Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Pseudonymous]

But the whole point is that it is not fair. That is why people argue against higher taxes for the rich. OR even for tax brackets between $50 000 and $100 000, because some gains are completely wiped out by the increase in taxes, like that health care premium linked to a while back.

The thing is, the rich benefit disproportionately from government spending, since they're generally in positions of power (or just pay other people to do that sort of thing, like investors), and hence require educated labor to work for them, roads so their employees may come to work and their customers may buy their services, police to protect their much greater property from criminals, social programs to turn potential criminal threats into productive employees and customers, fire fighters to protect their land and property from damage, emergency medical personal to keep their employees safe and more productive, and military forces to protect their interests from foreign nations who would otherwise waltz in and appropriate their assets.

Aside from that, there is the fact that the rich can bear the burden of taxation, while the poor most notably cannot. Then, you also have the issue that the poor are going to be spending their money in this country, on products and services the rich are selling, and thus any increase in their spending power (by, say, reducing their taxation), means more business for the rich, meaning both they and their employees benefit from this. If you reduce taxes on the rich, they're more likely to hoard that money or spend it in foreign nations.

Depends on what you call a merit. To some, being rich is itself a merit. To others, working in a highly valued field is a merit. To yet others, being able to run a successful business in a merit. I'd think that it would be true that being financially wealthy is not correlated in any way with honesty, courtasy, loyalty, friendliness, intelligence, or wisdom, but that's not the point.

That's false and assuming that I'm awfully stupid : why should money be associated with honesty, or any of those supposed qualities?

Money is supposed to be a measure of the worth of your work, and a few other factor such as how wisely it is used.
When you watch to who got the most riches you have : greedy businessman using all dirty tricks in the book, rich heirs, corrupt politician, and a few celebrity. Not exactly the most useful worker (those are usually the middle class.)

I'm not assuming anything other than what you said first of all. The rest was examples to support my point.

Now do you have a source that says businessmen the sort to fit your description: "all the dirty tricks in the book, rich heirs, corrupt politicians, and a few celebrity"? As I read, something like 90% of all businessmen are first generation, almost none are politicians, relatively few are celebrities, and I haven't found anything that says they use any sort of tricks more dirty than the general population. I've known several people who lie and cheat their taxes, steal bubble gum, and carry illegal knives, none of whom are by any means rich.

If you think about it, very few businessmen are "rich" either, just the scum that floats on the top of the pond.

[Phmcw]

Ever heard of acta? Wonder what wikileak got on BoA? Haven't a little spill of something occurred lately? Wonder who fund the teaparty? ...

Actually even those aren't very good argument let me get this :Richest men in the world : Carlos Slim : made his fortune in Mexico, by gaining monopoly on the telecoms business and bleeding the country dry.

Second : Bill Gate : Made his OS a monopoly, and used any tricks to erase the concurrence. His enterprise has been condemned several times for malpractice, but payed the fine rather than comply. He's been a motor for every for of privacy altering regulation in the name of business. Has invested most of his fortune in a charity organization, AKA somewhere where he won't pay any taxes, but still have near total control.

Third Warren buffet : “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Well who say they weren't honest?
 
Bernard Arnault:
Basically, the short text following, explain how he stole 2 billion dollars to France, and how i's he poeple that bought his group who had to pay back. Source wikipedia France.(and any newspaper)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"Après avoir perçu près de 2 millards de francs de l'État (gouvernement Fabius) contre la promesse de ne pas licencier les quelques 16000 salariés du groupe, le 14 décembre 1984 Bernard Arnault a adressé une lettre à Laurent Fabius s'engageant ainsi : « J'assurerai personnellement la direction de la DBSF et je procéderai à la mise en œuvre du plan industriel et social tel qu'il a été communiqué aux administrations ». Il en revend les actifs les plus importants, ne conservant que la prestigieuse marque Christian Dior et le grand magasin Le Bon Marché[3]. Après une restructuration sévère, les activités textiles de Boussac sont revendues au groupe Prouvost. Après cette acquisition, Christian Deverloy, PDG du groupe Prouvost déclare ne pas être lié par les engagements pris par Bernard Arnault auprès des pouvoirs publics (observation du Sénat 28/06/2001). En 1987, le groupe devra rembourser sur injonction de la Commission de Bruxelles (décision du 15/07/1987) une partie des 51,5 millions d'euros dont il a bénéficié."

I could go on and on...

[malimbar04]

<snip>

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are 2 people who are probably bad examples. They're the 2nd and 3rd richest people in the world, and they've basically given their entire fortune away.

Warren Buffet is the most liberal rich man I can think of by the way, and has advocated for enormouse and absurd taxation on the rich.

