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

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.

 

Applying the same rules equally to all citizens isn't "equitable" according to you? I think somebody needs a dictionary.
Equitable: (adjective) - characterized by equity or fairness; just and right; fair; reasonable: (e.g. equitable treatment of all citizens.)

According to the dictionary, it seems that the morality that I am "peddling" meet the defintion of equitable.

You are again sidestepping the fact that you were advocating a skewed version of morality that looked the extremely abstract and subjective concept of marginal utility while I am simply talking about adhering to standards of equal rules applied to all taxpayers.

 

You're not asking for equal treatment. You're asking for taxes to impose more harm on the poorer income deciles than on the richer ones. Talking about objectivity is a nonsense as, to maintain your demand for unequal treatment, you have to ignore economic reality.

My position is based on economic efficiency. Your position is reliant on ignoring reality and attacking supply/demand. That has led you to come out with a morality splurge that doesn't understand equity and will undoubtedly harm economic well-being.

 

Again, I am asking for equal application of the rules. Such philosphy is as objective as it gets. You, on the other hand, are now talking about "harm," which is a very subjective concept.

Your position is based on an economic philosphy that relies on a subjective interpretion of utility. I don't want our government to levy taxes based on a completely arbitrary calcution of marginal utility and estimations of satisfaction. This would be plain silly. Rather, I would prefer a system where we are all taxed at equal rates (Flat Tax). Better yet, let's get rid of the income tax altogether and implement a national sales tax (Fair Tax), where consumption of superfluous items is taxed. These systems actually deal with taxation in an equitable way.

 

Nope, you are asking for unequal treatment as you want to impose more harm on those on lower income. You're also aware of that result as you cannot dismiss the relevancce of supply and demand. Stickinh cheese in your ears and refusing to acknowledge economic reality just won't wash. That only describes that your subjectivity is prepared to ignore economic outcome in order to peddle a non-economic dodgy sense of righteousness

My stance is based on economic reality. That ensures its alien to your approach, but also ensures that any evaluation of tax policy on efficiency and/or equity grounds is supportable.

 

Not unless your goal is to do more harm to some than others.

 

Yeah, only us rich people should be allowed to question the wisdom of paying us trillions of dollars for doing nothing, or advocate that we should pay more tax. People who aren't rich are losers. They have no right to talk about people who are better than them.

The best system would be if the government issued a fixed number of speech licenses, and people had to buy a license to express their opinions. Then only people who had already proved they were worthy to have opinions by having enough money to buy a license would be able to express them. It would be a system of equal speech opportunity for all, with no discrimination, because anyone would be free to buy a speech license from any of the current license holders who wanted to sell them one.

Yes, the nerve of these people is astonishing! Here we rich go to so much trouble and expense to conceal our financial affairs from public scrutiny, and yet these babbling know-it-alls think they can pass judgment on us without knowing all the facts we decide they can have!

And it certainly isn't relevant that we pocket an even larger percentage of the benefits government spending creates.

And you furthermore don't know all the details we consider it better not to let you know?

 

Again, who determines this subjective "harm" that you are referring to?

 

I usually only respond to coherent sentences and arguments, but I’ll be nice and give this a try. What exactly do you mean by this inarticulate mess that you wrote? Are you saying that a “rich” physician saving lives is getting paid for “doing nothing” or that an investment banker working 80 hours per week is “doing nothing?” Explain yourself.

I never came remotely close in saying that people who aren’t “rich” are losers (I personally am not “rich&#8221 so please stop this strawman argument BS.

If you had the brainpower to understand my OP, then you would realize that I feel that in a free society, you have no justification for advocating that SOMEONE ELSE should pay more taxes than you, just because they are richer than you. Regardless of income, we are all benefiting from Constitutionally-sanctioned government services (interstate roads, military, etc) equally, and thus there is no justification for demanding that the “rich” pay more in taxes.
Demanding that another group pay more than you for the same federal services is the epitome of inequality and is a childish argument because you are seperating youself from the group that you pass judgment on. Unless you state that EVERYONE (including yourself) should pay more in taxes, then you are advocating a juvenile position of inequality where you exclude yourself from another part of the population that you deem should be punished by higher taxation.

