NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200410210858.asp

October 21, 2004, 8:58 a.m.
Fair Share & More
The rich are doing there tax-paying part — and then some.



Last week, the Internal Revenue Service released data on distribution of the income-tax burden in 2002. They put a lie to John Kerry’s contention that the rich are not paying their fair share and should be taxed more.


The IRS data divide taxpayers into percentiles according to their adjusted gross incomes. Following is the share of aggregate income taxes paid by each group:

Income Group: Tax Share
Top 1 percent: 33.7 percent
Top 5 percent: 53.8 percent
Top 10 percent: 65.7 percent
Top 25 percent: 83.9 percent
Top 50 percent: 96.5 percent
The data also reveal that despite the Bush tax cuts, the income tax is still highly progressive — taking more from each group as their incomes rise. The following percentages measure the taxes paid by each group divided by their income. Economists call this the average or effective tax rate.

Income Group: Tax Rate
Top 1 percent: 27.25 percent
Top 5 percent: 22.95 percent
Top 10 percent: 20.51 percent
Top 25 percent: 16.99 percent
Top 50 percent: 14.66 percent
Bottom 50 percent: 3.21 percent
Finally, the data show that the rich are not only paying tax rates as high as they were during the Clinton administration, even after large tax cuts in 2001 and 2002, but they are doing so even as their incomes have fallen. The aggregate income of the top 1 percent was down 26 percent between 2000 and 2002. In 2000, the income threshold for getting into the top 1 percent was $313,469. By 2002, that figure had fallen to $285,424, reflecting the slow economy and weak stock market.

This doesn’t mean we should shed tears for the rich. They’re still doing pretty well. But these data raise serious questions about Kerry’s class-warfare agenda. How much more taxes does he think rich people should pay?

Poll data suggest that the wealthy are already paying more than the bulk of Americans think they should. A Zogby poll last year asked people what a fair tax rate would be for a person making $1 million per year — an income that would put someone in the top tenth of the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Seventeen percent of Americans said that 10 percent was the most he should pay and 29 percent said that 20 percent was the maximum.

In other words, 46 percent of the American people think that millionaires today are already overtaxed, paying about 28 percent of their income to the federal government when 20 percent is the most they ought to pay. Only 21 percent of people in the survey agreed with Kerry that tax rates should be higher than 30 percent.

Lest one think that this is an isolated result, there are other polls with similar findings. A 2001 Fox News poll asked people to indicate the highest percentage of taxes anyone should have to pay. Fifty-two percent said 20 percent was the most anyone should pay. Only 9 percent of people favored rates above 30 percent. Another Fox News poll in 1999 found 65 percent of people saying that 20 percent should be the maximum tax rate.

One possible reason for these results is that people think taxes are a lot higher than they really are. According to a new study by economists Alan Blinder and Alan Krueger, when asked for the current tax rate on a typical family, the average response was 31.3 percent. The Census Bureau says the correct answer is 23.4 percent. In 2002, the average household’s income was $57,852 and it paid $13,529 in taxes.

This overestimation of the tax burden on the middle class may help explain why it has supported the Bush tax cuts despite a constant drumbeat of media reports saying that only the rich have benefited. A Princeton University study recently concluded that people are basically irrational for favoring tax cuts for the rich at the same time that they believe inequality is a growing problem.

A better explanation is that many Americans think they have a chance of becoming rich some day. A Gallup poll last year found that 31 percent of Americans thought they would become rich. Among those between the ages of 18 and 29, the figure jumped to 51 percent.

For this reason, even sophisticated leftists recognize that class warfare is a non-starter in American politics. As columnist Bob Kuttner recently put it, “Because nearly everyone identifies upward, you don’t gain traction in American progressive politics by baiting the rich.” Mark Penn, Bill Clinton’s pollster, put it this way: “The more government tries to monkey with income distribution, the more people dislike it.”

Mr. Kerry should have listened to them.

— Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Funniest post I've read for a long time! :D

God I love it when some right-wing journal pops up with that "top 50% of wage earners" bit and then fails to note that you only have to make about $27,000 a year to be in the top 50%. It's not like just being in the top half means you're on easy street.

the rich should not pay for more of the government's expenses simply because they are wealthy. we all are getting the same government (supposedly), we all have access to the same public services, and therefore we should all be paying equally. i don't get to pay less for food just because i don't have as much money as my neighbor, after all, so why should i be allowed to pay less money for the same public services that all citizens share?

the rich should not pay for more of the government's expenses simply because they are wealthy. we all are getting the same government (supposedly), we all have access to the same public services, and therefore we should all be paying equally. i don't get to pay less for food just because i don't have as much money as my neighbor, after all, so why should i be allowed to pay less money for the same public services that all citizens share?

The lowest paid workers are probably working in the public sector, so they're already contributing extra to the system.

the rich should not pay for more of the government's expenses simply because they are wealthy. we all are getting the same government (supposedly), we all have access to the same public services, and therefore we should all be paying equally. i don't get to pay less for food just because i don't have as much money as my neighbor, after all, so why should i be allowed to pay less money for the same public services that all citizens share?

Do you mean equal proportion, or a totally equal sum?

Funniest post I've read for a long time! :D

God I love it when some right-wing journal pops up with that "top 50% of wage earners" bit and then fails to note that you only have to make about $27,000 a year to be in the top 50%. It's not like just being in the top half means you're on easy street.


I'm glad you both have something constructive to add to the conversation. Thank You.

Incertonia, if the Average household income earned in the US is $57,852 ...
The Census Bureau says the correct answer is 23.4 percent. In 2002, the average household’s income was $57,852 and it paid $13,529 in taxes.
... how could it be even close to possible that the 50% range of households make $27,000 or less and do you have facts to back up your statements?

The lowest paid workers are probably working in the public sector, so they're already contributing extra to the system.

What could you possibly be talking about in that sentence? Unless they are volunteering their free time, they are getting paid to do a job just like everyone else.

Do you mean equal proportion, or a totally equal sum?
i don't see any reason why there should be different amounts paid (well, except for the practical argument that the government needs far more money than it can raise through that method), because i don't see people being asked to pay different amounts for groceries based on their income.

i'm well down into the lower 50% of the tax brackets, but for some reason Safeway doesn't accept that my lower income means i should pay less for milk than the wealthy suburbanites that shop there...i mean, i am putting a greater percentage of my income toward food, and i could really use the savings, while they can afford to pay a couple of dollars more to pick up my slack! they have minivans with TVs in them, for pete's sake, so why not make them pay a dollar for a Snickers while i pay 25 cents? that way we are both paying the same percentage of our income for the Snickers.

The lowest paid workers are probably working in the public sector, so they're already contributing extra to the system.
actually, the lowest paid workers are in manufacturing and unskilled labor positions. as somebody who lives in DC, i can tell you that public sector doesn't really have it so bad...they may be underpaid in some cases, but they aren't poverty line.

The answer, Yaddah, is that the two numbers you quoted don't necessarily come from the same group. The average household income is not the same as the average taxpayer. The first group listed in the article is taxpayer. But households often have more than one taxpayer, so it's possible--likely even--that the average household number will be far higher than the average taxpayer number. Got it?

the rich should not pay for more of the government's expenses simply because they are wealthy. we all are getting the same government (supposedly), we all have access to the same public services, and therefore we should all be paying equally. i don't get to pay less for food just because i don't have as much money as my neighbor, after all, so why should i be allowed to pay less money for the same public services that all citizens share?But you don't benefit as much as the rich from the public services. The rich have more assets to protect and therefore they cost more to protect.

The answer, Yaddah, is that the two numbers you quoted don't necessarily come from the same group. The average household income is not the same as the average taxpayer. The first group listed in the article is taxpayer. But households often have more than one taxpayer, so it's possible--likely even--that the average household number will be far higher than the average taxpayer number. Got it?

Again, do you have facts to back up your assertion? I have found no where (web or otherwise) to back up your statement that $27k or below is the average income for 50% of the working population of the US.

i don't see any reason why there should be different amounts paid (well, except for the practical argument that the government needs far more money than it can raise through that method), because i don't see people being asked to pay different amounts for groceries based on their income.

i'm well down into the lower 50% of the tax brackets, but for some reason Safeway doesn't accept that my lower income means i should pay less for milk than the wealthy suburbanites that shop there...i mean, i am putting a greater percentage of my income toward food, and i could really use the savings, while they can afford to pay a couple of dollars more to pick up my slack! they have minivans with TVs in them, for pete's sake, so why not make them pay a dollar for a Snickers while i pay 25 cents? that way we are both paying the same percentage of our income for the Snickers.

(Safeway? Are you Australian, Bottle? I always figured you as American...unless they have a Safeway over there as well. *shrugs*)

Anyway...that's an interesting idea...I like it. It would only be feasible with a nationalised retail sector though.

(Safeway? Are you Australian, Bottle? I always figured you as American...unless they have a Safeway over there as well. *shrugs*)

Anyway...that's an interesting idea...I like it. It would only be feasible with a nationalised retail sector though.

I think they have a Safeway everywhere. Except in the UK it's been taken over, though doesn't seem to have changed the store names.

I'm glad you both have something constructive to add to the conversation. Thank You.

Incertonia, if the Average household income earned in the US is $57,852 ...

... how could it be even close to possible that the 50% range of households make $27,000 or less and do you have facts to back up your statements?

Do you understand the dfference between "mean" and "median"?

The average is a mean. 50% is a median. They do not have to be equivilent.

Note that I don't actually back up these statistics (although it seems accurate to me). I'm just saying it's hardly impossible like you said. It would just mean there would have to be a small number of people with very large incomes to tilt the mean up.

But you don't benefit as much as the rich from the public services. The rich have more assets to protect and therefore they cost more to protect.

Public services are paid through Property Taxes not Income Taxes.

Public services are paid through Property Taxes not Income Taxes.I know nothing about the american tax system.
So, there are property taxes and income taxes.
According to what you're saying, property taxes pay for public services. What does income tax pay for?

The other confusion might be because one number ($57K) is based on the average, and the other number (top 50%) is based on the median. It is mathematically possible - even probable - that the average is $57K, and still have the median at $27K.
People who make $50 bajillion dollars a year raise the average quite a bit, but still only affect the median slightly.
Example:
4 people. 1 earns 100K. 1 earns 30K. 1 earns 20K. And 1 earns 0K.
Average = 35K.
Median = 25K. (50% of the people make more than 25K)

[edit]: Adrica beat me to this point, but I'm gonna leave it up anyway... :)

The other confusion might be because one number ($57K) is based on the average, and the other number (top 50%) is based on the median. It is mathematically possible - even probable - that the average is $57K, and still have the median at $27K.
People who make $50 bajillion dollars a year raise the average quite a bit, but still only affect the median slightly.
Example:
4 people. 1 earns 100K. 1 earns 30K. 1 earns 20K. And 1 earns 0K.
Average = 35K.
Median = 25K. (50% of the people make more than 25K)

[edit]: Adrica beat me to this point, but I'm gonna leave it up anyway... :)

50% is an average and a median, and anyone earning $0 wouldn't be counted in this survey because they don't pay taxes.

*edited to fix typo*

I know nothing about the american tax system.
So, there are property taxes and income taxes.
According to what you're saying, property taxes pay for public services. What does income tax pay for?

Property Taxes pay for Police, Fire, Garbage Pickup and local (city/town/county) government, and are collected by City and County governments (Treasurers office).

Income Taxes pay for Highways (State & Interstate), Military, and all State and Federal Programs (Welfare, Social Security etc), and are Collected by State and Federal IRS agencys.

the rich should not pay for more of the government's expenses simply because they are wealthy. we all are getting the same government (supposedly), we all have access to the same public services, and therefore we should all be paying equally. i don't get to pay less for food just because i don't have as much money as my neighbor, after all, so why should i be allowed to pay less money for the same public services that all citizens share?
So, in fact, why should you even pay the same percentage? Why don't we just charge everyone a flat value, say... $10,000? I mean, if you're all getting the same benefits...


Cos it victimises poor people Bottle. And it'll lead to the kind of class system that hasn't been seen for three centuries.

50% is an average not a median, and anyone earning $0 wouldn't be counted in this survey because they don't pay taxes.

*edited to fix typo*

50% of the numbers in group X are above number Y. This is not an average. It is the mathematical definition of a median. See my example for the difference.

50% is an average and a median, and anyone earning $0 wouldn't be counted in this survey because they don't pay taxes.

*edited to fix typo*

That is utterly and completely irrelevant to his and my point, and I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to realize that.

50% of the numbers in group X are above number Y. This is not an average.

But 50% of 100,000 is 50,000 it is both an average and a median. I changed what I said, but not until after you posted against it.

(25000+75000)/2 = average of 50,000

Property Taxes pay for Police, Fire, Garbage Pickup and local (city/town/county) government, and are collected by City and County governments (Treasurers office).

Income Taxes pay for Highways (State & Interstate), Military, and all State and Federal Programs (Welfare, Social Security etc), and are Collected by State and Federal IRS agencys.
Ok thanks.

