NationStates Jolt Archive

I happened to stumble upon an interesting article:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rebuttal_to_walter_williams.htm

I can't verify the the facts in the article and I'm not interested in doing it either. However, there are a couple of things in the article well worth pondering upon. The first thing is a quote, uttered by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906:

…the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him.

I think this is an interesting angle: Without the state, the Capitalist couldn't be wealthy. Capitalism requires an infrastructure, and the state provides this infrastructure. Capitalism requires a defence of private property, and the state provides this defence. Hence, the Capitalist should pay high taxes to the state, because he is wealthy thanks to the state. It's of minor importance if you define the state as a corrupt oligarchy or a democratic representation of the people - the Capitalist still owes the state.

There author of the article puts it this way:

Boy, America must be some kind of "evil" place, just imagine: wealthy people (who have acquired their fortunes by making profits from the work of other people or from simply owning claim to natural resources, such a oil (which wasn't made or produced by that person and which that person may have never even labored to acquire or bring to market), where the "poor", "oppressed", rich people paid high taxes during the 1950s and 1960s to help to build the most stable middle class in American history) are FORCED to pay for the maintenance of the social infrastructure that has enabled them to acquire their fortunes! Oh the outrage!!

The most interesting notion in the article is this one, though:

So, let's imagine a modern America without welfare and Social Security.

Well, you can bet that crime would increase massively (real crime that is, not the fake so-called crime of taxation, but actual muggings, armed robbery, extortion, sales of drugs, prostitution, etc). The number of homeless would go up; that surely wouldn't be good for business would it? And this seems to be where most conservatives get confused, because you fail to recognize that the Welfare State is a product of capitalist society and that the purpose of the Welfare State is to benefit the wealthy by controlling the poor by keeping them placated instead of revolutionary like they were in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.

"The welfare state is a product of capitalist society." It's true. There wasn't really such a thing as a welfare state before the birth of capitalism. As the author also implies, the capitalist society would be crushed in a revolution without the welfare system.

No, this is an interesting right-wing paradox, but also an interesting left-wing paradox. Logically, a Communist and possibly also a Socialist should allow the right-wing to dismantle the whole welfare system, because it would inevitably entail the fall of capitalism. But then again, to let people suffer in the meantime wouldn't exactly be humanistic. Furthermore, there are no guarantees that severe social unrest won't result in strong totalitarian movements, in the worst-case scenario a real-life Ingsoc.

In any case, it's an interesting paradox.

Bump, perchance?

The Republican party of today is EXACTLY the Republican party of Roosevelts time. They put him up because they thought that he would win and that they could control him. They were half right.

The Republicans of today, are pro-monopoly, anti-free market, anti-freedom, pro poverty, and pro legalizing stealing from people too poor to fight back.

Like most great leaders Teddy was himself an aberration. He cared about America, the people in his party cared only about themselves. And though our nation may diminish, it will be reborn, as it always has.

The Republican party of today is EXACTLY the Republican party of Roosevelts time. They put him up because they thought that he would win and that they could control him. They were half right.

The Republicans of today, are pro-monopoly, anti-free market, anti-freedom, pro poverty, and pro legalizing stealing from people too poor to fight back.

Like most great leaders Teddy was himself an aberration. He cared about America, the people in his party cared only about themselves. And though our nation may diminish, it will be reborn, as it always has.
Wow. Interesting post.
*bows*

I think this is an interesting angle: Without the state, the Capitalist couldn't be wealthy. Capitalism requires an infrastructure, and the state provides this infrastructure. Capitalism requires a defence of private property, and the state provides this defence. Hence, the Capitalist should pay high taxes to the state, because he is wealthy thanks to the state. It's of minor importance if you define the state as a corrupt oligarchy or a democratic representation of the people - the Capitalist still owes the state.

