NationStates Jolt Archive

High taxes= Less money but with free heathcare and education etc.

or

Low taxes= More money but with costly healthcare and education etc.

There's no in between. What's the best of these two options.

You can have 'inbetween' you simply target those who require assistance and have a scaling assistance based on income and needs; thus, a person on a low income will receive more health care assistance than someone on $150,000 per year (hypothetically speaking).

Why isn't there an in between?

Well, I guess it depends what you consider to be high taxes. I'd say you go at it pragmatically, and decide on a case by case basis whether public or private spending will do a better job.

My rule of thumb? High taxes so long as they go back to the people in the form of efficient health care. Higher taxes for the rich and lower for the poor, as the former can actually afford to pay taxes.

My rule of thumb? High taxes so long as they go back to the people in the form of efficient health care. Higher taxes for the rich and lower for the poor, as the former can actually afford to pay taxes.
Why be punished with higher taxes just because you earn more?

To me it seems.

America have low taxes but a lack of national healthcare and basic education seems low but good if you can pay for it.

Britain seems to have moderatly low taxes even with Labour in the maximum is still 40%. And well we have the NHS and some good education on the rise as well.

Sweeden seem to tax a lot of income but uni education and most things paid for by the state ect..


In my views we have less tax than America and corruption and poverty become pretty big. More than Sweeden and people move out when they start working to avoid paying such high tax (after recieiving all the benefits of education and such). Ultamatly not much choice because those are the ones that seem to work in our societys.

Why be punished with higher taxes just because you earn more?

Since the working class got the vote as well :D

Why be punished with higher taxes just because you earn more?

Why punish the lowest classes by withholding food and medical care just because they can't afford it?

A tiny slice of the population controls a huge chunk of the US's wealth. While I'm skeptical of the hardcore socialist claim that this money is stolen from the sweat and toil of the workers, I have a hard time sympathizing with the rich, most of whom would keep most or all of the money they earn without taxes (rather than donating it to charities), who still earn far, far more than anyone else when heavy taxes are applied.

For example, take an athlete who earns $40 million a year. Tax him at 50%, and he still earns $20 million; tax him 90%, and he earns $4 million a year. By contrast, the median American income is about $43,000, which means many earn far less. Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic to the rich guy.

Summary: My ideology is simple. Food, water, shelter, and medical care are basic human rights that should be guaranteed to everyone. Money is needed to pay for this. Any non-progressive tax would lean disproportionately upon the poor, who can least afford to give up money. By contrast, the rich have plenty of cash to throw around, and still have plenty of cash with heavy taxes. To secure the basic human right of life, then, I think that the rich must be taxed so that the money can be put to uses in a way that most benefits society.

Since the working class got the vote as well :D
I never understood the thing about "the working class" anyway..
Everyone works, more or less, to earn money.

I never understood the thing about "the working class" anyway..
Everyone works, more or less, to earn money.

Not necessarily. Some live off of inheritence or random luck (lotteries, for example). Others may pay others to do the work for them- paying a stockbroker to play the stock market to best advantage, for example. Most people don't work in the way meant by the phrase, in that they work using their minds rather than their muscles.

The 'working classes' are those who perform mostly-brainless, poorly-paying physical labor, and includes traditional farmers, laborers like construction workers, and factory workers. Basically, the poor people.

Why be punished with higher taxes just because you earn more?

It depends on whether you see taxation as a punishment or as a duty as a high income earner to help those less fortunate.

Some people who are wealthy may say, "well, I would rather use my money helping those rather than sending off to the government" - the problem with that system is that it relies too heavily on peoples good will, which believe me, the average person would rather keep their own money rather than donate it; its a natural thing to want to keep what we have than give it away.

Increased taxes for the wealthy is punishment?

It is literally not possible to become wealthy in the first place if society is not advanced enough to allow it. If you are original primitive humans up to the time of Beowulf's posse comitatis, the only way you can keep any wealth is to be able to kill for it/steal it. There's a reason the master of Heorot was called a ring-giver. It is because he was generous with the currency of the day, which were armrings of bronze, which was pretty much the only way you could carry wealth with you.

So, how badly do the wealthy want to live in the places and cultures in which they seem to want to, without killing anyone or personally stealing it from anyone? Unlike medieval days when almost noone could own a sword, anyone can own a gun, if she is determined enough.