Now I can addapt my post and make it more precise for the americans.
The rich have more properties and more revenue. Therefore, they should pay more property taxes and more revenue taxes (because they have more property to protect, more garbage, they use more road, they create more poverty, etc...).
Is that easier to understand now?

I think they have a Safeway everywhere. Except in the UK it's been taken over, though doesn't seem to have changed the store names.

Oh. Well over here, we only find them in one state, and they're part of an Australian corporation. So I found it a little weird.

(I actually work there...casual work though, of course.)

Oh, another point for Bottle

Social contract, people benfit from society. Government, which helps maintain society, takes in taxes as a part of that contract. The rich have more than the poor, as in they get to live in bigger houses and drive better cars. If there was no rule of law, you can bet someone would kill them and take all their stuff pretty quickly. So... couldn't you argue that the rich gain (or have protected) more than poor people do? Do you still think they're buying the same Snickers bar?

Oh. Well over here, we only find them in one state, and they're part of an Australian corporation. So I found it a little weird.

(I actually work there...casual work though, of course.)
What's a safeway by the way?

But 50% of 100,000 is 50,000 it is both an average and a median. I changed what I said, but not until after you posted against it.

(25000+75000)/2 = average of 50,000

Mean and median are both types of averages. They do, however, mean very different things. When you say, "the average income", you're talking about a mean. When he says, "the bottom 50%", he's talking about a median. You have to make this distinction if you want your statistics to go anywhere.


This is disregarding the fact that your example is flawed. If you had a 20k, a 30k, and a 50k instead of a 25k and a 75k, the mean would be 50k, but the median would be 30k. Didn't you cover this stuff in sixth grade?

50% is an average and a median, and anyone earning $0 wouldn't be counted in this survey because they don't pay taxes.

*edited to fix typo*
No, they would be counted, cos they're not paying taxes but still gaining from public services.

If you have five people put £1, £7, £2, £5 and £0 into a pot, and then split it evenly between them, what do you get? I make it £3 each, not £3.25, cos the guy who put the £0 in still gets the same amount as everyone else. All averages take into account the zero datums.

But 50% of 100,000 is 50,000 it is both an average and a median. I changed what I said, but not until after you posted against it.

(25000+75000)/2 = average of 50,000

Here is a set of numbers:

1;1;1;1;1;10

The median is the middle value (in this case the mean of the middle two values, the 3rd and 4th), so:

median = 1

The mean is what most people call the "average", and is the total of all the values, divided by the total number of values, so:

mean = 15/6 = 2.5

See how that one value at the end pushed the mean right up, but didn't affect the median?

Both of the above are merely different types of average, and can be used to do different jobs, but they're not the only type of average. There is also the mode, which is the most common value. In this example:

mode = 1

In the example of incomes, however, you would most likely look at the modal group, which is the most common range of income. e.g:

5% earn £100,000+
10% earn £75,000-£99,999
15% earn £50,000-£74,999
25% earn £25,000-£49,999
45% earn £0-£24,999

Here the modal group is £0-£24,999

Please don't criticise these figures, as I made them up and are only supposed to be vaguely realistic.

50% of the numbers in group X are above number Y. This is not an average. It is the mathematical definition of a median. See my example for the difference.


Try using real numbers within the figures quoted in my original post.

Lets say that there is 100 billion paid out in taxes in the course of a year.


Income Group: Tax Share
Top 1 percent: 33.7 percent
Top 5 percent: 53.8 percent
Top 10 percent: 65.7 percent
Top 25 percent: 83.9 percent
Top 50 percent: 96.5 percent


Using the figures above of that 100 billion ..

The Top 1% pays 33.7 billion
The next 4% pays 20.1 billion
The next 6% pays 11.9 billion
The next 19% pays 18.2 billion
the next 25% pays 12.6 billion
and the final 50% pays a whopping 3.5 billion.

Now, I really wish they would show as a percentage what each of those categories of people make based on the total amount of money paid out as income but unfortunately it doesnt. I do believe it was quoted in another thread at one time on this site, and I'll have to go back and see if I can find the information but, if I remember correctly the percentage of income vs the percentage of taxes paid was pretty disproportionate towards the high end (that upper 1% of taxes paid actually only made around 27% of total wages earned if I remember correctly, but I am doing this part from memory so don't quote me).

No, they would be counted, cos they're not paying taxes but still gaining from public services.

If you have five people put £1, £7, £2, £5 and £0 into a pot, and then split it evenly between them, what do you get? I make it £3 each, not £3.25, cos the guy who put the £0 in still gets the same amount as everyone else. All averages take into account the zero datums.


I will say it again, public services are paid by Property Taxes not Income taxes.

Try using real numbers within the figures quoted in my original post.

Lets say that there is 100 billion paid out in taxes in the course of a year.


Mmm, double standards, don't you just love 'em?

I will say it again, public services are paid by Property Taxes not Income taxes.

He means they're still benefitting from all that comes with being a citizen of the United States, not any particular set of benefits.

Ok thanks.

Now I can addapt my post and make it more precise for the americans.
The rich have more properties and more revenue. Therefore, they should pay more property taxes and more revenue taxes (because they have more property to protect, more garbage, they use more road, they create more poverty, etc...).
Is that easier to understand now?


How do they use more road? They can only drive 1 vehicle at a time, just like someone who doesn't make $250,000 per year. How do they make more garbage? they are still only 1 person.

Those that own businesses are paying yet again in the form of corporate taxes and the business pays property taxes as well not the individual person. You are confusing the issue here I believe.

The amount of money you get paid has no direct bearing on the amount of "public services" you use.

But you don't benefit as much as the rich from the public services. The rich have more assets to protect and therefore they cost more to protect.
how do i not benefit as much from public services? if anything, i benefit more! the rich suburbanites don't use the Metro, they drive their TV-equipped minivans. they send their kids to private schools, instead of using the public schooling that i relied upon. they don't need public libraries because they can just buy the hardcover edition when it first comes out.

i could keep going, but you get the idea; i think i make far more use of public services than the wealthy, yet i pay less...don't get me wrong, i love having extra money, but i don't honestly think it's fair.

So, in fact, why should you even pay the same percentage? Why don't we just charge everyone a flat value, say... $10,000? I mean, if you're all getting the same benefits...


Cos it victimises poor people Bottle. And it'll lead to the kind of class system that hasn't been seen for three centuries.
i don't see why it "victimizes" anybody to expect them to pay the same amount for the same services. are we "victimizing" poor people by expecting that they pay the same price for milk as wealthier people? are the middle class being "victimized" by the fact that they have to pay the same price for gas as the wealthy?

He means they're still benefitting from all that comes with being a citizen of the United States, not any particular set of benefits.

So are children but we don't add them into the mix do we. We also don't add illegals (those not in the country legally, and those not paying income taxes but earning a wage).

There are alot of issues that could possibly skew the numbers one way or another, that is why i'm trying to keep you all on topic here and using the same set of variables.

I could pull ton of information out of my ass (as well) that would skew the numbers upwards, but you don't see me doing that. I am quoting facts not spewing rehtoric.

Oh, another point for Bottle

Social contract, people benfit from society. Government, which helps maintain society, takes in taxes as a part of that contract. The rich have more than the poor, as in they get to live in bigger houses and drive better cars. If there was no rule of law, you can bet someone would kill them and take all their stuff pretty quickly. So... couldn't you argue that the rich gain (or have protected) more than poor people do? Do you still think they're buying the same Snickers bar?
since poor people tend to live in neighborhoods with higher rates of crime, and since poor people are victimized by criminals far more than wealthy people are, i would say the poor use the services of law enforcement far more often than wealthy people. wealthy people buy houses in ludicrously expensive neighborhoods where crime rarely reaches, and they spend crazy amounts on private security systems and private guards...the wealthy tend to use public police protection far, far, far less often than the poor, and thus "the government" is spending far less to protect them. the fact that they have lots of money may provide great incentive to steal, but the fact that they have lots of money also provides ample means of protection.

What's a safeway by the way?
it's a grocery store. i hadn't seen one until i moved here, so don't feel bad if they are unfamiliar.

EDIT: oh, and to whoever asked if i was an Aussie...nope, i'm in Washington, DC. i would love to head down under, though...if the American tax system continues being so unfair in my favor i should have plenty of money for a ticket soon. ;)

i don't see why it "victimizes" anybody to expect them to pay the same amount for the same services. are we "victimizing" poor people by expecting that they pay the same price for milk as wealthier people? are the middle class being "victimized" by the fact that they have to pay the same price for gas as the wealthy?

I think we are fighting a loosing battle here .. facts mean nothing to these people.

See how that one value at the end pushed the mean right up, but didn't affect the median?
Okay, now try it with 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 10.

This is the problem with living in a "meritocracy" (a word coined, in fact, to criticise the situation it describes, not praise it). People do become poor in developed countries, and mostly it's not their fault, but they get blamed because they live in a developed country, in a meritocracy. People aren't lazy, they don't want to live off benefits and never do a hard day's work.

If you're born into a low-income family, you have far less opportunities for education, for healthcare, and you have less protection from crime. But because you live in a "meritocracy" no one gives you a break and credits you with the fact you've had it tougher, because in society's eyes you haven't had it tougher. You live in a meritocracy! But it's crap because that income gulf is almost impossible to bridge.

People with high incomes have generally benefitted more from the system, so why shouldn't they put more back?

Okay, now try it with 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 10.

median = 1.25
mean = 2.6666666666......
mode - well, there is no mode in this case

Okay, now try it with 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 10.

Uhh, the mean is 2.66667... the median is 1.25.

I don't get it. What was the point of that?

since poor people tend to live in neighborhoods with higher rates of crime, and since poor people are victimized by criminals far more than wealthy people are, i would say the poor use the services of law enforcement far more often than wealthy people. wealthy people buy houses in ludicrously expensive neighborhoods where crime rarely reaches, and they spend crazy amounts on private security systems and private guards...the wealthy tend to use public police protection far, far, far less often than the poor, and thus "the government" is spending far less to protect them. the fact that they have lots of money may provide great incentive to steal, but the fact that they have lots of money also provides ample means of protection.
You are mistaken. There are more police officers patrolling in rich areas than there are in poor ones and the roads are in far better state. The Metro doesn't smell that much because it is cleaned very often. The car they use cost even more than the metro BTW (and I don't even talk about the pollution they generate, which much be dealt with by the state). The war in Iraq was just for them to get cheap oil and everything. The rich are costing society much more than the poor noodle eaters.

i don't see why it "victimizes" anybody to expect them to pay the same amount for the same services. are we "victimizing" poor people by expecting that they pay the same price for milk as wealthier people? are the middle class being "victimized" by the fact that they have to pay the same price for gas as the wealthy?Occams razor. Your arguement makes sense, but I disagree. You would make poor people poorer, to benefit those who already have plenty of money. What do you call that? Charles-Darwinomics?

Also, protection of law etc are not like commodities that you buy, they are societarial entitlements. Everyone, through participating in society, is entitled to food, shelter, healthcare, education at some minimum level. The fact that you pay more money for that when you can afford to is for the same reason you don't turn a stranger out of your house in the middle of winter when they have nowhere to go. It may cost you a little, but for a while now its been considered unnaceptable to put a price on a human life.

I could pull ton of information out of my ass (as well) that would skew the numbers upwards, but you don't see me doing that. I am quoting facts not spewing rehtoric.

That's a funny thing to say given your (now interestingly deleted) assertion that the mean and the median couldn't possibly be unequal...

This is the problem with living in a "meritocracy" (a word coined, in fact, to criticise the situation it describes, not praise it). People do become poor in developed countries, and mostly it's not their fault, but they get blamed because they live in a developed country, in a meritocracy. People aren't lazy, they don't want to live off benefits and never do a hard day's work.

If you're born into a low-income family, you have far less opportunities for education, for healthcare, and you have less protection from crime. But because you live in a "meritocracy" no one gives you a break and credits you with the fact you've had it tougher, because in society's eyes you haven't had it tougher. You live in a meritocracy! But it's crap because that income gulf is almost impossible to bridge.

People with high incomes have generally benefitted more from the system, so why shouldn't they put more back?Meritocracy my ass.

Uhh, the mean is 2.66667... the median is 1.25.

I don't get it. What was the point of that?
Now remove the top value, and see how the mean and median change. The median does change, just not by as much.

how is the mean 2.92? (16/6)

You shush ;) Yeah, I missed one, but I fixed it instantly... I was hoping no one would see, alas :p

since poor people tend to live in neighborhoods with higher rates of crime, and since poor people are victimized by criminals far more than wealthy people are, i would say the poor use the services of law enforcement far more often than wealthy people. wealthy people buy houses in ludicrously expensive neighborhoods where crime rarely reaches, and they spend crazy amounts on private security systems and private guards...the wealthy tend to use public police protection far, far, far less often than the poor, and thus "the government" is spending far less to protect them. the fact that they have lots of money may provide great incentive to steal, but the fact that they have lots of money also provides ample means of protection.
I don't think so. I think they have more cause to use the police, but I don't think that they actually do.

