted. If it is not voluntary on an individual basis it is stealing.
By your logic, if the elected reps were to pass laws the people that elected them wanted to enslave a certain group of people, then that wouldn't really be slavery.

[joel]

I'd like to see how getting the rich to pay more will make those below them better off financially.
And even if that were true, it wouldn't make it just.

[joel]

What do all these scary numbers mean? It means that the top 1%'s income has increased at a substantially higher rate than that of the rest of the country. So the reason why they are paying more in 2000 than in 1980 is not because of the tax rates increasing, but because they have a lot more money now.

Another thing you need to keep in mind is that most people in the "top 1%" are not there because of a regular income, but are only there for that year because they are mostly middle-class individuals who sold a home, sold a business, withdrew their savings from their retirement account, etc. The top 1% consists of irregular spikes, not "because they have a lot more money now" (whoever "they" is). The increase you are speaking of is because the spikes are higher than they used to be (which is a good thing).


No, what this country needs is for people to get their information and education from numbers and books, not AM radio and partisan op-eds.
No need to be insulting.


Flat tax? Yeah. Let's set it at the top 1% rate. Who's for that? :teeth:

Personally, I'm not as concerned with how we are taxed as in the level of spending/taxation. If taxation/spending is low enough, then it doesn't really matter whether it is a flat rate or a flat fee or what. And if it is high enough (like it is now), then it will be oppressive, no matter how it is distributed.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another thing you need to keep in mind is that most people in the "top 1%" are not there because of a regular income, but are only there for that year because they are mostly middle-class individuals who sold a home, sold a business, withdrew their savings from their retirement account, etc. The top 1% consists of irregular spikes, not "because they have a lot more money now" (whoever "they" is). The increase you are speaking of is because the spikes are higher than they used to be (which is a good thing).Umm... in 2002, the average salary of a person in the top 1% was almost $1 million. Sold a home, business, savings from retirement? At the rate of $1 million in a year? No... that isn't typical of the middle class person as you seem to be suggesting.

No need to be insulting.That wasn't an insult. It was a commentary. Calling someone an idiot is an insult. Remarking on how bad some people are at researching is a reflection or a fact.

[joel]

Umm... in 2002, the average salary of a person in the top 1% was almost $1 million. Sold a home, business, savings from retirement? At the rate of $1 million in a year? No... that isn't typical of the middle class person as you seem to be suggesting.
That average is likely skewed, with most of the top 1% being below average. Do you have numbers for the median, minimum and maximum? Besides, if you are talking about the largest cities, then $1 million is not that unusual for the average price of a home, and businesses and retirement savings would be less unusual. And note, I didn't say it was typical of the middle class person, I said it was typical of the top 1% person to be middle class. I have not heard anything about what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%. But, regardless, it is not very meaningful to use income to divide people into "classes", and it is not good to punish people for those spikes in income.

[Jimmy Higgins]

That average is likely skewed, with most of the top 1% being below average. At $1 million? How in the world can that happen? My parents (lower middle class) saw their home skyrocket in value over 500% in a period of 20 years. They still only sold the home for $300,000. Indeed, that plops them into the top quintile of the nation, well above it... but it puts them no where near the top 1%.
Do you have numbers for the median, minimum and maximum? I've already supplied a wealth of data via the CBO. Feel free to contribute at any time. Thing is this, you seem pretty sure of yourself (regardless of how mathematically unlikely it is regarding the middle class being propped to the top 1% so often annually) to be asking for data. You should already have it.
Besides, if you are talking about the largest cities, then $1 million is not that unusual for the average price of a home, and businesses and retirement savings would be less unusual. That doesn't even qualify as allegorical evidence. If your home is worth $1 million, you probably aren't in the middle class. A mortgage of $1,000,000... even assuming 40% down payment (that wouldn't be likely for a middle class family), you'd be looking at a principal of $3500 a month, excluding property tax, insurance, etc...
And note, I didn't say it was typical of the middle class person, I said it was typical of the top 1% person to be middle class. I have not heard anything about what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%. So you admit all your claims are hollow then? You have no data to support your claim. A claim that I may add is very irrational. I'll give you that people in the middle class can prop up into the top quintile (top 20%) of the country, but top 1%? At $1,000,000 a year, that is not very likely.
But, regardless, it is not very meaningful to use income to divide people into "classes", and it is not good to punish people for those spikes in income.Funny. Very funny, because this is a strawman. I established, quite thoroughly, that the rich aren't getting taxed at a higher rate than before. I showed, through CBO numbers that the only thing that has really changed is that the top 1% is making 183% more money than it was in 1980. And that is why the tax income has increased since 1980, not because of the huge tax rate increases that people pretend the rich have been subjected to.

As the numbers stand, the rich are taxed quite fairly, seeing their effective tax rate has increased 7% while their income has increased over 180% during that same period.

[joel]

That average is likely skewed, with most of the top 1% being below average.

At $1 million? How in the world can that happen?
What do you mean? You are suggesting that the distribution is not skewed? That as income goes up to the highest, the number of people do not drop off? That the income at the highest of the range is not much greater than the average?

The extremely high incomes at the top of the range will pull the average well above the median--that's how it can happen.


My parents (lower middle class) saw their home skyrocket in value over 500% in a period of 20 years. They still only sold the home for $300,000. Indeed, that plops them into the top quintile of the nation, well above it... but it puts them no where near the top 1%.Not true. See here (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6), that the threshold for the top 1% was $364,657 in 2005. It was less than $300,000 in 1999, 2001-2003. So that put your parents right around the threshold of the top 1%.


If your home is worth $1 million, you probably aren't in the middle class. A mortgage of $1,000,000...You just talked about homes increasing in value 500%. That makes the mortgage only $200,000 on the home that is later sold for $1,000,000. But, like I said, most of the top 1% is almost certainly below the average of $1,000,000 income.



I have not heard anything about what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%.
So you admit all your claims are hollow then?No, what I admitted is that that I do not claim anything about the claim that you claimed I was claiming. It is irrelevant what percentage of the "middle class" is ever in the top 1%. In fact, what I am saying makes "middle class" not a very meaningful concept.



it is not good to punish people for those spikes in income.
Funny. Very funny, because this is a strawman. I established, quite thoroughly, that the rich aren't getting taxed at a higher rate than before.I never claimed that they were. I claim that the absolute value of their tax is higher, as the CBO numbers show, and you yourself admit. Those who get a spike in income have to pay a spike in taxes--even without the rate increasing--i.e., people are punished for spikes in income because they have to pay a larger tax amount (not necessarily a higher rate).


As the numbers stand, the rich are taxed quite fairly, Define fair. Besides, the question is one of fairness but a question of justice.

[uberliber]

In my opinion taxation is designed toward a society not toward or for specific individuals. Taxation is a method where by a society can accomplish those goals it deems necessary. That society provides for individuals in asymetries. Some get a lot, some get very little comparatively. Some provide a lot, some provide very little. When citizens feel they are not getting a fair quantity for their input they get disheartened at the whole system.

Yes the goose eats too much, but don't kill the goose... erst wise there will be no golden eggs.

the market should have nothing to do with fairness. it should simply be voluntary exchanges between 2 consenting beings.

[uberliber]

As the numbers stand, the rich are taxed quite fairly, seeing their effective tax rate has increased 7% while their income has increased over 180% during that same period.

Once again, fairness is irrelevant to economics.

[Zero Tolerance]

My biggest objection to higher tax brackets is that it appears to punish productivity and I thought we want people to produce more. So we end up punishing the type of behavior we ought to be encouraging. Further it seems that many people support the idea of raising taxes on the rich until they discover just who the government considers to be "rich."

Teachers are productive. Firefighters are productive. Police are (arguably) productive.

Fat cat CEOs, not so much. The only real problem with high tax brackets is that it supposedly violates the aspirations of middle class America. Last time I checked, the median household income for the US is around $50k. Mine brings in 23k and there are four people in this house (soon to be five). I don't see a problem with taxing incomes of $200k or more.

[Darth Executor]

Teachers are productive. Firefighters are productive. Police are (arguably) productive.

Fat cat CEOs, not so much.