The arguments for progressive taxation intellectually impoverished. 20% of 50K means paying more than 20% of 25K, while at the same time being fair. Progressive taxation should be viewed as either a punishment for success or a subsidy of the less well off. The idea that non-progressive tax is harder on the poor is simply the product of years of indoctrination. For more extreme examples, such as millionaires, if you apply very high taxes you simply push them out of your country to lower tax regimes, thus receiving nothing at all. So while you can claim to show the poor that you have their interests at heart, paradoxically you dont as the net income (from taxation) drops and the amount you can spend on public services drops, unless you increase the taxes on the population as a whole.

As to the initial question, and taking the point that theres "no middle ground" to mean which is the better of the two (how many people dont get that), the evidence would suggest that a high tax/high public service does lead to a better general standard of living. However, it is also clear that only countries upto a certain size can maintain this and for most countries a middle ground has to be found.

Why be punished with higher taxes just because you earn more?

Why be punished with poor health because of ones economical situation?They also could not afford a good education for lack of resources, thus preventing them from getting a good paying job. A dead end a vicious circle!

Why be punished with poor health because of ones economical situation?They also could not afford a good education for lack of resources, thus preventing them from getting a good paying job. A dead end a vicious circle!


Slaves for life?

Summary: My ideology is simple. Food, water, shelter, and medical care are basic human rights that should be guaranteed to everyone. Money is needed to pay for this. Any non-progressive tax would lean disproportionately upon the poor, who can least afford to give up money. By contrast, the rich have plenty of cash to throw around, and still have plenty of cash with heavy taxes. To secure the basic human right of life, then, I think that the rich must be taxed so that the money can be put to uses in a way that most benefits society.
agreed.

So following that logic, shirley the poor and less well paid should pay no tax at all? to cover the essentials for a family, lets say the first £15K tax free.

So following that logic, shirley the poor and less well paid should pay no tax at all? to cover the essentials for a family, lets say the first £15K tax free.
which is the case (5 or 6 grand (in earnings) income tax exemption i think... probably not high enough)

So how much are you going to tax over 15K to pay for all the services?

The arguments for progressive taxation intellectually impoverished. 20% of 50K means paying more than 20% of 25K, while at the same time being fair. Progressive taxation should be viewed as either a punishment for success or a subsidy of the less well off. The idea that non-progressive tax is harder on the poor is simply the product of years of indoctrination.

Sorry, attempting to dismiss your opponent's arguments based on something like that just doesn't wash.

First, basic living expenses don't scale with earnings. If you assume a basic living expense of 15K, The person who pays 20% of 25K is actually paying 5000, or 50% of their disposable income. The person who pays 20% of 50K is paying 10,000 -- but since their disposable income is so much higher, they're only paying about 29% of it.

Why should the person who makes more pay a smaller share of their disposable income?

However, even if you initially deduct basic living expenses, it still doesn't work out as fair. Why? Because the person who makes 50K relies proportionately more on society functioning well than the person who makes 25K. Higher earners generally rely more on police to ensure their security, more on transportation infrastructure to create their wealth, more on welfare generally to ensure a peaceful society, more on the judicial system to maintain their place in society and basically more on all the structures of society that ensure that the people earning less are content to do so and don't attempt to take it out of him/her personally.

Thus it makes sense they pay a proportionately larger share.

One of the reasons automobile insurance all around Beverly Hills is so expensive is because the residents really do drive like they own the whole :mad: road. I used to have a car without an anti-lock braking system, but no more.

The arguments for progressive taxation intellectually impoverished. 20% of 50K means paying more than 20% of 25K, while at the same time being fair.

You are aware that there is this thing called the "standard cost of living"? You see, if we were to tax everyone at the exact same level, low income families would pay their 20%, 25%, or whatever, and then wouldn't have enough to afford the standard cost of living. They would be out on the streets because they couldn't possibly pay rent or mortgage and still buy food, etc.

Let's say we put the tax at 20%. A person who makes $15000 in this country would pay $3000 in taxes, leaving them only $12000 to live on. So, say this person has a child. Do you think they could live, even at a basic level, on $12000 in, say, California? Even the cheapest one-bedroom apartments in Atlanta, GA (much cheaper than many parts of California) are $600/month. That leaves the family only $4800 for food, clothes, transportation, health care, etc. Even on a tight budget, a good half of that will go for clothes. Even the cheapest of health insurance is at least $100/month. Thus, that leaves them about $1200 for everything else. Do you think it would work?

Then, let's talk about the person making $200,000. They get taxed $40,000, leaving them $160,000 to live on. On that, they could own a huge house, buy gourmet foods, own an expensive car, get the best health care, and spend large amounts of money on fairly useless items and entertainment. All this while the other family either starves, has no clothes, has nowhere to live, etc....