Now remove the top value, and see how the mean and median change. The median does change, just not by as much.

Uh, yeah... so? :p

Are these numbers from Federal, State and Local taxes? Individuals and corporations? I think it's an important distinction to know how the tax load is shared.

However, at first glance, I think US citizens are a little undertaxed for an economy their size; but if these are only Federal taxes, then perhaps it's ok.

Plus, it's obvious that the richer brackets will pay far more than the lower ones. This chart has to be complemented by one that details how much of the economy each bracket controls. Then we can start talking about who does a fair share of what.

Uh, yeah... so? :p
The other guy was saying that removing an upper value doesn't change the median period.

It was a simple example for those few people who didn't get averages.

I think we are fighting a loosing battle here .. facts mean nothing to these people.
i wouldn't say that, just that they interpret facts differently. i don't think they are stupid or nasty people, i think they are generally well-meaning and intelligent, they simply have different views of what is fair.

The other guy was saying that removing an upper value doesn't change the median period.

It was a simple example for those few people who didn't get averages.

Ah, fair enough. Although I think he was referring to that specific case...

It's interesting with all this focus in income tax. Income tax is distorted anyway. The average taxpayer does not have same access to the arcane accounting systems used in minimize taxes for the rich and wealthy.

Average taxpayers cope massive tax load from indirect taxes on the goods and services they need survive everyday. Everything you buy or service you contract is loaded with hidden costs from the indirect tax systems which are passed on the consumer.

For example in Australia, 50% of our petrol cost is actually TAX. If you pay $1 per L, 50c goes to the government (supposedly to fix roads and stuff). To make thing worse, you pay a consumption tax (or GST) of 10% on top of it! If fuel prices double, it's the average person who feels the cost increase more than the rich person as a percentage of living costs, petrol costs will be higher compared to the rich person.

Income tax is not be-all and end-all for discussion for tax burden.

I'm gonna toss an idea up here called the veil of ignorance. Imagine that you start out in life with no idea what you're gonna do or who you're gonna be. Now design a tax system.

This is the problem with living in a "meritocracy" (a word coined, in fact, to criticise the situation it describes, not praise it). People do become poor in developed countries, and mostly it's not their fault, but they get blamed because they live in a developed country, in a meritocracy. People aren't lazy, they don't want to live off benefits and never do a hard day's work.

If you're born into a low-income family, you have far less opportunities for education, for healthcare, and you have less protection from crime. But because you live in a "meritocracy" no one gives you a break and credits you with the fact you've had it tougher, because in society's eyes you haven't had it tougher. You live in a meritocracy! But it's crap because that income gulf is almost impossible to bridge.

People with high incomes have generally benefitted more from the system, so why shouldn't they put more back?

Ah yes, the "Society is to blame" excuse. Sorry that just won't cut it with me. I grew up in a family of 6 (My parents and 3 brothers). My dad worked 2 jobs and made just above the "poverty level" at the time I was growing up. I worked my ass off in school, just to get a "chance" to qualify for federal assistance and used it to pay my way through college (as well as borrowing money up the ass). You can't qualify for federal loans and grants to school if you are above a certain household income so that is a "benefit" not given to the "rich". I then worked my ass off making minimum wage and paying off my school debts for 5-6 years, before making a break for myself (by personally paying for further education to be certified as a Novell Engineer (back when CNE meant something) out of my own pocket). I am now considered "one of the wealthy" with a household income of around 75k per year. Don't tell me that you don't get chances to further yourself here in the US because frankly it's a bunch of Bullshit. You get what chances you make for yourself, if you are too lazy or self centered to see/take them, it isn't the fault of society, it is your own damn fault.

You are mistaken. There are more police officers patrolling in rich areas than there are in poor ones and the roads are in far better state. The Metro doesn't smell that much because it is cleaned very often. The car they use cost even more than the metro BTW. The war in Iraq was just for them to get cheap oil and everything. The rich are costing society much more than the poor noodle eaters.
wow, wrong all around. in my area there are three times as many officers in "low income" classified areas, the Metro doesn't smell because you aren't allowed to eat or smoke on it (the average car is only cleaned once per week), and the rest of what you said either has nothing to do with what i was talking about or is a support for my arguments.

I don't think so. I think they have more cause to use the police, but I don't think that they actually do.
wait, who?

You shush ;) Yeah, I missed one, but I fixed it instantly... I was hoping no one would see, alas :p

okay, I'll delete my message and then you can delete that one!

The other guy was saying that removing an upper value doesn't change the median period.

It was a simple example for those few people who didn't get averages.

I didn't mean it like that - I was just illustrating that huge figures inconsistent with the rest can skew the mean a lot, while hardly affecting the median.

You can't qualify for federal loans and grants to school if you are above a certain household income so that is a "benefit" not given to the "rich".
And not being allowed to sleep under bridges or beg for food is an equal application law?

Yes, people from rich backgrounds don't qualify for extra money. Because they don't need it.

Are these numbers from Federal, State and Local taxes? Individuals and corporations? I think it's an important distinction to know how the tax load is shared.

However, at first glance, I think US citizens are a little undertaxed for an economy their size; but if these are only Federal taxes, then perhaps it's ok.

Plus, it's obvious that the richer brackets will pay far more than the lower ones. This chart has to be complemented by one that details how much of the economy each bracket controls. Then we can start talking about who does a fair share of what.


It doesn't specifically state it, but the implication from the article (they are quoting Internal Revenue Service figures) is that it is federal income tax numbers.

Hope this helps.

I'm gonna toss an idea up here called the veil of ignorance. Imagine that you start out in life with no idea what you're gonna do or who you're gonna be. Now design a tax system.
honestly, my impulse would be to say that everybody pays the same amount. it seems fairest to me that if everybody is going to have equal access to the services paid for by those taxes then everybody should pay the same amount for them.

Ah yes, the "Society is to blame" excuse. Sorry that just won't cut it with me. I grew up in a family of 6 (My parents and 3 brothers). My dad worked 2 jobs and made just above the "poverty level" at the time I was growing up. I worked my ass off in school, just to get a "chance" to qualify for federal assistance and used it to pay my way through college (as well as borrowing money up the ass). You can't qualify for federal loans and grants to school if you are above a certain household income so that is a "benefit" not given to the "rich". I then worked my ass off making minimum wage and paying off my school debts for 5-6 years, before making a break for myself (by personally paying for further education to be certified as a Novell Engineer (back when CNE meant something) out of my own pocket). I am now considered "one of the wealthy" with a household income of around 75k per year. Don't tell me that you don't get chances to further yourself here in the US because frankly it's a bunch of Bullshit. You get what chances you make for yourself, if you are too lazy or self centered to see/take them, it isn't the fault of society, it is your own damn fault.

Why is it that people who work hard tend to refuse to accept that a lot of life is luck?

You got lucky. I don't hold anything against you because of this, but you have to realize that if the cards don't fall the right way, you can't always make up for that with hard work.

I'm gonna toss an idea up here called the veil of ignorance. Imagine that you start out in life with no idea what you're gonna do or who you're gonna be. Now design a tax system.

Ok, how's this ... you pay income tax based on your Gross Earnings. That tax is a flat X% of those earnings.

Seems pretty simple doesnt it.

Or even better, there is no "income tax" only a "use tax" based on what you use in life ... the more expensive the item, the more you pay in tax (still based on a flat percentage) I think this one is called "Value Added Tax" or "VAT" in alot of european contries.

Why is it that people who work hard tend to refuse to accept that a lot of life is luck?

You got lucky. I don't hold anything against you because of this, but you have to realize that if the cards don't fall the right way, you can't always make up for that with hard work.
i agree that a lot of life is luck, but i 100% disagree that you can't make up for bad luck with hard work. unless the luck is really catastrophically bad, you absolutely positively can overcome the bad luck that comes your way, and i personally don't think it is impossible to overcome catastrophically bad luck.

wait, who?
Poor people are more frequently victims of crime, but I don't believe that that translates into a use of the police service which is proportional.

federal assistance
minimum wage
So now you earn €75k per year and you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes?
You're an ungrateful bastard, aren't you?

Why is it that people who work hard tend to refuse to accept that a lot of life is luck?

You got lucky. I don't hold anything against you because of this, but you have to realize that if the cards don't fall the right way, you can't always make up for that with hard work.


Tell that to my dad, who the cards didn't fall right for and he still is comfortable in life.

He by the way, is still working at 70 years of age as a "manager" for a group of condo's in the area (manager in this instance is the guy who goes around fixing the stuff that breaks, mows the lawn, cleans the pool etc.)

Try using real numbers within the figures quoted in my original post.
Lets say that there is 100 billion paid out in taxes in the course of a year.
Using the figures above of that 100 billion ..

The Top 1% pays 33.7 billion
The next 4% pays 20.1 billion
The next 6% pays 11.9 billion
The next 19% pays 18.2 billion
the next 25% pays 12.6 billion
and the final 50% pays a whopping 3.5 billion.

Now, I really wish they would show as a percentage what each of those categories of people make based on the total amount of money paid out as income but unfortunately it doesnt. I do believe it was quoted in another thread at one time on this site, and I'll have to go back and see if I can find the information but, if I remember correctly the percentage of income vs the percentage of taxes paid was pretty disproportionate towards the high end (that upper 1% of taxes paid actually only made around 27% of total wages earned if I remember correctly, but I am doing this part from memory so don't quote me).

Sorry, we got off on a tangent just proving that being in the top 50% doesn't mean you make >57K a year. It means you make > 27K a year.
So, your assumed data shows that the top 50% of wage earners (those who earn >27K a year) paid 96.5 billion in taxes. The bottom 50% (who earned <27K a year) paid 3.5 billion in taxes. That seems quite likely to me. But so what? What does this "prove"?

Using the "tax rate" as quoted in your original post...
If you earn 100 million dollars a year, and you have to pay out 27% in taxes, then you still take home 73 million dollars.
If you earn 27K$ a year, and you have to pay out 3% in taxes, then you take home just over 26K$ a year. (what's poverty level now? Something like 24K$?)

If the upper portion of the Bush cut is rolled back, and the upper tax rate goes up to 30%:
The 100$ million guy still takes home 70$ million. The government just got an extra 3$ million in income from this one guy. To get the same income from the poor guy, you have to take all of his money...and all of the money from more than a hundred of his friends.


Now, does Joe Millionaire "get" more for his tax dollars? You could probably argue it either way. The bottom line is that his tax dollars funded the government of the country whose economic system allowed him to make his money.
Sure, a flat tax sounds great. I can't imagine how high it would have to be to generate the income currently needed to run the federal government. High enough that it would be catastrophic to those at, or below the poverty level.

Back to the main point of the original post though, it does not "hurt" the rich to carry a higher tax burden than the poor. If you make 70 million instead of 73 million, I doubt your life changes much. If you make 26K instead of 27K, maybe you can't make your rent this month...or feed your children...
:dunno:

Poor people are more frequently victims of crime, but I don't believe that that translates into a use of the police service which is proportional.
hmm, i shall look up stats. personal experience tells me that the poor make far more use of police than the rich, but i will seek out numbers to back up my impressions...

i agree that a lot of life is luck, but i 100% disagree that you can't make up for bad luck with hard work. unless the luck is really catastrophically bad, you absolutely positively can overcome the bad luck that comes your way, and i personally don't think it is impossible to overcome catastrophically bad luck.

Sure, you can work it out sometimes. Usually, even. But it's not a given that you're gonna be able to succeed in life through sheer force of will.

Note, the top 1% of Americans own about 27% of the wealth, meaning they should hold 20-25% of the burden for how the government is run. The top 5% (which includes that top 1%) holds about 60% of the nation's wealth. The top 10% own about 75% of the nations wealth, and the top 60% own 99.8% of the wealth. The bottom 40% only owns 0.2% of the nation's wealth, mostly because they are in debt and breaking even zero, or are in debt and accualy into negative numbers.

This means that the tax payout break down should go something along the lines of

1% - 27%
5% - 60%
10% - 75%
60% - 99%

We see that they accualy pay

1% - 33.7%
5% - 53.8%
10% - 65.7%
60% - 96.5%

Analasis:

The top 1% is paying slightly over it's fair share of the tax burden, however it is not a statisticaly significant enough difference to warrent the belife that they are paying over thier fair share. While a tax cut for them would bring the system into equality, it is not nessisary and untill the government can cut funding that would assist these people (such as allowing large companies special rights) then they have no right to bitch about paying fair share in a system that protects them. The rest of the income to tax distribution is likewise not statisticaly significant enough to warrent drastic tax actions as proposed by John Kerry or President Bush, unless they are enacted in such a way that the entirty of the American population gains extra taxes or tax rebates in proportion to what they pay now to keep this equalibrium.

Conclusion:

It is misleading to state that the rich are paying more than thier fair share, data shows that they are paying statisticaly what they should be paying based on income. The system does not need to be changed to tax either the wealthy more, or to give the wealthy more money via tax cuts.

