Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Buffet" Rule

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 1:33:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
President Obama and his Democratic friends have recently proposed a "Buffet" rule that would make all people who make over $1 Million a year pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.

This is basically another version of the alternative minimum tax that was implemented in the 1969. This tax was also just meant to make sure the rich pay their "fair share".

The issue here is that, like the alternative minimum tax, this will end up hitting middle class families. In 30 years or so, after inflation and economic growth, an income of $1 Million won't be all that much. In fact, it will eventually be no more than a middle class income.

When the original "Minimum Tax" was implemented in 1969, the mean household income was $9,544. After 41 years of economic growth and inflation, the mean household income is $67,530 in 2010.

Obviously, the definition of "rich" would be very different in 2010 than in 1969. However, the alternative minimum tax was still using the 1969 definition of rich. So, the tax that was meant to just hit "the rich" was actually hitting middle class families.

I would also like to remind everyone that the Federal income tax started out as a 7% tax that only applied to "the rich". Pretty soon, however, the federal income tax was hitting middle and lower income families as well.

Another problem with punitive taxes aimed at the rich is that it punishes high cost areas a lot more than low cost areas. Anyone who has ever been to a place like New York knows how expensive it is to live there. Food, housing, transportation, state and local taxes, and everything else makes these places very expensive to live.

Likewise, a place like Alabama is very cheap to live. Food, housing, state and local taxes, etc. are fairly cheap. However, the federal government defines "rich" the same way in Alabama and New York.

A person making $1 Million in New York would pay the same 30% required by the "Buffet" rule as a person making $1 Million in Alabama. Even though $1 Million in New York is actually worth a lot less than $1 Million in Alabama.

The fact is that attempts by the federal government to "tax the rich" just end up hitting the middle class.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 1:46:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.

This. Tax policies can be adjusted for inflation.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:18:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Fairness is objective. Asking who gets to pick whats fair is like asking who gets to pick what rights we have, its a vacuous question with the erroneous presumption that the virtue is subjective to begin with.

I'll outright say you have a warped perception of justice if you think a family barely scraping by should pay the same proportion of their income as a family that has money to burn. 30% of a $40,000 annual income will hurt more than 30% of a $1,000,000 annual income. Else you may want to give both the poor and the rich equal but very low tax rates, in which case the state no longer has the funds to fulfill its obligations to social justice or have an adequate military or keep up the condition of public utilities like schools and roads.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:23:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:18:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Fairness is objective. Asking who gets to pick whats fair is like asking who gets to pick what rights we have, its a vacuous question with the erroneous presumption that the virtue is subjective to begin with.

I'll outright say you have a warped perception of justice if you think a family barely scraping by should pay the same proportion of their income as a family that has money to burn. 30% of a $40,000 annual income will hurt more than 30% of a $1,000,000 annual income. Else you may want to give both the poor and the rich equal but very low tax rates, in which case the state no longer has the funds to fulfill its obligations to social justice or have an adequate military or keep up the condition of public utilities like schools and roads.

so the poor should be exempt from taxes? that is ridiculous. Everyone living in the US has to pay taxes.

Make it equal. Everyone pays 15%. Bam problem solved.

Anyone who doesn't think so just propogates class warfare. The rich are rich, big deal. People will always be more successful then others.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:27:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.

That is easy to say. I think you have far too much faith in the political system to be able to do this type of thing.

The real question you have to ask yourself is what is the purpose of this policy. It is to raise new revenue to pay for a more expansive government.

It is a lot more politically possible for Democrats to pass a tax that just hits the "rich" now. But, in 30 or 40 years, they can allow it to hit the middle class without having to pass a tax increase. It will just automatically happen without them doing anything.

See how this works?
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:23:24 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:18:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Fairness is objective. Asking who gets to pick whats fair is like asking who gets to pick what rights we have, its a vacuous question with the erroneous presumption that the virtue is subjective to begin with.

