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

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by drj90210, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wow! Spoken like a true fascist.
     
  2. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What? This appears to be a non sequitur.

    First, how is someone who works hard for a living, saving for their retirement, paying off debt, and saving for their family's future "hording" money? Second, how do their actions impact your daily life in any way? For instance, how does an anaesthesiologist with a wife and 4 children working 60 hours a week grossing $450,000 in a hospital 1000 miles away from you impact your life in any way?

    Wow! Talk about comparing apples and oranges.
     
  3. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No it's a completely legitimate point. You're freedom does not override mine.



    I suppose you don't read previous posts. It's not even worth answering again.



    No this discussion was about freedom and I was comparing individual liberties to collective liberties.
     
  4. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nonsensical pyschobabble. So those who work hard and advocate for keeping more of their hard earned money to pay for their family's expenses and future are somehow LESS moral than some lazy deadbeat loser who advocates for more government handouts, even though this deadbeat is quite capable of working on his own? I don't think you understand what "morality" is.

    I agree. Let's end the vast majority of government handouts, which will force lazy people to get off their @sses and work. Necessity is the greatest incentive to go out and find a job.

    LOL! Right :roll: The fault is on capitalism, even though the Fed has a monopoly over the dollar. To suggest that we have a fully capitalistic system is highly inaccurate.
     
  5. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This has nothing to do with freedom. You merely wrote an absurd statement that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I previously wrote. Hence, I appropriately called it a non sequitur.

    I'll take this failure of any response as your acquiescence to defeat. In regards to your comments of OB-GYN "price gouging" [Post #78], I did not respond because I try not to respond to absolute garbage.

    That (my question in post #60) was a test that you clearly failed. Most OB-GYN physicians gross much more than $300,000, because they have to pay well over $100,000 alone on malpractice insurance, not to mention office overhead. You clearly do not understand the value of a dollar, and hence I did not respond to that statement, since it would have been an utter waste of my time.

    Thus, since you never even came close to answering my question, I'll ask it again:

    First, how is someone who works hard for a living, saving for their retirement, paying off debt, and saving for their family's future hoarding money? Second, how do their actions impact your daily life in any way? For instance, how does an anaesthesiologist with a wife and 4 children working 60 hours a week grossing $450,000 in a hospital 1000 miles away from you impact your life in any way?

    Since when? Where in my OP did I mention "freedom?"
     
  6. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Why not? Why can't I state the fact that our government, like the governments of many European countries, are spending us into oblivion, and we need to curtail spending in a very significant way? It doesn't take a genius to understand that the USA and many European countries are following Greece's footsteps towards a path of utter insolvency.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your reply lacks content. I'm making a simple point: the tax debate is skewed by those adopting a 'child tantrum' approach based on non-economic footstamping over their individual stance on fairness. We've seen that on both sides on here: be it the 'the rich deserve their money' blubbering or the 'the rich are parasites' whinge. Your arguments are no different. If you wanted to derive a strong argument you'd embed your argument within economic efficiency criteria. Word of warning though, you're going to have to shift your opinion quite radically to achieve that!

    This shows an ignorance of capitalism. Given it thrives with mass unemployment (see, for example, the efficiency wage hypothesis) and accentuates inefficient wage hierachies, the provision of welfare is again simple reference to efficiency criteria. The important point is then to minimise 'effective' marginal rates of tax, given the interaction between tax increases and benefit withdrawal can generate work disincentives. Progressivity becomes a simple matter of economic need.

    This again shows no understanding of capitalism. That it is an economic paradigm that guarantees a mixed economy result is obvious, making comments like 'not fully capitalistic' quite redundant. That it leads to mass unemployment is just a matter of embracing economic reality!
     
  8. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ever heard of 2nd hand smoke?
     
  9. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    What's wrong with fascism?
     
  10. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No, any business only has the incentive to make as much money as possible any decision that works towards that goal is a right one. Paying your employees well is in line with this goal as well, Google for example has some of the highest industry salaries, they're also one of the most profitable companies, your argument here doesn't hold water.

    Some goods people don't mind exchanging price for quality, but that's not ubiquitous. In general, a business will produce whatever good you'll buy, so if you want someone to blame for low quality goods, look to those demanding them.
     
  11. Charles Julian

    Charles Julian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem is that the market is not a the consumer-worker relationship it was in the turn of the century. Google is by far the exception not the rule. The lack of reliance upon workers as consumers by modern industry due to it's international nature has created a perpetual race to the bottom.
     
  12. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You've got it wrong as usual. Those advocating for wealth redistribution are the ones utilizing a "child tantrum" approach, since they are advocating an immoral philosophy trying to legalize the theft of others' hard-earned money, akin to a small child grabing another child's toy saying, "It's mine, gimme gimme." Additionally, I am not advocating for "fairness," which is purely subjective. Rather, I am advocating for equality, which dicates that we all must live under the same set of rules. Certainly, being a proponent for equality cannot be construed as a "child tantrum approach."

    These arguments are clearly different: One is legitimate, and the other is certainly illegitimate.

    How about I just bring up simple facts that everyone can understand, like the historical fact that Socialism has failed in every single attempt that it was instituted, and the historical fact that quassi-Socialist governments, like Greece, would have defaulted on their debt without emergency outside intervention?

