| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/16 |
| 2004/8/26-27 [Reference/Tax] UID:33172 Activity:insanely high |
8/26 Question for motd conservatives: what do you think about the following
argument for progressive taxation? The practical value of money does
not grow linearly with the amount of money you have, but faster than
that. For instance, you can't live in LA on 50 dollars a day. On
50000 dollars a day, not only can you live well anywhere, but bend
the fabric of society around you for your own benefit, like a star bends
spacetime. Progressive taxation then is meant to compensate for this.
-- ilyas
\_ Why does there need to be any compensation for having more money?
If you want to redistribute wealth and thereby destroy it, then
just do that and don't hide behind 'funny' terms like
"progressive taxation" which are just buzzwords for what the
left really means.
\_ Capitalist system tend to concentrate wealth. Wealthy tend to
bend rules of law for their benefit, thus, generate more
wealth. People who inheirt this wealth won't need to do
anything. By protecting their constant stream of income, they
destroy opportunities for others.
Soon or later, you will have a few wealthy people,
may be 1-2% of population who lives very well-off, and 90%
of people who can barely fed themselves regardless how much
they work. If you reach that point, then, bloody revolution
occures. Progressive taxation is just one of way to slow down
such process.
\_ Don't forget that the wealthy can now pass laws to prevent
any future uprisings from having any chance of succeeding.
New York won't even let the people protest this weekend,
to "protect the grass." -rollee
\_ If I were wealthy enough to do so, I would certainly
try to use any influence I could muster to prevent
redistribution of _my_ wealth. It's _my_ money, not
the money of the collective. Taxation is about
people paying for their fair share of goods and
services, not out of some dipshit communist principle
of preventing the accumulation of wealth out of pure
spite. -John
\_ No, inherited wealh diminishes over generations. It is
taxed, divided, spent, and gone. It is very rare that the
next generation ends up with more than the generation that
created it. Only if there's a growing and successful
\_ False. Try again.
family business, in which case, the next generation has
earned their wealth by successfully running and growing a
business. I also object to your bit about the wealthy
making laws for themselves which generates more wealth.
That is opinion and conjecture. As a salaried person I pay
more than half my income in various taxes. After working
\_ Wages are heavily taxed. Asset income is not. The
Republican rich are laughing at you, wage slave. --aaron
for 15 years I have a mortgage and less than year's post-tax
income saved. How come I'm not making my own laws and
creating a legacy of vast wealth on a salary yet I pay such
a huge amount of my income in taxes? This is bullshit, but
thanks for trying to make an honest effort to justify your
redistribution and destruction of wealth plan.
\_ Because you're a wage slave dupe who doesn't
understand the wage-unfriendly tax system.
Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston.
\_ This seems like opinion and conjecture as well. Have
you seen that HBO documentary "Born Rich"? If most
of the inheritance is in real estate, then there's
not even the necessity to earn the wealth, since the
returns from real estate can be so rediculous.
BTW, if you are working for a salary, you are not
truly wealthy.
\_ I'm not truly wealthy. I made that clear. If I'm
not truly wealthy then why am I getting ripped apart
by your progressive taxation/theft system?
\_ You're not even close to wealthy. You're part
of the 19% of the population that mistakenly
thinks they are in the top 1%, probably.
http://www.lcurve.org
\_ Because you've reached the top of a heap that
should be higher. Those making more than you are
paying the same percentage income tax as you,
essentially it's a "flat tax.". It's no longer
progressive in your favor. Add on property tax
on your house and POOF, 50% gone. If those who
raked in 5x or 10x paid a higher percentage, it
would allow the easing of the tax burden on you.
Ah such is the curse of the upper middle class...
\_ tell us about the... ah forget it.
\_ darn, you beat me to it
ilyas: Please remove the part about the stars, it is honestly
distracting.
