1/15 If minority of wealthy people own a huge percentage of the wealth in
the US, then woludn't it make more sense for them have a bigger
percentage of tax?
\_ How much bigger? Serious question here. How much more should rich
people pay in your opinion?
\_ perhaps are you suggesting a hefty property/wealth tax in liu of
income taxes? One important function of gov't is protect property,
and so one could easily argue that those with the most for the
govt to protect should be paying the lion's share of the govt
expenses.
\_ Only because they earn more, but it would not make sense to charge
them more per dollar, just more dollars because they're making
more dollars. And you're confusing "wealth" with "high income
earning". They are not the same thing. A wealthy person with low
or no income should be paying the same taxes as a poor person with
low or no income: zero.
\_ And we suddenly race back to serfdom! So those not making an
"income" shouldn't be contributing to the common defence simply
because they've got theirs? Grow up.
\_ They pay in other ways such as property taxes, death taxes,
utility taxes, bridge tolls, sales taxes, and a million
other fees. Get an education and grow up yourself. When
you're less ignorant you can come back and discuss adult
topics with us.
\_ One rhetorical technique really bothers me: the term
"death tax". Calling it that makes it seem cruel and
unfair, but you can't tax a dead person. Call it what it
really is: a tax on recieving an inheritance.
\_ Yeah, but it's been obliterated by Bushco, so is it
worth talking about? Yay inherited plutocracy!
\_ Don't forget, this death tax was only on assets
exceeding 2 mill, which hardly sounds excessive.
I can understand pegging this to inflation, but
doing away with it entirely seems excessive since
that will need to be made up in other ways.
\_ Yeah, the whole process leading up to it has
been utter bullshit. It's greed, plain and
simple. Inheritance tax has an interesting
history, and is a deeply anti-monarchic response
(and rightly so).
\_ How much bigger?
\_ This contradicts what people consider 'fair' in non-tax contexts.
This reminds me of a truly amazing article in the Daily Bruin I
read the other day where someone was complaining how unfair it
was that Schwarzenegger wasn't willing to tax rich people in
California more, to solve the budget problem... Then in the same
breath the person complained how the Federal government has this
progressive scheme of taxing states, where California only gets
back 76% or so of the revenue they give up to the Feds (which
apparently is also very unfair). It seems he saw no contradiction
in what he was saying, or maybe he didn't want to be principled
but favored any tax scheme which gave him the biggest slice of
the pie possible in the current political climate. -- ilyas
\_ The analogy is false. "States" don't suffer from the
problems of poverty, people do. There's no reason the
state with the highest cash flow should pay proportionally
more than other states. (You can't call California the
"richest" state since right now our state government is
actually the poorest.) California also has more poor people
and more need for social services than, say, Wyoming. -tom
\_ I think California is passing the 'suffering'
from this progressive taxing scheme the feds have onto
the residents just fine. Who is to say the Feds have a less
optimal income redistribution plan than you do? Maybe it's
worth it to take away from some social services in CA and
optimal income redistribution plan than you do?
give to social services in MA, etc. The analogy is not false.
\_ If the other states are getting more for pork-barrel projects,
then it's logically consistant. If it's to subsidize poor states
then he is a hypocrite.
\_ Well, even if it goes exclusively to pork, you are still not
in the clear. You have to prove that _your_ method of income
redistribution is better than this other one. I think it's
better to simply agree on whether progressive taxation is
fair or not first, and worry about the specifics of how
it gets spent later.
\_ You're missing the point. Taking more money from
California because it has the highest cash flow is not
"progressive taxation." California is billions of dollars
in the hole--"rich" people who lose money during a given
year pay no taxes that year. California has no earnings,
just a budget. -tom
\_ Bzzt! California has 'earnings'. They're called taxes.
Just because CA spends more than it takes in doesn't
mean it isn't doing well. That's called overspending.
If I made a million dollars last year but spent 1.5
million on toys for myself do you think I shouldn't
have to pay taxes on that million?
\_ If you spent the 1.5 million on charity projects like
education for all children and health care for the
poor and elderly, then you'd have a 1.5 mil deduction
million on toys for myself do you think I shouldn't
and not have to pay any taxes. It's not like the
state is buying itself sports cars.