I'll outright say you have a warped perception of justice if you think a family barely scraping by should pay the same proportion of their income as a family that has money to burn. 30% of a $40,000 annual income will hurt more than 30% of a $1,000,000 annual income. Else you may want to give both the poor and the rich equal but very low tax rates, in which case the state no longer has the funds to fulfill its obligations to social justice or have an adequate military or keep up the condition of public utilities like schools and roads.

so the poor should be exempt from taxes? that is ridiculous. Everyone living in the US has to pay taxes.

Make it equal. Everyone pays 15%. Bam problem solved.

Anyone who doesn't think so just propogates class warfare. The rich are rich, big deal. People will always be more successful then others.

There is no way for me to refute you in way you will accept. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals stems not from mere ideological disagreement, but a fundamental philosophical disagreement, where all political issues are nonnegotiable until the one concerning philosophy is resolved.

I believe that the economy is a creation of man that goes against the natural order of things. Capitalism by its very nature is built upon greed and exploitation such as to create unnatural imbalances on quality of life. No one succeeds without adversely harming someone else at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. We also have corporations that plunder natural resources which are PUBLICLY owned, and convert them to private property, which can only be morally permissible if no one is harmed in the process (see Lockean Proviso).

In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:23:24 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:18:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Fairness is objective. Asking who gets to pick whats fair is like asking who gets to pick what rights we have, its a vacuous question with the erroneous presumption that the virtue is subjective to begin with.

I'll outright say you have a warped perception of justice if you think a family barely scraping by should pay the same proportion of their income as a family that has money to burn. 30% of a $40,000 annual income will hurt more than 30% of a $1,000,000 annual income. Else you may want to give both the poor and the rich equal but very low tax rates, in which case the state no longer has the funds to fulfill its obligations to social justice or have an adequate military or keep up the condition of public utilities like schools and roads.

so the poor should be exempt from taxes? that is ridiculous. Everyone living in the US has to pay taxes.

Make it equal. Everyone pays 15%. Bam problem solved.

Anyone who doesn't think so just propogates class warfare. The rich are rich, big deal. People will always be more successful then others.

There is no way for me to refute you in way you will accept. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals stems not from mere ideological disagreement, but a fundamental philosophical disagreement, where all political issues are nonnegotiable until the one concerning philosophy is resolved.

I believe that the economy is a creation of man that goes against the natural order of things. Capitalism by its very nature is built upon greed and exploitation such as to create unnatural imbalances on quality of life. No one succeeds without adversely harming someone else at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. We also have corporations that plunder natural resources which are PUBLICLY owned, and convert them to private property, which can only be morally permissible if no one is harmed in the process (see Lockean Proviso).

In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:37:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:27:51 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.


That is easy to say. I think you have far too much faith in the political system to be able to do this type of thing.

The real question you have to ask yourself is what is the purpose of this policy. It is to raise new revenue to pay for a more expansive government.

It is a lot more politically possible for Democrats to pass a tax that just hits the "rich" now. But, in 30 or 40 years, they can allow it to hit the middle class without having to pass a tax increase. It will just automatically happen without them doing anything.

See how this works?

lol, so your fear is that we'll forget to adjust the tax code?

Don't worry, I don't know about Republicans, but Democrats will not forget.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:38:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?

SOMETHING needs to parent capitalism (economic anarchy is just as bad as social anarchy)....and whatever that thing is, I consider it a government.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:47:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:37:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:27:51 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.


That is easy to say. I think you have far too much faith in the political system to be able to do this type of thing.

The real question you have to ask yourself is what is the purpose of this policy. It is to raise new revenue to pay for a more expansive government.

It is a lot more politically possible for Democrats to pass a tax that just hits the "rich" now. But, in 30 or 40 years, they can allow it to hit the middle class without having to pass a tax increase. It will just automatically happen without them doing anything.