Not all teachers are productive. If every liberal studies department at post-secondary institutions suddenly disappeared I guarantee nobody in the real world would notice.

The only real problem with high tax brackets is that it supposedly violates the aspirations of middle class America. Last time I checked, the median household income for the US is around $50k. Mine brings in 23k and there are four people in this house (soon to be five). I don't see a problem with taxing incomes of $200k or more.So rich people should pay more because you're too dumb/incompetent to figure out how to get a higher income?

[Zero Tolerance]

Not all teachers are productive. If every liberal studies department at post-secondary institutions suddenly disappeared I guarantee nobody in the real world would notice.

So rich people should pay more because you're too dumb/incompetent to figure out how to get a higher income?

People in the real world would notice if liberal studies disappeared. For example, you failed to punctuate your subordinate clause, beginning with "if" and ending with "disappeared," with a comma before introducing your independent clause. That's a grammatical issue which people outside of liberal arts (the preferred term) tend to forget. If you had a stack of sixty papers and witnessed the fragments and comma splices, you would change your tune.

As for teachers not being productive, the same could be same about any profession if you want to nit-pick. My point was that the professions I listed are necessities, yet they rank at the bottom when it comes to income.

Your shifting to the second person, indicating ME as being "too dumb/incompetent to figure out how to get a higher income" is a reflection upon your own ignorance. I'm well on my way to earning a Ph.D. in English, therefore, I am a scholar; my ability to attain disposable income has nothing to do with my intelligence.

[Darth Executor]

People in the real world would notice if liberal studies disappeared. For example, you failed to punctuate your subordinate clause, beginning with "if" and ending with "disappeared," with a comma before introducing your independent clause. That's a grammatical issue which people outside of liberal arts (the preferred term) tend to forget. If you had a stack of sixty papers and witnessed the fragments and comma splices, you would change your tune.

And yet I've been to 2 colleges and passed all the forced English classes I took with respectable marks (except the last one which I skipped for half the semester because the teacher was a nutter who spent half her class calling Palin stupid or McCain racist or some other irrelevant political crap). This should tell you some things:

1) Nobody cares about punctuating my subordinate clause because it doesn't matter. I don't even know what the hell a subordinate clause is and I'm doing OK.
2) The only people who notice are Lib studies teachers and since they're useless they don't matter.
3) The above mentioned Lib studies teachers aren't doing their job because my written English is well above that of most people I meet. I was one of the 30% or so at my high school who passed the mandatory literacy test they give around here, and English isn't even my first language. And my High School teachers were well above my LS college professors quality wise.
4) This is the Internet. If I'm understandable, I don't really care. I'd do a much better job in an actual paper.

As for teachers not being productive, the same could be same about any profession if you want to nit-pick. My point was that the professions I listed are necessities, yet they rank at the bottom when it comes to income. That's because almost anyone can do it. If people got paid based on necessity we'd regress back to ancient times as high paying positions that require a lot of study (medicine is a good example) would be unattractive to almost everybody.

Your shifting to the second person, indicating ME as being "too dumb/incompetent to figure out how to get a higher income" is a reflection upon your own ignorance. I'm well on my way to earning a Ph.D. in English, therefore, I am a scholar; my ability to attain disposable income has nothing to do with my intelligence.You switched to first person when you brought yourself up so I didn't shift to anything.

That said, there are several things that don't speak highly of your intellect:

* You picked a low paying career even though you have 3 kids and a wife. Your chief responsibility is to them, not yourself. Getting a crap career in this situation is dumb, if not selfish. And no, picking the career first and then getting married and having kids doesn't help. I happen to think that starting a family without a decent income is irresponsible at best.
* You are unable to use your career to make a decent income. Again, this doesn't point towards competence/ intelligence. And I happen to know of a way for people like you to make a very good income using the skills in your otherwise almost useless profession. I'll even tell you what it is, even though odds are you won't pursue it: freelance article writing.
* You can make a decent income AND pursue what you want in the plenty of spare time you'd have. Being a scholar is no excuse.

All of this is still immaterial to the fact that you chose to go on the path you're on and it's not rich people's fault.

PS: An ideal middle class should be making 6 digit figures. Median salary's not really middle class and the reason why people make so little money is because they're not willing to put some mental muscle into it and find ways to increase their income. Rich people who want to avoid taxes will avoid taxes. If the federal government gets too much on their toes they'll just move their finances to the Cayman Islands and leave you with little to nothing depending on their business.

[Zero Tolerance]

I didn't pick this profession. God opened doors for me to be where I am. He provides all things, so it really does not matter how much I earn. He told me to get married while I was still in undergrad and jobless, and yet, continues to provide for me in every way.

Here's something I came across in my daily Bible reading:

1 Timothy 6:17-19

17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Amen! Do the rich a favor and tax them. Bring glory to God.

[uberliber]

Teachers are productive. Firefighters are productive. Police are (arguably) productive.

Fat cat CEOs, not so much. The only real problem with high tax brackets is that it supposedly violates the aspirations of middle class America. Last time I checked, the median household income for the US is around $50k. Mine brings in 23k and there are four people in this house (soon to be five). I don't see a problem with taxing incomes of $200k or more.

Or maybe you should be taxed higher for not doing well enough. And I do see a big problem with increasing taxes on those making 200k or more.

[uberliber]

I didn't pick this profession. God opened doors for me to be where I am. He provides all things, so it really does not matter how much I earn. He told me to get married while I was still in undergrad and jobless, and yet, continues to provide for me in every way.

Here's something I came across in my daily Bible reading:

1 Timothy 6:17-19

17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Amen! Do the rich a favor and tax them. Bring glory to God.

God also tells us not to steal.

1) Stealing is taking someone's property without consent
2) Taxation is taking someone's property without consent
3) Taxation is stealing

You are the type of Christian that drove me away from Christianity.

[Zero Tolerance]

Do not displace your decision to turn away from Christ upon me. That's between you and Him, for my relationship with him is sound, unlike yours since you totally ignored the scripture I provided which clearly states that he has provided all things for us in the first place.

I leave you with Matthew 24:14-30, because I don't talk to non-Christians about spiritual matters:

14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 25:15 A talent was worth more than a thousand dollars.~ Bible Gateway

[Darth Executor]

I didn't pick this profession. God opened doors for me to be where I am. He provides all things, so it really does not matter how much I earn. He told me to get married while I was still in undergrad and jobless, and yet, continues to provide for me in every way.

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks God tells him which socks to wear. :lolo:

[Darth Executor]

God also tells us not to steal.

1) Stealing is taking someone's property without consent
2) Taxation is taking someone's property without consent
3) Taxation is stealing

You are the type of Christian that drove me away from Christianity.

Taking someone's property without consent isn't stealing. Taking someone's rightful property without consent is, and taxes do serve a purpose. Render unto Caesar and all that.

[uberliber]

Do not displace your decision to turn away from Christ upon me. That's between you and Him, for my relationship with him is sound, unlike yours since you totally ignored the scripture I provided which clearly states that he has provided all things for us in the first place.

I leave you with Matthew 24:14-30, because I don't talk to non-Christians about spiritual matters:

14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 25:15 A talent was worth more than a thousand dollars.~ Bible Gateway

Looks like a lot of VOLUNTARY giving.

[uberliber]

Taking someone's property without consent isn't stealing. Taking someone's rightful property without consent is, and taxes do serve a purpose. Render unto Caesar and all that.So what's rightful property? Who decides what is rightful?

[Sheepdog]

Teachers are productive. Firefighters are productive. Police are (arguably) productive.

there aren't very many people who would object to taxation for the purpose of public safety and administration of laws. the typical objection is laid against taxation as extracting wealth from those who invest in the economy and create jobs and giving that wealth to the "poor" to be immediately consumed. some of us also object to subsidies, particularly for nonessential like art and entertainment, but also what I'd call economic favoritism.

Fat cat CEOs, not so much.CEO's are not the only rich people, you know. what about the shareholders? no one gives two craps about them, and yet arguably the economy would collapse into the stone age if they all collectively withdrew their wealth from the markets.

and why does everyone bitch and moan about the CEO's, yet ignore the largess of actors, musicians, athletes, and federal Congressmen? I for one am in favor of a 99% tax on the likes of George Clooney.

