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. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Romney is not actually a real surgeon. That's just his fudge making outfit.

    [​IMG]


    In all seriousness though, if its not OK to tax a surgeon more than a coal miner,
    why is it then OK to tax a coal miner more than an entrepreneur???

    He doesn't, unless he or she owns the hospital that he or she works in.
    DivineComedy is talking about the people at the top of the totem pole.
    Not the people in the middle who just happen to make a lot of money.
    Those who own the means of production have a great amount of control over their income and over the income of others.
    The only thing that challenges their control is the government, and to a much smaller extent, unions.

    I personally am not against individuals having some such control,
    but if these means of production are something of which every one of us will need in order to survive,
    do we really want complete control of these things to rest in the hands of a select number of individual's who's only goal is to increase their own wealth?

    -Meta
     
  2. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are somewhat abstract, but I would not say they are impossible to measure. One just has to measure them abstractly.

    Take an intestate road for instance. Let's say we want to measure how much value there is in having it.

    With no road, let's say a person employes a transporter to transport $5 worth of corn an hour to a convenience store.
    Because of the convenience of having the corn where it is more easily accessible, people are willing to buy the corn for $7.
    So in this case, we can say the transporter adds $2 worth of value to $5 worth of corn simply by transporting it or $2 per hour.

    If we then build a road which for the same amount of effort enables the transporter to transport three times as much corn in an hour,
    that's $15 worth of corn an hour which people will buy at the store for $21.

    Since the transporter still contributes the same amount of effort, we can say that he is contributing $2 an hour.
    If $15 worth of corn is transported to the store every hour and marked up to $21,
    then the value added by the road is simply the final mark up value minus the value added by the transporter and the original value of the corn.
    $21 - $15 - $2 = $4. So in this abstract example, the road creates $4 worth of value each hour corn is being transported over it.

    -Meta
     
  3. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1) Where does it say in the Great Book of Ethics that it is unethical to advocate for wealth redistribution. 2) What do you suppose lobbies are doing if not arguing for wealth redistribution?
     
  4. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK, and what about things like armed services, border protection, water purification systems, and interstate roads?
    Or state services such as police, firefighters, public schools and public roads and bridges?

    If someone goes to school, gets an education, and becomes employed, does not some of the value of that education get passed on to the employer?
    Same thing with health care. Do employers not benefit from having a healthy work force? That is what I mean by value being passed from one to another.

    If an individual employs or otherwise makes an investment in anyone other than themselves or a family member and then subsequently profits for such an action,
    the individual can be said to be benefiting from the existence of society which is outside a limited circle of family members.

    -Meta
     
  5. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    And a lot of employers make millions off of having a good system of roads so it is cheaper to ship and sell their products. A self employed trucker might only make 40,000. So roads do help those who are rich more than someone who is not, and the rich should pay a little more in taxes because of that.
     
  6. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It may be. But sometimes cultural moral values are stronger than pure number logic to a person. He showed you where, in his religion, that envy over another person's wealth is immoral. So what if it comes across as "unfair". Morality trumps your logic.

    So what? That is his right as a free person to judge people as he sees fit. We follow the Protestant Work Ethic in this nation as a strongly held cultural value. You may disagree that it works, we don't care.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If its purely a morality rant then that should be made clear, perhaps with a "whilst this is completely inconsistent with sound economic comment, I insist..."

    That Weber stuff really isn't up to the job when it comes to understanding economic outcome
     
  8. youenjoyme420

    youenjoyme420 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,955
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whether or not tu agree with the statement, wouldn't it fall under freedom of speech? A put a question mark at the end of that, but clearly it would constitute freedom of speech.
     
  9. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    See posts #23 and #26. You need to learn to read more carefully.
     
  10. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So I need to include a detailed economic analysis that nobody will understand in order for my argument to be logical? Hmmm, that doesn't sound very logical to me.

    My "sense of morality" is not skewed, since it is based on equal treatment for everyone, regardless of wealth. 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.
     
  11. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  12. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    How is the income from an entrepreneur taxed differently than the income of a coal miner? How is their property taxed differently? How is their capital gains taxed differently?

    Clearly he was indeed talking about those at the top of the totem pole. However, in a discussion of "rich people," it is disingenuous to only mention the small minority making more than $10 million per year when vast majority of "rich" are grossing closer to $200,000 per year. That's the point that I've been trying to get at all along. You seem to focus on the few billionaires out there, but according to the POTUS, the "rich" include any individual who grosses more than $200k or any married couple grossing more than $250k. This is a far cry from the Michael Bloombergs out there whose net worth is close to $10 billion. That's why when referencing the "rich," we need to be as specific as possible. We need to clarify if by "rich" we are referring to a general medicine physician with 3 children working 70 hours per week and grossing $250k per year or if we are referring to someone like Donald Trump.

    Ah, but these people are referred to as "rich" by the POTUS and a majority of the US population. I'm glad that you agree that they really aren't "rich."

    I disagree. Government and unions have a MUCH greater impact in all of our lives than the ultra-rich.

    But members of a free market have complete power over these ultra wealthy captains of industry. If you don't like Facebook, boycott it or try to develop a better society network. If you don't like Donald Trump, then boycott his hotels. If you don't like Bill Gates and Microsoft, then by an Apple product.

    I think you make these ultra-rich captains of industry and their companies out to be all-powerful, but the truth is, in a free market system, the consumer is the one with all of the power.

    At the same time, you appear to be willing to give the select few members of the government increased powers to control these wealthy individuals. Such logic contradicts everything that you had previously stated. If you were so wary of power lying in the hands of a "select few," then wouldn't you want the corrupt members of our government to have as little power as possible?
     
  13. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I can agree, to some extent, with this explanation.
     
  14. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Like I said before, 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. We can't say that the soldier who gave his life defending this country benefited Person A more than Person B.

    Regarding water purification system, it is equally difficult to determine benefit. Do we base it on volume imbided? I guess we could look at it that way, but to me it seems more logical to say that since we all use water for sustenance, then it can be said that we each have an equal benefit regarding government funding towards water purifcation, even if Mr. Smith only drinks 3 cups a day and Ms. Jones drinks 1 gallon per day.

    This is very indirect.

    But this is equally very indirect.
     
  15. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    A lawyer shouldn't be making $200,000 a year. All they do is screw one group of people out of their money so that another group makes a lot of money. They contribute nothing to society.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

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

    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
     
  17. kowalskil

    kowalskil New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What was "unfair" in my objective observation?

    Ludwik Kowalski
    .
     
  18. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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).
     
  19. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

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

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

    "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.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

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

    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.
     
  21. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

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

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  23. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

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

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

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

Share This Page