See how this works?

lol, so your fear is that we'll forget to adjust the tax code?

Don't worry, I don't know about Republicans, but Democrats will not forget.

That's interesting. The income tax, which was created by Democrats and massively increased by Democrats, was not adjusted for inflation until 1981, when Ronald Reagan finally changed it. Democrats voted against this, for the most part.

Democrats, on the other hand, created the Income Tax (Woodrow Wilson). This was originally designed as a small tax on the rich but ended up hitting the middle class pretty hard.

The alternative minimum tax exemption was also raised by a Republican, George Bush. If he hadn't done this, this tax would already be hitting middle class families a lot harder.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats create these taxes aimed at the rich with the purpose of raising revenue for an expansive government. They know that this will eventually require higher taxes on the middle class.

As I have said before, it is a lot easier to raise taxes on the middle class in the future in the veil of a tax increase on the "rich" than directly raising taxes on the middle class.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:55:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:47:16 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:37:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:27:51 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.


That is easy to say. I think you have far too much faith in the political system to be able to do this type of thing.

The real question you have to ask yourself is what is the purpose of this policy. It is to raise new revenue to pay for a more expansive government.

It is a lot more politically possible for Democrats to pass a tax that just hits the "rich" now. But, in 30 or 40 years, they can allow it to hit the middle class without having to pass a tax increase. It will just automatically happen without them doing anything.

See how this works?

lol, so your fear is that we'll forget to adjust the tax code?

Don't worry, I don't know about Republicans, but Democrats will not forget.


That's interesting. The income tax, which was created by Democrats and massively increased by Democrats, was not adjusted for inflation until 1981, when Ronald Reagan finally changed it. Democrats voted against this, for the most part.

Democrats, on the other hand, created the Income Tax (Woodrow Wilson). This was originally designed as a small tax on the rich but ended up hitting the middle class pretty hard.

The alternative minimum tax exemption was also raised by a Republican, George Bush. If he hadn't done this, this tax would already be hitting middle class families a lot harder.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats create these taxes aimed at the rich with the purpose of raising revenue for an expansive government. They know that this will eventually require higher taxes on the middle class.

As I have said before, it is a lot easier to raise taxes on the middle class in the future in the veil of a tax increase on the "rich" than directly raising taxes on the middle class.

First of all, I disown Woodrow Wilson as a representative of Liberalism or Democrats.

Secondly, your argument is a massive case of Historian's Fallacy.

Third, "The 50 percent increase, Roosevelt told the State Legislature in a special session, would fall lightly on those with small incomes, totaling only $2.50 for a single person with net income of $3,000. Higher incomes, not surprisingly, would be taxed more, with those earning more than $100,000 paying an extra $1,162.50." (http://www.taxhistory.org...)

Yeah, FDR was damaged the middle class with his fair and sensible progressive tax rates....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:55:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:47:16 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:37:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:27:51 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 1:43:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
This will hurt the middle class assuming that same tax policy is carried out for the next 60 years. When middles class income becomes $1 million dollars, then we'll revise the Buffet rule to apply to the new definition of rich. lol problem solved.

All you did was prove that taxes on the rich hurt the rich, but instead you just threw the words "middle" and "class" in there to make it seem more relevant than it actually is.


That is easy to say. I think you have far too much faith in the political system to be able to do this type of thing.

The real question you have to ask yourself is what is the purpose of this policy. It is to raise new revenue to pay for a more expansive government.

It is a lot more politically possible for Democrats to pass a tax that just hits the "rich" now. But, in 30 or 40 years, they can allow it to hit the middle class without having to pass a tax increase. It will just automatically happen without them doing anything.

See how this works?

lol, so your fear is that we'll forget to adjust the tax code?

Don't worry, I don't know about Republicans, but Democrats will not forget.


That's interesting. The income tax, which was created by Democrats and massively increased by Democrats, was not adjusted for inflation until 1981, when Ronald Reagan finally changed it. Democrats voted against this, for the most part.