You are aware that there is this thing called the "standard cost of living"? You see, if we were to tax everyone at the exact same level, low income families would pay their 20%, 25%, or whatever, and then wouldn't have enough to afford the standard cost of living. They would be out on the streets because they couldn't possibly pay rent or mortgage and still buy food, etc.

Which is exactly why you don't tax income, you tax wealth, through a modified sales tax. By exempting (via rebates or prebates) on the "standard cost of living", no one pays taxes for survival. Of course they still have to go out and earn that cost of living(COL). If the COL is 15K and they only earn 10K they are still going to have problems, but they will still be getting 15K based of taxes back so that will definantly help. Anything beyond the cost of living (cell phone, internet, extra food, alcohol, etc) is a luxury and should be taxed anyway.

Also the COL is based on standard prices and doesn't factor in sales, thrift stores, cupons and other money saving items. So there is a lot a person can do to get by on less that the standard COL income. Shoot my dad goes into a store and comes out with well over $30 worth of groceries and will pay less than a $1...sometimes they even pay him! He's the Coupon King! :D

So following that logic, shirley the poor and less well paid should pay no tax at all? to cover the essentials for a family, lets say the first £15K tax free.

Aye, under a certain level (not sure of the exact level), you need every dime you can get just to survive (the need of which decreases with these social reforms, but that's not the point). Therefore, a person of this low income level should be exempt from taxes,except possibly sales tax.

A luxury tax is certainly a good idea, as is a lack of sales tax for food and medical supplies. However, I'm concerned about revenue- to pay for necessary services, one may have to raise the sales taxes so high that items become prohibitively expensive; sales then decrease along with revenue. In addition, shifts in the supply of a certain item may increase or decrease the revenue gained from it; an unexpectedly drop in prices may cause a sales tax to not make enough revenue, thus potentially causing a deficit.

Why should the person who makes more pay a smaller share of their disposable income?

Why calculate on disposable income? This is what i mean by indoctrination, you've already made many assumptions about the nature of wealth and taken a view on how society should regard it. Since as you've stated, basic living expenses have been allocated, then shouldn't disposable income be seen as the premium for having a better job/working harder/more experience etc? Why penalise success?


However, even if you initially deduct basic living expenses, it still doesn't work out as fair. Why? Because the person who makes 50K relies proportionately more on society functioning well than the person who makes 25K. Higher earners generally rely more on police to ensure their security, more on transportation infrastructure to create their wealth, more on welfare generally to ensure a peaceful society, more on the judicial system to maintain their place in society and basically more on all the structures of society that ensure that the people earning less are content to do so and don't attempt to take it out of him/her personally.

Thus it makes sense they pay a proportionately larger share.

More wealthy people are likly to live in "nicer" areas that have lower crime (though the *perception* of crime is often high), more likly to take out additional health insurance (uk view here, people top up on the state provision to go "private") and more likly to get involved in local government/schools/charities so contribute more back to society (though id grant this last one is a matter of conjecture). I would say that the typical person earning 25K is far more reliable on the structures of society and government around them than they who earn 50K, either because the higher earner can afford to or they have the network/business skills/education to do so. Alas this *is* a poor argument, but no worse than yours.



Let's say we put the tax at 20%. A person who makes $15000 in this country would pay $3000 in taxes, leaving them only $12000 to live on. So, say this person has a child. Do you think they could live, even at a basic level, on $12000 in, say, California? Even the cheapest one-bedroom apartments in Atlanta, GA (much cheaper than many parts of California) are $600/month. That leaves the family only $4800 for food, clothes, transportation, health care, etc. Even on a tight budget, a good half of that will go for clothes. Even the cheapest of health insurance is at least $100/month. Thus, that leaves them about $1200 for everything else. Do you think it would work?

Welcome to the UK. And we have one of the lowest taxes in europe. There are literally thousands of people living on exactly those number here, with the exception of 4.5k allowance that is untaxed and of course no need for health insurance.

You are aware that there is this thing called the "standard cost of living"? You see, if we were to tax everyone at the exact same level, low income families would pay their 20%, 25%, or whatever, and then wouldn't have enough to afford the standard cost of living. They would be out on the streets because they couldn't possibly pay rent or mortgage and still buy food, etc.

