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

Originally Posted by drj90210

So I need to include a detailed economic analysis that nobody will understand in order for my argument to be logical?

You merely need to refer to economic efficiency. Without it you only have morality based foot stamping. If you're happy with limiting your argument to such nonsense then so be it!

Marginal utility of income is based on a relative scale (and thus is a subjective measure), and has nothing do do with a discussion on equality, which is objective.

The concept informs us that you want to treat people differently. You want taxes to impact more heavily on some compared to others. Referring to equality makes zero sense

Originally Posted by drj90210

Is Bill Gates an average rich person? No.
Is Bill Gates' immense wealth thereby comparable to the wealth of an "average" rich person (e.g. a lawyer grossing $205,000 per year)? No.

Thus, by using the world's richest man to illustrate average "rich people," you are making a hugely unfair comparison.

What was "unfair" in my objective observation?

Ludwik Kowalski
.

Originally Posted by kowalskil

What was "unfair" in my objective observation?

You said, "Most earnings of rich people, such as Bill Gates, are probably invested rather than consumed. The opposite is true for poor people." I merely responded that it is unfair to compare Bill Gates, who is currently the world's second richest person, with the average "rich person." It would be like comparing a man who is 10 pounds overweight with Manuel Uribe (one of the world's fattest men alive).

Originally Posted by Reiver

You merely need to refer to economic efficiency. Without it you only have morality based foot stamping. If you're happy with limiting your argument to such nonsense then so be it!

Sorry, logic and common sense are not "nonsense." And, why don't you take your own advice, since it was YOU that responded with statements like, "Those arguing against higher taxes on the 'rich' are simply guilty of low powered morality splurge" ("low powerered morality splurge" does not seem like a term commonly used in the world of economics ) Hence, it was YOU who began talking about morality, so I merely responded with the Judeo-Christian consensus on morality, which sees envy as a sin. So please, stop trying to change the argument.

The concept informs us that you want to treat people differently.

So to you equality means treating people differently? How strange.

You want taxes to impact more heavily on some compared to others. Referring to equality makes zero sense

"Impact" is a very subjective term. I believe that if we are benefiting equally from the federal goverment, then we should be paying the same amount (or rate) of taxes. To me, that is the definition of equality AND fairness, and refering to equality, in this case, makes all of the sense in the world.

Originally Posted by drj90210

Sorry, logic and common sense are not "nonsense."

You haven't got logic. You only have morality rant independent of economic comment. I prefer reference to economic efficiency as I'm motivated by economic rationality

"Impact" is a very subjective term.

Are you going to deny that we see diminishing marginal utility of income? I'd love to see you do that. You non-economic right wingers do have a habit of attacking supply and demand, without thought.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Are you going to deny that we see diminishing marginal utility of income?

Marginal utility of income: The change in utility resulting from a given change in income.
Utility: Satisfaction

You are again sidestepping my previous argument that YOU are dealing with terms that are entirley subjective while I am talking about equality (same rules applied equally to all parties), which is an objective concept.

How Orwellian to describe a system where some are impacted more than others as equitable.

Diminishing marginal utility of income is terminology, all but universally agreed upon by those in the field, your attempts to characterize it as anything else is futile and foolish.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

How Orwellian to describe a system where some are impacted more than others as equitable.

Diminishing marginal utility of income is terminology, all but universally agreed upon by those in the field, your attempts to characterize it as anything else is futile and foolish.

You would be completely redefining the term if you were to describe it as anything other than a purely subjective concept that varies from person to person. Also, while there is nothing Orwellian about "equality", there is certainly something Orwellian about discussing "impact?" Who gets to determine this concept of "impact?" You? President Obama? Now THAT'S Orwellian.

Originally Posted by drj90210

Who gets to determine this concept of "impact?"

It's really not a difficult concept to understand. Take a look at the paper I recommended to Taxpayer.

That income has marginally varying utility is simply a statement of fact.

Originally Posted by drj90210

You are again sidestepping my previous argument that YOU are dealing with terms that are entirley subjective while I am talking about equality (same rules applied equally to all parties), which is an objective concept.

You're ignoring economic reality in order to peddle a morality that clearly isn't equitable. There's no debate in that. Its of course worse as you're also inconsistent with economic efficiency. That essentially means you're prepared to coerce an inferior outcome.