Democrats, on the other hand, created the Income Tax (Woodrow Wilson). This was originally designed as a small tax on the rich but ended up hitting the middle class pretty hard.

The alternative minimum tax exemption was also raised by a Republican, George Bush. If he hadn't done this, this tax would already be hitting middle class families a lot harder.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats create these taxes aimed at the rich with the purpose of raising revenue for an expansive government. They know that this will eventually require higher taxes on the middle class.

As I have said before, it is a lot easier to raise taxes on the middle class in the future in the veil of a tax increase on the "rich" than directly raising taxes on the middle class.

First of all, I disown Woodrow Wilson as a representative of Liberalism or Democrats.

Secondly, your argument is a massive case of Historian's Fallacy.

Third, "The 50 percent increase, Roosevelt told the State Legislature in a special session, would fall lightly on those with small incomes, totaling only $2.50 for a single person with net income of $3,000. Higher incomes, not surprisingly, would be taxed more, with those earning more than $100,000 paying an extra $1,162.50." (http://www.taxhistory.org...)

Yeah, FDR was damaged the middle class with his fair and sensible progressive tax rates....

You're missing the point here. First, FDR raised the top tax rate well over 90%. Is that "sensible"?

And, my main point was that virtually every tax that is originally meant to just hit "the rich" ended up hitting middle and lower income families. Which is true.
President of DDO
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 3:07:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Firstly, it's reasonable to think that tax policy will be changed in the future to counter inflation. In fact, many tax 'cuts' are simply a counter to bracket creep in a progressive tax system.

One argument in favour of wealth redistribution is that inequality reduces total utility (satisfaction) because people on higher incomes gain less utility from an income increase as opposed to lower incomes. This is explained by the principle of diminishing marginal utility. From a utilitarian outlook this is a good thing.

Another point is that there exists inequality of opportunity, which means that the distribution of wealth is not entirely as it should be. Much taxation exists in an attempt to reduce the inequality of opportunity. Obviously, it is the degree to which this should be done that is important to consider.

There are also moral reasons to have wealth distribution in the case of people living in 'absolute poverty' (as opposed to relative poverty) .

Of course, government intervention also occurs for other reasons, but I can't really be bothered to give a long spiel on the subject.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 3:13:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 3:07:00 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
Firstly, it's reasonable to think that tax policy will be changed in the future to counter inflation. In fact, many tax 'cuts' are simply a counter to bracket creep in a progressive tax system.

One argument in favour of wealth redistribution is that inequality reduces total utility (satisfaction) because people on higher incomes gain less utility from an income increase as opposed to lower incomes. This is explained by the principle of diminishing marginal utility. From a utilitarian outlook this is a good thing.

Another point is that there exists inequality of opportunity, which means that the distribution of wealth is not entirely as it should be. Much taxation exists in an attempt to reduce the inequality of opportunity. Obviously, it is the degree to which this should be done that is important to consider.

There are also moral reasons to have wealth distribution in the case of people living in 'absolute poverty' (as opposed to relative poverty) .

Of course, government intervention also occurs for other reasons, but I can't really be bothered to give a long spiel on the subject.

I think you're missing a few key points. First, historically, there has only been one time where a tax has been fully adjusted for inflation. That was Ronald Reagan in 1981, despite Democratic opposition.

I really don't think it is reasonable to think taxes will be adjusted for inflation all the time. Second, you're forgetting growth. Even after adjusting for inflation, incomes have still grown over time.

So, even a progressive tax that is adjusted for inflation will still have higher rates hitting folks lower in the income distribution over time. That is a big part of this.

As far as higher taxes increasing utility, I think you're ignoring that some people value income more than others. Not everyone wants to be rich. So, some inequality probably increases utility, because not everyone values income the same amount.