Let's say we put the tax at 20%. A person who makes $15000 in this country would pay $3000 in taxes, leaving them only $12000 to live on. So, say this person has a child. Do you think they could live, even at a basic level, on $12000 in, say, California? Even the cheapest one-bedroom apartments in Atlanta, GA (much cheaper than many parts of California) are $600/month. That leaves the family only $4800 for food, clothes, transportation, health care, etc. Even on a tight budget, a good half of that will go for clothes. Even the cheapest of health insurance is at least $100/month. Thus, that leaves them about $1200 for everything else. Do you think it would work?

Then, let's talk about the person making $200,000. They get taxed $40,000, leaving them $160,000 to live on. On that, they could own a huge house, buy gourmet foods, own an expensive car, get the best health care, and spend large amounts of money on fairly useless items and entertainment. All this while the other family either starves, has no clothes, has nowhere to live, etc....

Cry me a river! Seriously, who determines this "Standard cost of living"? Whose fault is it that someone can't earn enough to live up to this "standard", the person who can't or all of their neighbors? Why are you so obsessed that someone who has done what it takes to earn $200,000 per year can *gasp!* live better than someone who doesn't?

Life is full of choices. It isn't the government's job to protect you from making bad choices. If you drop out of school and can't get a good paying job, <b>you</b> are to blame. If you have a kid when you're a teenager and end up behind the financial 8-ball, <b>you</b> are to blame. Society doesn't have to save your butt, <b>you</b> have to save yourself!

The rich don't get rich based on some "cosmic lottery", someone has to do the work first. Most often it is the rich who worked their way to the top. Sometimes they were born into wealth, but that doesn't guarantee they'll always be rich. I've known people born into wealth that ended up in the gutter, and vice versa.

This is why I'm against progressive taxation. The arguments for it are invariably flawed, usually due to the political ideology of the person making the arguments. They talk about "economic justice" as if the rich were taking advantage of the poor. When over a third of what you earn is taken and given to others because they "need" it more, how can that NOT be a slap to the face? "Glad you're working hard, but these other people aren't so we'll just make you work that much harder to take care of them too!" Fabulous!

Guess what happens? The hard workers leave, they go somewhere with a fairer tax scheme. Such a tax gives them a huge economic incentive to do so. It isn't rocket science, it's simple economics. If you overly tax the producers, they head for the hills.

No income taxes = Estoy bueno!

(I took French :D )

Why calculate on disposable income? This is what i mean by indoctrination, you've already made many assumptions about the nature of wealth and taken a view on how society should regard it. Since as you've stated, basic living expenses have been allocated, then shouldn't disposable income be seen as the premium for having a better job/working harder/more experience etc? Why penalise success?
Because if you don't calculate on disposable income, you're calculating on necessary income. When you reduce wealth beyond the point necessary to live, these poor people don't just dry up and go away. Many will remain law-abiding, however some will not. When that happens, a person can get "taxed" in a much more personal, direct, and arbitrary manner than is applied by the government.

The scary thing is, before these recent riots in France, I used to be of the mind that so long as people have enough to afford food and a roof over their head, violence would be minimized. Now I'm not so sure. If the income level to suppress violence is relative based on what others in the country are making, that's a serious problem. I'm hoping it's not generally the case though, and that the situation in France was exacerbated by a number of other factors.

Let's be quite clear here, I'm not in favor of progressive taxation because I have any sympathy for poor people. I'm in favor of progressive taxation because I have sympathy for those who've worked hard to get where they are and don't deserve to be the victims of criminal activity brought on by those who are desparate. Progressive taxation, if balanced right, serves to minimize the actual hardship done to any particular person. Less hardship means less reason to go outside the system to solve that hardship.

And be honest, part of the reason those wealthy areas have less crime is because of increased police presence. Having lived in neighborhoods all along the economic scale at various points in my life, I can attest to this. The police respond much quicker to a complaint from the wealthy areas. Maybe it shouldn't be like that, but that is how it is. I'll agree that lower income people tend to rely more directly on societal supports, but I argue they do so on a much smaller scope than those of higher incomes.

Cry me a river! Seriously, who determines this "Standard cost of living"? Whose fault is it that someone can't earn enough to live up to this "standard", the person who can't or all of their neighbors? Why are you so obsessed that someone who has done what it takes to earn $200,000 per year can *gasp!* live better than someone who doesn't?

Life is full of choices. It isn't the government's job to protect you from making bad choices. If you drop out of school and can't get a good paying job, <b>you</b> are to blame. If you have a kid when you're a teenager and end up behind the financial 8-ball, <b>you</b> are to blame. Society doesn't have to save your butt, <b>you</b> have to save yourself!


