Agree or not: The rich benefit the most from tax money?

[Skull Pilot]

Seems to me that the more wealthy one is, the more they benefit from the GOVERNMENT'S protecting their Right to Private Ownership.

Because no one else owns anything right?

Typical Straw Man.

The word MORE does not imply no one else owns anything. It just means they have more than those who have less.
In a true "Capitalistic" system the taxes should be based on capital assets rather than income.
What do you think the taxes in a Capitalistic system should be based on?

Just because some people own more does not mean they get more protection of ownership rights. The guy who owns nothing but his home has his ownership rights protected just as vigorously as the rich dude who owns 5 houses.

So do you believe that the Blacker one is, the more they benefit from the civil rights movement?

 

[Vast LWC]

Them goods don't move themselves.

You idiots forget that it's these "evil rich people" who gives people like you a job.

I don't forget that, and I wasn't saying the rich were "evil" in any way, shape or form.

I was simply pointing out the prime justification for income tax.

A justification that happens to be true, by the way.

 

[Oddball]

There's no ethical justification for any tax on incomes or productivity...Zero.

 

[Vast LWC]

And if corporations and their shareholders (the rich) don't want to pay taxes anymore, well they can feel free to provide their own roads, protection and education for their own workers.

Lets see how that works out.

I'll go ya one better.. let's let the people who pay zero in federal taxes provide their own roads, education, food, homes, and doctors,, how's that work for ya???

Which people would those be?

As far as I know, everyone pays payroll tax, and since that has been being used as tax money for decades now instead of being set aside in the SS fund...

 

[Vast LWC]

There's no ethical justification for any tax on incomes or productivity...Zero.

IYO perhaps, IMO there is.

If certain people use more resources than others, they should pay more taxes.

We disagree on this point of course, but both points of view do in fact have justifications.

 

[Foxfyre]

True, but its not the sole determining factor

More often than not, it is.

Sure, forget the fact that some people dont' have intelligence or finances to go to college, forget about potential diseases and disabilities incurred by people. Forget about the fact there are not enough jobs, let alone decent paying jobs, for everybody to get one, no matter how hard they worked, as unemployment has never been 0%.

It's just convenient for people to rationalize that all people getting help are lazy bums that want a free handout. Ignore that they may have had help and things in life out of their control that helped them get to the point they have. Generalizations and simplifications of complex life, especially when it comes to very diverse human population, is never a strong argument for anything.

Are there lazy bums that leach off the system? Sure.Are there people that had unfortunate events or made one mistake in life that now they need help, you bet. Are there people who were able to dig themselves out of trouble and start to succeed thanks to government assistance keeping them afloat, yes siree. THere are all kinds of variables in life.

Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?

While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.

The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.

And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.

Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.

 

[Vast LWC]

Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?

While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.

The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.

And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.

Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.

And here we come to the crux of our argument.

The further right among us believe that the people who have shown the most talent, and their progeny, are the most deserving of benefits.

In other words, Social Darwinism. Which always confused me a bit, because in general those same people don't believe in actual Darwinism (though there are exceptions of course).

The left believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.

Both schools of thought have their pros and cons. I always thought that a mix of both was the way to go. A minimum level of social safety net combined with rewards to promote excellence.

One thing I will say though, is that wealth is not always a sign of talent or intelligence. Often wealth is transferred from generation to generation, or between members of elite groups. However, that is not to say that intelligence and talent does not help.

 

[Dr Gregg]

More often than not, it is.

Sure, forget the fact that some people dont' have intelligence or finances to go to college, forget about potential diseases and disabilities incurred by people. Forget about the fact there are not enough jobs, let alone decent paying jobs, for everybody to get one, no matter how hard they worked, as unemployment has never been 0%.

It's just convenient for people to rationalize that all people getting help are lazy bums that want a free handout. Ignore that they may have had help and things in life out of their control that helped them get to the point they have. Generalizations and simplifications of complex life, especially when it comes to very diverse human population, is never a strong argument for anything.

Are there lazy bums that leach off the system? Sure.Are there people that had unfortunate events or made one mistake in life that now they need help, you bet. Are there people who were able to dig themselves out of trouble and start to succeed thanks to government assistance keeping them afloat, yes siree. THere are all kinds of variables in life.

Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?

While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.

The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.

And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.

Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.

We are social species, that's what we do, take care of our own. Not make up bullshit rationalizations and generalizations to try to circumvent the heartless nature of the argument that people in trouble should just "deal with it" without realizing the realities of it.

I feel pretty free, and taxation is nothing new. plus in reality, nobody is ever truly free as we are guided by societal laws.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?

While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.

The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.

And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.

Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.

And here we come to the crux of our argument.

The further right among us believe that the people who have shown the most talent, and their progeny, are the most deserving of benefits.

In other words, Social Darwinism. Which always confused me a bit, because in general those same people don't believe in actual Darwinism (though there are exceptions of course).

The left believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.

Both schools of thought have their pros and cons. I always thought that a mix of both was the way to go. A minimum level of social safety net combined with rewards to promote excellence.

One thing I will say though, is that wealth is not always a sign of talent or intelligence. Often wealth is transferred from generation to generation, or between members of elite groups. However, that is not to say that intelligence and talent does not help.

I can already see a misconception in return to this response I want to nip i n the bud. Notice he said CHANCE and not that everybody deserves equal pay, equal everything. Just a chance at it. Some don't want that chance, many other do, and benefit from it. To deny that is being disingenuous.

 

[Oddball]

There's no ethical justification for any tax on incomes or productivity...Zero.

IYO perhaps, IMO there is.

If certain people use more resources than others, they should pay more taxes.

We disagree on this point of course, but both points of view do in fact have justifications.

Except that you didn't give any moral/ethical justification...All you did was accept the premise of the moral authority for taxation on production, then claim that just because someone produces more he should then have more of his production expropriated.

So, what's your ethical justification for seizing by force from the productive in the first place?

 

[xsited1]

There's no ethical justification for any tax on incomes or productivity...Zero.

...

If certain people use more resources than others, they should pay more taxes.

...

They do. It's called consumption. You buy more, you pay more in taxes. Unfortunately, some people (like yourself) believe that the tax rate should increase depending on how much money you make. WTH????

 

[Vast LWC]

Except that you didn't give any moral/ethical justification...All you did was accept the premise of the moral authority for taxation on production, then claim that just because someone produces more he should then have more of his production expropriated.

So, what's your ethical justification for seizing by force from the productive in the first place?

That's not what I said at all. What I said was that if someone uses more resources, then they should pay more taxes.

And actually, I personally believe in a real flat tax.

Meaning that everyone is taxed at the same percentage of their income, but that includes all forms of tax, like payroll taxes, capital gains tax, sales tax, etc.

I would only exclude the poorest of the poor from this tax, and since they make nearly no income anyway, the point would be nearly moot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?

While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.

The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.

And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.

Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.

And here we come to the crux of our argument.

The further right among us believe that the people who have shown the most talent, and their progeny, are the most deserving of benefits.

In other words, Social Darwinism. Which always confused me a bit, because in general those same people don't believe in actual Darwinism (though there are exceptions of course).

The left believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.

Both schools of thought have their pros and cons. I always thought that a mix of both was the way to go. A minimum level of social safety net combined with rewards to promote excellence.

One thing I will say though, is that wealth is not always a sign of talent or intelligence. Often wealth is transferred from generation to generation, or between members of elite groups. However, that is not to say that intelligence and talent does not help.

You've almost got it, but it is the Left who draws on social Darwinism in reverse--rewarding the under achievers at the expense of the achievers.

The Right, maybe even more than the Left but I won't quibble, believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.

The difference is that the Right believess that those who make good choices, who put in the effort, who take the risks, and who do what is necessary to get it done honorably and ethically are entitled to benefit from the fruit of their own labor or initiative. The Left seems to believe that others are also entitled to benefit from it.

The Right believes in opportunity being made equally available to all but that hard work, responsible risk taking, initiative, industriousness, along with whatever self sacrifice factors into that, is deserving of its reward. The Right fully knows that the outcome will be unequal because everybody won't bring the same determination, responsibility, or ability to the process, but the Right also knows that mediocrity is the legacy of not rewarding excellence.