Finally, I don't see how highet taxes increases equality of oppurtunity in any way.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 3:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:18:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Fairness is objective. Asking who gets to pick whats fair is like asking who gets to pick what rights we have, its a vacuous question with the erroneous presumption that the virtue is subjective to begin with.

I'll outright say you have a warped perception of justice if you think a family barely scraping by should pay the same proportion of their income as a family that has money to burn. 30% of a $40,000 annual income will hurt more than 30% of a $1,000,000 annual income. Else you may want to give both the poor and the rich equal but very low tax rates, in which case the state no longer has the funds to fulfill its obligations to social justice or have an adequate military or keep up the condition of public utilities like schools and roads.

My family gets taxed 40% I am covered. :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 3:39:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 3:13:37 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 3:07:00 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
Firstly, it's reasonable to think that tax policy will be changed in the future to counter inflation. In fact, many tax 'cuts' are simply a counter to bracket creep in a progressive tax system.

One argument in favour of wealth redistribution is that inequality reduces total utility (satisfaction) because people on higher incomes gain less utility from an income increase as opposed to lower incomes. This is explained by the principle of diminishing marginal utility. From a utilitarian outlook this is a good thing.

Another point is that there exists inequality of opportunity, which means that the distribution of wealth is not entirely as it should be. Much taxation exists in an attempt to reduce the inequality of opportunity. Obviously, it is the degree to which this should be done that is important to consider.

There are also moral reasons to have wealth distribution in the case of people living in 'absolute poverty' (as opposed to relative poverty) .

Of course, government intervention also occurs for other reasons, but I can't really be bothered to give a long spiel on the subject.


I think you're missing a few key points. First, historically, there has only been one time where a tax has been fully adjusted for inflation. That was Ronald Reagan in 1981, despite Democratic opposition.

I can't comment on American politics - I'm from Australia. Regardless, this merely means the taxation amount should be increased to prolong the time till it affects the middle class or it should be reviewed more closely. On a side note, your historical evidence doesn't negate the possibility of it being good theoretically (ie. you use empirical evidence) .

I really don't think it is reasonable to think taxes will be adjusted for inflation all the time. Second, you're forgetting growth. Even after adjusting for inflation, incomes have still grown over time.

Fair enough. However, bracket creep occurs under both current and proposed taxation levels, meaning that this point applies to both - ie. it's not a strong counter.

So, even a progressive tax that is adjusted for inflation will still have higher rates hitting folks lower in the income distribution over time. That is a big part of this.

As far as higher taxes increasing utility, I think you're ignoring that some people value income more than others. Not everyone wants to be rich. So, some inequality probably increases utility, because not everyone values income the same amount.

This is true. However, does this outweigh the principle of diminishing marginal utility? We can agree to disagree here unless you have empirical evidence to prove otherwise.

Finally, I don't see how highet taxes increases equality of oppurtunity in any way.

The government can use revenue gained from taxation to attempt to fix inequality of opportunity through the provision of things such as education. Things such as education help to reduce inequality of opportunity.

I'd just like to reiterate that there's obviously a degree to which taxation works (to my mind) . I don't support a high degree, but there are reasons for government intervention.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 3:49:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Finally, I don't see how higher taxes increases equality of oppurtunity in any way.

The richest people in society that form businesses did not do this by themselves. Taxation allowed society to grow and help them. There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the power of vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used infrastructure paid by taxpayers. He got rich on what the taxpayers had paid for, such as: the Federal Reserve, Treasury and Commerce departments, judicial system, interstate highway system, the Internet, scientific and medical establishments, our communications system, our airline system, the space program, and our education system. The past taxpayers invested in our future, and we have the assets that came from the wise investments they made. The rich have a duty to pay their fair share so that the future can be better for America and allowing a safety net to exist in times of need to allow a more productive workforce and with a strong and vibrant infrastructure, a more dynamic economy overall, and therefore allowing more entrepreneurial opportunities to exist in the future as well. The rich owe the taxpayers of this nation a great amount and should be paying it back.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 10:58:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:23:24 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:18:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Fairness is objective. Asking who gets to pick whats fair is like asking who gets to pick what rights we have, its a vacuous question with the erroneous presumption that the virtue is subjective to begin with.

