NationStates Jolt Archive

Democrats and most Americans fail to realize that the top 5% of earners in this country paid 80% of all the tax dollars collected last year, the rich are paying their fair share don't ya think.

And yet through tax cuts, they've managed to slip by with only 3% or so of their cash taxed.

And yet through tax cuts, they've managed to slip by with only 3% or so of their cash taxed.
and yet they are still paying 80% aren't they.

and yet they are still paying 80% aren't they.
Just shows how little everyone else has, doesnt it ;)

and yet they are still paying 80% aren't they.
lets try this again

they pay 80% yet only 3% of total is taxed. if they got so much damn monye, they can afford to fund stuff instead of whining about privatising everytihng so they can own the other 90+% of the population who, TOGETHER< are so poor they only pay 20% of all taxes

lets try this again

they pay 80% yet only 3% of total is taxed. if they got so much damn monye, they can afford to fund stuff instead of whining about privatising everytihng so they can own the other 90+% of the population who, TOGETHER< are so poor they only pay 20% of all taxes

So, it's OK for us to vote ourselves a larger share of the rich man's wealth?
The fact that they have more doesn't give us the right to steal.
Robin Hood was still a thief.

So, it's OK for us to vote ourselves a larger share of the rich man's wealth?
The fact that they have more doesn't give us the right to steal.
Robin Hood was still a thief.
which didnt make him wrong

which didnt make him wrong

In that case can I steal your car? My car is in the shop till Tuesday and I don't like my rental. I need it, so this wouldn't make it wrong, would it?

In that case can I steal your car? My car is in the shop till Tuesday and I don't like my rental. I need it, so this wouldn't make it wrong, would it?
you miss the point, robin hood stoel from those who had more than what they needed, and practically stole to get it, and prevented the peasants/lower class from becoming rich. now if i was some guy and lived in a mansion with 20 cars like some actor or mujsician making 20mil a year, yeah, THATS a better comparison

you miss the point, robin hood stoel from those who had more than what they needed, and practically stole to get it, and prevented the peasants/lower class from becoming rich. now if i was some guy and lived in a mansion with 20 cars like some actor or mujsician making 20mil a year, yeah, THATS a better comparison
Actually, Robin Hood robbed the government and gave money to the poor overtaxed peoples. here most people would say something like "Hate to piss on your parade", but, you know what, I feel pretty damn good about it.

Robin Hood stole from "the government" as personified by the corrupt local sheriff who taxed more heavily than the king mandated and did not send that money to the king.

Actually, Robin Hood robbed the government and gave money to the poor overtaxed peoples. here most people would say something like "Hate too piss on your parade", but, you know what, I feel pretty damn good about it.
yes the POOR overtaxed people, the equivolent of the "undertaxed" now :rolleyes:

Robin Hood stole from "the government" as personified by the corrupt local sheriff who taxed more heavily than the king mandated and did not send that money to the king.
That being what I said. Robin Hood wouldn't have robbed Bill Gates, he would have run the Clintons, the Bushes, and the Kennedys for every cent they had. (I'm sure that there were other political dynasties, but those are the groups that I can recite off the top of my head that are running off of government money.)

So, let's say YOU were rich. You dedicated your life and worked 'round the clock for years to build up a very successful company, and you become very wealthy.

I decide it's not fair, so I take half of all you own and what you belong and spread it around amongst people who lazed around in high school, didn't go to university, and wound up on the streets or in crappy low-income housing.

How do you react? Do you say "oh well... I have more money than them, it's okay if they steal from me!"?

Taxing money is not stealing. I would hazard to guess that 99% of the people paying the 80% taxes in the USA are still recompensed for their contribution to society over and above the value of that contribution. Personally if Tiger Woods did not exist, I doubt humanity would be substantially impoverished, yet you wouldnt know that looking at the guy's paycheck.