Yes some people have a leg up by virtue of their environment and circumstances than others, but that is part of the process of freedom. If some are simpliy luckier than others, it is because somebody somewhere made it possible for somebody to get lucky.

If I spend my life building a better future for my kids, why should they be punished because somebody else didn't do that for their kids? Not only did I make choices to benefit myself and mine, I did not ask for or demand or expect you to do that for me.

I am an advocate of Darwinism as far as it goes, but an honest assessment of Darwinism applies as much emphasis on factors outside the control of any organism as it does on the choices made by those organisms.

Those conservatives on the Right put a much higher value on human life than that. Humans of all of God's creation have the ability to not be captives of their environment and circumstances and possess the intelligence to rise above both. That is not social darwinism in any sense.

While a hand up is often warranted--this is far more likely to happen in the private sector than through any government program--true compassion is recognizing and encouraging people to rise above their environment and circumstances.

 

[Oddball]

Except that you didn't give any moral/ethical justification...All you did was accept the premise of the moral authority for taxation on production, then claim that just because someone produces more he should then have more of his production expropriated.

So, what's your ethical justification for seizing by force from the productive in the first place?

That's not what I said at all. What I said was that if someone uses more resources, then they should pay more taxes.

What does taxing production have to do with using more resources?

Oh, and you've still failed to give any moral justification for taxing useful production.

 

[Oddball]

Surely you aren't suggesting a principle that it is the responsibility of the more intelligent to support the less intelligent? The more ambitious to support the less ambitious? The wise to support the stupid?

While I don't know a single thinking person who would say that a moral people does not take care of the most helpless among us, the idea promoted here is not who is or is not more deserving.

The idea promoted here is that government does not serve well that rewards inefficiency, irresponsibility, bad choices, bad behaviior and punishes efficiency, responsibility, good choices, and good behavior.

And in a free society government serves and deals with all equally and without prejudice irrespective of socioeconomic standing or political ideology. The private sector can distinguish and act responsibility on an individual or case by case basis, but our government was not designed to do that and it should not p;resume to do that.

Once government presumes to assume the power to decide who is and who isn't entitled to your money, you are no longer free.

And here we come to the crux of our argument.

The further right among us believe that the people who have shown the most talent, and their progeny, are the most deserving of benefits.

In other words, Social Darwinism. Which always confused me a bit, because in general those same people don't believe in actual Darwinism (though there are exceptions of course).

The left believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.

Both schools of thought have their pros and cons. I always thought that a mix of both was the way to go. A minimum level of social safety net combined with rewards to promote excellence.

One thing I will say though, is that wealth is not always a sign of talent or intelligence. Often wealth is transferred from generation to generation, or between members of elite groups. However, that is not to say that intelligence and talent does not help.

You've almost got it, but it is the Left who draws on social Darwinism in reverse--rewarding the under achievers at the expense of the achievers....

Always amusing to hear the charges of "social Darwinism" from those who would cast themselves into the role of a "social God", so to speak.

 

[Vast LWC]

What does taxing production have to do with using more resources?

Oh, and you've still failed to give any moral justification for taxing useful production.

Much of wealth gathering has nothing to do with useful production.

Wall Street has essentially become a casino, where investments are no longer made in companies that people believe in, but instead investors just look for whatever stock is on the rise for almost completely random reasons.

Many of the wealthiest corporations are predatory holding firms that are in fact counterproductive.

My point is that the richer you are, the more you benefit from the countries infrastructure and resources, and therefore the more you should pay in taxes to provide upkeep for same.

Now, that being said, I believe my real flat tax plan will cover these contingencies, as it is a flat percentage of income, rather than a flat amount.

 

[Oddball]

What does taxing production have to do with using more resources?

Oh, and you've still failed to give any moral justification for taxing useful production.

Much of wealth gathering has nothing to do with useful production.

Wall Street has essentially become a casino, where investments are no longer made in companies that people believe in, but instead investors just look for whatever stock is on the rise for almost completely random reasons.

Many of the wealthiest corporations are predatory holding firms that are in fact counterproductive.