I'll outright say you have a warped perception of justice if you think a family barely scraping by should pay the same proportion of their income as a family that has money to burn. 30% of a $40,000 annual income will hurt more than 30% of a $1,000,000 annual income. Else you may want to give both the poor and the rich equal but very low tax rates, in which case the state no longer has the funds to fulfill its obligations to social justice or have an adequate military or keep up the condition of public utilities like schools and roads.

so the poor should be exempt from taxes? that is ridiculous. Everyone living in the US has to pay taxes.

Make it equal. Everyone pays 15%. Bam problem solved.

Anyone who doesn't think so just propogates class warfare. The rich are rich, big deal. People will always be more successful then others.

This is fvcked up. You do realize wealth in the U.S. is far from just decided by how hard someone works right? Those who can't afford taxes should not have to pay as much. Do you realize how much of the money the 10% controls? 69%. That is based on Gallup polls and research. That is just messed up and clearly unfair. It is unfair that the rich can stockpile money like that. If we circulate that money into the system through taxes, all our problems will be solved. An economy works best when money is circulated. The rich are keeping that from happening.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 4:00:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?

What else do you seriously expect would "parent" capitalism? Or do you really think it should go unregulated?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 6:43:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

Sounds fair, you know what else is fair, the poor having the same assets as the rich have. You want to make the tax even. how about making the same opportunity to generate income even eh, the right wing doesn't talk about this side of the equation, I wonder why.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 8:02:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 4:00:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?

What else do you seriously expect would "parent" capitalism? Or do you really think it should go unregulated?

Does anybody know that the free market is self regulating?

A bunch of corruptable people in government aren't going to be able to regulate a self regulating entity.
President of DDO
Ladykatzen
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 8:06:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:00:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The rich do pay their "fair share".

And who gets to pick what's fair and what isn't? Obama? The Democrats? The government? No.

Everyone needs to pay the same percentage. Easy fix.

Also the 50% of American households that pay 0% in taxes... they need to pay their fair share if anyone does. The taxes on the rich can be raised once the poor start to pay their own taxes.

The "poor" do pay taxes, and has been demonstrated by Romney, they often pay a higher percentage of their income towards taxes than the upper tier. For example, everyone pays sales taxes, everyone pays excise taxes, everyone pays property, local, and state taxes as well as state income taxes. To suggest that the poor do not pay taxes is a right-wing spin.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 8:09:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 8:02:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/30/2012 4:00:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?

What else do you seriously expect would "parent" capitalism? Or do you really think it should go unregulated?


Does anybody know that the free market is self regulating?

A bunch of corruptable people in government aren't going to be able to regulate a self regulating entity.

nonsense. What is self-regulating about capitalism? Is it the unmitigated might of corporations willing to pollute our air and waters with their factories? Or perhaps those that plunder and pillage from third world countries? Or maybe its the ability of Insurance giants to drop customers prone to ailment like the lifeless and money-guzzling, corrupted entities they are....Or, is it your skimpy and pathetic theory of competition that in no way works as efficiently and effectively as it is theoretically proposed?

Corporations are agencies of profit and self-benefit, the foundations of greed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 8:41:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 8:09:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/30/2012 8:02:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/30/2012 4:00:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?

What else do you seriously expect would "parent" capitalism? Or do you really think it should go unregulated?


Does anybody know that the free market is self regulating?