The only real problem with high tax brackets is that it supposedly violates the aspirations of middle class America. Last time I checked, the median household income for the US is around $50k. Mine brings in 23k and there are four people in this house (soon to be five). I don't see a problem with taxing incomes of $200k or more.no. the real problem with high tax brackets is that they stifle growth and therefore causes malaise for everyone (not just the rich). did you know that, until towards the end of the Carter admin, the highest income tax rate was 70%? 70%! imagine 70 cents out of every dollar being taken out of your wallet every tax cycle. Carter wised up, too little too late, and dropped that rate... and Reagan dropped it even more. Arguably, if it wasn't for the Reagan tax cuts we would have never seen the prosperity of the 90's. for that matter, if it wasn't for Bush's 2003 tax cut, we'd be talking about a recession that lasted since September 2001, not one that just started in Dec. 07. (Not to downplay the current recession, i am just saying... and still this recession has yet to be as hard as the one under Carter)

[Darth Executor]

So what's rightful property? Who decides what is rightful?

Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it.

[Zero Tolerance]

there aren't very many people who would object to taxation for the purpose of public safety and administration of laws. the typical objection is laid against taxation as extracting wealth from those who invest in the economy and create jobs and giving that wealth to the "poor" to be immediately consumed. some of us also object to subsidies, particularly for nonessential like art and entertainment, but also what I'd call economic favoritism.

I donno. As a consumer, I feel like I "invest in the economy" every time I go buy something. I'm from Alabama where the state still funds its school systems via sales tax. Can you imagine what's happening to schools down there right now?

As for the poor, art, and entertainment, I don't even know what to say about that except to ask what do these anti-tax people think is going to happen to "poor" people if they are not supported?


CEO's are not the only rich people, you know. what about the shareholders? no one gives two craps about them, and yet arguably the economy would collapse into the stone age if they all collectively withdrew their wealth from the markets.


and why does everyone bitch and moan about the CEO's, yet ignore the largess of actors, musicians, athletes, and federal Congressmen? I for one am in favor of a 99% tax on the likes of George Clooney.

Because we like entertainers and athletes. They somehow give meaning to our lives. I'm watching the NFL playoffs right now, and no, I wouldn't object to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones getting hit with the tax-bat, especially considering his BILLION dollar stadium. I wouldn't object to Jim Carrey getting taxed with his "mandatory" $20 million per-film quota. I totally agree with you. TAX THEM TOO!!!



no. the real problem with high tax brackets is that they stifle growth and therefore causes malaise for everyone (not just the rich). did you know that, until towards the end of the Carter admin, the highest income tax rate was 70%? 70%! imagine 70 cents out of every dollar being taken out of your wallet every tax cycle. Carter wised up, too little too late, and dropped that rate... and Reagan dropped it even more. Arguably, if it wasn't for the Reagan tax cuts we would have never seen the prosperity of the 90's. for that matter, if it wasn't for Bush's 2003 tax cut, we'd be talking about a recession that lasted since September 2001, not one that just started in Dec. 07. (Not to downplay the current recession, i am just saying... and still this recession has yet to be as hard as the one under Carter)

Man, all I know is that my GROSS pay is a larger number than what actually goes into my bank account and I don't like it. Bush's tax cuts didn't affect my family (I was not out in the workforce in 2003), but the gas prices sure did. The Patriot Act, expensive gas, and Muslims becoming America's proverbial "black people of the 21st century" is all I'll remember from the Bush Jr. administration.

[Darth Executor]

As for the poor, art, and entertainment, I don't even know what to say about that except to ask what do these anti-tax people think is going to happen to "poor" people if they are not supported?

They'd have to get a job and actually work when they do get one?


Man, all I know is that my GROSS pay is a larger number than what actually goes into my bank account and I don't like it. Bush's tax cuts didn't affect my family (I was not out in the workforce in 2003), but the gas prices sure did. The Patriot Act, expensive gas, and Muslims becoming America's proverbial "black people of the 21st century" is all I'll remember from the Bush Jr. administration.You chose to take a crap job. You don't get tax cuts because you don't really produce anything.

[joel]

Teachers are productive. Firefighters are productive. Police are (arguably) productive.

Fat cat CEOs, not so much.

How so? If CEOs aren't productive, then why do they get paid so much? The shareholders and board of directors would be much better off paying less for the same productivity. It's not due to lack of willing applicants; there are many people who would gladly accept the position of CEO at a lower wage.


Last time I checked, the median household income for the US is around $50k. Mine brings in 23k and there are four people in this house (soon to be five). I don't see a problem with taxing incomes of $200k or more.
Are you taking into account the benefit of those others recieving such incomes has for you? You ought to take into account the effects to you (and others) of their being taxed, such as fewer goods and services being available in the market, less technological advancement, higher prices, lower wages, less demand for labor, etc. And these effects both in the short term and long term.


My point was that the professions I listed are necessities, yet they rank at the bottom when it comes to income.

Also those professions you listed are largely government employees. Their income may very well be greater if the government weren't meddling in these professions.


Amen! Do the rich a favor and tax them. Bring glory to God.

That does not follow from the Scripture you quoted.

And your quoting the parable of the talents is interesting, because it was those managers who were able to maximize profit that were praised, and the one with a 0% return on the investment that was condemned.


I don't talk to non-Christians about spiritual matters.

Doesn't that conflict with the Great Commission?

[joel]

So what's rightful property? Who decides what is rightful?

Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it.
Let's draw this out to its logical conclusions.
There would therefore be no such thing as theft. If someone were to 'steal' your car, it would not really be theft, because they would be wielding the most power over the car at the moment, and thus it would be their rightful property, not yours.

Likewise, there would be no such thing as murder. If someone were to kill you, it would not be murder, because they would be wielding the most power over your body at the moment, and thus your body wiould be their rightful property, not yours.

Furthermore, if you were to defend yourself unsuccessfully against this attacker (trying to kill you or take from you), then that use of force of yours would be immoral, sinful and unjust because you would be using force against what is rightufully theirs.

This can be extended to turn pretty much all of justice on its head. For example, a successful rapist would be fully within his rights, and the victim would be acting unjustly if she resists. Neither would torturing a child to death be unjust.

Thus I have to utterly reject your proposition.

[Darth Executor]

Let's draw this out to its logical conclusions.
There would therefore be no such thing as theft. If someone were to 'steal' your car, it would not really be theft, because they would be wielding the most power over the car at the moment, and thus it would be their rightful property, not yours.

The government, and God, have more power and they could stop you, punish you or both.

Likewise, there would be no such thing as murder. If someone were to kill you, it would not be murder, because they would be wielding the most power over your body at the moment, and thus your body wiould be their rightful property, not yours.

God would like to have a word with you. As would the government.

Furthermore, if you were to defend yourself unsuccessfully against this attacker (trying to kill you or take from you), then that use of force of yours would be immoral, sinful and unjust because you would be using force against what is rightufully theirs.

See above.

This can be extended to turn pretty much all of justice on its head. For example, a successful rapist would be fully within his rights, and the victim would be acting unjustly if she resists. Neither would torturing a child to death be unjust.


Your response is just reactionary. If you think it through you'll find out that the world works exactly by the same principle I proposed: power. Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind.

[joel]

The government, and God, have more power and they could stop you, punish you or both.

But if they don't, then the 'thief' would be the rightful owner of your car. Or if they only do it at a later event, then the 'theif' would still be the rightful owner of the car in the meantime, while he has power over the car. In stopping him, the government (for example) would simply transfer rightful ownership of the car from him to itself, and perhaps voluntarily transfer ownership back to you if it chooses. But in the meantime the 'thief' did successfully exercise power over the car. Otherwise the thief actually did not excercise power over the car and is guilty of coveteousness at most.


