Tax discrimination

... and you generally pay people for their labor or other contributions, so they don't really have a right to expect more than what you agreed to pay them.

As far as "roads" or other public works... well, either take the time to meter usage and charge folks accordingly or accept that they are something we all have equal access to and should pay for equally. Waving your hands around saying "I think you used our roads more than me, so you should pay more than me" is a darn silly argument.

Asking people to pay for what they receive is reasonable. Asking folks to pay based on what they make of it, is not.​

 

Except that we have to pay landowners for what government, the community and nature provide, while they contribute nothing whatever in return.

Stop lying. We don't all have equal access. That's just a lie on your part. Those who own the land adjacent to the roads have access, while those who don't have to pay them for it. You just always have to lie about that.

No one has done that. The reason landowners should pay more is that they get the benefit. If they don't pay for it, the productive are being robbed to give landowners a welfare subsidy giveaway. You just want landowners to get a welfare subsidy giveaway. Simple.

That's what we're asking. Landowners receive the benefit of government spending on services and infrastructure -- they are privileged to charge everyone else full market value for access to them -- so they should pay for what they receive.

The value of land is not what the landowner made of it, as it would be the same if he had never existed.

 

Why does anyone have a problem with economic discrimination regarding taxes in a political-economy where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

 

It's acceptable for folks to discriminate in anyway they want in their private life. For example, many people discriminate by race, sex, or religion when they date or marry. Private businesses like Playboy discriminate in who they hire as models, private organizations like UNCF discriminate in offering scholarships. Associate with who you like, for any reason you like -- it's your right.

We generally hold our laws to a different standard. A law that said two people of different economic status could not marry or one that extended the right to vote only to property owners would be neither legally no socially acceptable.​

 

I would agree with you more, if our Founding Fathers has less wisely enumerated the amount of Socialism you suggest, instead of merely sufficient socialism to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

 

And now we've moved from incomprehensible blather to being laughable incorrect. The state provisioning public goods is not, and will not ever be socialism.

Try and whip together something cogent.

 

From my perspective, you merely need to develop a better understanding of the concept and your own line of reasoning to discover you don't really have an argument or a point.

Providing for the general welfare and common defense via income transfers known as a Tax; is a form of Socialism, not Capitalism.

 

You can keep framing your ignorance in poorly constructed sentences if you like, but it's entirely uninteresting to me.

 

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you didn't have.

 

Nope. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production: land and capital. Learn it, or continue to talk nonsense on the subject permanently.

 

Limiting myself to your special pleading would mean that I may have no solutions, like most of our elected representatives. Simply having a public sector and taxes, is a form of Socialism, not Capitalism.

 

so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done ​

 

I do not subscribe to the political science definition since last millennium because it is too limited in scope.

Simply providing for the power to tax and merely having a public sector is a form of Socialism, not Capitalism.

 

Gee, I don't know. Why do we have to discriminate against married people or single people--it varies from one year to another? Why do we have elderly people living together without getting married because they can't afford the tax consequences of getting married? Why do government employees get 100% of their healthcare paid for with no taxes but someone who provides there own health insurance does not get to deduct the insurance premium?

Here's why. The system is unfair, unjust, and designed to benefit only politicians.

 

If you think politicians get the only or even a significant fraction of the benefits, you're a fool.

 

In my opinion, this is merely an unintended consequence to a previous "solution to end all problems" in health care.

An unfettered and tax preferred savings account for health related purposes would help many people conform better to rational choice theory regarding health care decisions.

 

Why does anyone have any problem with economic forms of discrimination in a political economy where it is both legal and socially acceptable?

 

Has anyone considered the fact that the wealthy really do not care?

Look at it this way:

I start a business and it booms. I hire people at a rate of pay that makes me more money and is just enough to keep them there. I make millions on top of millions while my employees children get medicaid because they qualify.

I could cut into my millions and the millions of my executive staff and pay my employees but I do not. Because I have chosen to marginalize my employees I must compensate the government.

Well I decide to ship jobs off shore and now I make more money by selling to the people I caused to lose a job. I must pay!

Just a thought. It is not discrimination and it is actually one of the few things that is just in this nation.

 

It may be true that the wealthiest have not been arguing on Political Forum to advance their political views regarding taxes; why is there any outcry that our current taxes on those best able to pay them is too high, if we are prosecuting any form of wartime endeavor in modern times.

 

It is discrimination. You're just arguing it's justified discrimination.

Your justification seems to be that a person must compensate the government for not continuing to provide someone with a job or failing to offer payment that is substantially more than they could make anywhere else. It seems to be a poor justification.​

 

Why should anyone have any problem with progressive forms taxation under any form of capital based system of markets where economic discrimination is both legal and socially acceptable?

 

Not it is not discrimination. It is equalization for legal exploitation. If they invest it properly they pay less and also remember that they are paying no more tax on the same amount of money in each bracket than anyone else.

 

From one perspective, paying for a war on poverty for over thirty years should constitute some form of entitlement based in that form of equity, on some of what you claim.

 

The reason is two of the cardinal sins - jealousy and greed. Most people want what other people have. In this case, since they don't have it, they want to punish those who do. It's human nature. My dog behaves the same way about food - his version of wealth - so it might be animal nature too.

The rich actually do pay more taxes. They pay the great majority of all income taxes collected. But that isn't enough to satisfy jealousy and greed. Jealousy and greed are insatiable.