Originally posted by no1marauder
Nonsense. I suggest you read this short piece and consider the rationale behind the progressive income tax given the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility' http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-371303.html
Maybe you didn't bother to read my other post, but I agree with both
the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility and, thus, with a progressive tax.
The justification of that principal is well-founded -- that 1000 dollars to a
person earning 20k a year is more substantial than 1000 dollars to an
individual earning 200k a year.
I'm objecting to the notion that someone because they are rich should
be taxed because they refuse to donate, that a person's behavior with
their property (i.e., wealth) is a criterion for whether or not they should
be taxed.
I also suggest that if you are committed to the position stated above, you respond to this observation:
Without an economic system which is based on governmental measures, like enforcement of contracts, creation of legal tender, etc. etc. the amassing of wealth is impossible. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it.
I agree with the observation.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI admit that you've offered nothing resembling an argument which would
So you admit that 'theft' is simply the wrong word to use and that your moral outrage at KN's suggestion is misplaced.
compel me to change my word 'theft' to another one. You've raised an
objection, but you've failed to substantiate it. My reiteration to your
first vapid 'one-liner' should have made that clear.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, it's an observation that 'need' and 'waste' are very relative terms.
Is that some sort of default American provincialism kicking in?
In the absence of concrete definitions of these terms, one could say that
our homeless are 'wasteful' since they have access to things they don't
'need.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe word you should have used was 'tax'. But that would have been tautological and your rhetoric would have been spoilt. Or can you explain to me how taxing someone is the same as stealing from them?
I admit that you've offered nothing resembling an argument which would
compel me to change my word 'theft' to another one. You've raised an
objection, but you've failed to substantiate it. My reiteration to your
first vapid 'one-liner' should have made that clear.
Nemesio
KN declares: "Tax is a necessary evil to protect society against the incentive of the wealthy to waste their resources." This goes to no1marauder's remark -- because many people, not just the wealthy, would fail to pay taxes if they could. Surely it is everyone's right to spend their money as they see fit. So why should anyone pay taxes?
Originally posted by NemesioThen your use of the words "steal" and "theft" is misplaced.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]Nonsense. I suggest you read this short piece and consider the rationale behind the progressive income tax given the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility' http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-371303.html
Maybe you didn't bother to read my other post, but I agree with both
the Law of Diminishing Marginal Ut ...[text shortened]... the system imposed by government pay for it.[/b]
I agree with the observation.
Nemesio[/b]
I believe it is relevant when considering what level to tax at to consider what the individuals to be taxed would otherwise do with their money. If you agree with the LODMU, I don't see how you can feel differently. Thus, I don't see where this is "stealing".
At present, there are various tax policies which encourage charitable donations by making them deductible. Does the tax system "steal" from those who don't make charitable donations by reducing the tax burden of those who do?
Originally posted by NemesioYes, they're living high on the hog in those "unnecessary" cardboard boxes.
No, it's an observation that 'need' and 'waste' are very relative terms.
In the absence of concrete definitions of these terms, one could say that
our homeless are 'wasteful' since they have access to things they don't
'need.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'm sure the degree of wastefulness varies from one homeless person to another. But shelter is widely considered a basic human need, so perhaps that's something concrete to talk about.
No, it's an observation that 'need' and 'waste' are very relative terms.
In the absence of concrete definitions of these terms, one could say that
our homeless are 'wasteful' since they have access to things they don't
'need.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAlthough?
Well, there are crappy places and there are nice places in Europe. In some areas the standard of living is far higher than in the US, although the US has it pockets of general well-being of course, like Massachusetts.
How ignorant can one be and still remain able to breathe? You clearly have absolutely no concept whatsoever of the number of wealthy areas in the USA nor of the scope of their opulence.
Which quantum reality did you say you came from? The one where they flap their jaws before engaging their brains?
see http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/real_estate/wealthiest_states/
and
http://wealth.mongabay.com/
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYou define legal terms as though you have the authority to do so. You are entitled to your opinion. You can be as scared as you like; however, the law may be fashioned such that the accumulation of wealth is permitted only so long as it represents benefit to the community. Otherwise, to confiscate the illegally gained wealth of those who deal in controlled substances, for example, would also be "stealing."
This is very scary thinking. If someone is wealthy and won't donate
their money, then you advocate stealing from him. If the wealthy person
is willing to donate, then we don't need to.