    Doubtful.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just different sides of the same coin. Your stance is no different as you have no method to embed it within a valid economic framework.

    Given diminishing marginal utility of income, you're not advocating either fairness or equality. Its just subjectivity.

    I don't see any understanding of socialism in your posts. I also don't know why you're trying to bring it up when replying to a comment about economic efficiency (unless of course you're going to refer to the productivity gains achieved by worker owned enterprises)

    You're not going to be able to refer to economic efficiency criteria. Something we can agree on!
     
  14. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This doesn't make a drop of sense. Anyone who works, is a worker. We ALL buy things and are therefore ALL consumers. I suppose if wages here were plummeting to match those in China or India, then you could make a case for a race to the bottom, but you've not said anything that supports that claim.
     
  15. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    We were talking about benefits from the federal government, right? I merely made small correction in your example by replacing "bridges," which are often funded by individual states, with "interstate highways", which are funded by the federal government. I don't understand why you are so fixated on this issue. Just let it go.

    I obviously was referring to your cut-and-paste response tactic using my response from a previous post as a mechanism of projectionism and immaturity. It was akin to the classic comeback of a child responding to a personal negative statement with, "I know you are but what am I."

    It was a fact that you were focusing on insignifcant details (a.k.a. minutiae), rather than focusing on the crux of the argument.

    Obviously certain INDIVIDUALS will benefit more from roads than others, like those working in the transportation industry. However, roads were not created for the purposes of taxi drivers and truckers to make a lot of money. Rather, they were made to benefit society in general, and everyone does indeed benefit from these roads in some way.

    Let me ask you a question now: Do you agree that, since interstate roads were created for the benefit of society in general, the upper class, as a whole, does not benefit any more than the middle class, and the middle class does not benefit any more than the lower class?
     
  16. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

    Equality means the same rules apply equally to everyone, and this is what I am advocating. This viewpoint (one that strives for equality) is as objective as one can possibly be.

    I merely was bring up fact that wealth redistribution has failed in practice 100% of the time. Not a very good record.

    I prefer to use simple historical data that everyone can understand rather than esoteric economic theory.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its based on blathering about righteousness, rather than embedding it- with validity- within an economic argument.

    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.

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

    This is a cretinous comment. First, how can wealth redistribution fail? That makes no sense. Second, you're only describing that you don't understand socialism. Wealth redistribution, as shown by the mechanisms employed in liberal and social democracies, enables the reproduction of capitalist profit and therefore minimises the threat of socialism

    You haven't made any useful reference to economic history. You've only got tabloidism. That always leads to foot stamping and a diligent avoidance of economic analysis
     
  18. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Commie-Nazi!

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

    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.

    Anyone (not damaged) can qualify under the rules (of our progressive tax system) to make millions, but since some can inherit millions they did not make there is an inequality.

    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.

    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.

    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 and redistributing some to those who suffer under the inequality of inheritance (income or genes). (note, I did not say "Real Property"; income is just one part of all property.)

    http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=176508,00.html

    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:

    "'Imagine' the Misery

    Misery are souls blurry,
    So silly not to cry,
    To no lovers go,
    Alone and dying fly,
    Misery of the nation
    Alive for one play...

    Misery to the diverse,
    It merges all to you,
    Everything to hate or lie for,
    No liberty too,
    Misery of the nation
    Dying death in din...

    Misery in regressions,
    When cloning hits the fan,
    We all are bred as cattle,
    A disastrous foul plan,
    Misery of the nation
    Glaring from the impound...

    I say let’s flay the schemer,
    So we are not only one,
    We want your free mind to roam,
    For free worlds will have more fun." (Tue 25 Jun 2002 01:07:00 PM EDT)

    That was in response to a Democrat who said his philosophy was based upon John Lennon's "Imagine" song.
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you measure the value of social services?
    And how do determine who that value should be attributed to?
    Is it possible for an individual to pass some of that value on to someone else?

    See below for my answer to your question.

    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.

    In order to determine what that benefit is, we must first put a standard value on the benefit of nature and the benefit of individual labor.
    After we have done that, we can describe total social benefit (wealth/income) by an equation.

    SB = TB - (FL + NB + PL)

    Where SB = Social Benefit,
    TB = Total Benefit,
    FL = Benefit from Family labor,
    NB = Benefit from nature, and
    PL = Benefit from personal labor.

    We can simplify the equation in some cases by assuming family and or natural benefit to be 0.
    In which case the equation reads,

    SB = TB - PL

    -Meta
     
  20. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who buys those goods and services, if they are above market value?

    Your solution is death tax at 100%?

    That parents can't pay for their kids school, expose them to opportunities?

    Maybe we take the kids away at birth and have the state raise them equally?
     
  21. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

    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).

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

    How does it make no sense? Why don't you show me an example of a successful Socialist nation?
     
  22. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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)

    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?

    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.

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

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

    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.

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

    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?

    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.
     
  23. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

    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.

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

    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?
     
  24. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

    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.
     
  25. kowalskil

    kowalskil New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/~kowalski/father2/03_father.html

    as I have posted in another thread.

    Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
     

Share This Page