Thread: Do you have the right to say that a “rich” person isn’t paying enough taxes?

Originally Posted by Reiver

My stance is based on logic and common sense, and it is a stance that respects the boundaries set forth on the government by the Constitution of this country.

Its based on blathering about righteousness, rather than embedding it- with validity- within an economic argument.

Wrong again. My stance is indeed based upon logic, common sense, and the established understanding of morality/immorality. For example, in the Christian faith, one of the seven deadly sins is "Envy." In the Jewish faith, the 10th Commandment states that "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Thus, when you speak of morality, clearly there is a difference in morality when illustrating a "rich" man working hard to make money for his family and a poorer envious man who believes that he is somehow entitled to this rich man's money. According to Judeo-Christian values, a poor man who is envious of a richer man's wealth is clearly committing a sin, and is thereby immoral. Thus, you were incorrect in stating that there was a moral equivalency between the two.

Equality, at least if we pretend that your argument has any resemblance of economic reality, can refer to opportunity or outcome. On both counts you're on a loser.

If you understood the content of my prior post, you would know that I was referring to equality of treatment (e.g. the same rules applied equally to all citizens).

There's no objectivity in your stance. Its purely based on one (easily rejected) morality splurge.

Wrong. Being a proponent for equality is the epitome of objectivity.

This is a cretinous comment. First, how can wealth redistribution fail? That makes no sense.

How does it make no sense? Why don't you show me an example of a successful Socialist nation?

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

Commie-Nazi!

Starting out a rebuttal with juvenile namecalling is never the sign of a strong debater.

To make your comment even less intelligent, the fact is I am a Jewish libertarian (which is as far away as Communism and Nazism as you can get)

Equality is not taxing a black man more than a white man.

Yes, equality is indeed not taxing a black man more than a white man. However, it is ALSO not taxing a surgeon more than a coal miner. Certainly you do understand that equality can be about things other than race, right?

The owners of the principle means of production can set their own income to pay any tax and pass it on in the cost of goods and services.

You clearly have no idea how modern society functions in regards to economics. How does a surgeon, who is defined by the POTUS as "rich," have the ability to "set his own income" if he is merely just an employee of a hospital? That makes absolutely no sense.

Anyone (not damaged) can qualify under the rules (of our progressive tax system) to make millions

And Black people still could achieve success in the Jim Crow South, but in both cases there is still INEQUALITY.

but since some can inherit millions they did not make there is an inequality.

Why is this inequality? If a parent works his butt off for his children (to ensure that have all of the opportunities that he never had) and accumulates a large amount of wealth (and pays a proportionately large amount of taxes on this wealth) then why shouldn't that parent have the right to utilize that money to raise them with all of the necessities and luxuries as he sees fit? And if the parent died, why should't he be able to leave this money to his children when he passes away so his dream of giving them a better life can be fulfilled?

Similarly, if a child inherits great genetic gifts, like being 6'10" and natural athletic talents, then why can't he capitalize on these gifts and make millions of dollars playing B-ball for the NBA? According to you, this is "inequality" in the same sense.

Not everyone can qualify under the rules of providence to have good genes, but apparently some can support equality of genes for perfect equality of inheritance.

I honestly don't understand the point that you are trying to get across here.

There will always be an inequality of birth, unless you "Imagine" the commie or Nazi way applied to equality: from each according to their genes to each according to their need for them in the breeding program, or a final solution to the inequality of genes.

This "inequality of birth" applies not only to genetics, but to parental wealth. Both are similar in many respects, and it would be foolish to punish the beneficiaries of either.

Since anyone can qualify under the rules and be rich or poor, whether through the inequality of inheritance or earned income, therefore, there is no inequality in taxing the rich at a higher rate through property taxes

Ummm, I don't know where you are from, but where I live, property taxes ALREADY EXIST, and are astronomically high.

and redistributing some to those who suffer under the inequality of inheritance (income or genes).

How do you tax inherited superior genetic ability? How do you deal with the vast distributions of parental income, which will lead to "inequality of birth"? After all, the parents' income has already been taxed?

If you want equality, and an end to entitlement income, end the inequality of inheritance, and make us all live in Hillary's village home equally cloned and raised by the State

I have a better idea. Let's merely acknowledge the fact that no two people are born with equal genetics or with parents with equal wealth, and it is not feasible (or possible) to change this. Instead, we can focus on equal application of the rules, such as equal rates of taxes or everyone, regardless of wealth. This way, we can ensure that with equal application of the rules, there is an objective sense of fairness. Also, by applying the rules equally, we ensure equal opportunities for all, and we also ensure that those that have achieved through hard work are not being unfairly punished for their success.