Also, a few people who did a few things to gain an advantage doesn't seem much more corrupt than your neighbor lying on his taxes. Then a "little spill" was an accident, which happens all the time by all sorts of people. I cut myself the other day, but I don't think we should regulate whether peopel are allowed to cut the fat off of their meat because of the danger. It's more public perhaps when reach people do it, and maybe it affects more people, but the same behavior happens all the time with all sorts of people.

[Phmcw]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are 2 people who are probably bad examples. They're the 2nd and 3rd richest people in the world, and they've basically given their entire fortune away.

I explained why Bill Gate did it, and Buffet hasn't given his fortune yet. Beside, both are political hazard to the left, and one of he reason the Democrats sucks right now.

Warren Buffet is the most liberal rich man I can think of by the way, and has advocated for enormouse and absurd taxation on the rich.

Also, a few people who did a few things to gain an advantage doesn't seem much more corrupt than your neighbor lying on his taxes. Then a "little spill" was an accident, which happens all the time by all sorts of people. I cut myself the other day, but I don't think we should regulate whether peopel are allowed to cut the fat off of their meat because of the danger. It's more public perhaps when reach people do it, and maybe it affects more people, but the same behavior happens all the time with all sorts of people.

If you snip a combat knife in a nursery, you'll be a bit more liable if an accident happen to one of the baby.
The spill happened because of loose regulation loosely enforced. It was in all European newspaper, as well as calls to improve our already stronger-than-yours laws.

[malimbar04]

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are 2 people who are probably bad examples. They're the 2nd and 3rd richest people in the world, and they've basically given their entire fortune away.

I explained why Bill Gate did it, and Buffet hasn't given his fortune yet. Beside, both are political hazard to the left, and one of he reason the Democrats sucks right now.

Warren Buffet is the most liberal rich man I can think of by the way, and has advocated for enormouse and absurd taxation on the rich.

Also, a few people who did a few things to gain an advantage doesn't seem much more corrupt than your neighbor lying on his taxes. Then a "little spill" was an accident, which happens all the time by all sorts of people. I cut myself the other day, but I don't think we should regulate whether peopel are allowed to cut the fat off of their meat because of the danger. It's more public perhaps when reach people do it, and maybe it affects more people, but the same behavior happens all the time with all sorts of people.

If you snip a combat knife in a nursery, you'll be a bit more liable if an accident happen to one of the baby.
The spill happened because of loose regulation loosely enforced. It was in all European newspaper, as well as calls to improve our already stronger-than-yours laws.

Buffet has started giving, he's just not giving it all at once. The main reason for this is that the shareholders don't get a huge "holy shit!" moment with shares instantly loosing half their value. Thus his fortune is being shaved off slowly. He buys stocks in the same way so we don't get a huge "YAHOO" moment of a quadrupling in value of a stock.

And your reasoning for Bill Gates doesn't make sense. I may not like the man, his company's products, or his business tactics, but his charity is not a tax shelter allowing him to do whatever he wants with it. Instead of giving it all to the government (which would happen as soon as he dies), it is being spread around to an absurd amount of organizations via grants and research. That's not going toward his house, his servants, or his super-expensive home theater system. It's the single largest reason he's no longer the richest man in the world.

[Glowcat]

But the whole point is that it is not fair. That is why people argue against higher taxes for the rich. OR even for tax brackets between $50 000 and $100 000, because some gains are completely wiped out by the increase in taxes, like that health care premium linked to a while back.

The thing is, the rich benefit disproportionately from government spending, since they're generally in positions of power (or just pay other people to do that sort of thing, like investors), and hence require educated labor to work for them, roads so their employees may come to work and their customers may buy their services, police to protect their much greater property from criminals, social programs to turn potential criminal threats into productive employees and customers, fire fighters to protect their land and property from damage, emergency medical personal to keep their employees safe and more productive, and military forces to protect their interests from foreign nations who would otherwise waltz in and appropriate their assets.

I've said the same thing and they continue to ignore it so that they can pretend taxation for the rich is some fundamentally unfair moral outrage.

Are any of you anti-taxation people going to answer to the fact that you're defending deadbeats who want more without paying society in return for it? Quite a twisted sense of business ethics on your part if you think the person who gets more should have a smaller bill than the person who could already go become a hermit with practically no difference to their status. The fact that the elite must entrench themselves deep in society and sometimes even attempt to control it isn't just a benign coincidence.