How can taking money be theft unless money has a value? How can money have a value unless people agree that it does? Why would people agree that money has value if the only purpose it serves is to further the interests of a small minority by enforcing their control over the majority?

What is the end result of a smaller and smaller group owning more and more of the total available finite resources that exist on this earth? If they end up owning everything and the rest of society are enslaved by debts incurred merely to eat each day, how long will the majority tolerate being the slaves of the small minority, who do you think will win in any eventual show of force - the few or the many?

Money only has value because people perceive that it does. If no one will give you goods for your money, your money becomes valueless. Taxes are part of the means by which the value of money is maintained. By ensuring that money is distributed amongst society, so too is belief in money's value distributed.

Taxing money is not stealing. I would hazard to guess that 99% of the people paying the 80% taxes in the USA are still recompensed for their contribution to society over and above the value of that contribution. Personally if Tiger Woods did not exist, I doubt huymanity would be substantially impoverished, yet you wouldnt know that looking at the guy's paycheck.
Humanity wouldn be "impoverished" we wouldn't have, um, well . . .
We wouldn't have . . . We would be lacking . . .
Oh, I know, a black golfer. That is important, somehow.

How can taking money be theft unless money has a value? How can money have a value unless people agree that it does? Why would people agree that money has value if the only purpose it serves is to further the interests of a small minority by enforcing their control over the majority?
Money has a value because dollars are more polite than military force and easier to carry around, say, camels or sheep.

What is the end result of a smaller and smaller group owning more and more of the total available finite resources that exist on this earth? If they end up owning everything and the rest of society are enslaved by debts incurred merely to eat each day, how long will the majority tolerate being the slaves of the small minority, who do you think will win in any eventual show of force - the few or the many?
So, without the government to tax rich peoples, rish peoples would keep getting richer until . . .
They became a government?

Money only has value because people perceive that it does. If no one will give you goods for your money, your money becomes valueless. Taxes are part of the means by which the value of money is maintained. By ensuring that money is distributed amongst society, so too is belief in money's value distributed.
Money has value, not because of some consensus of people, but because of brute force. A dollar is worth a dollar's worth of stuff because if you don't agree, the government will kill or imprison you.
Example, if you insist that one dollar is worth a car, the person with the car will call you nuts and send you on your way. If you take the car anyway, the government will arrest you for theft, even if you left the dollar.

Money has a value because dollars are more polite than military force and easier to carry around, say, camels or sheep.
Money has a value because people agree that it has a value. Many things are more polite than military force, and more portable than say camels or sheep, but those things are not all money. Evidently what is money to some people is not money to others.

Money has value, not because of some consensus of people, but because of brute force. A dollar is worth a dollar's worth of stuff because if you don't agree, the government will kill or imprison you.
Early attempts by governments in Europe to mint coins containing less precious metals failed because people did not accept that the coins were of the value that the government decreed.
Evidently most governements in capitalistic democracies do not micro-manage the economy by setting the value and price of all goods, in fact can you name even one such government in current existence?

Money only has value because people perceive that it does. That's true of anything. I don't know why people single out money as a special case.

I say soak the rich. How about 80% taxation above a $500,000 income? And 90% above $1 million? Economic equality is a better premise than a mega-rich elite. Even if increasing taxation dramatically on the rich doesn't actually improve things that much, then at least the rest of us have the pleasure of knowing the rich won't have it *quite* so easy. Maybe Kerry would have to get rid of one of his chauffeurs or butlers, and sell a few of his six homes. Who knows.
The government used to have taxes at such a high rate, and no, it didn't make anything better. It certainly didn't make the rich much poorer, they all just hid their money. And over-all, it reduced net government income.

Additionally, why would you want to make someone else's life worse even if it doesn't improve yours? Can't you be happy with what you've got and live and let live? It's a bit of an irony, I think, that the rich have so much power simply because so many people want to be rich.

That's true of anything. I don't know why people single out money as a special case.