Ah yes, the "Society is to blame" excuse. Sorry that just won't cut it with me. I grew up in a family of 6 (My parents and 3 brothers). My dad worked 2 jobs and made just above the "poverty level" at the time I was growing up. I worked my ass off in school, just to get a "chance" to qualify for federal assistance and used it to pay my way through college (as well as borrowing money up the ass). You can't qualify for federal loans and grants to school if you are above a certain household income so that is a "benefit" not given to the "rich". I then worked my ass off making minimum wage and paying off my school debts for 5-6 years, before making a break for myself (by personally paying for further education to be certified as a Novell Engineer (back when CNE meant something) out of my own pocket). I am now considered "one of the wealthy" with a household income of around 75k per year. Don't tell me that you don't get chances to further yourself here in the US because frankly it's a bunch of Bullshit. You get what chances you make for yourself, if you are too lazy or self centered to see/take them, it isn't the fault of society, it is your own damn fault.

Well done. You've obviously done well for yourself. What about people who aren't as intelligent as you? They might have worked even harder, but just didn't have what it takes to get a well-paid job. Does that make them a less worthy citizen than you? Does that make them less deserving of the public services you enjoy? Does that mean they contribute less to society? Does that mean that they should have any less money to spend on their kids? No. They don't get paid as well as you do, through no fault of their own, so the taxes hit them much harder than they hit you. Society exists to look after its members, not as a never-ending well from which to draw resources.

honestly, my impulse would be to say that everybody pays the same amount. it seems fairest to me that if everybody is going to have equal access to the services paid for by those taxes then everybody should pay the same amount for them.
But, do you not think that being aware of the possibility that you might end up earning very little money and having to pay a great deal of that for the benefit of people who aren't you, do you not think that you might choose a system less likely to disadvantage you?

Ok, how's this ... you pay income tax based on your Gross Earnings. That tax is a flat X% of those earnings.

Seems pretty simple doesnt it.

Or even better, there is no "income tax" only a "use tax" based on what you use in life ... the more expensive the item, the more you pay in tax (still based on a flat percentage) I think this one is called "Value Added Tax" or "VAT" in alot of european contries.
A sales tax? You mean the regressive type of tax which means that poor people pay a much, much higher percentage of their income?

So now you earn €75k per year and you don't want to pay your fair share of taxes?
You're an ungrateful bastard, aren't you?


No, I pay (and always have paid) my fair share (and then some) of taxes. It is the people who benifit from this sort of thing and don't pay their fair share of taxes that I am talking about.

Why should the top 1% of wage earners (earning ~27% of the money paid out in wages) pay 33.7% of the taxes ?

Sure, you can work it out sometimes. Usually, even. But it's not a given that you're gonna be able to succeed in life through sheer force of will.
depends on how you define success, i suppose. i believe it is impossible to fail in life if you have the proper drive.

Conclusion:

It is misleading to state that the rich are paying more than thier fair share, data shows that they are paying statisticaly what they should be paying based on income. The system does not need to be changed to tax either the wealthy more, or to give the wealthy more money via tax cuts.
taken in context

the rich pay their fair share when you only look at what people are paying and rates. when you take into account outside factors, you realise the not rich people are getting the short end of the stick

Why should the top 1% of wage earners (earning ~27% of the money paid out in wages) pay 33.7% of the taxes ?
Because by the end of it they'll still have enough money for everything they're ever likely to need and then some. And the guy at the bottom rung shouldn't have to be working an 80 hour week to get by.

Why should the top 1% of wage earners (earning ~27% of the money paid out in wages) pay 33.7% of the taxes ?


Because it's not statisticaly a large enough anomoly to consider them to be paying too much. It's a difference of 6%, where as when you break to the 10% range you see that they pay 10% less than they should, Standard of error exhonorates both parties, unless of course you want to up the tax rate for the top 10% and then cut it for the top 1%, but then again, you would have some very powerful, very angry people running against you. Unfortuantly I don't have adequate data to work in cost of living as a percent of the total income, though it would be interesting to see how the data gets portrayed that way.

depends on how you define success, i suppose. i believe it is impossible to fail in life if you have the proper drive.
I think you'll find plenty of people throughout history who've worked hard and never got anywhere. And plenty of people who've lived their lives on the money handed down to them from their father and their father's father. Its not like that any more (thank god), but it could be again at some point.

Because by the end of it they'll still have enough money for everything they're ever likely to need and then some. And the guy at the bottom rung shouldn't have to be working an 80 hour week to get by.

But it is very likely that the top rung works that long to get and stay where he's at.

But, do you not think that being aware of the possibility that you might end up earning very little money and having to pay a great deal of that for the benefit of people who aren't you, do you not think that you might choose a system less likely to disadvantage you?
no. for one thing, i have no fear of ending up earning too little money to support myself, because i would select a career path that would be practical as well as personally desirable. for another thing, i would be paying money for the benefit of other people no matter what; other people would be getting to use public services, too, no matter how much i was paying. my goal is not to cheat the system and get other people to pay more than i do for the same resources, my goal is to make sure that a fair price is set for use of those resources and that everybody is expected to pay that same fair price.

i also don't see it as a disadvantage to be asked to pay the same as everyone else for resources. i don't consider myself disadvantaged because i have to pay the same for milk as more wealthy people do...i consider that fair.

wow, wrong all around. in my area there are three times as many officers in "low income" classified areas, the Metro doesn't smell because you aren't allowed to eat or smoke on it (the average car is only cleaned once per week), and the rest of what you said either has nothing to do with what i was talking about or is a support for my arguments.If there are more police in poor areas, it is to stop the poor from going to rich areas and put everything down.
But anyway if there is more assets to protect, don't you agree it will inherently cost more? Ok you say the rich have private police, but then the state has to protect the rich against the private police of the neightbors (the mafia) and the cost goes up. It doesn't cost the same to have infiltred spies in russian mafia or in yakusa gangs than to have a police officer patrolling the street for kids stealing apples to eat. The CIA and the military are the police of the rich.

But it is very likely that the top rung works that long to get and stay where he's at.
I don't think thats right. I honestly cannot concieve of a job so hard that you'd be deserving of a 16 million dollar salery. I can understand that your job might be worth that, in the money you generate for stockholders and whatnot, but I don't think that it can be so hard that you deserve that.

I think you'll find plenty of people throughout history who've worked hard and never got anywhere. And plenty of people who've lived their lives on the money handed down to them from their father and their father's father. Its not like that any more (thank god), but it could be again at some point.
merely working hard is not sufficient, you need to be applying that work correctly...drive has to do with the direction as much as the force, in my book.

the fact that there are people who live comfortably without working hard has nothing to do with my point. i don't define success by accumulation of material goods, so people who loaf around as rich brats for their whole lives are not successful according to my standards. even if they were, i don't judge my success based on what my neighbor has or hasn't got.

If there are more police in poor areas, it is to stop the poor from going to rich areas and put everything down.

that's your opinion. if you care to back it up with any facts then it will become relavent.


But anyway if there is more assets to protect, don't you agree it will inherently cost more?

no, for the reasons i have already outlined.


Ok you say the rich have private police, but then the state has to protect the rich against the private police of the neightbors (the mafia) and the cost goes up.

erm, sure, the mafia...i don't even know what you are on about, now.


It doesn't cost the same to have infiltred spies in russian mafia or in yakusa gangs than to have a police officer patrolling the street for kids stealing apples to eat. The CIA and the military are the police of the rich.
tinfoil hats: they aren't just an affectation for some people!

no. for one thing, i have no fear of ending up earning too little money to support myself, because i would select a career path that would be practical as well as personally desirable. Right, but now you've transcended the veil by assuming something about your own future. You have no idea even how determined to succeed you're going to be, thats the point of the veil as a thought experiment

merely working hard is not sufficient, you need to be applying that work correctly...drive has to do with the direction as much as the force, in my book.

the fact that there are people who live comfortably without working hard has nothing to do with my point. i don't define success by accumulation of material goods, so people who loaf around as rich brats for their whole lives are not successful according to my standards. even if they were, i don't judge my success based on what my neighbor has or hasn't got.
Well its good that you can be internally justified, unfortunately that's not how society sees a person, and thats not how people get treated in the end.

But it is very likely that the top rung works that long to get and stay where he's at.
yet makes 10+ times the amount of money

Right, but now you've transcended the veil by assuming something about your own future. You have no idea even how determined to succeed you're going to be, thats the point of the veil as a thought experiment
erm, i don't see how that follows. i am only assuming based on what i know about myself...i know that i will not fail, because i am capable and driven, so whatever system is implimented i know that i will be able to support myself; i simply will not pursue avenues that wouldn't lead to self-sufficiency, so i can make that assumption.

No, I pay (and always have paid) my fair share (and then some) of taxes. It is the people who benifit from this sort of thing and don't pay their fair share of taxes that I am talking about.

Why should the top 1% of wage earners (earning ~27% of the money paid out in wages) pay 33.7% of the taxes ?
Well because they don't work and because they are parasites.

Well because they don't work and because they are parasites.
would you mind actually discussing something, instead of making bland and trite statements of opinion? yes, we all know you hate rich people...that's nice, can you move on?

that's your opinion. if you care to back it up with any facts then it will become relavent.


no, for the reasons i have already outlined.


erm, sure, the mafia...i don't even know what you are on about, now.


tinfoil hats: they aren't just an affectation for some people!
Well I take it you are a libertarian since you say the rich people should have their private police. How do you stop private police from becoming a mafia?

erm, i don't see how that follows. i am only assuming based on what i know about myself...i know that i will not fail, because i am capable and driven, so whatever system is implimented i know that i will be able to support myself; i simply will not pursue avenues that wouldn't lead to self-sufficiency, so i can make that assumption.
Knowing that you're a driven person and that driven people suceed means that you know that you're going to do well. The point of the veil is to design a system when you have no idea of what you are going to become.

I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

Well I take it you are a libertarian since you say the rich people should have their private police. How do you stop private police from becoming a mafia?
i don't think i have ever said "rich people should have their own police."

perhaps if you tried reading my posts before replying to them...?

i don't think i have ever said "rich people should have their own police."

perhaps if you tried reading my posts before replying to them...?
So the police must be protecting the rich asses, doesn't it?

erm, i don't see how that follows. i am only assuming based on what i know about myself...i know that i will not fail, because i am capable and driven, so whatever system is implimented i know that i will be able to support myself; i simply will not pursue avenues that wouldn't lead to self-sufficiency, so i can make that assumption.
If you want to try it another way, imagine that you know nothing about anyone else. So it may be that although you know that you're intelligent and driven, you might be competing against people who are far MORE intelligent and driven, ie: you're at the bottom because the standards are higher.

Knowing that you're a driven person and that driven people suceed means that you know that you're going to do well. The point of the veil is to design a system when you have no idea of what you are going to become.

I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
oh, so you are saying you want me to assume that i am not myself? i guess i just didn't understand your example; i thought you were saying i was to assume that the SYSTEM could be anything at all, not that you wanted me to assume i didn't know anything about myself or how i would be able to function.

in that case, my answer remains the same anyway. my confidence in my own abilities was the source for my knowledge that i personally succeed, but i don't define fairness strictly by my own likelihood of success. i still feel that my original system would be the most fair, though i would EMOTIONALLY prefer to have a system skewed in my favor :).

i don't think i have ever said "rich people should have their own police."

perhaps if you tried reading my posts before replying to them...?
You did advocate private security guards for protection instead of a police force in response to a post of mine, that might've been what he was thinking of.

You did advocate private security guards for protection instead of a police force in response to a post of mine, that might've been what he was thinking of.
i did not advocate them, i simply pointed out the reality that wealthy people tend to have private security.

I don't think thats right. I honestly cannot concieve of a job so hard that you'd be deserving of a 16 million dollar salery. I can understand that your job might be worth that, in the money you generate for stockholders and whatnot, but I don't think that it can be so hard that you deserve that.


Well, considering (as a business owner) I consistantly work 12-16 hour days 6 (sometimes 7) days a week to make 75k a year, I can easily see where you could be mistaken.

Become a business owner some time, knowing that not only your family, but the families of all your employees live and die by your decisions, then come back and talk with me on this subject.

yet makes 10+ times the amount of money

You are obviously not a business owner, that peson who makes 10x the money probably (easily) does 100x the work, you as a "worker" just don't see it, and until you get in that position, there is no way you will ever believe it.

i did not advocate them, i simply pointed out the reality that wealthy people tend to have private security.Ah, and do you think they should have a private security or not?

oh, so you are saying you want me to assume that i am not myself? i guess i just didn't understand your example; i thought you were saying i was to assume that the SYSTEM could be anything at all, not that you wanted me to assume i didn't know anything about myself or how i would be able to function.

in that case, my answer remains the same anyway. my confidence in my own abilities was the source for my knowledge that i personally succeed, but i don't define fairness strictly by my own likelihood of success. i still feel that my original system would be the most fair, though i would EMOTIONALLY prefer to have a system skewed in my favor :).Its the emotional thing that maybe this is supposed to illustrate then. That, asssuming you could be anyone, you'd choose for everyone to be brought closer to equal under the system, with the reward for hard work still there to drive people, but not to divide them.