My point is that the richer you are, the more you benefit from the countries infrastructure and resources, and therefore the more you should pay in taxes to provide upkeep for same.

Now, that being said, I believe my real flat tax plan will cover these contingencies, as it is a flat percentage of income, rather than a flat amount.

Total...Unmitigated...Crap.

You have learned your Marxism and class envy well, though.

 

[Foxfyre]

And here we come to the crux of our argument.

The further right among us believe that the people who have shown the most talent, and their progeny, are the most deserving of benefits.

In other words, Social Darwinism. Which always confused me a bit, because in general those same people don't believe in actual Darwinism (though there are exceptions of course).

The left believe that everyone, and their progeny, should have an equal chance at the benefits of society, even if they have not proven themselves to be of use to society.

Both schools of thought have their pros and cons. I always thought that a mix of both was the way to go. A minimum level of social safety net combined with rewards to promote excellence.

One thing I will say though, is that wealth is not always a sign of talent or intelligence. Often wealth is transferred from generation to generation, or between members of elite groups. However, that is not to say that intelligence and talent does not help.

You've almost got it, but it is the Left who draws on social Darwinism in reverse--rewarding the under achievers at the expense of the achievers....

Always amusing to hear the charges of "social Darwinism" from those who would cast themselves into the role of a "social God", so to speak.

But that is what so many on the Left have been taught, indoctrinated with, or otherwise conditioned to believe. They honestly think that nobody should have to suffer the consequences of choosing to fail and nobody, except the Annointed One, deserves reward for success.

The theme so often is that the rich must have gotten there through dishonest and/or oppressive greed or via pure undulturated luck (i.e. the stock market) and they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from that.

And then we see that those who use the most resources should pay the most taxes. As if they don't already? It's just more of the mantra that the more productive people are, the more of their earnings should be confiscated.

It's nuts.

 

[martybegan]

There is some validity that 20% to a person making $300,000 is different than 20% to a person making $45,000.00 To me there is nothing wrong with some progressiveness in the tax code.

My issue is that if people who tend to want to tax the rich more REALLY want to tax them more, like 50-75% of income over value X. To me that is confiscation, not taxation. But thats what would be needed to achive the "equality" they are looking for.

I'm not wildly opposed to some progressiveness in the tax code, but there's two problems with it.

1. Obviously, people opinions on "some" is going to disagree wildly as evidenced by this thread. Some people here think the rich need to pay much more than they do today.

2. It creates gaps. I'm sure there's better way to do it, but you can't (for example) say that someone who makes $100,000.01 per year gets taxed at 25% while someone who makes $100,000.00 gets taxed at 20%. That one cent difference in income costs me $5,000. So, if i make $100k, my net income is $80k, but if i make $100,000.01, my net income is basically $75k. In order to get out of that hole, i basically need to make $107k per year. Maybe i'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but there's some incentive there to do less in order to make less money which ultimately means you're not doing as much as you could to better yourself and your company.

I may be mistaken, but doesnt a progressive tax increase only count towards the amount above the cutoff? So you still pay 20% on the first 100k and 25% on that one cent over the limit.

At least thats how it should work.

 

[Oddball]

You've almost got it, but it is the Left who draws on social Darwinism in reverse--rewarding the under achievers at the expense of the achievers....

Always amusing to hear the charges of "social Darwinism" from those who would cast themselves into the role of a "social God", so to speak.

But that is what so many on the Left have been taught, indoctrinated with, or otherwise conditioned to believe. They honestly think that nobody should have to suffer the consequences of choosing to fail and nobody, except the Annointed One, deserves reward for success.

The theme so often is that the rich must have gotten there through dishonest and/or oppressive greed or via pure undulturated luck (i.e. the stock market) and they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from that.

And then we see that those who use the most resources should pay the most taxes. As if they don't already? It's just more of the mantra that the more productive people are, the more of their earnings should be confiscated.

It's nuts.

The they carry on as though those who benefited by either gaming the system or by outright blind luck are the norm, by which to justify punishing 99% of the people who busted their asses to build a business or even have a way-above-average job working for someone else.

That's not nuts, that's plain old tiny and pathetic.