Yeah, because my OP was all about freedom of speech. You’ve gone off the deep end here buddy.

Yes. So is their level of immaturity.

Again you didn’t understand a word that I wrote, and you went on your own little tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my OP.

This is 100% false.

Again, what in the world are you talking about? The point that I was making is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the intimate details of the lives of an entire population. Heck, you probably do not know the intimate details of the lives of you close friends. That’s my point. Since you are not a member of the cross-section of the population that you pass judgment on AND since you cannot possibly know the intimate details of their lives, then how can you possibly make such sweeping judgment on so many people?

 

Where are you getting your stats because the IRS disagrees with you - http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners (I know it's Heritage.org, but their data comes from the IRS).

Absolutely false. Income is taxed on a progressive scale: If you make more, then you will pay more in taxes.

 

You source is only income taxes, which make up only about 43% of all federal taxes.

Not true for investment taxes. They are taxed at a maximum rate of 15%, regardless how much you make.

the top 400 garner a much larger share of their income form investments, and get this special privileged low rate for more of their income.

 

First of all, this thread is about the legitimacy in demanding that the wealthy pay more in INCOME TAX, so it is quite relevant to state the statistics regarding who pays the vast majority of income tax in this country. Second, Starcraftzzz did not have a source of the statistics that he posted.

Right, and where did the the investment money come from? Obviously it MUST have initially come from income, which means at one point in time, it was indeed taxed at the highest marginal rates. Comparing the long term capital gains tax and income tax is like comparing apples and oranges.

The Obama administration defines "rich" as any single person grossing more than $200,000 or a married couple grossing more than $250,000, which is a FAR cry from the top 400, all of whom are multibillionaires. Since, under Obama's definition of "rich", the vast majority of "rich" make closer to $200,000 in annual income, it is disingenuous to only talk about the Warren Buffets and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

 

So your entire source is far leftwing websites and blogs? What a surprise.

 

I'm sorry, where did it say in the OP this thread was only about the INCOME TAX? I must have missed that.

And Starcraftzzz's post said nothing about his stats being the INCOME TAX.

Where it comes from is irrelevant to the issue of whether it is regressive, which it is.

And second, it didn't necessarily come form income, but especially for the richest who have investements, most of it probably came from capital gains, which are not taxed. So your "obviously" statement MUST be wrong.

Finally, I agree that comparing investment income and earnings income is apples and oranges. The latter was earned.

I'm not aware of such a definition. Could you please cite me to the source where the Obama administration defines "rich" as any single person grossing more than $200,000 or a married couple grossing more than $250,000.

Thank you.

But that doesn't make it disingenuous to talk about the richest 400 or Warren or Mark or Mitt at all.

 

The Murdoch owned WSJ is a far left wing website?

That is a surprise.

 

I am for the same rules, but you are not comparing the apples with apples. 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.

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.

Name one individual in America that is so rich that he “controls the means of production” because I cannot name a single person who has this power? Certainly there are people who are rich beyond my wildest dreams, but even someone like Bill Gates has absolutely no influence over my life.

Yes, but my point was that under Obama’s arbitrary definition of “rich” such people (ultra-rich billionaires) only make up a tiny fraction of the “rich” in America, and most “rich” are indeed employees just like the middle class and poor.

I only wish I could ever be as poor as Donald Trump

But since the government's power to levy taxes has a huge influence on our lives, you certainly have to agree that Obama’s definition of “rich” should be taken very seriously, right?

Don’t you think it’s important to make a distinction?

Absolutely right, but Obama has a bit more of an influence over monetary policy than you, and since he DID define “rich,” I will argue my point regarding the “rich” using his black-and-white distinction of “rich” rather than your wishy-washy description. No offense.