Ah, and do you think they should have a private security or not?

If they are willing to pay for it, yes. The complaint here seems to be "rich people suck money from the rest of us" and now you are complaining that they are giving people jobs (private security people).

Well, considering (as a business owner) I consistantly work 12-16 hour days 6 (sometimes 7) days a week to make 75k a year, I can easily see where you could be mistaken.

Become a business owner some time, knowing that not only your family, but the families of all your employees live and die by your decisions, then come back and talk with me on this subject.

And how much of that time do you fritter away on internet forums?

You are obviously not a business owner, that peson who makes 10x the money probably (easily) does 100x the work, you as a "worker" just don't see it, and until you get in that position, there is no way you will ever believe it.
So you're not a worker but you work 100x the work?

And how much of that time do you fritter away on internet forums?

Considering you have 4 times more posts in less time then I do, I'd say not as much as you.

If they are willing to pay for it, yes. The complaint here seems to be "rich people suck money from the rest of us" and now you are complaining that they are giving people jobs (private security people).
Like what? They should have guns for instance? And they should be followed by 5 bodyguards wherever they go? Let say we just stop taxing them. How should they protect themselves? Tell me about your ideas.

You are obviously not a business owner, that peson who makes 10x the money probably (easily) does 100x the work, you as a "worker" just don't see it, and until you get in that position, there is no way you will ever believe it.
have you ever had a job? ever?

Its the emotional thing that maybe this is supposed to illustrate then. That, asssuming you could be anyone, you'd choose for everyone to be brought closer to equal under the system, with the reward for hard work still there to drive people, but not to divide them.
no, you misunderstood me...i might emotionally want a system that would make MY LIFE easier, but i wouldn't believe, rationally, that such a system would be fair and equal. what i was saying is that emotionally i would like that system because it is unfair and would have a good statistical likelihood of being unfair in my favor.

i don't believe the system you support is fair, and i certainly don't believe it makes people equal, so i could never rationally support it. my lazy inner child would simply love your system, because it would make it easy for me to accumulate wealth, but i don't let that part of me rule my judgment.

also, emotionally, i feel that drive SHOULD divide people.

So you're not a worker but you work 100x the work?

"worker" meaning normal employee (not upper managment). Seemed like a straight forward statement, but I guess not.

Well, considering (as a business owner) I consistantly work 12-16 hour days 6 (sometimes 7) days a week to make 75k a year, I can easily see where you could be mistaken.

Become a business owner some time, knowing that not only your family, but the families of all your employees live and die by your decisions, then come back and talk with me on this subject.
Well la-de-dah you there on your high horse. I think that actually my lack of self-interest (not knowing yet what I'm going to end up as) means that I am better qualified to talk about a system as a whole and not lapse into advocating something purely for my own benefit.

You make 75k and work hard for it. I have no beef with you. But if someone is earning 750K, then does it follow that they must be working 10 times as hard as you? I think its unlikely. And given the massive layoffs and downsizings by companies for shareholder profits, I don't think that they are really feeling the mental pinch of thousands of employees families living and dying by their decisions anyway.

have you ever had a job? ever?


Yep, I worked for 12 years (in the industry that I'm in) prior to starting my own business (which i've had for 9 years) and I've held a job since I've been 12 years old (sometimes working 2 8 hour jobs on the same day to make ends meet).

How about you?

no, you misunderstood me...i might emotionally want a system that would make MY LIFE easier, but i wouldn't believe, rationally, that such a system would be fair and equal. what i was saying is that emotionally i would like that system because it is unfair and would have a good statistical likelihood of being unfair in my favor.

i don't believe the system you support is fair, and i certainly don't believe it makes people equal, so i could never rationally support it. my lazy inner child would simply love your system, because it would make it easy for me to accumulate wealth, but i don't let that part of me rule my judgment.
Ah, now we hit a snag. I think that a system that gave everyone the same amount of money regardless of how much they worked or earned would be the MOST equal, not the least. I wouldn't support that system, but thats besides the point. I think that we may have our definitions backwards.

Considering you have 4 times more posts in less time then I do, I'd say not as much as you.

Good for you!

"worker" meaning normal employee (not upper managment). Seemed like a straight forward statement, but I guess not.Not for me. If you work you are a worker, whether you are a CEO or a toilet cleaner.
Those who earn more than 500k though are not workers, they are stock holders.

Well la-de-dah you there on your high horse. I think that actually my lack of self-interest (not knowing yet what I'm going to end up as) means that I am better qualified to talk about a system as a whole and not lapse into advocating something purely for my own benefit.

You make 75k and work hard for it. I have no beef with you. But if someone is earning 750K, then does it follow that they must be working 10 times as hard as you? I think its unlikely. And given the massive layoffs and downsizings by companies for shareholder profits, I don't think that they are really feeling the mental pinch of thousands of employees families living and dying by their decisions anyway.

No, they probably don't work harder then I do, but as hard, yes they do. On top of that they have the worries of how to keep 100's even 1000's of employees (and their families) from loosing their jobs while trying to keep the buisiness afloat (and their shareholders happy). I on the other hand only have to worry about myself and my family (currently having no employees other then myself).

I am now going to make myself absent from this conversation, seeing I am done (currently) with the accounting work I had to do and need to go service my customers.

Good luck to all in whatever endevor you choose to persue.

Yep, I worked for 12 years (in the industry that I'm in) prior to starting my own business (which i've had for 9 years) and I've held a job since I've been 12 years old (sometimes working 2 8 hour jobs on the same day to make ends meet).

How about you?

And would you have ever been able to afford to set up a new business under the system you're proposing?

No, they probably don't work harder then I do, but as hard, yes they do. On top of that they have the worries of how to keep 100's even 1000's of employees (and their families) from loosing their jobs while trying to keep the buisiness afloat (and their shareholders happy). I on the other hand only have to worry about myself and my family (currently having no employees other then myself).
What about the shareholders?

What about the shareholders?

I doubt he has any considering he's a small business.

Well la-de-dah you there on your high horse. I think that actually my lack of self-interest (not knowing yet what I'm going to end up as) means that I am better qualified to talk about a system as a whole and not lapse into advocating something purely for my own benefit.

You make 75k and work hard for it. I have no beef with you. But if someone is earning 750K, then does it follow that they must be working 10 times as hard as you? I think its unlikely. And given the massive layoffs and downsizings by companies for shareholder profits, I don't think that they are really feeling the mental pinch of thousands of employees families living and dying by their decisions anyway.
how hard somebody works doesn't need to correlate to how much money they make. salary is largely determined by how valuable a service you provide, or, in other words, how much your particular work is worth to those with the ability to pay.

put it this way: my uncle is a surgeon who works literally 70 hours a week. i don't know how much he makes, but he has a three-story house with a pool that is cleaned by this robotic dealie. at the same time, the woman who lives across the hall from me also works 70 hours per week, but she works as a house cleaner. she lives in a small (though pretty nice) apartment, and just bought herself her first VCR last week. personally, i believe it is right for my uncle to be making much, much more money than my neighbor across the hall, even though the effort they put into their work is roughly equal.

I doubt he has any considering he's a small business.I'm making the point that those in the top 1% are not workers. They should be taxed as much as possible.

Ah, now we hit a snag. I think that a system that gave everyone the same amount of money regardless of how much they worked or earned would be the MOST equal, not the least. I wouldn't support that system, but thats besides the point. I think that we may have our definitions backwards.
yow, you do?! that's scary as hell. i don't see anything equal at all about giving everybody the same reward no matter what differences there are in their abilities, efforts, and skills. i see that as the absolute antipathy to equality.

No, they probably don't work harder then I do, but as hard, yes they do. On top of that they have the worries of how to keep 100's even 1000's of employees (and their families) from loosing their jobs while trying to keep the buisiness afloat (and their shareholders happy). I on the other hand only have to worry about myself and my family (currently having no employees other then myself).
Right, but is that really harder that working an eight hour shift as a nurse or a doctor? Surely life or death decisions are as stressful as stockholder-pleasing decisions? Or than a 10 hour shift hauling haybales onto a cart? Is physical labour as hard as mental labour? Do you have a way of calculating? I don't, so I don't think that one is intrinsically less worthy than another.

I'm making the point that those in the top 1% are not workers. They should be taxed as much as possible.

No, they should be taxed fairly. That means, yes, at a higher rate, because they can afford to pay. I know it doesn't sound right but otherwise it doesn't work, because no one else can afford to pay them.

BTW does the american revenue tax system take into account where the money come from (salary/stock shares)?
Don't you agree stock shares should be taxed more than salary (ideally at 100%)?

yow, you do?! that's scary as hell. i don't see anything equal at all about giving everybody the same reward no matter what differences there are in their abilities, efforts, and skills. i see that as the absolute antipathy to equality.
Well, like I say, it depends how you define equal. You go by hour, an equal system means someone who works five hours should be paid five times more than someone who does the same job for one hour. But I look at the end and see that one person has five times as much money. Unequal. Now both of us would say that the person who worked longer should have that larger stack of money, but I wouldn't call it equality.

This is probably more of a linguistical problem than an ideological one.

Yep, I worked for 12 years (in the industry that I'm in) prior to starting my own business (which i've had for 9 years) and I've held a job since I've been 12 years old (sometimes working 2 8 hour jobs on the same day to make ends meet).

How about you?
so you have a knowledge, hopefully, pool to draw from

how much more work are you doing as a business owner than when you had your job? how much more are you making?

Ah yes, the "Society is to blame" excuse. Sorry that just won't cut it with me. I grew up in a family of 6 (My parents and 3 brothers). My dad worked 2 jobs and made just above the "poverty level" at the time I was growing up. I worked my ass off in school, just to get a "chance" to qualify for federal assistance and used it to pay my way through college (as well as borrowing money up the ass). You can't qualify for federal loans and grants to school if you are above a certain household income so that is a "benefit" not given to the "rich". I then worked my ass off making minimum wage and paying off my school debts for 5-6 years, before making a break for myself (by personally paying for further education to be certified as a Novell Engineer (back when CNE meant something) out of my own pocket). I am now considered "one of the wealthy" with a household income of around 75k per year. Don't tell me that you don't get chances to further yourself here in the US because frankly it's a bunch of Bullshit. You get what chances you make for yourself, if you are too lazy or self centered to see/take them, it isn't the fault of society, it is your own damn fault.

Sounds exactly like my life story (replace the loans with just working like hell and not borowing) 3 jobs does wonder
and cne change to CCNA and MCSE (that and I am only 21 so I got this whole making 35 k thing yet) but hope to keep working hard

Anyways same thing rents to rich to let me get loans and too poor to help me out.

And I agree the devide is not too great to make it if you try

Well, like I say, it depends how you define equal. You go by hour, an equal system means someone who works five hours should be paid five times more than someone who does the same job for one hour. But I look at the end and see that one person has five times as much money. Unequal. Now both of us would say that the person who worked longer should have that larger stack of money, but I wouldn't call it equality.

This is probably more of a linguistical problem than an ideological one.
Now, this one probably seems a bit odd with the money example, but now say that I'm in charge of feeding these guys. Do I give one of them five times as much food, even though he's only a little hungrier? If I sit down to chat with them, do I offer one of them five times as many cigarettes? Do I ensure that the water comes out of the one guy's taps five times hotter, or that if their houses are burning down, that the firetrucks get there five times faster? If both need a heart transplant, and one has five times less chance of living even if he gets it, should it still be 50-50 as to who it goes to?

This is the difference between what you earn and what your taxes pay for.

so you have a knowledge, hopefully, pool to draw from

how much more work are you doing as a business owner than when you had your job? how much more are you making?

Being in a fairly simmilar situation

Knoledge base no ... only what I spend time aquiring (being he said he has no employees to draw on)

And I have my own (network) consulting busniess problem solving and research time I spend an average of 30% more time then I did doing a simmilar job for a company.

I make an average of 20% more money for my 30% more time put in just for individual problem solving

I also happened to get taxed higher.

Basicaly it is a lot more work for a lot less returns. it is hard work but it is rewarding in its own ways.

so you have a knowledge, hopefully, pool to draw from

how much more work are you doing as a business owner than when you had your job? how much more are you making?

C'mon, people! (and not directly to you, Chess) but I think everybody here knows that works isn't paid for what it's worth of for how much of it you do. Work is a commodity! That is, it's paid whatever the market will bear for a specific set of skills.

It doesn't matter if a CEO only works 2 hours a week and the rest of the time is spent on the Bahamas playing golf. They are paid for very specific knowledge that only a very few posses and the market is willing to pay top price for that.

A guy who sweeps the street and then has to go flip burgers gets paid minimum wage because there are millions who can do the same job, some are willing even for less. The market doesn't appreciate it as much.

So, if you want to earn more, get yourself some marketable skills or take your skills and market them in a novel way.

This doesn’t mean we should shed tears for the rich. They’re still doing pretty well. But these data raise serious questions about Kerry’s class-warfare agenda. How much more taxes does he think rich people should pay?