You would rather that society didn't protect those who are not successful. Did you consider that society helps people be successful? Did you consider that even an unskilled laborer (if there is such a thing anymore) who earns so little that he pays no taxes also contributes to society by his mere participation in the economy?

Personal choices are not the only component of economic success, the concept of the natural rate of unemployment best demonstrates this idea. There is a given rate of employment at which the economy can no longer employ any more workers.

Furthermore, this isn't merely about unemployment but compensation for work done. Whether its CEOs or burger flippers the very size of our workforce can make any occupation, no matter the challenges involved in it, a minimum wage job. We don't pay lawyers and doctors well strictly because of the services they provide, we pay them well because few are able to provide those services. The merits of the rich you are presuming in your argument are transient. In a society where there are mostly equal levels of education and the best compensated individuals are those who take risky and dangerous work then you would not likely praise intelligence and economic acumen but rather courage and other such prowess. I would imagine the only common possible trait is diligence in labor. Let's consider for a moment.

The rich don't get rich based on some "cosmic lottery", someone has to do the work first. Most often it is the rich who worked their way to the top. Sometimes they were born into wealth, but that doesn't guarantee they'll always be rich. I've known people born into wealth that ended up in the gutter, and vice versa.


Ignoring the weakness of your anecdotal evidence for now and taking it as true, it is irrelevant that the rich need to work. The poor do also. Furthermore it isn't true that the rich necessarily worker harder than the poor. The only real difference is that the rich will likely be more able to wisely allocate their income and they do work that more highly valued. So we have a situation where society places low value on the work that the poor do. Given that, is it so strange that we might ask society to be charitable in some respects?

This is why I'm against progressive taxation. The arguments for it are invariably flawed, usually due to the political ideology of the person making the arguments. They talk about "economic justice" as if the rich were taking advantage of the poor. When over a third of what you earn is taken and given to others because they "need" it more, how can that NOT be a slap to the face? "Glad you're working hard, but these other people aren't so we'll just make you work that much harder to take care of them too!" Fabulous!


I have just demonstrated how your idea of the poor as lazy is false. Now you can cite a number of reasonable ideas as to why progressive taxation is unjust. I'll let you discover those on your own. But the point is anything that starts with 'the poor are lazy' is worthless.

Cry me a river! Seriously, who determines this "Standard cost of living"? Whose fault is it that someone can't earn enough to live up to this "standard", the person who can't or all of their neighbors? Why are you so obsessed that someone who has done what it takes to earn $200,000 per year can *gasp!* live better than someone who doesn't?


The standard of living isn't good for this argument, as it calculates the average, and those with much higher incomes tend to raise it dramatically. However, there is a "cost of living", of sort, is the lowest income a person can live on, and still afford food/shelter/medical care/and basic necessities for life, which sits at about $15,000, as stated before. For a person of lower income, a flat tax takes far more money from them, and decreases their ability to actually live, than a rich person.


Life is full of choices. It isn't the government's job to protect you from making bad choices. If you drop out of school and can't get a good paying job, <b>you</b> are to blame. If you have a kid when you're a teenager and end up behind the financial 8-ball, <b>you</b> are to blame. Society doesn't have to save your butt, <b>you</b> have to save yourself!


And not all poor people are products of bad choices. Some people need to drop out because their family(As in their parents) is unable to support themselves otherwise. This will affect them in the future, when they are unable to make the minimum amount for the cost of living. These people are not products of bad choices, but products of inopportunity. They can't make more because they are quite literally born into the situation. Many other examples follow the "inopportune" side of view. Now, I don't support the "Lazy Poor" at all, but the "Inopportune Poor" is another story altogether.


The rich don't get rich based on some "cosmic lottery", someone has to do the work first. Most often it is the rich who worked their way to the top. Sometimes they were born into wealth, but that doesn't guarantee they'll always be rich. I've known people born into wealth that ended up in the gutter, and vice versa.

I as well. However, it is far easier for somebody who is born into wealth to stay at the top, than it is for a poor person to make even middle class wages, and sometimes it is downright impossible, once again because of inopportunity.


This is why I'm against progressive taxation. The arguments for it are invariably flawed, usually due to the political ideology of the person making the arguments. They talk about "economic justice" as if the rich were taking advantage of the poor. When over a third of what you earn is taken and given to others because they "need" it more, how can that NOT be a slap to the face? "Glad you're working hard, but these other people aren't so we'll just make you work that much harder to take care of them too!" Fabulous!