Your response is just reactionary. If you think it through you'll find out that the world works exactly by the same principle I proposed: power. Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind.It occurs to me that one possible error in what I said is saying that the unsucessful use of force in defense would be unjust. One could interpret your conception of justice another way. Suppose that you strike out at your would-be killer and bruise him (say, his chin). Then you, in that instance are wielding the power against his chin, and thus you would not be unjust in bruising that chin, regardless of other circumstances. Thus one could say that your conception of justice is no justice at all, because all actual action is the actual wielding of power causing an effect, not being prevented by another's power, and is therefore the greatest power being wielded in that matter, and therefore no action can be unjust, and therefore there would be no such thing as justice.

Also in your conception, God could grant someone else, say Alice, a right to something only by (1) giving Alice power over it, (2) refraining from exercising His own power over it, and (3) preventing anyone else from having power over it. But in such a case it would be, by definition, impossible for anyone else to infringe on Alice's right. Thus it would be impossible for anyone to commit an injustice against Alice. Again, you have defined away any meaning for justice.

For If God did not give Alice power over it, then (in your definition) she does not have the right to it, and therefore no injustice can be done against Alice because she has no right to be violated. If God did not refrain from exercising His own power over it, then God retained the right, and again there is no possible injustice to be committed against Alice. And if God allows a third party to exercise power over it, then that party (in your definition) has the right, not Alice, and therefore the third party has not committed an injustice against Alice. But if God does all three, then no injustice is possible. Therefore your conception of justice strip it of any meaning, because all acts would be just by definition.

Your proposition that "Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind," seems to deny any reality to such things as Merit, Oath or Obligation. By definition, these are things that would be unjust to wield power contrary to. But under your conception they would be just words in the wind. On the other hand, if such things are actual, then the use of power is qualified by them, rather than the other way around.

[Darth Executor]

Your proposition that "Without power, claims to a right to something, anything, is just words in the wind," seems to deny any reality to such things as Merit, Oath or Obligation.

Not quite. It makes them subservient to (and thus defined by) power, rather than making power subservient to them. They are accurate descriptors of laws set down by the most powerful.

By definition, these are things that would be unjust to wield power contrary to. But under your conception they would be just words in the wind. On the other hand, if such things are actual, then the use of power is qualified by them, rather than the other way around.Please explain then, why Merit, Oath and Obligation have a real, objective existence from your perspective.

If a man breaks into another man's house, steals his pillow and nobody, not even God, does something about it, now or ever, and the robbed man yells the pillow is his property, and the theft is unjust, how do you determine that the pillow is his property and the theft is unjust? What does unjust mean? Explain the mechanism behind these properties. What gives them meaning? I propose that you, along with other philosophers that share your rights based morality, do not have a logical mechanism behind them. They are creations of empathy (an emotion) and thus a whim, rather than a solid foundation for morality. Rather than describe reality, they seek to create or change it to one that feels right.

[joel]

Not quite. It makes them subservient to (and thus defined by) power, rather than making power subservient to them. They are accurate descriptors of laws set down by the most powerful.

If they are determined by power, then they are meaningless, because no actual action could be contrary to them, because the fact that you were able to actualize the action means you had the power to do so.

Things like Merit, Oath, and Obligation determine how power ought to be used. If they are determined by the use of power, then they can do no such thing. As you say, they would be subservient to power, and thus be stripped of their meaning. Their meaning, by definition, is a law over the use of power. If they are subservient to power, then they are no longer law over power, and thus are meaningless.

Telling someone S that if they do not do X then you will do Y, and then actually doing Y when S fails to do X, does not make X an obligation to S. This would turn morality upside down, and could be used to justify anything. Person S may even evaluate that the cost of Y is less than the benefit of refraining from doing X. Also, the laws of physics do the same thing, but do not create obligations. Refraining from doing X may have some negative consequence due to the laws of nature, but this does not obligate S to do X.


Please explain then, why Merit, Oath and Obligation have a real, objective existence from your perspective.

If a man breaks into another man's house, steals his pillow and nobody, not even God, does something about it, now or ever, and the robbed man yells the pillow is his property, and the theft is unjust, how do you determine that the pillow is his property and the theft is unjust? What does unjust mean? Explain the mechanism behind these properties. What gives them meaning? I propose that you, along with other philosophers that share your rights based morality, do not have a logical mechanism behind them. They are creations of empathy (an emotion) and thus a whim, rather than a solid foundation for morality. Rather than describe reality, they seek to create or change it to one that feels right.I have shown, in several ways, why your conception would turn morality on its head. That should be sufficient to refute it. My supplying a positive theory in its place would only be an extra bonus.

But if you wish we can discuss how things like Merit, Oath and Obligation could have objective existence. They could have such existence by virtue of them being determined in the Ultimate Mind, regardless whether that being enforces them with power. In your case where one man steals from another, and nobody, not even God were to prevent it or punish it, its justice would still then be determined by the Ultimate Mind. e.g., suppose God unconditionally forgives the action, while still confirming that it was unjust. Thus God's law can be true objectively.

Also, people can voluntarily place themselves under obligations, without them being handed down from above, e.g., by objectively making a voluntary oath.

I also think that some rights and morality can be derived from our condition as men. For example I am intrigued by Ayn Rand's defense of objective morality. If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective. A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value (otherwise it would cease to be a rational being by undermining its rational capacity for valuation). From this it can be derived that that which harms a rational being's life as a rational being ought to be opposed. From this can be derived the obligation of each rational being to not use force against other rational beings except in defense or retribution. Such obligations then imply rights. One can also derive various virtues such as honesty, and justice, where justice means making correct judgments about reality and giving to each what is due.

[Sheepdog]

I donno. As a consumer, I feel like I "invest in the economy" every time I go buy something.

sort of. you consume goods and services. The portion you "invest" to create new value is a marginal percentage relative to the raw value of the goods you consume.

When you are responsible in some manner in maintaining a payroll, at least indirectly (e.g. investing in a company), please get back to me.

I'm from Alabama where the state still funds its school systems via sales tax. Can you imagine what's happening to schools down there right now?

Couldn't be worse than what happens in, say, Detroit. The funny thing is about the public education system, the amount of money we pay for it each year progressively increase, yet the quality of education for our children regress.

As for the poor, art, and entertainment, I don't even know what to say about that except to ask what do these anti-tax people think is going to happen to "poor" people if they are not supported?

"anti-tax"? is that sort of like "pro-choice"?

the "poor" people would get along the way they did before the welfare state. they'd get jobs, or if they could not (and some cannot for varying reasons), they are supported by the charity and support of private individuals. the fact is, the welfare state as it exists today didn't exist before the 20th century. the poor got along without it, they could today if we learned to say no.

FWIW i don't totally reject the notion of a publicly funded safety net for the poor. i protest the present application in the form of the welfare state

Because we like entertainers and athletes. They somehow give meaning to our lives. I'm watching the NFL playoffs right now, and no, I wouldn't object to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones getting hit with the tax-bat, especially considering his BILLION dollar stadium. I wouldn't object to Jim Carrey getting taxed with his "mandatory" $20 million per-film quota. I totally agree with you. TAX THEM TOO!!!

except they don't produce anything that is necessary. if an asteroid was going to hit the earth, would you rather it hit Hollywood, or Manhattan? If it hit Hollywood, we'd make due ... heck it'd be a windfall for local entertainers! If it hit Manhattan, you'd probably be out of a job the next day.


Man, all I know is that my GROSS pay is a larger number than what actually goes into my bank account and I don't like it. Bush's tax cuts didn't affect my family (I was not out in the workforce in 2003), but the gas prices sure did. The Patriot Act, expensive gas, and Muslims becoming America's proverbial "black people of the 21st century" is all I'll remember from the Bush Jr. administration.

who cares about you? really. the point of the Bush tax cuts wasn't to help lil old Zero Tolerance out. it was to help the economy balance itself out after the destruction of $2 trillion in wealth overnight and the ensuing chaos. you and I may not have directly benefited from the tax cuts directly (except I did. IIRC i got back $300 or so), but we benefited from the resulting recovery. Do you have a job now? good. I do too. I actually am doing much better than I did just after 2001, even despite the current recession.

Just food for thought, gas prices didn't become really painful until Democrats gained control of Congress. and certain liberals are now proposing a permanent price floor for gas through taxation (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16sperling.html?th&emc=th)

[Darth Executor]

If they are determined by power, then they are meaningless, because no actual action could be contrary to them, because the fact that you were able to actualize the action means you had the power to do so.