This is thuggery, plain and simple. A person who is either skilled or
lucky enough to be wealthy should by virtue of being wealthy be able to
spend it on whi to a more
moral action, for that would make me scarcely different than they.
Nemesio
In short, you are demonstrating through your ideological pretzel bending that you are having trouble finding your ass with either hand.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's a difficult question. I would prefer government control similar to France. There's is not the perfect solution, but I think it is better than America is mananging things.
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"You seem to equate taxing the rich to taxing businesses."
You seem to equate taxing the rich to taxing businesses. This is folly, when I say "tax the rich" I mean "tax the income of rich employees". If wealthy individuals would invest or donate the money they don't need, there would be no issue. The problem is that they primarily spend it on luxury goods - it's their right, sure, but it doesn't increase the ov ...[text shortened]... be by government. (to solve that problem, I suggest fixing your electoral system)
No, not at all. Although a certain amount of wealth is required to capitalize any business, corporate or otherwise. Actually, I favor business taxes over personal income taxes, or other forms of direct taxation (See Wealth of Nations, and original Constitutional prohibitions on direct taxation)
People end up paying corporate and business taxes anyway, embedded in the price of goods and services, and they choose to pay taxes when they make a purchase. This is far more efficient, and far less intrusive, coercive or manipulative than personal direct taxation, and it reaches proportionately everyone who buys stuff, even those with undeclared income.
"If wealthy individuals would invest or donate the money they don't need, there would be no issue. The problem is that they primarily spend it on luxury goods"
This rather presumptuously concludes that others know better how to use their money than those who earned it. I've heard exactly the opposite argument about the rich being allowed to retain more of their own money, that they don't spend enough of it, and that therefore reducing their taxes doesn't stimulate the economy. It can't be both ways. Whatever happens, it is morally right that they choose what to do with their earnings, just as much as it is the right of the poor or middle class worker. Investing it, spending it, or donating it, I'm betting that they will use it more wisely than the US Congress or any other elected body will. Just one example: Of the trillions of dollars spent on Social Welfare programs in the US, about 28% went to the beneficiaries. The rest was administrative costs of the programs.
That isn't the fault of the electoral system. A purely democratic, mob ruled system would hardly elect a more capable body. Governments and bureaucracies in general aren't well suited to making sound financial decisions. This is where small business has the edge on big business, what they lack in economy of scale, they make up for in low overhead, and nimbleness being able to change course much more accurately and quickly than larger enterprises.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt always was actuarily unsound. It has already gone nearly broke a half dozen times, and each time it has been "saved" by raising FICA rates, or raising the level of income taxed.
In what way will social security "collapse"?
During the last three decades, knowing it was in trouble, benefits have been expanded, COLA is calculated fraudulently, and new classes of recipients have been added.
Additionally to make things worse, average life expectancy is much longer, so benefits are paid on more people for longer than was anticipated. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security in the US over the next 50 years is in the area of $75 trillion. The latest answer is to push back the age of becoming a recipient, but to make the system sound it will have to be pushed "way back", say to age 85 or later.
A dirty little secret is that a substantial portion of the national debt is to the Social Security trust fund. That is the excess receipt of Social Security that aren't paid out, go into the general fund in exchange for long term bonds, which future tax payers have to pay back with interest.
If Social Security were such a good idea, why isn't Congress in the plan, and why isn't it voluntary for the rest of us. Federal Insurance Contribution Tax (FICA) implies it is voluntary (contribution). It also implies it is insurance (with a contract, strict reserve requirements, valid underwriting, etc.). It is imposed on people, and meets none of the requirements imposed on private insurance. It is in fact a government run Ponzi scheme. Bernie Nadoff might have even studied it in creating his.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Without an economic system which is based on governmental measures, like enforcement of contracts, creation of legal tender, etc. etc. the amassing of wealth is impossible. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it."
Nonsense. I suggest you read this short piece and consider the rationale behind the progressive income tax given the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility' http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-371303.html
I also suggest that if you are committed to the position stated above, you respond to this observation:
Without an econ ...[text shortened]... only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it.
Everyone under a system of government which guarantees individual rights benefits from it, but some end up more successful than others for a variety of reasons, luck, skill, education, hard work, good genes, etc. All have the opportunity. Some use the benefit, and others squander it.
Is it moral to punish those who use the benefits and opportunity of liberty? And then give it back to those who did not, minus a substantial handling fee, the inefficiency of government.