But a progressive tax is not about "economic justice". Infact, a flat tax rate is more of what I would call "economic justice". It follows the idea that "I MADE this money, it is MINE. It is an injustice to take it away." and such. However, what you fail to realize is that somebody who makes $200,000 can afford to lose 20%, and still make more than enough to live, whereas a person who make $20,000, depending on the area of residence, cannot afford a 20% tax. It's not justice, it's about living.


Guess what happens? The hard workers leave, they go somewhere with a fairer tax scheme. Such a tax gives them a huge economic incentive to do so. It isn't rocket science, it's simple economics. If you overly tax the producers, they head for the hills.

And all those low-income people who put in 40 hours a week, not including overtime, and are barely scraping by are not hard workers. Of course. Your point here is flawed in the sense that it implies that only rich people work hard, and that all rich people work hard.

And who said anything about taxing producers? Not all rich people are producers.

Why penalise success?

What is your definition of punishment? How have you found progressive taxation to, conveniently, fit into your definition of punishment?

I'm genuinely interested in you answer to those questions, but I should probably offer more for discussion.

To my understanding punishment really serves three primary functions. One is as retribution for a moral wrong. The other is to deter further repetitions of the undesirable act that is being punished. And finally is to rehabilitate the person being punished.

Clearly two and three do not apply. Few would argue that the rich are diseased and need to be cured, and few would argue that the rich should stop trying to be rich. Neither of these effects are actually occurring as a result of progressive taxation anyway. I find it hard to imagine a budding entrepreneur would think to himself, "Wow, I am going to make a fortune... on second thought, I'd better not, after all I don't want to enter into a higher tax category." The only real deterrence would be for those at the very edge between two categories. But because we can't really choose our income to such a definite degree there is hardly any deterrent effect.

The only possibly valid basis for taxation as punishment is that it is meant as retribution against the wealthy for an uncharged moral wrong. Although I'm sure you and your fellow plutophiles feel that this is always the case and that indeed may be the case with certain ideologies, we do not have to treat wealth as morally incorrect to justify progressive taxation. As many have already demonstrated, the rich have benefited greatly from society and it is no punishment to contribute their fair share. If a single individual were to hold 99% of societies wealth, should he really be made to pay as much as everyone else?

All of these "arguments," that taxes are theft or taxes are punishment, are merely slogans meant to incite an emotive response in order hide the great pains undertaken to contort and deform the meaning of such words.

Taxes can be unfair. But taxes aren’t punishment unless proposed for the purposes I set out above.

I certainly did take a wide swipe when implying that all poor people are lazy. That's not always the case, of course, but it isn't exactly a rarity either.

I'm not, however, swayed by the argument that rich people owe society for their wealth. There's a simple reason for this, they by and large became wealthy by providing society with a much needed product or service in the first place. They've been very productive members of society, so to say they owe proportionately more than they've already given simply because "they can afford it" doesn't pass the fairness test.

Here's the deal. Being poor sucks. It is SUPPOSED to suck. Hence there is a reason to work towards not being poor. Instead of giving people an incentive to be poor (by offering them endless welfare paid for by the productive members of society) it makes more sense to reward them for success. Taking proportionately larger taxes from their income is not a reward for success, it merely gives them an incentive to do all they can to avoid those taxes. Giving them alternatives that help society is good (such as tax deductions for donating to charity, lower capital gains taxes to encourage investment, etc.), but isn't it counter productive to make them jump through all of these hoops in order to make an unfair situation slightly more fair?

Relating to another point, of course not everyone can be a doctor, but not everyone needs to be a doctor to be successful. How many immigrants have come to this country with nothing and have built up businesses that are highly successful? I don't know exactly, but there have been plenty. You don't have to make six figures to be rich. You don't have to start out rich to end up rich. There is no conspiracy.

Economic left/right 8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian 3.54

I certainly did take a wide swipe when implying that all poor people are lazy. That's not always the case, of course, but it isn't exactly a rarity either.

And it's not a rarity for the rich to be lazy, either.


I'm not, however, swayed by the argument that rich people owe society for their wealth. There's a simple reason for this, they by and large became wealthy by providing society with a much needed product or service in the first place. They've been very productive members of society, so to say they owe proportionately more than they've already given simply because "they can afford it" doesn't pass the fairness test.