This is a straw man. The original question was:

"Who decides what is rightful?"

My answer was:

"Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it. "

And in subsequent posts I said:

The government, and God, have more power and they could stop you, punish you or both.


Just because the higher power does not or cannot stop an act doesn't change the fact that they have the authority to set such laws and will still punish the transgressor, and by doing so transmute their will into reality.

Things like Merit, Oath, and Obligation determine how power ought to be used. If they are determined by the use of power, then they can do no such thing.Sure they can. You're equivocating between power sources and pretending they're the same. They're not. Power source A (God, Government, etc.) sets down laws (Merit, Oath and Obligation) which determines how the weaker Power source B should act.

As you say, they would be subservient to power, and thus be stripped of their meaning. Their meaning, by definition, is a law over the use of power. If they are subservient to power, then they are no longer law over power, and thus are meaningless.Actually under your definition they're still laws over the use of power and thus not meaningless. If you mean that they're, by definition, law over the use of ANY power, it's not true. They're laws that govern specific uses of power.

Telling someone S that if they do not do X then you will do Y, and then actually doing Y when S fails to do X, does not make X an obligation to S.Obligations only exist when something is enforced. By power.

This would turn morality upside down, and could be used to justify anything. Person S may even evaluate that the cost of Y is less than the benefit of refraining from doing X. Also, the laws of physics do the same thing, but do not create obligations. Refraining from doing X may have some negative consequence due to the laws of nature, but this does not obligate S to do X.No, they cannot be used to justify anything. That's absurd (especially within a Christian universe). Furthermore, just because it can be used to justify anything doesn't mean it should or that the concept is wrong. If you try hard enough you can take almost any system and misuse it to justify your own actions..

I have shown, in several ways, why your conception would turn morality on its head. That should be sufficient to refute it. My supplying a positive theory in its place would only be an extra bonus. You have not. All you've done is complain that it's not right based on the assumption that your own positive theory is correct when in fact you should either attack my own position on its own merits or show your own to be correct.

But if you wish we can discuss how things like Merit, Oath and Obligation could have objective existence. They could have such existence by virtue of them being determined in the Ultimate Mind, regardless whether that being enforces them with power. In your case where one man steals from another, and nobody, not even God were to prevent it or punish it, its justice would still then be determined by the Ultimate Mind. e.g., suppose God unconditionally forgives the action, while still confirming that it was unjust. Thus God's law can be true objectively.Congratulations, your "positive theory" is the same as mine, you just can't admit it. The only reason why God's in a position to determine such a thing is because of his omnipotence (absolute POWER). If God was some dude walking down the street you'd not say he creates objective obligations anymore than you'd say that about me. Your "Ultimate Mind" would need to have sufficient power to lay down laws like Merit, Oath and Obligation, otherwise what's the difference between what the Ultimate Mind lays down as law and some hobo walking down the street lays down as law?

Also, people can voluntarily place themselves under obligations, without them being handed down from above, e.g., by objectively making a voluntary oath.These people are merely under their own power. Furthermore, this example is descriptive, it does not actually support or deny your position.

I also think that some rights and morality can be derived from our condition as men. For example I am intrigued by Ayn Rand's defense of objective morality. If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective. A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value (otherwise it would cease to be a rational being by undermining its rational capacity for valuation).I deny it. Whoops, there goes that theory. :ahem:
I didn't have to undermine my rational capacity for valuation. I just have to lie.

Furthermore, "A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value" is nonsense at first sight. What does she mean by "a value"?

From this it can be derived that that which harms a rational being's life as a rational being ought to be opposed.No it cannot. Please show how it can, do not merely assert it. Just because something has value does not mean it's wrong to destroy it.

From this can be derived the obligation of each rational being to not use force against other rational beings except in defense or retribution. Not only is this another assertion without justification, it also contradicts the previous argument. Since defense and retribution harm a rational being's life, defense and retribution ought to be opposed.

Such obligations then imply rights. One can also derive various virtues such as honesty, and justice, where justice means making correct judgments about reality and giving to each what is due.Rand's system is built on sand. In fact, if your description of her system is accurate, I find it difficult to believe any rational human being can take it seriously.

[Zero Tolerance]

sort of. you consume goods and services. The portion you "invest" to create new value is a marginal percentage relative to the raw value of the goods you consume.

When you are responsible in some manner in maintaining a payroll, at least indirectly (e.g. investing in a company), please get back to me.

In that case, I would actually need surplus monies to "invest." Notwithstanding, hundreds of thousands of people just lost millions of dollars in said investments; I personally know some who have lost hundreds of thousands. Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."

To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves."

Couldn't be worse than what happens in, say, Detroit. The funny thing is about the public education system, the amount of money we pay for it each year progressively increase, yet the quality of education for our children regress.

The reasons for Detroit's plight are imbricated, but if you want to choose one thing that ruined the schools in Detroit, it isn't the way that the city funds its schools because the resources were there when they put that system in place. It's the white flight that has been persistent since the riots of 1967, where many whites would flee inner-city Detroit towards the suburbs and create "havens" there with vocational and educational opportunity that the (mostly black) population can't access for reasons that far exceed the scope of this topic, but if you're really interested in the history of Detroit, read Sidney Fine's Violence in the Model City then Reynolds Farley, Sheldon Danziger, and Harry J. Holzer's Detroit Divided and you will at least have your own virtual Masters Degree in the history of the city of Detroit (I would suggest more, but reading Fine's virtual encyclopedia is ambitious enough!!!).



"anti-tax"? is that sort of like "pro-choice"?

the "poor" people would get along the way they did before the welfare state. they'd get jobs, or if they could not (and some cannot for varying reasons), they are supported by the charity and support of private individuals. the fact is, the welfare state as it exists today didn't exist before the 20th century. the poor got along without it, they could today if we learned to say no.

I have a problem with your usage of "pro-choice" because "pro-choice" is unparallel to "pro-life" (The subject of abortion is about killing babies, bottom line. Save all that "rights" rhetoric for a Confederate states empathizer). Additionally, I use "anti-tax" to recognize those against the "redistribution of wealth."

Your comments here suggest a longing to return to what, the pre-FDR days when the poor were just S.O.L? No thanks. I would think that in the 21st century, a country like the US would be able to take care of its own regardless of individual citizen ability or ambition. Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded.


FWIW i don't totally reject the notion of a publicly funded safety net for the poor. i protest the present application in the form of the welfare state

In that case, what adjustments would you make?



except they don't produce anything that is necessary. if an asteroid was going to hit the earth, would you rather it hit Hollywood, or Manhattan? If it hit Hollywood, we'd make due ... heck it'd be a windfall for local entertainers! If it hit Manhattan, you'd probably be out of a job the next day.

Manhattan, because it would make people go deep into their hearts like how I perceived 9/11 did. And I wouldn't be out of a job, because I work in an industry that's necessary for places like Manhattan to even exist. If a meteor hit Hollywood, in the end, it would be like, "so what," as long as all the pollutants do not shroud the earth's atmosphere, resulting in the death of everyone.



who cares about you? really.

Obviously *I* do, which is why I vote, and why I favor "taxing the rich." Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with my employment because it has very little to do with what goes on on Wall Street or Capital Hill.


Just food for thought, gas prices didn't become really painful until Democrats gained control of Congress. and certain liberals are now proposing a permanent price floor for gas through taxation (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16sperling.html?th&emc=th)

I repeat, high gas and ect. will be all that I remember from the Bush administration.

[joel]

This is a straw man. The original question was:

"Who decides what is rightful?"

My answer was:

"Whoever has the most power and is willing to use it. "

My point is that if I actualize an action, then the scope of that action was in my power, and I was willing to use that power. No other being with more power in that same scope was willing to use it, thus excluding my action.

And as for 'punishment' after the fact, I already pointed out that that is no more than a "if you do X, then I'll do Y", creating no obligation unless there is some higher principle. The laws of physics, for example, are enforced powerfully, where if you do X, then Y will happen, but that fact per se does not obligate you to do (or not to do X).