Yeah I think it is time to pass the hat for America's wealthiest individuals?:

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income. Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

You need to be careful of those editorials/stories about the wealthiest being overburdened by taxation?

To my mind, it's a question of priorities. Take someone who earns, oh, $20 million a year (extreme example). I'm gonna increase their taxes by $1 million a year. Did they work hard to earn that money? For the sake of argument, sure. Do they deserve that money? Sure, they earned it. Do they deserve that money more than 1,000 lower-class families deserve $1000 each? Absolutely not, in my opinion.

I'm not saying they didn't work for that cash, nor that they don't deserve it. But the difference of 1 to 20 million is immaterial compared to that $1000, so 1000 families can keep paying their rent and putting food on the table and maybe send their kids to college so they have a chance to do better.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200410210858.asp

October 21, 2004, 8:58 a.m.
Fair Share & More
The rich are doing there tax-paying part — and then some.



Last week, the Internal Revenue Service released data on distribution of the income-tax burden in 2002. They put a lie to John Kerry’s contention that the rich are not paying their fair share and should be taxed more.

The only rich people not doing their fair share is the Kerry's, paying less of a percentage than I do, and I amke 35,000 a year.

The other confusion might be because one number ($57K) is based on the average, and the other number (top 50%) is based on the median. It is mathematically possible - even probable - that the average is $57K, and still have the median at $27K.
People who make $50 bajillion dollars a year raise the average quite a bit, but still only affect the median slightly.
Example:
4 people. 1 earns 100K. 1 earns 30K. 1 earns 20K. And 1 earns 0K.
Average = 35K.
Median = 25K. (50% of the people make more than 25K)

[edit]: Adrica beat me to this point, but I'm gonna leave it up anyway... :)
Important thing to remember though is that the US is not on a 1:4 billionaire ratio. There are approximately 500 billionaires and 5000 millionaires. So combining their numbers we have a 5,500: 280,000,000 or 1:50,909. Which is on a totally different scale. The outliers have a lot less influence than this one might think.

Ok, I already know the rich pay higher taxes

Our government should spend smarter, not tax more!

It doesn't matter if a CEO only works 2 hours a week and the rest of the time is spent on the Bahamas playing golf. They are paid for very specific knowledge that only a very few posses and the market is willing to pay top price for that.

there is no free market in executive officers. the whole thing is ridiculously distorted by the good ol' boys networks on the boards of directors of the various major companies.

The lowest paid workers are probably working in the public sector, so they're already contributing extra to the system.

You really don't know the difference between the public and private sector, do you. Otherwise you would realize the absurdity of this comment.

there is no free market in executive officers. the whole thing is ridiculously distorted by the good ol' boys networks on the boards of directors of the various major companies.
Really?

Someone oughta tell Richard Branson that before he gets himself in trouble.

The only rich people not doing their fair share is the Kerry's, paying less of a percentage than I do, and I amke 35,000 a year.
As a conservative I take the responsibility of calling you on that claim. What is your source?

BTW does the american revenue tax system take into account where the money come from (salary/stock shares)?
Don't you agree stock shares should be taxed more than salary (ideally at 100%)?
LOL

As a conservative I take the responsibility of calling you on that claim. What is your source?

Maybe not kerrry, but his wife is only paying something like 12% of her income. She released her returns. She paid 600 something thousand in taxes on 5 mil in income.

there is no free market in executive officers. the whole thing is ridiculously distorted by the good ol' boys networks on the boards of directors of the various major companies.
Agreed. That's why I wrote market, not free market. Free market is a theoretical concept anyway.

BTW does the american revenue tax system take into account where the money come from (salary/stock shares)?
Don't you agree stock shares should be taxed more than salary (ideally at 100%)?

If you tax earnings from stocks (dividends and captial gains) at 100%, then no one will make any profit off of investing in stocks. Thus (almost) no one will do so. No chance for profit means that new investments (save for sole proprieterships and partnerships) will fall to almost nothing. Such an tax plan would wreck the economy of any nation that tried it.

Excessively high tax rates on stock earnings also damage economies, though to a lesser extent that your suggested 100% tax rate. Even if you tax stock earnings at 50%, then an investor has to realize a rate of return in excess of 50% to make an investment worthwhile. Such a rates of return are rare indeed.

If a nation sets its tax rates on stock earnings significantly higher than its tax rates on ordinary income, it risks economic damage.

how hard somebody works doesn't need to correlate to how much money they make.
Which is exactly what I've been trying to say all along. He says that people at the top of the economic ladder must have worked hard for it. I'm demonstrating that that's not true.

The only rich people not doing their fair share is the Kerry's, paying less of a percentage than I do, and I amke 35,000 a year.
:smacks head:

Yeah, the Kerrys are the ONLY rich people who can tax dodge. :rolleyes:

Excessively high tax rates on stock earnings also damage economies, though to a lesser extent that your suggested 100% tax rate. Even if you tax stock earnings at 50%, then an investor has to realize a rate of return in excess of 50% to make an investment worthwhile. Such a rates of return are rare indeed.
Erm, no, you tax capital gains, not all money invested in stocks and shares.

:smacks head:

Yeah, the Kerrys are the ONLY rich people who can tax dodge. :rolleyes:

Let's also remember that there is also the 45 mil the Kerry family took in from their precious Heinz Trust, which is under current law tax free.

I do not believe that we should undergo tax increases, but we should make everyone pay 100% of their taxes and not shelter stuff

Note, the top 1% of Americans own about 27% of the wealth, meaning they should hold 20-25% of the burden for how the government is run.

Your entire breakdown is based on this assertion. Which I disagree with.

Why should you be forced to pay for something you don't use? The wealthy probably use less government services than any other group, yet you want them to "take the burden" based on how much they earn?

Why should you be forced to "take the burden" of a country, based not on use of services, but on how much you make?

Last time I checked, we were all individuals, not cogs in a machine.

Craig

Why is it that people who work hard tend to refuse to accept that a lot of life is luck?

You got lucky. I don't hold anything against you because of this, but you have to realize that if the cards don't fall the right way, you can't always make up for that with hard work.

Why is it that many people who sit on their arses and never try in life, call those who do "lucky"?

Working to get an education isn't "lucky." Getting a job instead of sitting on a benefit isn't "lucky." Developing a good work ethic isn't "lucky."

Someone I know just left their part-time job because they found they could make more by signing up for a benefit. That isn't the "cards falling the wrong way."

Craig

design a tax system.

In NZ, $500 a year from each person would be enough to run the courts, police and military. Could be voluntary.

If that wouldn't work,

$0-$20,000 : 0% tax
$20,000 + : 5% tax

or just have a very small sales tax.

Craig

Erm, no, you tax capital gains, not all money invested in stocks and shares.

I think you misunderstood me. Of course there is no tax on money invested in stocks.

What is taxed are profit realized from the sale of stocks—capital gains. In other words, if I buy 100 shares of "New Anglia Telecom" at $20 a share, I've invested $2000 in that stock. If I later sell those shares at $25 a share (or $2500), I've made $500 on the transaction.

That $500 is my capital gain; my profit. Now if the taxation rates on stock gains is so "ideally at 100%" as Psylos suggested, the government is going to take all of that $500 in taxes.

Under such a taxation system, there would be no economic incentive to invest in stocks. Corporations could issue stock, but few people would buy their shares because it would be impossible to make money on them—if you sold the shares for more than you bought them for, the government would take it all.

The only way a corporation could make owning its stock attractive would be by paying substantial dividends (dividends are payments per share owned back to stockholders out of a company's after-tax profits). But if all companies have to pay large dividends, they has less money to reinvest, further slowing economic growth.

(a bit of a digression about dividends)

Even worse for the investor, money paid out in dividends is taxed twice. First the company pays it's income tax. Then it pays dividends out of its net profits after taxes to its stockholders. The stockholders receiving those dividend payments, then must pay taxes on that money as ordinary income.

Let's look at my mythical "New Anglia Telecom Company" again. If the company earns $1,000,000 in net income, and the government takes 40% of that ($400,000), then New Anglia Telecom has $600,000 left to pay out in dividends (for simplicity, let's assume they pay all their profits out in dividends this year). That $600,000 is divided among the shareholders in proportion to the number of shares each holds. All those shareholders then pay tax on that income. If we assume an average tax rate of 25% for our shareholders, a further $150,000 of that original $1,000,000 is been paid in personal income taxes. The effective taxation rate for New Anglia Telecom's $1,000,000 profit is $400,000 + $150,000 = $550,000—or 55%

(end digression)

To get back to my original point: taxation of capital gains—especially at higher rates than ordinary income (whether we are talking about 40%, 60%, 90%, etc.) will inevitably suppress investment and economic growth. The higher the tax rate, the worse the effect. And growth is important; it represents the net increase in a nation's wealth. While there may be heated political arguements on who should benifit (and how much) from that increase in wealth, it does no sector of society any good for overall national wealth to stagnate or decrease (we call such a condition a recession or a depression).

Why is it that many people who sit on their arses and never try in life, call those who do "lucky"?

Working to get an education isn't "lucky." Getting a job instead of sitting on a benefit isn't "lucky." Developing a good work ethic isn't "lucky."

Someone I know just left their part-time job because they found they could make more by signing up for a benefit. That isn't the "cards falling the wrong way."

Craig

I was going to comment on this as well, but found the statement so inane as to not merit a comment.

But I would like to know exactly where I got lucky ...

Could it have been the hard work in school just to be given the "luxury" to spend 32k on college?
Could it have been the hard work in college to get grades good enough to get a $4.00/hr (US) job when I had those 32k in school loans to pay off.
Or maybe it was luck when I got the second job working 2nd shift to help pay for those loans (now working back to back 8 hr shifts, 1 hr of travel time apart from each other).
Or maybe it was when I finally scraped enough money together to personally pay for furthering education that got me almost twice the salary I was making previously (from 17.5k to 30k) so I could finally pay off my school loans.
Maybe it was when my wife died at age 37 leaving me to raise 2 kids alone.
Or when I quit a nice safe job to take a pay cut to start my own business, which means putting in almost 2x the hours then when I was working for someone. Plus added worry about when my customers were going to pay me, or where the next contract was going to come from so I could pay my bills, and by my kids food etc.

Sounds like a ton of luck to me.

Your entire breakdown is based on this assertion. Which I disagree with.

Why should you be forced to pay for something you don't use? The wealthy probably use less government services than any other group, yet you want them to "take the burden" based on how much they earn?

Why should you be forced to "take the burden" of a country, based not on use of services, but on how much you make?

Last time I checked, we were all individuals, not cogs in a machine.

Craig

It is the "Because they can afford it" excuse. It is pure and simple jelousy. They can't believe that someone actually had to work for the money they have and not have it just "handed" to them. *shrug* You can't expect to change peoples minds who have no clue.

if the Average household income earned in the US is $57,852 ...

... how could it be even close to possible that the 50% range of households make $27,000 or less

I guess you don't know anything about statistics. The income distribution has a "positive skew" (and a very bad one), which means that the mean is higher than the median.

How is this possible? Well, 50% of people make less than $27,000/yr (I'll just accept the number, without verifying it for the moment. It does sound about right. My point is only to explain the how you ask for.) But the lowest income is, necessarily, ZERO. Now, 50% make more than $27,000/yr... but for practical purposes, no upper limit exists. Those very few millionaires and billionaires have a huge impact on the mean, which is why we call this distribution "skewed."

The income distribution has a "positive skew" (and a very bad one), which means that the mean is higher than the median.

though not as bad as the wealth distribution skew. somewhere i saw a very nice graph of it.

It is the "Because they can afford it" excuse. It is pure and simple jelousy. They can't believe that someone actually had to work for the money they have and not have it just "handed" to them. *shrug* You can't expect to change peoples minds who have no clue.
:rolleyes:

Its nothing to do with jealousy. I'm in the bracket that could afford to pay individually for public services. But I don't think that people, specifically poorer people, should have to pay for those things which are essential to life, liberty and happiness (education, healthcare etc)

I think you misunderstood me. Of course there is no tax on money invested in stocks.

What is taxed are profit realized from the sale of stocks—capital gains. In other words, if I buy 100 shares of "New Anglia Telecom" at $20 a share, I've invested $2000 in that stock. If I later sell those shares at $25 a share (or $2500), I've made $500 on the transaction.

That $500 is my capital gain; my profit. Now if the taxation rates on stock gains is so "ideally at 100%" as Psylos suggested, the government is going to take all of that $500 in taxes.Yes, I know that people wouldn't invest in stocks if the tax rate was 100%. But it does need to be taxed, and it does need to be higher. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down 25%, while the stockmarket has gone up 115%. And taking money off the wealthy to teach people to read and cure disease doesn't hurt the economy, it helps it. A skilled, healthy labourforce will drive the economy far harder than the richest members of society sticking the cash in a bank.