The government used to have taxes at such a high rate, and no, it didn't make anything better. It certainly didn't make the rich much poorer, they all just hid their money. And over-all, it reduced net government income.

Additionally, why would you want to make someone else's life worse even if it doesn't improve yours? Can't you be happy with what you've got and live and let live? It's a bit of an irony, I think, that the rich have so much power simply because so many people want to be rich.
Well people don't exactly want to be *rich*, but less poor to the point where they don't have to worry about lives daily problems ;)

That's true of anything. I don't know why people single out money as a special case.
Because it's not true of anything, and money is a special case.

I just have to ask, who here has taken at least basic economics?

There is a concept called average propensity to spend. Essentially what it says is that a given income people tend to spend a certain percentage of what they earn and save the rest. As income rises the percentage drops so that a very poor person is spending all of their income and sometimes more (the APS line drops below the income line on the graph) and a very rich person is spending a smaller portion of their total income. This concept is why the very poor pay little or no taxes, because they are already earning less than they need to be spending while the rich are taxed heavily becuase they can afford to give the government money without it cutting into their spending. For the ultra-wealthy, who earn often more than a hundred million dollars each year a 75% tax wouldn't be noticable because $25+ million of spendable income is more than enough for any person. "Fair" is a word that gets tossed around but nobody really knows what it means. Fairness is not treating everyone identically, it is treating everyone with equal consideration. It is necessary for the survival of the very poor that they pay no taxes while it does not hurt the very rich if they are taxed heavily, so the tax system is "fair" though it is not "equal."

Money has a value because people agree that it has a value.

I've got to correct a little semantic error here...

Currency has value only because people agree that is has value. Money is an abstract concept while currency is its physical representation.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/kooterade8/indeed.jpg

I should hit you...

In fact, I'm fairly certain I will.

Really, the fairest taxes would be sales tax and land tax. That way you tax based on consumption and ownership of truly finite items, so the biggest consumers and property owners would bear the brunt of taxes. That seems fair, since their ownership and consumption precludes someone else from owning or consuming that good or property. Income tax, however, is ludicrous. Money is an abstract concept, tracked and maintained by a series of bits and bytes in computer systems throughout the world. My having a hundred dollards does not in any way prevent someone else from having a hundred dollars, since there is as much liquid value in the world as we agree there is.

Really, the fairest taxes would be sales tax and land tax. That way you tax based on consumption and ownership of truly finite items, so the biggest consumers and property owners would bear the brunt of taxes. That seems fair, since their ownership and consumption precludes someone else from owning or consuming that good or property. Income tax, however, is ludicrous. Money is an abstract concept, tracked and maintained by a series of bits and bytes in computer systems throughout the world. My having a hundred dollards does not in any way prevent someone else from having a hundred dollars, since there is as much liquid value in the world as we agree there is.
If you tax sales, sales go down. After all, why am I going to buy a 10 million dollar 20 yard Sony Panislandic with attached satellite dish if the government is going to force me to offer up another million in tax? It would also affect people who just barely get by. People living in deep poverty pay almost no tax now, so what will happen to them when a 25% sales tax is added to the cost of milk?
Your other idea was a land tax. Well, lets ask a medieval serf how well a system based almost exclusively on land taxes works.
MEDIEVAL SERF: Forsooth, methinks it doth sucketh.
ME: OK, now go back to medieval serfing.
MEDIEVAL SERF: Nay, knave! Thou shalt bleed from yon ears afore I returneth!

Money has a value because people agree that it has a value. Many things are more polite than military force, and more portable than say camels or sheep, but those things are not all money. Evidently what is money to some people is not money to others.
But, that crazy hobo who works with me says that the sheep are first class, and he would no as he spends every night out there on the pasture!
Anyways, money is convenient. Further, anything that was more portable than sheep and camels, more polite than military force, and used as a form of currency would be money. Whether it was used volvo hubcaps, ferrets, or bits of fluff found under the bed.