But, the wealthy person does pay more, even in the case of a flat tax, because they pay the same percentage out of their massive amounts of money that the less wealthy person pays in such a scenario. Thus, assuming a ten percent income tax because it's easy to figure and I'm lazy, a person making $2,000,000 a year pays $200,000 in income taxes, whereas a person making $20,000 a year only pays $2,000 in income taxes. Granted, $2,000 means a lot more to someone making $20,000 a year than $200,000 means to a person making $2,000,000 a year, but it would still be more fair to gradually flatten out income taxes, as opposed to the radically progressive way it's set up today, instead of punishing people who are more successful in a capitalist society by taxing them disproportionately. And I grew up in a two bedroom house for a family of four living on less than $30,000 a year combined income. I just think progressive income tax is mostly stupid and unfair.

Your interpretation of the quote by Theodore Roosevelt doesnt hold water.

You state that without government, the wealthy couldnt be wealthy, which is totally unprovable, and in the end doesnt even make sense. I think what Roosevelt was alluding to were laws protecting corporate interests etc, but saying that the wealthy wouldnt get that way without government is stupid. In fact, the distribution of wealth would be even greater without government interferance, as seen in many run down African countries where the wealthy run free.

But, the wealthy person does pay more, even in the case of a flat tax, because they pay the same percentage out of their massive amounts of money that the less wealthy person pays in such a scenario. Thus, assuming a ten percent income tax because it's easy to figure and I'm lazy, a person making $2,000,000 a year pays $200,000 in income taxes, whereas a person making $20,000 a year only pays $2,000 in income taxes. Granted, $2,000 means a lot more to someone making $20,000 a year than $200,000 means to a person making $2,000,000 a year, but it would still be more fair to gradually flatten out income taxes, as opposed to the radically progressive way it's set up today, instead of punishing people who are more successful in a capitalist society by taxing them disproportionately. And I grew up in a two bedroom house for a family of four living on less than $30,000 a year combined income. I just think progressive income tax is mostly stupid and unfair.

It depends what you mean. A flat tax would mean that the rich do pay more than the poor purely in terms of dollar amounts. If you mean what percentage of government funding is paid for by which social class, however, the poor would be paying far more of the tax load than they actually get back in the form of benefits from that society, while the rich would suffer from the opposite problem. Really, if you want to soak the poor, a flat tax is one of the best ways to do it.


Your interpretation of the quote by Theodore Roosevelt doesnt hold water.

You state that without government, the wealthy couldnt be wealthy, which is totally unprovable, and in the end doesnt even make sense. I think what Roosevelt was alluding to were laws protecting corporate interests etc, but saying that the wealthy wouldnt get that way without government is stupid. In fact, the distribution of wealth would be even greater without government interferance, as seen in many run down African countries where the wealthy run free.

It really isn't all that hard to prove. In a state, if I am poor, I could try to rectify my poverty by taking from the rich, but I would be met by legally-sanctioned force on the part of the state to stop me, and my education/conditioning within that state would lead me to believe that stealing is immoral. In an anarchical system, the only thing that stops me from taking from the rich is if the rich are stronger or carry better weaponry than I do, and I wouldn't have any such conditioning to convince me that theft is wrong. As there are generally a lot more poor people than there are rich, sheer weight of numbers gives me the advantage. Ergo, a state is advantageous to the retention of wealth.

It depends what you mean. A flat tax would mean that the rich do pay more than the poor purely in terms of dollar amounts. If you mean what percentage of government funding is paid for by which social class, however, the poor would be paying far more of the tax load than they actually get back in the form of benefits from that society, while the rich would suffer from the opposite problem. Really, if you want to soak the poor, a flat tax is one of the best ways to do it.

Not if you look at it proportionately, because then the poor are getting exactly what they pay for, and they aren't really getting "soaked" that badly if you tax progressively to a point, like I suggested. But really, either way, the rich are going to win out more than they lose out in terms of success under the government, otherwise they wouldn't be rich for very long.