But I don't think that people, specifically poorer people, should have to pay for those things which are essential to life, liberty and happiness (education, healthcare etc)

How can you say you support liberty, where you are taking away peoples property rights? You aren't supporting freedom by endorsing redistibution of wealth.

Craig

Let's also remember that there is also the 45 mil the Kerry family took in from their precious Heinz Trust, which is under current law tax free.

I do not believe that we should undergo tax increases, but we should make everyone pay 100% of their taxes and not shelter stuff
In that case.... vote Kerry.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13060286&BRD=1675&PAG=740&dept_id=226958&rfi=6

Step 2: Close the Bermuda loophole and other international loopholes. Kerry will immediately call for ending abuses that allow American companies to escape taxes by taking advantage of complicated international tax rules. These abuses include "corporate inversion" where an American company moves its headquarters to a tax haven like Bermuda to avoid taxes, certain types of cross-crediting that encourage companies to shift income and jobs to low-tax havens, restricting tax avoidance through hybrid structures, and other abuses.

Let's look at my mythical "New Anglia Telecom Company" again. If the company earns $1,000,000 in net income, and the government takes 40% of that ($400,000), then New Anglia Telecom has $600,000 left to pay out in dividends (for simplicity, let's assume they pay all their profits out in dividends this year). That $600,000 is divided among the shareholders in proportion to the number of shares each holds. All those shareholders then pay tax on that income. If we assume an average tax rate of 25% for our shareholders, a further $150,000 of that original $1,000,000 is been paid in personal income taxes. The effective taxation rate for New Anglia Telecom's $1,000,000 profit is $400,000 + $150,000 = $550,000—or 55%.
Almost everything is taxed twice though. That's no less true of income tax than of capital gains.

How can you say you support liberty, where you are taking away peoples property rights? You aren't supporting freedom by endorsing redistibution of wealth.

Craig
Eurgh. Property as a right does not come over the right to live. I have absolutely no qualms, that is a zero level of aversion towards taking away some better-off people's money in taxes in order to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it.

Eurgh. Property as a right does not come over the right to live. I have absolutely no qualms, that is a zero level of aversion towards taking away some better-off people's money in taxes in order to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it.

Well, no point arguing when you don't recognize individual rights.

Something to think about: If the welfare of the many comes above the rights of the individual what happens when the sacrifice of one life could save the lives of five others?

Do you have the right to take someone's life without their permission? According to your "Right to live at the expense of others" morals you would.

Craig

Well, no point arguing when you don't recognize individual rights.

Something to think about: If the welfare of the many comes above the rights of the individual what happens when the sacrifice of one life could save the lives of five others?

Do you have the right to take someone's life without their permission? According to your "Right to live at the expense of others" morals you would.

Craig
Sorry, are you saying that in a choice between five and one you would choose the one??

I recognise individual rights. But I also recognise that some rights are higher than others, you can't kill someone on a freedom of speech arguement for example.

Eurgh. Property as a right does not come over the right to live. I have absolutely no qualms, that is a zero level of aversion towards taking away some better-off people's money in taxes in order to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it.


No, the right to property does not come over the right to life. But it is not beneath a right to life either. Locke wrote of Life, Liberty and Property as being equal, not of varying importances.

Sorry, are you saying that in a choice between five and one you would choose the one??


I am saying that NO-ONE has the right to your life except for YOU.

Your idea is disgusting! We are not cogs in a big machine or little body parts of some creature called "society." It's not a matter of numbers.

You DO NOT have the right to take someones life without their permission, no matter who you may benefit.


I recognise individual rights.

You really, really don't.

You don't even recognize the right of the individual to live, without majority approval.

Craig

:rolleyes:

Its nothing to do with jealousy. I'm in the bracket that could afford to pay individually for public services. But I don't think that people, specifically poorer people, should have to pay for those things which are essential to life, liberty and happiness (education, healthcare etc)

And since when is happiness a right? I never heard any of the great philosopher talk of happiness. Jefferson wrote of the pursuit thereof, but never of a right to happiness itself.

No, the right to property does not come over the right to life. But it is not beneath a right to life either. Locke wrote of Life, Liberty and Property as being equal, not of varying importances.
I don't think that you'll find even the biggest civil libertarian who'll say that you shouldn't be allowed (for example) to detain dangerous people against their will in order to save lives. I don't think that you'd agree with it either.

Locke had some good ideas, but personally I prefer Mill. He was strongly in favour of liberty, but he tempered it with utilitarianism as well.

I am saying that NO-ONE has the right to your life except for YOU.

Your idea is disgusting! We are not cogs in a big machine or little body parts of some creature called "society." It's not a matter of numbers.

You DO NOT have the right to take someones life without their permission, no matter who you may benefit.
You see a train coming. You're at the points. There are five workmen on the line, where the train is heading. Theres a siding, with only one guy at it. Are you gonna change the points?

You really, really don't.

You don't even recognize the right of the individual to live, without majority approval.
Eh? I'm saying that, in some tragic circumstances, a life may need to be lost for the greater good. Its not a decision I'd take lightly, and if the option ever came up, I'd choose whichever causes the least number of lives to be lost.

Sorry, are you saying that in a choice between five and one you would choose the one??

I recognise individual rights. But I also recognise that some rights are higher than others, you can't kill someone on a freedom of speech arguement for example.

Freedom of speech extends only to where you do not harm others in a physical way. You can spew whatever trash you want to all over the place, you can say that Hitler was really a nice chum all you want, but the MOMENT your speech infringes upon someone else's rights (i.e. property: graffitiing someone's house) it becomes null and void, you (should) have unlimited rights to do whatever you want with yourself, your property, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness, but the moment someone else's life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness is trampled upon, then you are toast.

I don't think that you'll find even the biggest civil libertarian who'll say that you shouldn't be allowed (for example) to detain dangerous people against their will in order to save lives. I don't think that you'd agree with it either.

Locke had some good ideas, but personally I prefer Mill. He was strongly in favour of liberty, but he tempered it with utilitarianism as well.
see above

And since when is happiness a right? I never heard any of the great philosopher talk of happiness. Jefferson wrote of the pursuit thereof, but never of a right to happiness itself. That is unless you are a spoiled brat who believes that the world owes you everything because you are so damn brilliant.
Cool your heels, or the mods will cool them for you.

Freedom of speech extends only to where you do not harm others in a physical way. You can spew whatever trash you want to all over the place, you can say that Hitler was really a nice chum all you want, but the MOMENT your speech infringes upon someone else's rights (i.e. property: graffitiing someone's house) it becomes null and void, you (should) have unlimited rights to do whatever you want with yourself, your property, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness, but the moment someone else's life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness is trampled upon, then you are toast.
right. And your right to have wadges of cash loses to someone else's right to get medical treatment when they're in danger of dying. Life trumps property.

And since when is happiness a right? I never heard any of the great philosopher talk of happiness. Jefferson wrote of the pursuit thereof, but never of a right to happiness itself. That is unless you are a spoiled brat who believes that the world owes you everything because you are so damn brilliant.
And if you want to rephrase this, without the insulting shit, I'd be happy to answer.

right. And your right to have wadges of cash loses to someone else's right to get medical treatment when they're in danger of dying. Life trumps property.

I wrote earlier that Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness are equal. That none trump the other. Something I firmly believe, it is clear that no one here is going to change anyones mind, so I am going to run off and play some Halo.

I wrote earlier that Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness are equal. That none trump the other.
Well, that's quite blatently wrong. If a guy is dying by the side of the road, you pick him up, and I don't give a damn if you were driving to Disneyworld.

You see a train coming. You're at the points. There are five workmen on the line, where the train is heading. Theres a siding, with only one guy at it. Are you gonna change the points?


This isn't about choosing between the lesser of two evils. It isn't about choosing between two parties in equal peril.

Your earlier point was that you can sacrifice an individuals rights if it benefits another. An appropriate analogy would be five workmen trapped on the line, and forcing someone to rescue the five, therefore trapping himself and being killed.


Eh? I'm saying that, in some tragic circumstances, a life may need to be lost for the greater good. Its not a decision I'd take lightly, and if the option ever came up, I'd choose whichever causes the least number of lives to be lost.

I say you don't have the right to take someones life without their permission. No matter what "greater good" you may think you are serving.

Craig

Well, that's quite blatently wrong. If a guy is dying by the side of the road, you pick him up, and I don't give a damn if you were driving to Disneyworld.

I am not arguing against voluntary charity. Which, I might add that is, I am arguing against the concept that the fundamental rights are not equal.

Well, that's quite blatently wrong. If a guy is dying by the side of the road, you pick him up, and I don't give a damn if you were driving to Disneyworld.

So you believe that if there are five people holding up a boulder about to fall on their heads, you should be forced to sacrifice your life unwillingly, so hold this boulder up until they run out?

It's scary that you don't even recognize a human beings soverignty over their body and their right to make their own choices. Doesn't it seem inhuman simply counting heads as your basis of morality?

Craig

This isn't about choosing between the lesser of two evils. It isn't about choosing between two parties in equal peril.

Well, the guy on the siding isn't in any peril unless you change the points, so...

Your earlier point was that you can sacrifice an individuals rights if it benefits another. An appropriate analogy would be five workmen trapped on the line, and forcing someone to rescue the five, therefore trapping himself and being killed.
Sending someone on a hopeless suicide mission...no, that's quite definately not what I was talking about before.


I say you don't have the right to take someones life without their permission. No matter what "greater good" you may think you are serving.

Craig
I send you back to my train example then

So you believe that if there are five people holding up a boulder about to fall on their heads, you should be forced to sacrifice your life unwillingly, so hold this boulder up until they run out?
I honestly don't understand what this means.

It's scary that you don't even recognize a human beings soverignty over their body and their right to make their own choices. Doesn't it seem inhuman simply counting heads as your basis of morality?
No, I do, but I also recognise that that soverignty has a limit. And that your own rights can be overriden in some circumstances for the rights of other people.

And yes it does seem inhuman in certain circumstances, there are cases where utilitarianism falls down, but as it works a lot of the time. I don't use this as the "basis of my morality", I know right from wrong. This is as close as I've got to justifying it though.

I am not arguing against voluntary charity. Which, I might add that is, I am arguing against the concept that the fundamental rights are not equal.
Well I'm saying that it would be in your duty to help this person, not merely that it would be nice if you did. If you didn't, it would be a moral failing on your part.

Well, the guy on the siding isn't in any peril unless you change the points, so...

I send you back to my train example then

Your train example is about your actions having only two possible paths and you having to choose between the lesser loss of life.

Not quite the same as saying that people do not have individual rights and should not have a claim to their property or life.

Craig

Well I'm saying that it would be in your duty to help this person, not merely that it would be nice if you did. If you didn't, it would be a moral failing on your part.

But morality != legality.

Governments should never try to force people to follow one moral code. That causes war.

Governments should only ban acts of force by people against other people. That way, everyone can follow the morality that they wish, as long as it does not harm other people.

Remember the saying about good intentions. Look at some of the religious-based governments around the world.

The Saudi government solved the problem of the immorality of women having bare skin showing in public, right?

Craig

Your train example is about your actions having only two possible paths and you having to choose between the lesser loss of life.

Not quite the same as saying that people do not have individual rights and should not have a claim to their property or life.

Craig
Alright, fine. What if its five people on the one line and five Ferraris on the other?

And I never said the other thing. Everyone has a right to life. The five guys on the line had it, the one guy on the siding had it. He lost out, unfortunately, cos there were more people gonna lose their lives if the train carried on.

But morality != legality.

Governments should never try to force people to follow one moral code. That causes war.

Governments should only ban acts of force by people against other people. That way, everyone can follow the morality that they wish, as long as it does not harm other people.

Remember the saying about good intentions. Look at some of the religious-based governments around the world.

The Saudi government solved the problem of the immorality of women having bare skin showing in public, right?

CraigYeah, that'll work. Compare me to the House of Saud.

I would push for a good samaritain style law. If you are able to help someone, then you should, unless you have an exceptionally good reason to the contrary. And you know what? You agree with me:

That way, everyone can follow the morality that they wish, as long as it does not harm other people.
Your inaction would harm this injured person by the roadside. Your personal morality may say what it likes, but you are culpable if this person dies and you didn't help them.

Yeah, that'll work. Compare me to the House of Saud.

What do you mean "work"?

I am simply pointing out that you want to impose your morality on everyone, just as the saudis do.

You believe you are right. So do they.

What makes you any better than them?

I would push for a good samaritain style law. If you are able to help someone, then you should, unless you have an exceptionally good reason to the contrary. And you know what? You agree with me:


I believe that an individual owns their own life, you believe society comes first.

I don't think that anyone has the obligation to sacrifice themselves or put themselves at risk for another.

On what authority do you impose this requirement on people?


Your inaction would harm this injured person by the roadside. Your personal morality may say what it likes, but you are culpable if this person dies and you didn't help them.

Inaction is not the same as action. Someone who does not act to fix a situation is not culpable, the person who caused it is.

I am not responsible for your welfare, just as you are not responsible for mine. If I don't stop my car in the rain to help you change your tyre, I am not at fault if you can't manage it.