How? I had a job where I felt my massive amount responsibilities was too much to expect from a single employee and that another employee was required. I spoke to my boss. He told me that he could not hire another employee to assist me. I then put in my quitting papers, and got a better job. So let me ask you again, how exactly did my “corporate bosses” have power over me in this case? How would a union or government influence have been of any help to me?
Unions (and government involvement) are the problem in our country, and certainly solutions to anything.

I’m not sure where your confusion is here.
You appear to be saying that the “owners of means of production” have a “great amount of control over the income of others,” right? You then state that the government and unions are a solution to this problem, that they act to “challenge their control.” I merely stated that I disagree for the same reasons that I had stated many times: I feel that the ultra-rich (the owners of the means of production) have very little (if any) control over our lives, and government involvement and unions create a TON more problems that they could ever solve.

 

I mean your views are absurd and indefensible.

You are dishonestly trying to change the subject from "rich" to "high-earned-income," but yes, I am saying an investment banker who works 80 hours a week trying to get something for nothing is doing nothing because he is doing nothing in the same sense that a criminal who works 80 hours a week trying to get something for nothing is doing nothing. The only difference is that the thieving investment banker is enabled by government and admired as a financial success story.

Coulda fooled me....

Then you are a nincompoop who is trying to derogate people who are trying to protect your rights.

Your posts reek of contempt for anyone who is not rich.

If you knew any logic, you would realize that is an ad hominem fallacy, while if you knew any economics, you would realize I have every justification for advocating that someone else should pay more taxes than me just because they are richer than me.

No, we are not all benefiting equally, such a claim is just cretinous nonsense:

"The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation, is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists, what is called the equality or inequality of taxation." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

From which they benefit far more than I...

See above re inequality. As to separating myself from them, yes, and I also separate myself from child molesters when I advocate that they should be imprisoned -- as anyone who isn't a child molester or as stupid as a bag of hammers does.

Paying for what you take from society is not punishment, and objectivity MEANS separating yourself from what you are discussing.

It is 100% true, and is the only way working people can work hard and get nowhere while rich, greedy parasites get rapidly richer for doing nothing.

I don't care about any intimate details, and I'd tax them without knowing any intimate details.

By being willing to know the facts of economics that say they should be paying more tax.

 

So anyone who owns land controls the means of production? So every home owner controls the means of production. Makes perfect sense

Private unions had a purpose many years ago, but even these private sector unions have way too much power today and are much more of a detriment than a benefit for our society.

 

For "indefensible" views, I do a pretty darn good job of defending them.

No dishonesty on my part. From my earlier posts, I have been extremely consistent: I utilize the definition of "rich" as illustrated by the current POTUS. If you took the time to actually read my prior posts before going on your rants, then this would have been obvious to you.

Ah yes, so investment bankers are "criminals" according to you. Wonderful argument

 

This os naïve, but at least maintains your record over being economics-free in content. As the nature of production has changed so has the role of the union. As we move away from the worst exploitation abuses, we've shifted to the importance of 'voice effects' within complex production

 

LOL! No, son, you do not. Reiver and DivineComedy have both, in their very different ways, demolished you.

You know that is false:

I just read all your posts in the first five pages of this thread, and saw nothing about any such definition. Your OP likewise made no mention of any such definition. Excuse me for assuming you wanted to initiate an honest discussion about the taxes paid by the rich (no scare quotes).

Watch "Inside Job" and try to get a clue. The banksters create debt money by the stroke of a key to lend to a homebuyer, and pocket interest on that money that buys real wealth equivalent to the value of the house. When the homebuyer defaults, they get his house, too. The working man has contributed his labor to the production of wealth, but ends up with nothing. The banksters take wealth, but do not make any contributinon to creation of wealth. They are therefore thieves, however legal their thieving might be.

 

Some of it. Don't be obtuse.

 

Home ownership has been found, because of the negative effect on labour mobility, to increase underpayment by reducing reservation wages. Quite alien to the control of the means of production

 

No, that's a blatant non sequitur fallacy, as land and labor are two different things, and the residential land homeowners own is not the commercial or industrial land where they earn their wages. You know this.