Originally Posted by Meta777

How do you measure the value of social services?

It is easy for things like Medicare/Medicaid. Merely look how much the person contributed into the system (adjusted for inflation). Then compare this to the cost of the healthcare service that was provided to them through the Medicare or Medicaid system. If you provided $10,000 into the system and have received $1,000,000 worth of care, then clearly you are benefiting off other taxpayers' money.

Federal unemployment benefits are calculated in the same respect. If you only put in $1000 into the system and are getting a bi-monthy check of $500 over the course of 99 weeks, then clearly you are a burden on the system.

For things like the armed services, border protection, water purification systems, interstate roads, etc, it is much more difficult to measure the individualized value. After all, the value that we each get from these services is quite abstract and, in most cases, impossible to measure.

And how do determine who that value should be attributed to?

For specific things like welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and foodstamps, it is quite obvious that we attribute these costs to those people receiving a direct benefit from them.

Is it possible for an individual to pass some of that value on to someone else?

What exactly do you mean by this? Show me an example of how you believe that value can be passed onto someone else.

I measure it in wealth and well being, but mostly wealth.
I believe there are only two ways that wealth can be created, by nature or by labor.
Given any individual, I believe it can be said that 100% of the wealth they own either comes from their own labor,
the labor of their family (including close friends), nature, or the labor of society.
I measure social benefits as any benefit that does not come directly from the individual in question, a family member, or nature.

I agree that my wealth comes from my personal labor and the labor of my family (e.g. through inheritance or spouse's labor), but I don't see how societal labor can accrue my personal net wealth. Can you provide an example of how the "labor of society" affects an individual's wealth?

Originally Posted by drj90210

My stance is indeed based upon logic, common sense, and the established understanding of morality/immorality.

A logical argument would be based on economic analysis, which will necessarily encompass both efficiency and equity criteria. There is no economics in your argument and therefore it is, without doubt, morality splurge that is quite alien to logic.

If you understood the content of my prior post, you would know that I was referring to equality of treatment (e.g. the same rules applied equally to all citizens).

Equality of treatment would have to take into account the marginal utility of income. There's none of that in your stance. You essentially want to see more harm on the poorer deciles purely out of a skewed sense of morality.

Originally Posted by drj90210

Wrong again. My stance is indeed based upon logic, common sense, and the established understanding of morality/immorality. For example, in the Christian faith, one of the seven deadly sins is "Envy." In the Jewish faith, the 10th Commandment states that "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

Thus, when you speak of morality, clearly there is a difference in morality when illustrating a "rich" man working hard to make money for his family and a poorer envious man who believes that he is somehow entitled to this rich man's money. According to Judeo-Christian values, a poor man who is envious of a richer man's wealth is clearly committing a sin, and is thereby immoral. Thus, you were incorrect in stating that there was a moral equivalency between the two.... Why don't you show me an example of a successful Socialist nation?

1) Most earnings of rich people, such as Bill Gates, are probably invested rather than consumed. The opposite is true for poor people.

2) Bolshevik revolutionary morality, by the way, described at;

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kow...03_father.html

as I have posted in another thread.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

Originally Posted by drj90210

Yes, equality is indeed not taxing a black man more than a white man. However, it is ALSO not taxing a surgeon more than a coal miner. Certainly you do understand that equality can be about things other than race, right?

Romney is not actually a real surgeon. That's just his fudge making outfit.




In all seriousness though, if its not OK to tax a surgeon more than a coal miner,
why is it then OK to tax a coal miner more than an entrepreneur???

The owners of the principle means of production can set their own income to pay any tax and pass it on in the cost of goods and services.

How does a surgeon, who is defined by the POTUS as "rich," have the ability to "set his own income" if he is merely just an employee of a hospital? That makes absolutely no sense.

He doesn't, unless he or she owns the hospital that he or she works in.
DivineComedy is talking about the people at the top of the totem pole.
Not the people in the middle who just happen to make a lot of money.
Those who own the means of production have a great amount of control over their income and over the income of others.
The only thing that challenges their control is the government, and to a much smaller extent, unions.