They don't owe more in the "morality" sense. However, they are far more *able* to pay more, and still make a very sizeable income than a considerably poor person is and make a liveable income. And your generalization about rich people be very productive is relative-there are rich people who have made very little contribution(Such as "business politics", in a way) to society. Your assertion that all rich people have made great contributions to society is extremely flawed. It's not simply that they can afford it, it's that they can afford while still maintaining an extremely luxurious lifestyle, while others are unable to make a living at all are not able to afford to lose any of thier income.


Here's the deal. Being poor sucks. It is SUPPOSED to suck. Hence there is a reason to work towards not being poor. Instead of giving people an incentive to be poor (by offering them endless welfare paid for by the productive members of society) it makes more sense to reward them for success. Taking proportionately larger taxes from their income is not a reward for success, it merely gives them an incentive to do all they can to avoid those taxes. Giving them alternatives that help society is good (such as tax deductions for donating to charity, lower capital gains taxes to encourage investment, etc.), but isn't it counter productive to make them jump through all of these hoops in order to make an unfair situation slightly more fair?


When did welfare enter this? I thought we were talking about basic health care and such. I'm full heartedly against the current welfare system(which needs a great deal of reform-it should not be indefinate, for one thing). But that's not the point. Certain services are necessary not only for the basic living of people, but also to ensure that certain services remain available. Do you know how much money hospitals lose because bills are unpaid, becaue people cannot afford to pay them? Do you know how much less it would cost if these people were able to afford preventative care? Do you expect these people to just die? And once again, the rich are not being punished. Punishment would be bringing them down to the level of the "average" worker, which nobody is asking them to do. However, they should pay more, because they *can* pay more, while still maintaining a *huge* amount of income. Sure, $40k may seem like a lot, however in comparison a person making $200k can afford $40k much more than a person making $20k can afford $4k.


Relating to another point, of course not everyone can be a doctor, but not everyone needs to be a doctor to be successful. How many immigrants have come to this country with nothing and have built up businesses that are highly successful? I don't know exactly, but there have been plenty. You don't have to make six figures to be rich. You don't have to start out rich to end up rich. There is no conspiracy.

Economic left/right 8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian 3.54

Once more, it's not about "equalizing income", and it's not about being rich. It IS about providing necessary services for living. It's not about poor people not being able to rich, either. It is about providing necessary services to people, and making sure that those who would not be able to afford the *MINIMUM COST OF LIVING* can afford such.

I'm not, however, swayed by the argument that rich people owe society for their wealth. There's a simple reason for this, they by and large became wealthy by providing society with a much needed product or service in the first place. They've been very productive members of society, so to say they owe proportionately more than they've already given simply because "they can afford it" doesn't pass the fairness test.

It is true that the wealthy could have provided a useful good or service for society's consumption. But even in this best case scenario the wealthy, who have earned their wealth, still owe society for: (1) assitance in creating that wealth; (2) the luxuries and investments they enjoy by spending that wealth.

Wealth is not created in a vacuum. The wealthy depend on their fellows in the market to do their job so that the wealthy have an opportunity to generate wealth. You can't very well have Bill Gates unless there was a farmer somewhere willing to grow food for him. Furthermore, the wealthy depend on others so that they may commit their wealth to purchasing luxuries or investments. Although celebrities may rightfully own their mansions, they didn't build them.

The market is a process through which we can justify the transfer of wealth and ownership of property not of our own construction. However, the market does not serve to isolate the individual and make him purely of his own design. While the market allows individuals to choose the allocation of resources and production, it does not make economic effort any less communal.

Here's the deal. Being poor sucks. It is SUPPOSED to suck. Hence there is a reason to work towards not being poor. Instead of giving people an incentive to be poor (by offering them endless welfare paid for by the productive members of society) it makes more sense to reward them for success.

We aren't talking about welfare.

Taking proportionately larger taxes from their income is not a reward for success, it merely gives them an incentive to do all they can to avoid those taxes.

There is always the motivation to avoid costs. The problem is that there are actually methods of doing so thanks to our overly complicated tax code. A simplified progressive tax wouldn't provide more opportunity to realize such incentive than a flat tax.

...isn't it counter productive to make them jump through all of these hoops in order to make an unfair situation slightly more fair?

There is nothing inherently unfair about due costs. Furthermore, taxes aren't being avoided because they are unfair. If you want try to argue that taxes are inherently unfair then go for it, but even if you successfully do then you will only have suggested a fair tax that people will still seek to avoid.