Sure they can. You're equivocating between power sources and pretending they're the same. They're not. Power source A (God, Government, etc.) sets down laws (Merit, Oath and Obligation) which determines how the weaker Power source B should act.
So, then, God (or government) would be considered beyond good and evil in your conception. It would be meaningless to say whether God is good or God is just, because there is no higher power to lord it over Him.


You have not. All you've done is complain that it's not right based on the assumption that your own positive theory is correct when in fact you should either attack my own position on its own merits or show your own to be correct.
No, I showed that the logical conclusion of your conception is that there is no such thing as theft, murder, etc.


Congratulations, your "positive theory" is the same as mine, you just can't admit it. The only reason why God's in a position to determine such a thing is because of his omnipotence (absolute POWER).
No, it could be due to being the Ultimate Mind, apart from omnipotence. And, even also having the power to do something about those objective values does not imply that God must be willing to do something about them. (It would take additional attributes, such as God's Justice, to reach that conclusion.)


Your "Ultimate Mind" would need to have sufficient power to lay down laws like Merit, Oath and Obligation, otherwise what's the difference between what the Ultimate Mind lays down as law and some hobo walking down the street lays down as law?
I'm not even necessarily talking about "laying down a law." It is the reality of those values (as known by the Ultimate Mind) that can bind a person, regardless of whether any force is used. It would have to do with the ultimate facts of reality. The point is that some hobo's subjective values (e.g., preferring strawberries to bananas) are a fact about him, not about mind or rational beings or reality in general. A value held by the Ultimate Mind would be a fundamental fact of reality, a fundamental fact of valuation to which all derivative/contingent minds are subject.


I deny it. Whoops, there goes that theory. :ahem:
I didn't have to undermine my rational capacity for valuation. I just have to lie.
You misunderstand. I'll clarify.
There are two senses in which something can be affirmed or denied. One sense is when the words signifying it are expressed. Another is when the thing itself is understood and believed. The latter excludes lying. I meant the latter. What I said has nothing to do with communicating this denial to other beings. A rational being cannot rationally deny it in this latter sense.


Furthermore, "A rational being cannot deny that its own life as a rational being is a value" is nonsense at first sight. What does she mean by "a value"?
Something that is valued, desired, preferred, or sought--in short, that which is evaluated as being good and right. If rational beings cannot rationally refrain from valuing X, then X is not just a subjective value; it is an objective value; it is objectively good.


No it cannot. Please show how it can, do not merely assert it. Just because something has value does not mean it's wrong to destroy it.
I'm sorry, I gave just a very quick overview before, for brevity and because I didn't have a lot of time at that moment. I'm willing to explain further anything you want. Yes, you are correct that it is not wrong to destroy something good per se. It can be virtuous to destroy a lesser value in order to achieve a greater value. It is wrong to destroy a greater value for a lesser one (or for no value). (For, subjective values, then subjectively wrong. For objective values, then objectively wrong.) But I think it is safe to say that all else being equal it is wrong to destroy something good.

Given that a rational being's rational life is an objectively good, then its harm is objectively wrong all else being equal.


Not only is this another assertion without justification, it also contradicts the previous argument. Since defense and retribution harm a rational being's life, defense and retribution ought to be opposed.
One might try to argue that way. I don't think it's terribly important for our discussion. But it can be argued that the person who has acted against a value that a rational being cannot deny has ceased to be a rational being to that extent, or is acting outside of reason or in ignorance. Thus the use of force against such an action (as long as it is kept within proper scope) would not be a violation of the principle. Defense and retribution are, by definition, actions upholding what is good. And again, in this case, not all else is equal. You are not just acting against another being, but acting against evil.

[joel]

Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."

To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves."

If no one invests, then we all die. Other people's investment is keeping you alive.


Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded.
Historically, free people do give more when there is less forced welfare, because moral hazzard is less.
Also, people have more capacity to give.
And fewer people have need of charity. (Because goods are cheaper and wages are higher, and less moral hazzard.)
It can be argued that the welfare state harms more than helps the very people it intends to help. It is counter-productive and creates moral hazzard.

You would have to demonstrate against these odds that the welfare program will have an expected good that exceeds the bad (at least to the people it intends to help). And even if you succeed in doing so, you would have to demonstrate that this benefit somehow outweighs the immorality of such use of force.

[Darth Executor]

My point is that if I actualize an action, then the scope of that action was in my power, and I was willing to use that power. No other being with more power in that same scope was willing to use it, thus excluding my action.

This is a repetition of a straw man. It is not enough for you to actualize an action, have the action within your power and be willing to use that power. You also have to be the "top dog". So if you steal, odds are the government has enough power to punish or stop you (though not always in which case you had the most power in that particular scenario). In a Christian universe, God has enough power and will certainly punish you due to your breach of His anti-theft law and omnipotence (IE you can't overpower Him).

And as for 'punishment' after the fact, I already pointed out that that is no more than a "if you do X, then I'll do Y", creating no obligation unless there is some higher principle. The laws of physics, for example, are enforced powerfully, where if you do X, then Y will happen, but that fact per se does not obligate you to do (or not to do X).You are not obligated to obey laws under any theory. Even if you take an oath, there's no invisible force making you obey the terms of your contract. The only way to enforce genuine obligation (which I consider different from laws like oath or merit in that obligation cannot be defied by definition) is through use of force (or threat of use of force, if it's sufficient to deter the culprit). Example scenario: You are obligated to not rape that woman because if you try God shows up and breaks your neck.

So, then, God (or government) would be considered beyond good and evil in your conception. It would be meaningless to say whether God is good or God is just, because there is no higher power to lord it over Him. Under my theory God would be under His own power (just like everyone else is). Merely claiming that the terms are meaningless doesn't make it so. His power gives them explicit meaning. If God does not lay down a law that says He's good or just, then yes, you could say the terms are meaningless to apply to God, but that doesn't falsify my system.

No, I showed that the logical conclusion of your conception is that there is no such thing as theft, murder, etc.No, you claimed that there's no such thing as theft or murder because I offered a genuine mechanism behind them. That's a far cry from actually showing how that mechanism renders them meaningless.

No, it could be due to being the Ultimate Mind, apart from omnipotence.I propose that the above nonsense. What is an "ultimate mind" and why are concepts it proposes meaningful despite its power?

And, even also having the power to do something about those objective values does not imply that God must be willing to do something about them. (It would take additional attributes, such as God's Justice, to reach that conclusion.)

I'm not even necessarily talking about "laying down a law." It is the reality of those values (as known by the Ultimate Mind) that can bind a person, regardless of whether any force is used. It would have to do with the ultimate facts of reality. The point is that some hobo's subjective values (e.g., preferring strawberries to bananas) are a fact about him, not about mind or rational beings or reality in general. A value held by the Ultimate Mind would be a fundamental fact of reality, a fundamental fact of valuation to which all derivative/contingent minds are subject.Again, I must repeat myself. WHY is it that a value held by the ultimate mind would be a fundamental fact of reality? How does the ultimate mind differ from the hobo?

You misunderstand. I'll clarify.
There are two senses in which something can be affirmed or denied. One sense is when the words signifying it are expressed. Another is when the thing itself is understood and believed. The latter excludes lying. I meant the latter. What I said has nothing to do with communicating this denial to other beings. A rational being cannot rationally deny it in this latter sense.Sure it can. Why must a rational being value itself? Oh I see:

Something that is valued, desired, preferred, or sought--in short, that which is evaluated as being good and right.In short, because it is a slave to emotions. That's what desire or preference is. A whim. It is not rooted in logic, it's rooted in subjective emotions poorly disguised as logic. Chemicals running through your brain. "Something that is desired is something that is good and right."
Charles Manson desires murder, therefore murder is good and right.
Ghandi desires peace, therefore peace is good and right.

Or, if you want to get technical:
If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective.
A rational being cannot deny that murder is a value (see Charles Manson as an example)
A rational being cannot deny that pacifism is a value (see Ghandi as an example)

The obvious problem with using emotions like preference or desire as a barometer for objective morality is that they contradict each other (in fact, I'd say using them goes against the alleged spirit of objectivism which claims the use of logic as its functioning mechanism). In turn, if they contradict each other, the philosophy that leads to both conclusions is objectively false. Therefore, Ayn Rand's objectivism is objectively false.