I personally am not against individuals having some such control,
but if these means of production are something of which every one of us will need in order to survive,
do we really want complete control of these things to rest in the hands of a select number of individual's who's only goal is to increase their own wealth?

-Meta

Originally Posted by drj90210

It is easy for things like Medicare/Medicaid. Merely look how much the person contributed into the system (adjusted for inflation). Then compare this to the cost of the healthcare service that was provided to them through the Medicare or Medicaid system. If you provided $10,000 into the system and have received $1,000,000 worth of care, then clearly you are benefiting off other taxpayers' money.

Federal unemployment benefits are calculated in the same respect. If you only put in $1000 into the system and are getting a bi-monthy check of $500 over the course of 99 weeks, then clearly you are a burden on the system.

For things like the armed services, border protection, water purification systems, interstate roads, etc, it is much more difficult to measure the individualized value. After all, the value that we each get from these services is quite abstract and, in most cases, impossible to measure.

They are somewhat abstract, but I would not say they are impossible to measure. One just has to measure them abstractly.

Take an intestate road for instance. Let's say we want to measure how much value there is in having it.

With no road, let's say a person employes a transporter to transport $5 worth of corn an hour to a convenience store.
Because of the convenience of having the corn where it is more easily accessible, people are willing to buy the corn for $7.
So in this case, we can say the transporter adds $2 worth of value to $5 worth of corn simply by transporting it or $2 per hour.

If we then build a road which for the same amount of effort enables the transporter to transport three times as much corn in an hour,
that's $15 worth of corn an hour which people will buy at the store for $21.

Since the transporter still contributes the same amount of effort, we can say that he is contributing $2 an hour.
If $15 worth of corn is transported to the store every hour and marked up to $21,
then the value added by the road is simply the final mark up value minus the value added by the transporter and the original value of the corn.
$21 - $15 - $2 = $4. So in this abstract example, the road creates $4 worth of value each hour corn is being transported over it.

-Meta

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

Of course they have a right... But it's disturbingly unethical what people are advocating when they advocate wealth redistribution.

1) Where does it say in the Great Book of Ethics that it is unethical to advocate for wealth redistribution. 2) What do you suppose lobbies are doing if not arguing for wealth redistribution?

And how do you determine who that value should be attributed to?

For specific things like welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and foodstamps, it is quite obvious that we attribute these costs to those people receiving a direct benefit from them.

OK, and what about things like armed services, border protection, water purification systems, and interstate roads?
Or state services such as police, firefighters, public schools and public roads and bridges?

Is it possible for an individual to pass some of that value on to someone else?

What exactly do you mean by this? Show me an example of how you believe that value can be passed onto someone else.

If someone goes to school, gets an education, and becomes employed, does not some of the value of that education get passed on to the employer?
Same thing with health care. Do employers not benefit from having a healthy work force? That is what I mean by value being passed from one to another.

I measure it in wealth and well being, but mostly wealth.
I believe there are only two ways that wealth can be created, by nature or by labor.
Given any individual, I believe it can be said that 100% of the wealth they own either comes from their own labor,
the labor of their family (including close friends), nature, or the labor of society.
I measure social benefits as any benefit that does not come directly from the individual in question, a family member, or nature.

I agree that my wealth comes from my personal labor and the labor of my family (e.g. through inheritance or spouse's labor), but I don't see how societal labor can accrue my personal net wealth. Can you provide an example of how the "labor of society" affects an individual's wealth?

If an individual employs or otherwise makes an investment in anyone other than themselves or a family member and then subsequently profits for such an action,
the individual can be said to be benefiting from the existence of society which is outside a limited circle of family members.

-Meta

Originally Posted by Meta777

OK, and what about things like armed services, border protection, water purification systems, and interstate roads?
Or state services such as police, firefighters, public schools and public roads and bridges?


If someone goes to school, gets an education, and becomes employed, does not some of the value of that education get passed on to the employer?
Same thing with health care. Do employers not benefit from having a healthy work force? That is what I mean by value being passed from one to another.


If an individual employs or otherwise makes an investment in anyone other than themselves or a family member and then subsequently profits for such an action,
the individual can be said to be benefiting from the existence of society which is outside a limited circle of family members.

-Meta

And a lot of employers make millions off of having a good system of roads so it is cheaper to ship and sell their products. A self employed trucker might only make 40,000. So roads do help those who are rich more than someone who is not, and the rich should pay a little more in taxes because of that.