Early attempts by governments in Europe to mint coins containing less precious metals failed because people did not accept that the coins were of the value that the government decreed.
I might note that current money is made with non valuable materials. I might also note that early European governments failed at most things.

Evidently most governements in capitalistic democracies do not micro-manage the economy by setting the value and price of all goods, in fact can you name even one such government in current existence?
Cuba. However, money really has no value. Money doesn't have value because of what it is now, right now it isn't usual for much more than blowing my nose. However, that dollar that you gave me to buy a Dr Pepper has value because later I can use it to buy stuff from someone else.

Stuff

Actually, the market has shown that if you tax sales, people keep buying stuff. Companies will pay a million dollars tax on a multi-million dollar widget, because they still need that widget. Since they're not paying income taxes (or getting double-taxation on dividends) they have that additional capital to pay for business expansion.

Also, I am of the opinion that there should be no free ride. When I was dirt poor I still had to pay the 7% state sales tax on general goods, and it didn't break me. If food is an issue, we can keep the common (it might even be a Federal law, I'm not sure) rule of no sales tax on food items.

Unfortunately I don't have a rolleyes image big enough to respond to your medieval serf comments. :(

Actually, the market has shown that if you tax sales, people keep buying stuff. Companies will pay a million dollars tax on a multi-million dollar widget, because they still need that widget. Since they're not paying income taxes (or getting double-taxation on dividends) they have that additional capital to pay for business expansion.
People will still buy stuff, but they'll buy less. The fact is, you would need to add an exorbiant amount of tax to products to make your idea work, and that would penalize the economy.

Also, I am of the opinion that there should be no free ride. When I was dirt poor I still had to pay the 7% state sales tax on general goods, and it didn't break me. If food is an issue, we can keep the common (it might even be a Federal law, I'm not sure) rule of no sales tax on food items.
The problem is that such a system would recquire a massive tax, not some small pittance like 7%. Further, if you remove the tax on food, the taxes would have to go up elsewhere. So that means that clothes, blankets, gas, cars, telephones, etc. would become more expensive.

Unfortunately I don't have a rolleyes image big enough to respond to your medieval serf comments. :(
What, exactly, can you disagree with? You mentioned property tax, I mentioned the only system which ever used it exclusively.
If you don't like the medieval argument, consider what your plan would do to the market for real estate. Even worse, imagine the affects on apartment prices.

Democrats and most Americans fail to realize that the top 5% of earners in this country paid 80% of all the tax dollars collected last year, the rich are paying their fair share don't ya think.
Not exactly correct.
The top 5% pay 56.47% of total tax.
The top 10% pay 67.3%.
The top 50% pay 96.09%

So yes, the top 50% are paying for the bottom 50%.

I just have to ask, who here has taken at least basic economics?

There is a concept called average propensity to spend. Essentially what it says is that a given income people tend to spend a certain percentage of what they earn and save the rest. As income rises the percentage drops so that a very poor person is spending all of their income and sometimes more (the APS line drops below the income line on the graph) and a very rich person is spending a smaller portion of their total income. This concept is why the very poor pay little or no taxes, because they are already earning less than they need to be spending while the rich are taxed heavily becuase they can afford to give the government money without it cutting into their spending. For the ultra-wealthy, who earn often more than a hundred million dollars each year a 75% tax wouldn't be noticable because $25+ million of spendable income is more than enough for any person. "Fair" is a word that gets tossed around but nobody really knows what it means. Fairness is not treating everyone identically, it is treating everyone with equal consideration. It is necessary for the survival of the very poor that they pay no taxes while it does not hurt the very rich if they are taxed heavily, so the tax system is "fair" though it is not "equal."

I dont know exactly what you are thinking... but if you think someone wouldn't notice a loss of 75% of their income then you are smoking some serious crack.