I'm sorry, I gave just a very quick overview before, for brevity and because I didn't have a lot of time at that moment. I'm willing to explain further anything you want. Yes, you are correct that it is not wrong to destroy something good per se. It can be virtuous to destroy a lesser value in order to achieve a greater value. It is wrong to destroy a greater value for a lesser one (or for no value). (For, subjective values, then subjectively wrong. For objective values, then objectively wrong.) But I think it is safe to say that all else being equal it is wrong to destroy something good. I did not mean to imply that I think within the system, destroying something good per se is not wrong. I think the whole system is irrational. The point was that the theory as you explained it contradicts itself. And your further expansion doesn't help. "Destroying something good is wrong except" means "destroying something good is wrong" itself is not true since there are exceptions. To further go back, it means that it's not wrong to destroy something that cannot be denied by a rational being. This destroys the branch of objectivism that leads to objective morality.

Given that a rational being's rational life is an objectively good, then its harm is objectively wrong all else being equal.That may be so but you'll need to either rebranch from the original statement "something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective", and you cannot say that destroying something objective is wrong for reasons I outlined above.

One might try to argue that way. I don't think it's terribly important for our discussion. But it can be argued that the person who has acted against a value that a rational being cannot deny has ceased to be a rational being to that extent, or is acting outside of reason or in ignorance.But that would render anybody an irrational being, since value itself is a subjective whim, rendering Objectivist morality an absurdity.

[Zero Tolerance]

If no one invests, then we all die. Other people's investment is keeping you alive.

Historically, free people do give more when there is less forced welfare, because moral hazzard is less.
Also, people have more capacity to give.
And fewer people have need of charity. (Because goods are cheaper and wages are higher, and less moral hazzard.)
It can be argued that the welfare state harms more than helps the very people it intends to help. It is counter-productive and creates moral hazzard.

You would have to demonstrate against these odds that the welfare program will have an expected good that exceeds the bad (at least to the people it intends to help). And even if you succeed in doing so, you would have to demonstrate that this benefit somehow outweighs the immorality of such use of force.

In my daily life, I don't see how someone else's investments are affecting me at all.

And I don't have a problem with the way that welfare is now. You're coming from the perspective that there is something wrong with it, so it is you who has to present solutions, not me.

[Zero Tolerance]

LOL & Amen! - They actually talked about a flat tax rate in this country but it never gained traction (they were talking about 30% accross the board).

Possibly the flat-tax has some merit, I haven't thought the implications through well enough. I think, in the end, the lower incomes would end up suffering for a flat rate but I don't know for sure. It's an interesting proposition. Our Income Tax Act is over 2,500 pages long. It's a spider's web of confusion!

The idea of a flat tax sounds interesting too. Why didn't it gain steam?

[joel]

This is a repetition of a straw man. It is not enough for you to actualize an action, have the action within your power and be willing to use that power. You also have to be the "top dog". So if you steal, odds are the government has enough power to punish or stop you (though not always in which case you had the most power in that particular scenario). In a Christian universe, God has enough power and will certainly punish you due to your breach of His anti-theft law and omnipotence (IE you can't overpower Him).

But then government can never be the top dog. God always is.


You are not obligated to obey laws under any theory.
See what I mean: Your conception must strip things like Obligation of any meaning. Indeed, you seem to be saying that it is logically impossible that someone be obligated.


Example scenario: You are obligated to not rape that woman because if you try God shows up and breaks your neck.
My point is that you are not. If I jump from a tall height my neck will be broken (ultimately by God). This fact per se neither obligates me to jump nor not to jump. The fact that God causes my neck to be broken if I do action X does not create an obligation.


Under my theory God would be under His own power (just like everyone else is).
This does not give it any meaning. God being unjust could then only be his using his power contrary to the way he uses his power, which is absurd. It would be a meaningless tautology to say that God is just.


What is an "ultimate mind" and why are concepts it proposes meaningful despite its power?
I thought I already explained. God's mind is ultimate because it is the Mind from which all other minds are derived, to which all other mind is subject. Meaning is a property of mind. Ultimate meaning is therefore found in the Ultimate Mind. Note this makes no reference to power.


Again, I must repeat myself. WHY is it that a value held by the ultimate mind would be a fundamental fact of reality? How does the ultimate mind differ from the hobo?
Because the Ultimate Mind is the fundamental fact of reality. As the hobo's mind is subject to His, so are the hobo's values and meaning subject to His.


Sure it can. Why must a rational being value itself? Oh I see:

In short, because it is a slave to emotions. That's what desire or preference is. A whim. It is not rooted in logic, it's rooted in subjective emotions poorly disguised as logic. Chemicals running through your brain.
Because rational beings cannot deny it, it is objective, not subjective. On the other hand, you seem to be assuming your conclusion, that all values are subjective. You almost seem to be promoting materialism. There is more to reality than mere quantity.


"Something that is desired is something that is good and right."
Charles Manson desires murder, therefore murder is good and right.
No, subjective values are not therefore objectively good and right. If Charles Manson values murder, then he perceives murder as good. But he is objectively wrong.


Or, if you want to get technical:
If something cannot be denied by a rational being, then it can be said to be objective.
A rational being cannot deny that murder is a value (see Charles Manson as an example)
A rational being cannot deny that pacifism is a value (see Ghandi as an example)
I agree that that would be absurd. But that does not correspond to what I'm saying. Murder can be rationally denied as a value. That some contingent being values it does not imply that rational beings cannot deny it.


The obvious problem with using emotions like preference or desire as a barometer for objective morality is that they contradict each other
I never said that all preferences or desires are a barometer for objective morality. I agree that would be contradictory.


"Destroying something good is wrong except" means "destroying something good is wrong" itself is not true since there are exceptions. To further go back, it means that it's not wrong to destroy something that cannot be denied by a rational being. This destroys the branch of objectivism that leads to objective morality.
It's not an exception. It is always true that "all else being equal, destroying the good is wrong." The fuller statement of principle, again, has to do with the exchange of greater and lesser goods. What else is evil but the destruction of a greater value for a lesser one (or no value at all)--that is, the anti-good? Using an oversimplification to refute my position is irrelevant. (Though I may have unfortunately used the oversimplification myself.) True, it is possible that if a value (such as a rational being's life) were somehow superceded by a greater value, then it's destruction would not necessarily be wrong in that context. (Also, truth being sensitive to context does not make it non-objective. Likewise objective morality is context-sensitive, and yet objective.)

Also, I did not say that "something that cannot be denied by a rational being" is a value. Unless, by that we simply mean objective truth in general. In which case an argument may be made that truth and honesty are values/virtues. And I didn't say that something being objective makes it an objective value.

[joel]

In my daily life, I don't see how someone else's investments are affecting me at all.

Surely you don't produce all your food from your own raw resources, and likewise acquire water, shelter, clothing, and health care? Surely you would not have nearly the standard of living you have now if you did. You are currently dependent upon the investment of others.


And I don't have a problem with the way that welfare is now. You're coming from the perspective that there is something wrong with it, so it is you who has to present solutions, not me.I'm not sure why doing what we did in the past is the default, and somehow free from burden of proof. What I said applies to evaluating the options for future action. If we want to apply the same to past actions, I could say that it seems most likely that, in the past, welfare has made those whom it was intended to help worse off than they would have been otherwise, and thus foolhardy. And even in the remote chance that it did make them better off than they would be otherwise, it is not clear that it outweighs the immorality of such use of force. Thus I can condemn such past action and such action in the future.

[Zero Tolerance]

I don't see how helping individuals in need leaves them "worse off." You're still speaking in general terms. How can you say that welfare in all its aspects is a failure? Isn't that just a universal conservative stance rather than a fact? You're still saying that welfare is BAD, and you have yet to say WHY.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The only people who seem to be "suffering" are taxpayers, and if they can pay the tax, they will be alright. If they're struggling, then they should take advantage of some of the government programs that they've invested in with their tax monies.