A bunch of corruptable people in government aren't going to be able to regulate a self regulating entity.

nonsense. What is self-regulating about capitalism? Is it the unmitigated might of corporations willing to pollute our air and waters with their factories? Or perhaps those that plunder and pillage from third world countries? Or maybe its the ability of Insurance giants to drop customers prone to ailment like the lifeless and money-guzzling, corrupted entities they are....Or, is it your skimpy and pathetic theory of competition that in no way works as efficiently and effectively as it is theoretically proposed?

Corporations are agencies of profit and self-benefit, the foundations of greed.

Why are state officials able to effectively regulate?

The state is not God.

The fact of the matter is that, on a free market, what is supplied is demanded. If people don't want pollution, they won't get pollution.
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 8:57:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/30/2012 8:41:41 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/30/2012 8:09:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/30/2012 8:02:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/30/2012 4:00:51 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:35:53 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:32:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
In short, Capitalism is the channel to success but also the channel to evil. It must be "parented" so to speak, to keep its abrasive nature from harming human society.

Is the government a good "parent" to capitalism?

What else do you seriously expect would "parent" capitalism? Or do you really think it should go unregulated?


Does anybody know that the free market is self regulating?

A bunch of corruptable people in government aren't going to be able to regulate a self regulating entity.

nonsense. What is self-regulating about capitalism? Is it the unmitigated might of corporations willing to pollute our air and waters with their factories? Or perhaps those that plunder and pillage from third world countries? Or maybe its the ability of Insurance giants to drop customers prone to ailment like the lifeless and money-guzzling, corrupted entities they are....Or, is it your skimpy and pathetic theory of competition that in no way works as efficiently and effectively as it is theoretically proposed?

Corporations are agencies of profit and self-benefit, the foundations of greed.


Why are state officials able to effectively regulate?

The state is not God.

The fact of the matter is that, on a free market, what is supplied is demanded. If people don't want pollution, they won't get pollution.

You subscribe to the notion that if something does not succeed perfectly, eliminate it entirely. So, because you think the government does not effectively regulate, the solution in your mind is to cut regulation all together?...

If people don't want pollution, they won't get pollution...what? This is so devoid of logic I don't think you believe these things, you can't, no one can. What will the people do to multinational giants to force them to go green? boycott? please...if all the tv factories are polluting the air, does society go without tvs? You might answer yes to that, so let me provide a more obviously absurd scenario...If all the food factories involved in mass marketing and packaging food and produce are polluting the air, does society go without food?

Corporations are powerful entities with the ability to coerce the public. They have power, power must be regulated.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 9:00:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the government was truly interested in fairness when it came to taxes, they would promote a flat tax which takes a set percentage of your income or a fair tax which is a consumption tax.

Instead they want to rob Peter to pay Paul and call that "fair."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 9:07:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If people don't want pollution, they won't get pollution...what?:

There is a huge market for "Green" products that is completely devoid of any government mandate. These companies have honed in on a niche market that appeals to consumers. Was government necessary in that, or did the people decide for themselves that they don't like pollution?

Corporations are powerful entities with the ability to coerce the public. They have power, power must be regulated.:

Here, let me fix this for you so you can see it in another context.

Governments are powerful entities with the sole power to coerce the public. They have power, power must be regulated.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ladykatzen
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2012 10:57:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why are state officials able to effectively regulate?

The state is not God.

The fact of the matter is that, on a free market, what is supplied is demanded. If people don't want pollution, they won't get pollution.

The Government is supposed to represent the issues and directives of the people in producing the form of society the people wish to be present. It is a physical manifestation of the culture, values, beliefs, and norms through which the citizens can live and interact. Government is supposed to be answerable to the citizens, and as such, the citizens have granted government certain powers and rights in order to best act on our behalf.

Corporations are not answerable to the citizenry - we do not elect corporations. Their responsibility is making a profit for the owners and vested interests, and answering to the common good is not a requirement. We regulate corporations because through this regulation, we help maintain the common interest.

As a perfect example, note how Government has routinely reigned in corporations who have abused the public trust. Standard Oil is one example, and the food industry is another.