\_ Hey at least now you asked, rather than (rudely) doing it
yourself. I appreciate that (really). -- ilyas
\_ But it sounds so dramatic! Inspiring, really. I can only bend
a crappy apartment around me for my benefit.
\_ How progressive is progressive enough? -emarkp
\_ Separate question. Assume we are able to establish the precise
curve for 'amount of money I have' vs 'practical value of said
money.' Just have the progressive schedule make that curve
linear. The question isn't about the specifics, but whether
the argument itself is good. -- ilyas
\_ It's not a separate question, it's fundamental to the issue.
Who decides how much more valuable my property is? -emarkp
\_ I just proposed who (or rather what) decides -- the curve
decides. You can either say 'yes I accept this curve is
a good measure' or 'no I reject this curve for reasons
x, y, z.' -- ilyas
\_ I reject this curve because if I earned it then I
should keep it. If tax rates were flat, I'm still
paying more for the same basic services while not
using more of them. Then you want me to pay more on
top of that so I not only pay a greater absolute
amount but a greater percentage of what I earn.
Just take it all and be done with it.
\_ Regardless of where the wealth comes
from, our judicial system and law enforcement
allows you to keep the wealth that you have
"earned".
\_ *laugh* wtf? Yes, and? You would prefer a
system of total anarchy? A system where I don't
like what you posted on the motd so I drop by
your place and shoot you? Ok, you're right, we
have cops and courts and jails, so we should
have a brutal tax rate to match. That makes
sense. That way if I object to my insanely
high tax rate I can be processed. Thanks.
\_ Alright, do you agree that the relative usefulness
of money is a superlinear function of amount?
\_ No, I don't. Who determines "relative
usefulness"? -emarkp
\_ The magic rocks in my hat determine it. --aaron
\_ Hi troll!
\_ I'm just reminding emarkp why he has
no credibility.
If so, what's wrong with a 'flat % of usefulness tax'
versus a 'flat % of money earned tax?' Yes, I am
familiar with the standard flat tax arguments, you
do not need to reproduce them here. I am curious
where a typical conservative's worldview clashes
with the above observation, that's all. -- ilyas
\_ It clashes anytime a salaried guy making 6 figures
who doesn't own any new gadgets or spend a lot on
much of anything has less than a year's income
saved and pays out over 50% of his income on
various taxes every year.
\_ I agree with emarkp here. It's hard for me to understand
the question if you just say "The right amount of money
will be taken." Communists would say this is all the
money that puts you above average, so everyone make
$50,000 (or whatever).
\_ Yes, thank you. We all know what communism means. This
is in no way pertinent to the discussion. If you want to
play in the real world, call us when your clue arrives.
\_ The real problem with the tax system is that 40% of Americans pay
no income tax at all (33% of all tax filers have no tax liability).
Thanks, Bush tax cuts! |
| 5/16 |
|
| www.lcurve.org -> www.lcurve.org/ Think of the L-Curve when you read your daily news I hope you do READ your daily news rather than rely on the TV infotainment that masquerades as news. What are its implications for tax structures, campaign finance reform, the policies of the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank, abandonment of inner cities, factory closings, sweatshop labor, guest worker programs, US foreign policy, why we go to war, etc. Should the goal be to get motivated and get yourself onto the vertical spike? Some people who have responded to this site see it this way, but I think that misses the point. I saw a bumper sticker recently that says it best for me: Our economy produces tremendous wealth but it also produces tremendous poverty. Sure, some people can be lazy, but when large numbers of hard working people live in poverty and the middle class is shrinking, it is a systemic , not an individual problem. It goes to the top, and leaves the masses to fight over the crumbs. True, it has been this way through the ages, but that doesnt mean we should be satisfied with such a system. Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes of a few hundred thousand dollars may feel rich. They may have nicer homes and cars, and they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings. Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2. Can democracy meaningfully exist where the distribution of wealth, and thus the distribution of power, is this concentrated? We recently went through an economic boom where people on the horizontal spike showed little if any improvement in their condition while those in the vertical spike showed huge gains. Do we really want to gear up our national policies to repeat this performance? Those in the vertical spike would like to have you resent the poor who are portrayed as welfare leeches. Which group actually has a bigger negative impact on your lifestyle: the people in the bottom half of the graph, or the people in the vertical spike? In 1997 over 144,000 tax returns were filed with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more. As the vertical spike rises it thins down to a few individuals, but there is a growing class of billionaires that collectively holds a substantial fraction of the wealth of the country. People on the vertical spike can use their influence single-mindedly and very effectively. A single billionaire can get the undivided attention of any politician he wants, any time he wants. If he doesnt get what he wants he can, in fact , fight city hall, the statehouse, and even the federal government. People on the horizontal spike must pool their limited individual power and organize to have any effect at all. The mainstream media has been bought up by people in the vertical spike. The primary channels for information and expressed opinion are controlled and filtered by a small, powerful group on the vertical spike whose interests are not representative of the majority of Americans. Even when there is no direct political message the programming is tailored to the perspectives and sensitivities of large corporations. Programming is simply the hook to hold an audience until the next commercial. Serious examination of ideas of any kind is seen as counterproductive because it may alienate or bore part of the potential audience. The growing media monopoly dilutes and distorts the national dialog, and thereby destroys the basis for democracy. We must find ways to rebuild community and learn to talk to each other directly . When taxes are cut, whose taxes are cut and whose programs are cut? What kinds of taxes are being cut and what kinds of taxes whether they are called taxes or not are being imposed? The pre-Reagan progressive income tax drew more from the vertical spike. Simplification is unrelated to the issue of who the money is coming from. You could have a simple progressive tax just as easily as a simple flat tax. The proposal to eliminate the income tax entirely would be disastrous. Those on the vertical spike would escape virtually all of their obligations and the burden of government would be born almost entirely by those of us on the horizontal spike, both through increases in other forms of taxation and reduction of services. This is the direction tax reform needs to take if it is to be truly considered reform. Can the people on the horizontal spike take control of their own destinies and truly make this a nation governed in the best interests of the people? The economy is a complex system, but it is essentially a human invention. If it is not managed intentionally, then it is managed or manipulated by those who hold political and economic power, typically to their own advantage. It is just as important to ask how the benefits of the economy are distributed through the population . A truly democratic society needs to find ways to manage the economy to benefit the population as a whole. Links to Related Sites Data sources: Census Bureau / Internal Revenue Service / Economic Policy Institute Note: these data sources are notably lacking in data within the top 1. Census data goes up to $300,000 and IRS data goes up to $1 million. Information to plot the vertical spike had to be obtained from news articles and other sources of commentary. If information on the top 1 is not known or easily obtained, statements about the socioeconomics of income and wealth are suspect. Michael Parenti has written an illuminating article on this topic. Since I first posted this site, several people have quibbled over various technical points. Here are a few of the issues raised: Increase in net worth is not the same thing as income, according to one reader. However, I recently received a comment from economist John Maher who wrote, I believe the first readers comment is incorrect. Increase in net worth IS income according to the renowned economist, John R. The income of very wealthy people typically varies radically from one year to the next. Sometimes years of huge earnings are followed by years with similarly huge losses. I have added a comment to this effect in the main body of the text above. Those of us on the horizontal spike, however, find radical jumps in income much harder to achieve. The published wealth of billionaires is typically estimated by their holdings in their own companies. These estimates do not included their typically vast diversified investments. Income on paper, from growth of investments, needs to be distinguished from taxable income. Its true that there are differences among different kinds of income, so they arent strictly comparable, but political and economic power derives from wealth, whether it is taxable or not. My response to all of these kinds of questions, in short, is that the truth of my central thesis is not dependent on the exact height of the graph or shadings of definitions. As one correspondent put it, there is a money spike and there is a population spike . One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth. That power is effective only to the extent that it can be mobilized through organization. |