Craig

What do you mean "work"?

I am simply pointing out that you want to impose your morality on everyone, just as the saudis do.

You believe you are right. So do they.

What makes you any better than them?
:rolleyes:
I'm surprised you only went so far as the Saudis. Why not go for the whole hog and call me a Nazi?


I believe that an individual owns their own life, you believe society comes first.

I don't think that anyone has the obligation to sacrifice themselves or put themselves at risk for another.

On what authority do you impose this requirement on people?
No, I said that the lives of other (as in, a greater number of) individuals come first. To put themselves at risk, no, I wouldn't ask that of someone. But as an impartial observer looking over, if I had to choose between many people dying and fewer people dying, I'd choose the fewer.

And I think that property counts less than life, even when its your property and someone elses life.

Inaction is not the same as action. Someone who does not act to fix a situation is not culpable, the person who caused it is.

I am not responsible for your welfare, just as you are not responsible for mine. If I don't stop my car in the rain to help you change your tyre, I am not at fault if you can't manage it.

Craig
Acts and omissions doctrine. And yes, there is a degree to which you are less culpable for your omission than your act, but if you have the ability to help, the awareness of what effect your omission will have and there is minimal risk to yourself, then you are responsible for your omissions as well. (I say minimal risk here only so that people can't get out of a bind for the possibility of breaking a nail or whatnot)

:rolleyes:
I'm surprised you only went so far as the Saudis. Why not go for the whole hog and call me a Nazi?


Lol, don't worry I'm not trying to call you anything.

I'm trying to make you see why legislating your morality is wrong.



No, I said that the lives of other (as in, a greater number of) individuals come first. To put themselves at risk, no, I wouldn't ask that of someone. But as an impartial observer looking over, if I had to choose between many people dying and fewer people dying, I'd choose the fewer.

But you have been saying that many peoples right to life overrides one individuals. Certainly then, you have a moral obligation to attempt to rescue a group of people, since the group has a greater right to live than you do?

And I think that property counts less than life, even when its your property and someone elses life.


Acts and omissions doctrine. And yes, there is a degree to which you are less culpable for your omission than your act, but if you have the ability to help, the awareness of what effect your omission will have and there is minimal risk to yourself, then you are responsible for your omissions as well. (I say minimal risk here only so that people can't get out of a bind for the possibility of breaking a nail or whatnot)

On what basis do you think that inaction on your part makes you responsible? Why am I responsible for something I did nothing to cause?

Craig

Lol, don't worry I'm not trying to call you anything.

I'm trying to make you see why legislating your morality is wrong.Well you've failed, in a really stunningly bizzare way. Legislating that is wrong, not all legislation based on morality. That'd be like me saying that making economic legislation is wrong, cos theres a hypothetical government which had 125% taxes and used it to buy summer homes with gold plated elevators. You can't go from one single example to a general rule, and ALL laws and socitarial expectations are based on some level of morality.

But you have been saying that many peoples right to life overrides one individuals. Certainly then, you have a moral obligation to attempt to rescue a group of people, since the group has a greater right to live than you do?Self sacrifice is noble and worthy, but I don't expect the guy on the siding to understand and be happy that he has to die. Ditto for taxes. People have to pay them, I don't require them to like that fact.


On what basis do you think that inaction on your part makes you responsible? Why am I responsible for something I did nothing to cause?No, but if you are able to do something, you have the mind to understand what the consequences of inaction are and it poses no significant harm to you, then I conclude that you are responsible for your inaction if that is the cause you take. You aren't responsible for something you did nothing to cause, you are responsible for something you did nothing to prevent (if you were able to do so)

Well you've failed, in a really stunningly bizzare way. Legislating that is wrong, not all legislation based on morality. That'd be like me saying that making economic legislation is wrong, cos theres a hypothetical government which had 125% taxes and used it to buy summer homes with gold plated elevators. You can't go from one single example to a general rule, and ALL laws and socitarial expectations are based on some level of morality.
:rolleyes: Your argument is: "Their morality is wrong, so it shouldn't be legislated for, but my morality is right so it should." See the irony?
Self sacrifice is noble and worthy, but I don't expect the guy on the siding to understand and be happy that he has to die. Ditto for taxes. People have to pay them, I don't require them to like that fact.
Again, requiring others to follow your point of view. No, but if you are able to do something, you have the mind to understand what the consequences of inaction are and it poses no significant harm to you, then I conclude that you are responsible for your inaction if that is the cause you take. You aren't responsible for something you did nothing to cause, you are responsible for something you did nothing to prevent (if you were able to do so) What ties you and obligates you to assist someone? I am all for helping voluntarily, but we are all individual people, not body parts that have a intrisic responsibility for one another.

Craig

:rolleyes: Your argument is: "Their morality is wrong, so it shouldn't be legislated for, but my morality is right so it should." See the irony?
Well, I would, if that's what I had said. What I actually said was that the fact that they were wrong in one particular circumstance doesn't mean that the whole principle is wrong.

Again, requiring others to follow your point of view. Erm, yeah. Thats what the law is about, getting a large group of people to follow the same rules. You're not going to get me to find any shame in saying that I think there should be laws and I know what some of these laws should be.

What ties you and obligates you to assist someone? I am all for helping voluntarily, but we are all individual people, not body parts that have a intrisic responsibility for one another.
I'm not aware of any intrinsic responsibility my kidneys have to my splein, but lets just leave that alone.

What ties and obligates me to assist someone? Human nature. I don't think theres any actual difference between our views here, but I think you're trying to say that you can be good but you can't be bad, although it might be nice for you to do whatever, you can't be blamed for doing something contrary to that. I disagree.

Well, I would, if that's what I had said. What I actually said was that the fact that they were wrong in one particular circumstance doesn't mean that the whole principle is wrong.

Erm, yeah. Thats what the law is about, getting a large group of people to follow the same rules. You're not going to get me to find any shame in saying that I think there should be laws and I know what some of these laws should be.

I'm not aware of any intrinsic responsibility my kidneys have to my splein, but lets just leave that alone.

What ties and obligates me to assist someone? Human nature. I don't think theres any actual difference between our views here, but I think you're trying to say that you can be good but you can't be bad, although it might be nice for you to do whatever, you can't be blamed for doing something contrary to that. I disagree.

Ok, I can't debate with someone who wants to impose their will on others, thinks their moraility is what should be followed by everyone and sees nothing wrong with using the law to push their point of view as the sole choice.

We disagree too fundamentally.

Just so you know, I don't believe that law is designed to make us all follow a set of rules which you want to dictate. I believe that law is a tool that should only be used to protect us from acts of force or fraud. If an individual does not use force against another, they should have the freedom to make whatever choices they wish. The only legal obligations we should have are to respect others rights and keep to contracts that we voluntarily enter into.

Craig

Yes, I know that people wouldn't invest in stocks if the tax rate was 100%. But it does need to be taxed, and it does need to be higher.
Capital Gains are taxed (in the US, at least). If you hold a stock for less than a year, and then sell it, any profits are taxed at the same rate as the rest of your income. In order to encourage people to invest long-term, stocks that are held for more than one year are taxed at the 20%, less than the top income tax rate (was 39.6%; recently cut to 35%). Note: The above applies higher income people. If your top tax rate on ordinary income is 15% or less, your long term capital gains tax rate is 10%.

The purchasing power of the minimum wage has gone down 25%, while the stockmarket has gone up 115%.
What period of time do those numbers refer to?

And taking money off the wealthy to teach people to read and cure disease doesn't hurt the economy, it helps it. A skilled, healthy labourforce will drive the economy far harder than the richest members of society sticking the cash in a bank.
Most wealthy people don't just stick their cash in a bank, if for no other reason than the rate of return is very low. (Even if they do, the bank they've stuck it in loans the money to other people, so it ends up invested in the general economy.) Most wealthy people invest their money or spend it, both of which help stimulate economic growth.

A "skilled, healthy labourforce" is important, but so is the general rate of economic growth. A balance has to be struck.

Philosophically, I tend towards the position that taxes should be as low as possible. And since (in the US), upper income taxpayers pay a sizable majority of the total income taxes collected, many people translate into "tax cuts for the rich!" I'd just like everybody to pay lower taxes. I'd like a smaller, less intrusive government. Too bad neither the Republicans or Democrats feel the same way...

Almost everything is taxed twice though. That's no less true of income tax than of capital gains.
If you are paid wages by a company, that money is not taxed twice in the same sense that capital gains are. A company pays taxes on its net profits, not its gross revenue. And wages paid to employees are not part of net profit. Wages, cost of goods sold, factory equipment, advertising, delivery, etc. are all subtracted from the gross revenue when calculating the net profit for a company. In other words:

Gross Revenue (total money received from sales) — Expenses (most everything it took to earn that Gross Revenue) = Net Profit

Net Profit is what corporations pay income tax on. The money they pay their employees isn't taxed until the individual employees pay their taxes on it.

Just so you know, I don't believe that law is designed to make us all follow a set of rules which you want to dictate. I believe that law is a tool that should only be used to protect us from acts of force or fraud. If an individual does not use force against another, they should have the freedom to make whatever choices they wish. The only legal obligations we should have are to respect others rights and keep to contracts that we voluntarily enter into.

Craig

I'd agree. In my opinion the purpose of law is to protect us from the infringement upon our rights by other people.

Well I'm saying that it would be in your duty to help this person, not merely that it would be nice if you did. If you didn't, it would be a moral failing on your part.

Under most liberal beliefs it is very wrong to impose your morals on others.

What ties and obligates me to assist someone? Human nature. I don't think theres any actual difference between our views here, but I think you're trying to say that you can be good but you can't be bad, although it might be nice for you to do whatever, you can't be blamed for doing something contrary to that. I disagree.

I don't recognize this human nature that you talk about. The human nature I know is a brute. The human nature I know is a self centered child. Something that will whack away at all competition to be on top.

What you are talking about is a conscious act, empathy. The ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes. And conscious acts are under our control, as opposed to human nature.

I'm going to answer using only the names of logical fallacies.
Ok, I can't debate with someone who wants to impose their will on others, 14. Argumentum ad nauseam

thinks their moraility is what should be followed by everyone 25. Converting a conditional
26 Hasty generalisation

and sees nothing wrong with using the law to push their point of view as the sole choice.9. Argumentum ad hominem


Also, you're clearly deluded if you actually thought that what you were doing was debating. Insults =!= debate

Under most liberal beliefs it is very wrong to impose your morals on others.
No, under most liberal beliefs, the freedom of choice is held in high regard, except where it conflicts with another's freedom.

I don't recognize this human nature that you talk about. The human nature I know is a brute. The human nature I know is a self centered child. Something that will whack away at all competition to be on top.

What you are talking about is a conscious act, empathy. The ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes. And conscious acts are under our control, as opposed to human nature.
This explains pretty neatly why're you're on the right. Zero faith in humanity, a paranoia that others are out to get them... not very conductive to either liberalism or socialism.

I'd agree. In my opinion the purpose of law is to protect us from the infringement upon our rights by other people.
I would leave out the infringement and the other people. To protect people's rights, period.

Also, you're clearly deluded if you actually thought that what you were doing was debating. Insults =!= debate

I never even mention your name. Do you consider opposing your view insulting?

To re-word my earlier post then (to make it more palatable):

You are a person whose political views are such that you believe that the law should be used as a tool for social conditioning, to enforce a view of morality on the populace. Using the law in this way is designed to create a standard set of morals to which every individual must follow. You believe that it is acceptable to endorse a single view of morality, and legislate it so that it is compulsory for individuals to follow it. Also among my points was that throughout history there have been people and groups who have legislated their morality as compulsory for every individual, with disasterous results. Lastly, the imposing of a single set of morals deemed correct by the authority in power reduces freedom and reduces the choices that we as individuals can make. My view is that the law should not be used as a tool for social conditioning, and should be only for the purpose of protecting individuals from acts of force and fraud.

Craig

This explains pretty neatly why're you're on the right. Zero faith in humanity, a paranoia that others are out to get them... not very conductive to either liberalism or socialism.

If we have zero-faith in humanity, then why are we willing to let people do the right thing voluntarily rather than forcing them to?

It would seem to me that the person who feels that they must put in legislation to force individuals to be good people has far less faith in humanity.

Craig

I never even mention your name. Do you consider opposing your view insulting?

To re-word my earlier post then (to make it more palatable):

You are a person whose political views are such that you believe that the law should be used as a tool for social conditioning, to enforce a view of morality on the populace. Using the law in this way is designed to create a standard set of morals to which every individual must follow. You believe that it is acceptable to endorse a single view of morality, and legislate it so that it is compulsory for individuals to follow it. Also among my points was that throughout history there have been people and groups who have legislated their morality as compulsory for every individual, with disasterous results. Lastly, the imposing of a single set of morals deemed correct by the authority in power reduces freedom and reduces the choices that we an individuals can make. My view is that the law should not be used as a tool for social conditioning, and should be only for the purpose of protecting individuals from acts of force and fraud.

Craig

Clappity clappity!