Tax The Rich?

[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.
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 (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.

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.

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. 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. 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, 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, 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.