[Phmcw]

Then this will enlighten you "The foundation invests the assets that it has not yet distributed, with the exclusive goal of maximizing the return on investment. As a result, its investments include companies that have been criticized for worsening poverty in the same developing countries where the Foundation is attempting to relieve poverty.[54] These include companies that pollute heavily and pharmaceutical companies that do not sell into the developing world.[55] In response to press criticism, the foundation announced in 2007 a review of its investments to assess social responsibility.[56] It subsequently cancelled the review and stood by its policy of investing for maximum return, while using voting rights to influence company practices." soure wikipedia, but actually the best aricle come from the Los Angeles Time."
It invests the other 95% of its worth. This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune. Monica Harrington, a senior policy officer at the foundation, said the investment managers had one goal: returns "that will allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making." Bill and Melinda Gates require the managers to keep a highly diversified portfolio, but make no specific directives."

Beside, this hugely funded foundation does whatever she want and is not exactly something that you'd like to oppose, having more or less the OMS budget.
It's nothing more than yet another weapon for the war against the poors.

[AntiAntiMatter]

The fact that the elite must entrench themselves deep in society and sometimes even attempt to control it isn't just a benign coincidence.

What do you mean, sometimes? The elite always try to control society, and they tend to succeed.

[malimbar04]

<snip>

OK, I'll accept that the foundation's investments are not perfect. I would ask how you would have changed the investments to better society in a more efficient way, as giving that money to a government is horribly inefficient, as it simply distributing wealth to whoever is more poor.

However, I think we're splitting off the topic too much to focus on what is really just a couple of examples. In order to confirm what you said about the rich being corrupt more so than the general population we would need a large and randomized study with specific measurements. You could give me a list of 100 rich people who stole their entire fortune, but it wouldn't prove that they are more likely ON AVERAGE to do illegal things.

But the whole point is that it is not fair. That is why people argue against higher taxes for the rich. OR even for tax brackets between $50 000 and $100 000, because some gains are completely wiped out by the increase in taxes, like that health care premium linked to a while back.

The thing is, the rich benefit disproportionately from government spending, since they're generally in positions of power (or just pay other people to do that sort of thing, like investors), and hence require educated labor to work for them, roads so their employees may come to work and their customers may buy their services, police to protect their much greater property from criminals, social programs to turn potential criminal threats into productive employees and customers, fire fighters to protect their land and property from damage, emergency medical personal to keep their employees safe and more productive, and military forces to protect their interests from foreign nations who would otherwise waltz in and appropriate their assets.

I've said the same thing and they continue to ignore it so that they can pretend taxation for the rich is some fundamentally unfair moral outrage.

Are any of you anti-taxation people going to answer to the fact that you're defending deadbeats who want more without paying society in return for it? Quite a twisted sense of business ethics on your part if you think the person who gets more should have a smaller bill than the person who could already go become a hermit with practically no difference to their status. The fact that the elite must entrench themselves deep in society and sometimes even attempt to control it isn't just a benign coincidence.

I concede the point under a specific definition of fair - that is that everyone has the same income. I also concede that the rich being taxed gives a LOT more money than having everyone else taxed.

The problem comes with the universality of a law. When we cut off a specific population based on what they have produced and then give them a different set of laws, it's not fair.

There are solutions to the universality and fairness of the law, but they're having a tough time in congress. One of the solutions is the fair tax, which would replace income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and basically everything that the IRS regulates with a single tax on consumed goods. We could then section out whatever we think is the base cost of living, and give them each a paycheck monthy for this amount. The costs of goods would stay approximately the same,  everyone would have more income with which to buy their stuff, the poor and rich are treated equally, the poor are ensured a basic standard of living, and we can basically get rid of the IRS and it's complexities.

[Glowcat]

You still haven't explained how paying more because you effectively are buying more is an unfair concept. If they don't like the cost then they should be able to leave, but it seems some people want to keep their cake and eat it too. Or rather, other people somehow get it in their heads that those well-off people should gain an even greater advantage for undeserved reasons.

There are solutions to the universality and fairness of the law, but they're having a tough time in congress. One of the solutions is the fair tax, which would replace income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and basically everything that the IRS regulates with a single tax on consumed goods. We could then section out whatever we think is the base cost of living, and give them each a paycheck monthy for this amount. The costs of goods would stay approximately the same,  everyone would have more income with which to buy their stuff, the poor and rich are treated equally, the poor are ensured a basic standard of living, and we can basically get rid of the IRS and it's complexities.

So the rich pay more taxes on the things they buy compared to the poor? That doesn't exactly seem Universal.

Neither is it an effective means to keep the economy in motion. Currency is essentially a representation of labor and when people hoard their wealth they are taking value out of the economy. The USA is currently suffering a lack of development because its "innovators" aren't injecting that value back into the economy unless it's being done through a foreign country since that is where the labor market favors. When wealth is going in one direction and then practically disappears, problems are going to crop up sooner or later.