\_ Exactly right. -- ilyas
\_ California is *NOT* the richest state in terms of average
per capita income. And if you look at the distribution scheme
fair or not first, and worry about the specifics of how
it gets spent later.
have to pay taxes on that million?
\_ Exactly right. -- ilyas
you will see that the money goes to politically favored states
and is taken away from those the Republicans want to punish.
Poverty and wealth have nothing to do with it.
\_ All methods of income distribution are unfair to someone. That is
one of the core problems with any tax system. No matter what you
do someone will say it is unfair to them. And they'd be right. The
only real question is not "fair or unfair?" but "who do we screw?"
In the U.S. we screw wealthy people by charging them more money but
not providing more services for their tax dollar. We then screw
them again when they want to leave their wealth to other family
members so the money has been unfairly taxed twice. I was going to
balance my comments by saying how we screw poor people but I can't
think of anything that isn't some form of "we don't give them enough
money from wealthier people".
\_ I disagree. I don't think forming societies is an inherently
losing proposition for someone. I also think there is one
notion of fairness that is 'right.' -- ilyas
\_ That's an interesting opinion but not meaningful and does not
bear out in reality where historically no matter what the tax
system has looked like there is always a group that
justifiably feels screwed by it while others remain silent.
If you can find that one correct notion of fairness that the
rest of us can agree on, A Universal Fair Tax Truth, then you
should run for office. I'd vote for you in a split second.
\_ Well, I think 'feeling screwed' is not a good yardstick
for universal fairness. Maybe someone is unusual
and would feel screwed with any scheme that didn't give him
losing proposition for someone. I also think there is one
notion of fairness that is 'right.' -- ilyas
justifiably feels screwed by it while others remain silent.
If you can find that one correct notion of fairness that the
rest of us can agree on, A Universal Fair Tax Truth, then you
should run for office. I'd vote for you in a split second.
the whole world on a platter. I don't claim to know how
to approach universal fairness, but I have a feeling it
exists (even if it's not as elegant and simple a concept as I
\_ Actually he is getting more for his money. Our education
system, our infrastructure, our millitary, our police, etc.
ALL are needed to help keep him rich. Third world
countries are not conducive to getting rich.
would like). -- ilyas
\_ Well, i'm not sure your vague "feeling of existence"
is such a good basis for your claim that a
notion of universal fairness exists.
\_ You're probably not wealthy enough to know that our tax system
is so deliberately laden with loopholes that the very richest
pay far far less of their income in taxes than you probably think
\_ They may be too ethical to play shell games with companies.
But that doesn't mean they don't exist for those with
less scruples.
Is moneybags using more gov't services than regular guy?
Maybe he is getting more value from the military. What is fair?
that they do.
\_ Compare a regular guy making 40k, gets taxed 20% = $8000.
Then there's moneybags making $400k, gets taxed 5% = $20000.
Is moneybags using more gov't services than regular guy?
\_ I thought it was Spock who said, "The good of the many,
outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Live long and
prosper - even with high taxes.
it gets spent later.
Maybe he is getting more value from the military. What is fair?
\_ Noblesse Oblige?
\_ Actually he is getting more for his money. Our education
system, our infrastructure, our millitary, our police, etc.
ALL are needed to help keep him rich. Third world
countries are not conducive to getting rich.
\_ No, actually, my parents are fantastically wealthy and I know
that your concept of "the rich pay nothing! it's all full of
holes! the poor pay more!" is a crock of shit. They pay more
every year in absolute and percentage terms than any middle
class or poor person will pay in a lifetime. You're not
wealthy enough to know what the rich really pay, you just
repeat the noise you read on http://moveon.org.
\_ I disagree. Jean-Luc Piccard once said the life of a few is
worth sacraficing for the benefit of the many. Or maybe that
was from a Vulcan, I can't remember.
\_ No, Picard never said this. He was not a utilitarian. What
he did say in one episode was that he refuses to let
arithmetic decide such matters.
\_ I thought it was Spock who said, "The good of the many,
outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Live long and
prosper - even with high taxes. |
http://csua.com/feed/