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

Originally Posted by Roy L

No, your claim is not only false and illogical, but irrelevant.

You replied to a comment that referred directly to home owners. Perhaps you should be more precise? You're clearly using imprecision to try and make grand claim when you know you haven't got the knowledge to support it

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I understood his argument. It makes sense to me.

So, it makes sense to you that by owning a bit of residential land in the location where one dwells, one then has control of much larger areas of commercial and/or industrial land and/or capital goods in a different location where one works?

No wonder I can't get through to you: you have no concept of logic, implication, causation, or what is relevant and irrelevant in economic relationships.

Let's cut through the desperate blagging. Here's the key exhange again:

Comment: So anyone who owns land controls the means of production? So every home owner controls the means of production.

Reply: Some of it. Don't be obtuse.

That's an oops moment that only describes how Georgists, ignorant of the labour market, are prone to making very basic error. Home ownership, through its effects on mobility, can increase exploitation. A result quite alien to control of the means of production

Originally Posted by danielpalos

In a more perfect "commune" a guy may get issued a girlfriend, for the good of the State.

That guy might not be happy with their selection. And she mightb not be happy with him as well.
.

Originally Posted by drj90210

You are sidestepping that the concept of utility (or satisfaction) is a 100% subjective concept. You are also neglecting the question of why such a subjective issue should even be considered when it comes to taxation. Shouldn't we instead just tax people at equal rates? This way, equality is applied and the poor will be paying less (in amount) than the wealthy.

It may depend on the amount, under our current regime, since those of your point of view tend to discount anything but federal income taxes in your point of view; in my opinion, that is a form of special pleading since income taxes are not the only taxes levied, even disproportionately on the less wealthy.

Why should anyone have any problem with economic forms of discrimination, under any form of Capitalism, where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

Originally Posted by Roy L

So, it makes sense to you that by owning a bit of residential land in the location where one dwells, one then has control of much larger areas of commercial and/or industrial land and/or capital goods in a different location where one works?

No wonder I can't get through to you: you have no concept of logic, implication, causation, or what is relevant and irrelevant in economic relationships.

That wasn't what he was saying; he was referring to social and potentially upward mobility and the influence of home ownership.

Originally Posted by kowalskil

That guy might not be happy with their selection. And she mightb not be happy with him as well.
.

In a more perfect commune, that may not be a problem; however, how does that compare to loveless marriages under any form of Capitalism.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Let's cut through the desperate blagging.

Let's see how dishonest Reiver can be:

Here's the key exhange again:

Comment: So anyone who owns land controls the means of production? So every home owner controls the means of production.

Reply: Some of it. Don't be obtuse.

That's an oops moment

No, it is not. It simply reminds him of a fact he was trying to lie about. You are being dishonest, as you always have to be when fallaciously attacking me for identifying facts of economics that you find inconvenient to your false beliefs.

that only describes how Georgists, ignorant of the labour market, are prone to making very basic error.

Please explain how identifying the indisputable fact that a homeowner only owns some of the means of production, not "the means of production" constitutes a "very basic error." Either that, or admit that you are just lying again.

Home ownership, through its effects on mobility, can increase exploitation. A result quite alien to control of the means of production

No, that's just more stupid, dishonest garbage from you. You are now very stupidly and dishonestly claiming that exploitation of a laborer who owns a single share of corporate stock would be "quite alien to [his] control of the means of production." You will have to present some evidence for that claim, and be sure to include proper references.

Originally Posted by drj90210

O_o A full time coal miner can making anywhere from 30K to 100K + a year
and on that income will be taxed a progressive tax which will be more depending on how much money they make.
Your typical full time entrepreneur can make anywhere from 40K to 191K + a year for their 'work', but they will pay a 15% flat tax on their income regardless of how much money they make.
If you're truly for tax equality, then why not tax everything based on the same set of rules?

...The small business owner has other taxes and fees that he must pay that the coal miner (an employee) doesn’t even have to consider. So you are not comparing one employee’s income tax with another. Rather, you are comparing the income tax of an employee with the taxes of a small business owner.

drj, a full time entrepreneur is not necessarily a small business owner.
In any case, everyone has expenses to pay, why advocate for a different set of rules based on who has what personal expenses?

Why should employees be taxed at higher rates than business owners?

Well rich is a relative term. Its difficult if not impossible to identify a particular income level above which one is rich and below which one is not.

Agreed, but our current POTUS did just that and declared that a “rich” single person is anyone grossing more than $200,000 and a “rich” married couple is any couple grossing more than $250,000. Hence, it is under this context that I am describing the “rich” in America.

So, is that how you define a rich person then?
Regardless, I've been specifically referring to the owners of the means of production, not simply rich people in general.

-Meta

Roy L and Reiver, I think you two may be in sever agreement with each-other.
You just can't see it.