[joel]

I don't see how helping individuals in need leaves them "worse off." You're still speaking in general terms. How can you say that welfare in all its aspects is a failure? Isn't that just a universal conservative stance rather than a fact? You're still saying that welfare is BAD, and you have yet to say WHY.

I did tell you why in my first post to you (post #102). I'll reiterate. First, I have not said that making someone better off makes them worse off. That would be a contradiction. Rather, I'm talking about actions that are done with good intentions (to make people better off) but are actually counter-productive (makes those very people worse off). I praise and respect you for your good intentions. I definitely do not want to change your mind in that respect. But good intentions are not sufficient; you need to consider the practical effects of an action. Welfare hurts (makes worse off than otherwise) the people it is intended to help in several ways. For example:
It creates moral hazard for the people other than those you are trying to help. Making one's fellow men (i.e., the fellow men of the people you are trying to help) worse people makes the person you are trying to help worse off.
It makes would-be charitable people less charitable and less able to give.
It reduces the availability of goods and services on the market for those that you're trying to help.
It increases the prices of goods and services
It decreases wages and job opportunities
It creates moral hazard for the people you're trying to help, thus harming their character--their souls--as well as increasing their neediness.The above things also tend toward increasing (rather than decreasing) the number of needy people, because these negative things affect also people who would not have been needy otherwise, but now makes them needy. For example, suppose a family would have gotten by, but now prices are higher and their wages are lower (as well as, perhaps, their taxes being higher), so now they can't get by. And so now, rather than reducing poverty, you have increased it.

That is, it seems more likely than not that the above costs outweigh the benefit to those you intend to help (e.g., the cash you place in their hands). If you want further explanation on any individual point, I would be glad to discuss it.

And again, this is all besides the fact that I think that this kind of use of force (ultimately backed by violence) is immoral (even if it weren't counterproductive). Also one ought to consider the inefficiency of government programs, which will tend to exacerbate the costs listed above.


If they're struggling, then they should take advantage of some of the government programs that they've invested in with their tax monies.

You seem to be already aware, in this statement, that welfare programs would tend to make people needy who would not have been needy otherwise. So then the welfare program will need to expand to include these additional people. But the expansion will make yet more people needy, requiring yet another expansion of welfare, and so on until everyone is in poverty. But then there will be no one left to take wealth from to fund the welfare program.

[Sheepdog]

In that case, I would actually need surplus monies to "invest."

like, say, a 401K or a pension?

Notwithstanding, hundreds of thousands of people just lost millions of dollars in said investments; I personally know some who have lost hundreds of thousands. Nevermind, I'm not interested in losing money. The way you use "invest" sounds more like "gamble."if you aren't interested you can always just put your money in your mattress. bear in mind inflation runs about 3 - 5% in good times, so in effect you are losing 3 - 5% of your accumulated wealth every year. and now that the government is spending like a drunken sailor, and is about to spend like a drunken sailor on steroids (more bailouts and stimuli), expect inflation to be even higher in the next few years. It could break 10 - 12% like under the Carter admin. Can you imagine, losing 10% of your purchasing power every single year?

OTOH, the market has over all been consistently up 5 - 10% per year average. if you put money in a conservative mutual fund 5 years ago, you are pretty much guaranteed to be up 5 years from now, even despite the current market. this is hardly Law Vegas, here.

To say that "people who don't invest don't matter" is ignorant. Not that I'm accusing you of this, but I have heard it. People who don't invest vote, and they care about getting taxed as much as the rich do, and guess what, there are far more "have nots" than there are "haves." irrelevant. even so, if you have a retirement fund other than social security, like most of the middle class, then you do invest.

The reasons for Detroit's plight are imbricated, but if you want to choose one thing that ruined the schools in Detroit, it isn't the way that the city funds its schools because the resources were there when they put that system in place.it's not just urban Detroit. even in suburbia, the quality of education has stagnated or declined despite the regular increase of funds to schools.

It's the white flight that has been persistent since the riots of 1967, where many whites would flee inner-city Detroit towards the suburbs and create "havens" there with vocational and educational opportunity that the (mostly black) population can't access for reasons that far exceed the scope of this topic, but if you're really interested in the history of Detroit, read Sidney Fine's Violence in the Model City then Reynolds Farley, Sheldon Danziger, and Harry J. Holzer's Detroit Divided and you will at least have your own virtual Masters Degree in the history of the city of Detroit (I would suggest more, but reading Fine's virtual encyclopedia is ambitious enough!!!). the whites didn't fly without reason, and certainly it wasn't just due to racism. i wonder if you sources cover that.


I have a problem with your usage of "pro-choice" because "pro-choice" is unparallel to "pro-life" (The subject of abortion is about killing babies, bottom line. Save all that "rights" rhetoric for a Confederate states empathizer).you make my point in such an amazingly cogent manner i am at a loss at how you you don't get it...

Additionally, I use "anti-tax" to recognize those against the "redistribution of wealth."... hence your use of "anti-tax" is as meaningless as "pro-choice." both are rampant misnomers for the purpose of skewing the perception of the debate without adding further content.


Your comments here suggest a longing to return to what, the pre-FDR days when the poor were just S.O.L?

vs. the present-FDR days, where everyone was just SOL, rich, poor, and middle alike?

No thanks. I would think that in the 21st century, a country like the US would be able to take care of its own regardless of individual citizen ability or ambition.ability is moot here. that you don't consider whether the government should be in the position to "take care of its own" in the first place is telling.

Considering the history of the US, I have very little faith that private sectors would step up to take the place of what you call "the welfare state." Prisons are already overcrowded. then you need to relearn your US history. I'd start with Amity Sheal's The Forgotten Man, which outlines in painful detail the disastrous policies of the New Deal and how they aggravated the Depression. then, you can look into the relationship between welfare, single motherhood, and the many generations of people who've been locked into a cycle of poverty.

anyways, since you totally missed my point, let me ask you directly: how do you think the poor got by in the 6 thousand years of written history before the existance of the modern welfare state?


In that case, what adjustments would you make?
minimalize it to temporary unemployment benefits, and benefits to people who are permanently incompacitated in a way that makes them unable to work. there are other ideas i'll consider for extenuating circumstances, but the general principle is contained in the proverb, "if a man doesn't work, he shouldn't eat" (2Th 3)

Manhattan, because it would make people go deep into their hearts like how I perceived 9/11 did. And I wouldn't be out of a job, because I work in an industry that's necessary for places like Manhattan to even exist. If a meteor hit Hollywood, in the end, it would be like, "so what," as long as all the pollutants do not shroud the earth's atmosphere, resulting in the death of everyone.unless you are in government work, you would be out of a job. who finances your industry? who finances them? even if you are in government work, you'd be out of a job. how will the government pay you now that all those rich people who paid the taxes are dead?

to talk about how, say, Manhattan depends on your industry without recognizing that your industry likewise depends on Manhattan (and/or other places) shows how grossly ignorant you are about how the economy works. everything is dependant on something else, and everything is interdependant. no man's an island, so the saying goes.


Obviously *I* do, which is why I vote, and why I favor "taxing the rich."if anyone had any doubt that you are part of the problem, this statement has sumarilly and thoroughly removed it.

Bush's tax cuts have nothing to do with my employment because it has very little to do with what goes on on Wall Street or Capital Hill. are you some sort of fur trader, travelling up and down the Mississippi on a wooden raft? you don't have to tell my what you do, just don't suppose that you can separate yourself from the general economy so easily.

and please, please don't tell me you are in retail. the 2003 tax cuts have been helping everyone who paid income taxes. if you work in an industry that is affected increased purchasing power, whether lower or upper class, they did affect your industry positively in some manner. (oh, and "welfare recipient" doesn't count as an industry :wink:)

I repeat, high gas and ect. will be all that I remember from the Bush administration.Yeah and....? The Bush admin is done. over. finito. fin. kaput. in 12 days we will have a Democrat administration and a Democrat Congress. If you thought the Bush admin was a roller coaster ride, you ain't seen nutin yet.




now, one last question. Zero, do you believe that the purpose of taxation is to punish those who are successful and prudent with their money while subsidizing mediocrity (at best) and laziness (at worst), rather than to simply fund public services that everyone benefits from? why or why not?