An anarchal system that would evolve into a society where the wealthy are called warlords and have private armies ala ancient China

I just think progressive income tax is mostly stupid and unfair.I agree. There should be a flat tax of 100% ;)

In fact, the distribution of wealth would be even greater without government interferance, as seen in many run down African countries where the wealthy run free.Do not those run down African countries have governments? Yes? Well, then those governments might not interfere with the wealthy, but they certainly interfere with the poor, by legally sanctioned violence against the poor if they try to steal from the wealthy.

There's really no way to fairly tax an entire population.

What do you tax, really? Income or posessions?

If it's income, then there should be a simple way to do it rather than the grueling annual mess I have to go through every February. I'd gladly give the government a dollar for every ten I earn, as long as I didn't have to fill out paperwork to get it done. That of course would lead to all sorts of under the table shenannigans so it's most likely not going to happen.

If it's possesions, then lets get a national sales tax going and leave my paycheck alone. Of course, that also leads to all sorts of under the table shennanigans so it won't happen.

What we have now is a code that is so cumbersome, only the rich can afford someone to show them how to avoid paying anything.

SHENANNIGANS!!

I love my country.

Reminds me of something I saw in another forum.

The working class is the arse (bear with me!), and the owners of the means of production (MOP) are the dick. Now in capitalism , the dick (owners of the MOP) fuck the arse (the people). Welfare is like lube, it's helping the people, but at the end of they day, they're still being fucked.

I happened to stumble upon an interesting article:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rebuttal_to_walter_williams.htm

I can't verify the the facts in the article and I'm not interested in doing it either. However, there are a couple of things in the article well worth pondering upon. The first thing is a quote, uttered by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906:



I think this is an interesting angle: Without the state, the Capitalist couldn't be wealthy. Capitalism requires an infrastructure, and the state provides this infrastructure. Capitalism requires a defence of private property, and the state provides this defence. Hence, the Capitalist should pay high taxes to the state, because he is wealthy thanks to the state. It's of minor importance if you define the state as a corrupt oligarchy or a democratic representation of the people - the Capitalist still owes the state.

There author of the article puts it this way:



The most interesting notion in the article is this one, though:



"The welfare state is a product of capitalist society." It's true. There wasn't really such a thing as a welfare state before the birth of capitalism. As the author also implies, the capitalist society would be crushed in a revolution without the welfare system.

No, this is an interesting right-wing paradox, but also an interesting left-wing paradox. Logically, a Communist and possibly also a Socialist should allow the right-wing to dismantle the whole welfare system, because it would inevitably entail the fall of capitalism. But then again, to let people suffer in the meantime wouldn't exactly be humanistic. Furthermore, there are no guarantees that severe social unrest won't result in strong totalitarian movements, in the worst-case scenario a real-life Ingsoc.

In any case, it's an interesting paradox.

The only problem is one of definitions. The Capitalist believes that the government's role is to cultivate an economic environment wherein the free market is most able to thrive. The Socialist believes that the government's role is to be a market participant. The Capitalist would support the existance of taxes and the government's building of infrastructure, including sustaining a military, a police and firefighting force, and reasonable environmental protections; however, taxes would only go toward basics such as infrastructure, protection, and a judicial system, and not go toward things like social welfare programs, state-run healthcare, etc.

So Capitalists would support the government's establishment and maintenence of infrastructure.--you're confusing us with anarchists.

And you're right in that there wasn't a welfare state before capitalism came along because there wasn't such thing as a middle class before capitalism came along. :)

In one respect, I agree with Teddy Roosevelt's statement, and in another respect I disagree. One who earns ten times more money than another should definitely pay ten times more money in taxes. This is only logical because he has ten times as much to lose if the government doesn't do its job. What Roosevelt was advocating in that quote, assuming he really said it, was that there should be an income tax graduated in a disproportionate way: for example, someone making twice as much as someone else would pay five times as much in taxes. This isn't logical within the context of a capitalist system--> in a socialist system, this of course would make sense because it would serve as a mechanism for redistributing wealth. That's a whole other topic.