What do you think the "rich" do with that disposable income that they have? They invest it to get more. What happens to that investment? It helps the economy. What happens when the economy grows? The government tax revenue increases greater than if they simply "taxed the rich because they can afford it"

Taxing someone "heavily" hurts them, whether or not you choose to accept it, because it prevents them from persuing their chosen from of "happiness". As in Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness.

I might note that current money is made with non valuable materials. I might also note that early European governments failed at most things.
Well yes you might note that, it would probably be easier to make note of irrelevent facts than it would be to explain how the assertion 'money has value because if you dont accept the value of money as dictated by the government they will arrest or physically harm you' can be true considering history provides proof that this is not so.

Cuba
Cuba? You dont say! I guess I am behind the times, last time I heard news of Cuba it was not a capitilistic democracy, perhaps you'll fill me in on the details...

I dont know exactly what you are thinking... but if you think someone wouldn't notice a loss of 75% of their income then you are smoking some serious crack.

The quality of life of a person earning $100 million each year is not significantly better than the quality of life of a person earning $25 million each year, certainly not 4 times better.

What do you think the "rich" do with that disposable income that they have? They invest it to get more. What happens to that investment? It helps the economy. What happens when the economy grows? The government tax revenue increases greater than if they simply "taxed the rich because they can afford it"

Not exactly. When the government taxes it doesn't keep the money, it spends it so taking the money that isn't being spent by the rich and spending it helps the economy. Investments are not the same as products. Economically speaking they are very different and have significantly different effects on real GDP.

Taxing someone "heavily" hurts them, whether or not you choose to accept it, because it prevents them from persuing their chosen from of "happiness". As in Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness.

I just don't buy it. If a person is going to be happy because they earned a ton of money it will be because they earned it so having it taxed away won't matter in the same way as it would to a person who is living from paycheck to paycheck.

Taxing someone "heavily" hurts them, whether or not you choose to accept it, because it prevents them from persuing their chosen from of "happiness". As in Life, Liberty and the Persuit of happiness.

Oh no! The poor little rich people! How will they cope with only 3 houses instead of 5?

Because it's not true of anything, and money is a special case.
Why does food have value? Because people value it. Why can owning a few certain art-works make you a millionaire, but owning a few other ones make you no richer? Because of the value people place in certain things. It's the same for anything unfortunately.

I just have to ask, who here has taken at least basic economics?
I've studied far more than that, and you're wrong on the bit about money. Money is currency + more. You can find something physical for any bit of money in the economy (even if comes down to bits of paper or the magnetic charge on a hard disk somewhere).

Also, you need to lay off the interpersonal comparisons. We have no way of knowing what value someone with $100 million places in each dollar compared to someone with $25 million. It may be that the person with $100 million values each dollar twice as much as the person with $25 million. We simply can't say. It's an implicit argument in almost all neoclassical economic policy prescriptions that we can, which is a big problem for a field that claims to be scientific.

Also, you need to lay off the interpersonal comparisons. We have no way of knowing what value someone with $100 million places in each dollar compared to someone with $25 million. It may be that the person with $100 million values each dollar twice as much as the person with $25 million. We simply can't say. It's an implicit argument in almost all neoclassical economic policy prescriptions that we can, which is a big problem for a field that claims to be scientific.

We cannot make accurate generalizations (really we never can), but for a given individual there are ways to tell how that person values their 50 millionth dollar as compared to their 100 millionth dollar. The way that they spend it and the attitude they have about their money. We can say with remarkable certaintly that $100 means a lot more to someone earning $18,000 in a year than to someone earning $100 million in a year because the person earning $18,000 each year spends the money hesitantly on a necessity while the other spends it without thought on a frivolity. In essense we need a MPS/APS graph for each individual rather than an average of all people (although that can be useful for telling us how the market as a whole values a dollar). You're right, it is possible that the person with $100 million values each more than the person with $25 million, but at least in our current system they are in the same tax bracket and both understands that from a given income they will only keep a certain percentage, so the amount they earn is taylored to fit their spending needs rather than their gross income needs.