Relating to another point, of course not everyone can be a doctor, but not everyone needs to be a doctor to be successful. How many immigrants have come to this country with nothing and have built up businesses that are highly successful? I don't know exactly, but there have been plenty. You don't have to make six figures to be rich. You don't have to start out rich to end up rich. There is no conspiracy.


There is certainly no conspiracy. The point I am making is quite simple. Whether you are a business owner or a janitor, the returns of your labor are invariably controlled by the number of people willing and able to do your job. We really can't justify the reason the wealthy are so beyond the fact that there are fewer of them. I'm not suggesting that there is no merit involved in obtaining wealth or that because our idea of rewardable merits can change that we should tax the hell out of the rich. I won't waiver on the point that the rich have indeed earned their wealth. But, by virtue of their ability to pay they can be required to pay more.

For me there is no real question of fairness or morality in taxation barring extreme examples of legislative attack on a particular group. Taxes are usually just a matter of policy.

But a progressive tax is not about "economic justice". Infact, a flat tax rate is more of what I would call "economic justice". It follows the idea that "I MADE this money, it is MINE. It is an injustice to take it away." and such. However, what you fail to realize is that somebody who makes $200,000 can afford to lose 20%, and still make more than enough to live, whereas a person who make $20,000, depending on the area of residence, cannot afford a 20% tax. It's not justice, it's about living.


They don't owe more in the "morality" sense. However, they are far more *able* to pay more, and still make a very sizeable income than a considerably poor person is and make a liveable income.

Quoting these for emphasis. I think we are both on the same page here. I especially like your analysis in the first quote.

A luxury tax is certainly a good idea, as is a lack of sales tax for food and medical supplies.

How do you then tax food on a luxery scale? or medicines? When the "rich" have parties do you really want them NOT to pay taxes on food for that purpose? Better to tax it overall (simplier too) and then (p)rebate that portion of tax that is considered to be at the level of the "standard of liviing"

You would rather that society didn't protect those who are not successful. Did you consider that society helps people be successful?

Socity and the Govt are two seperate things. The gov't protects the individual from other individuals using force or fraud against them or from external (to the country) non-natural threats.

Given that, is it so strange that we might ask society to be charitable in some respects?

No not strange at all, but you don't put a gun to their head (i.e. use the govt) to force them to. Ask yes, demand, no.

And not all poor people are products of bad choices. Some people need to drop out because their family(As in their parents) is unable to support themselves otherwise. This will affect them in the future, when they are unable to make the minimum amount for the cost of living. These people are not products of bad choices, but products of inopportunity. They can't make more because they are quite literally born into the situation. Many other examples follow the "inopportune" side of view. Now, I don't support the "Lazy Poor" at all, but the "Inopportune Poor" is another story altogether.

I agree, and I think most of us who rail against the "lazy poor" as you said, are only refering to the lazy poor. Opportunity is made, however, and I've seen stories plenty on TV and in news magazines of people working 2-3 job to make things work and be a success. Look at the CEO of Kellog's. He was a poor hispanic truck driver who worked his way up to the top. (I think I got the right company, I'll research it later and correct if needed).

There is certainly no conspiracy. The point I am making is quite simple. Whether you are a business owner or a janitor, the returns of your labor are invariably controlled by the number of people willing and able to do your job. We really can't justify the reason the wealthy are so beyond the fact that there are fewer of them. I'm not suggesting that there is no merit involved in obtaining wealth or that because our idea of rewardable merits can change that we should tax the hell out of the rich. I won't waiver on the point that the rich have indeed earned their wealth. But, by virtue of their ability to pay they can be required to pay more.

For me there is no real question of fairness or morality in taxation barring extreme examples of legislative attack on a particular group. Taxes are usually just a matter of policy.

There's paying more, then paying proportionately more. Under a flat tax a rich person certainly does pay more than a poor person. If you made $1,000,000 per year at 20% you'd pay $200,000, which is fifty-times more than a person who makes $40,000 pays. What justification is there for saying that paying merely fifty times more is not enough, they have to pay ninety-times more simply because "they can."? Why not just tax all income over $100,000 per year at 100%, because it is certainly possible to live on $100,000 per year, right?

We could certainly say that the first $20,000 is exempt from taxes, or whatever number you want to set it at, and then start counting from that point on. So if you made $21,000 your tax bill would be $200, which is certainly manageable. If you make $100,000 your tax bill would be $16,000 and on $1 million it would be $196,000. There would still be some semblence of progressivity, but nobody's tax rate would be over 20%. Just eliminating the billions spent on trying to figure out taxes under our convoluted tax code would be a huge boon to our economy!