Taxes on income itself can be used to incentivize investments and other actions which help keep our controlled economies afloat. Taxes on junk people buy only discourages them from buying more junk.

[Gantolandon]

The problem comes with the universality of a law. When we cut off a specific population based on what they have produced and then give them a different set of laws, it's not fair.

Well, you are talking about people who can afford the best lawyers (giving them huge advantage in the court) and influence politicians better than the rest of their society combined. How that is fair?

[Phmcw]

    The problem comes with the universality of a law. When we cut off a specific population based on what they have produced and then give them a different set of laws, it's not fair.

Why?
As far as I am aware, the law is very different in a lot of domain depending of your income, place where you live...

[malimbar04]

You still haven't explained how paying more because you effectively are buying more is an unfair concept. If they don't like the cost then they should be able to leave, but it seems some people want to keep their cake and eat it too. Or rather, other people somehow get it in their heads that those well-off people should gain an even greater advantage for undeserved reasons.

Hmm, translating this into my langauge... Error
no idea what you're talking about here. Who is paying more for buying more? What does a graduated income tax have to do with buying anything? As for cost, it's not unusual for rich people to leave actually, setting up tax shelters in other countries.

And who is saying we're giving them an even greater advantage? Who is advocating a smaller tax on the rich than on the poor? What I'm seeing is people complaining that the rich have to pay a larger portion of their income instead of an equal portion.

There are solutions to the universality and fairness of the law, but they're having a tough time in congress. One of the solutions is the fair tax, which would replace income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, and basically everything that the IRS regulates with a single tax on consumed goods. We could then section out whatever we think is the base cost of living, and give them each a paycheck monthy for this amount. The costs of goods would stay approximately the same,  everyone would have more income with which to buy their stuff, the poor and rich are treated equally, the poor are ensured a basic standard of living, and we can basically get rid of the IRS and it's complexities.

So the rich pay more taxes on the things they buy compared to the poor? That doesn't exactly seem Universal.

Except... they're not. They would pay the same portion as everyone else, and then get back the same base living expenses that everyone else is getting. If we assume a rich person is buying more expensive things, they still pay a higher portion of the national taxes, but the ratio of their money that goes into taxes is the same for everyone.

Neither is it an effective means to keep the economy in motion. Currency is essentially a representation of labor and when people hoard their wealth they are taking value out of the economy. The USA is currently suffering a lack of development because its "innovators" aren't injecting that value back into the economy unless it's being done through a foreign country since that is where the labor market favors. When wealth is going in one direction and then practically disappears, problems are going to crop up sooner or later.

The problem of keeping saved money in motion is already solved by the bank. Saving money saves the bank, which then loans out the money to people who want to do more work.

The main problem in the US is that people are holding back. They hold back on hiring people, hold back on buying things, and hold back on finding something new to do. However, the Fair Tax does actually address this. If the taxation is moved entirely to purchasing of items, then people will have more money to spend on things (from a lack of other taxes). It also ensures that everyone gets this rebate based on the cost of living, thus everyone has at least enough money to buy things (and thus keep money moving). Then of course there is the amazing result of everyone understanding the tax code, making it FAR easier to start a business or buy something or invest money. 

Taxes on income itself can be used to incentivize investments and other actions which help keep our controlled economies afloat. Taxes on junk people buy only discourages them from buying more junk.

Fair tax: No taxation on investments at all
Income Tax: Less taxation on certain investments, more on others, some things are double-taxed.
Wouldn't this then be even better?

Fair tax: Keep 100% of wages, buy things at about 1% increase (yes really, when taxes are removed from the things companies buy and put into their products)
Income Tax: Keep 70% of wages, buy things at same price as today.
Would this be even better as well?

[malimbar04]

    The problem comes with the universality of a law. When we cut off a specific population based on what they have produced and then give them a different set of laws, it's not fair.

Why?
As far as I am aware, the law is very different in a lot of domain depending of your income, place where you live...

And people complain about those as well. They usually justify it based on other services, and those services are often why they live there in the first place. That is not enforced upon them so much as a choice of what lifestyle to purchase.

[malimbar04]

The problem comes with the universality of a law. When we cut off a specific population based on what they have produced and then give them a different set of laws, it's not fair.

Well, you are talking about people who can afford the best lawyers (giving them huge advantage in the court) and influence politicians better than the rest of their society combined. How that is fair?

It's a different definition of "fair".
My definition: Everyone has the same rules applied to them
Your definition (I think): Everyone succeeds the same amount

As for lawyers, that is the problem of our justice system, and has absolutely nothing to do with how we tax people.