Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!

[OohPooPahDoo]

Are taxes voluntary? No.

From the standpoint that there are legal penalties for not paying them, no, they aren't voluntary But neither is obeying a stop sign. I don't see your point.

It is different because the contractors the government hires are doing a task that is not immoral. The IRS is doing a task that is immoral, namely extracting from people their wealth without consent. That was the point I was trying to make above.

So its immoral to make people pay taxes. got it.

It's immoral, yes.

The Constitution is immoral? OK, so you're against the Constitution, and we should just ignore it? And the only way to fix it is to get rid of taxes? How exactly do you propose government fund its operations then? Bake sales?

Not all of the Constitution is immoral. However, it is immoral to extract wealth from people without their consent. What I believe to be moral are voluntary taxes, like sales taxes and that sort of thing. And if that's not sufficient for the government to fund its operations, the government needs to scale back its operations.

LOL! If sales taxes are "voluntary" because the government doesn't force you to participate in the purchase of goods - then so is income tax, because the government doesn't force you to make income, either.


Jeez what a dumb argument. Sales taxes aren't voluntary. If a business isn't collecting them and remitting them to government, to use your terminology - GUYS WITH GUNS WILL MAKE THEM.

 

[Crackerjack]

LOL! If sales taxes are "voluntary" because the government doesn't force you to participate in the purchase of goods - then so is income tax, because the government doesn't force you to make income, either.

The government doesn't force you to make income? Uh ... yeah. It doesn't force you to breathe either.

Jeez what a dumb argument. Sales taxes aren't voluntary. If a business isn't collecting them and remitting them to government, to use your terminology - GUYS WITH GUNS WILL MAKE THEM.

It is voluntary from the perspective of the taxpayer. You participate in taxation to the extent you choose to as an individual.

The difference here is that the individual may opt out of collection by not running a business. If s/he doesn't want to deal with enforcement, s/he doesn't have to. Jeez, wouldn't that be nice to be able to opt out of IRS enforcement?

 

[Dragon]

The government doesn't force you to make income? Uh ... yeah. It doesn't force you to breathe either.

Breathing, making income, buying goods -- NONE of these is voluntary, and neither is paying taxes on the latter two.

You cannot opt out of sales taxes by not running a business. You can only opt out by never buying anything that's taxable. Food and shelter usually aren't taxable, but just about everything else -- clothing, cars, computers, books, furniture, soap, gasoline and other fuels, everything -- is taxable at the point of sale.

This is voluntary in EXACTLY the same way as the income tax is voluntary: you don't have to earn an income. Seriously, all taxes are like this. The income tax isn't anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Crackerjack]

A national sales tax ought to be right down the alley of you "soak the rich" folks. You'll really be able to nail 'em down when they're out buying their yachts and caviar and whatnot.

 

[frazzledgear]

The IRS report for the richest 400 Americans shows that only 6.5% of their income came from wages and salaries. The rest - 93.5% - came from unearned income. "Unearned income" is the profits that accrue to the rich by virtue of their ownership of things. When corporate profits, for example, go up, the wealth of the rich increases.

The rich themselves do not create those profits, though. The profits are mostly created by the people who work at the corporations - the profit "creators", so to speak. The rich benefit from the hard work of others, but they mostly don't participate - not unless they feel like, anyway.

Link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf

Spoken like a true communist. Next up will be calls for their execution as enemies of the state.

But where are those studies showing how much better off people are when the rich people are gone? ROFL Maybe you didn't know this -but in THIS country, who is "rich" at any given time is very fluid and all but a tiny fraction of those who are "rich" in one decade -not rich at all in the next. You communists talk like we have hardened economic classes. We don't so railing against the rich is not only totally useless and unproductive and will never make YOU a success at your own loser life -but in a few years, it isn't even the same PEOPLE you are railing against! So your REAL "enemy" here is the fact people can attain wealth in this country -but with no guarantee they will be able to hang onto it.

 

[dblack]

All right, but our system does not treat that particular job as labor.

Right. Because it's not "labor". It's the highest, and most important level of 'management'. Not only should it have the most powerful kind of 'incentive pay' (large potential for gain or loss), it should be as decentralized as possible and not something that can easily be controlled by government.

And THAT is the greatest danger of the socialist project. The purpose is to replace private investors with agents of government as 'top-level management' for the economy.

 

[Dragon]

All right, but our system does not treat that particular job as labor.

Right. Because it's not "labor". It's the highest, and most important level of 'management'.

Management can also be, and sometimes is, treated as labor. That is to say, people are hired to do it and paid a salary. People are sometimes hired and paid a salary to allocate resources, too, so no, the owning class is not rewarded for doing this work; it is rewarded for its ownership whether it does this work or not.

And THAT is the greatest danger of the socialist project. The purpose is to replace private investors with agents of government as 'top-level management' for the economy.

Not necessarily. That's only one type of socialism, one that has been proven to be as bad an arrangement as laissez-faire capitalism. Another type of socialism would involve worker-owned cooperatives, and still another would be the decentralized public company model that I've described before. Neither of these would include government agents managing these decisions.

 

[Sundial]

All right, but our system does not treat that particular job as labor.

Right. Because it's not "labor". It's the highest, and most important level of 'management'.

Management can also be, and sometimes is, treated as labor. That is to say, people are hired to do it and paid a salary. People are sometimes hired and paid a salary to allocate resources, too, so no, the owning class is not rewarded for doing this work; it is rewarded for its ownership whether it does this work or not.

And THAT is the greatest danger of the socialist project. The purpose is to replace private investors with agents of government as 'top-level management' for the economy.

Not necessarily. That's only one type of socialism, one that has been proven to be as bad an arrangement as laissez-faire capitalism. Another type of socialism would involve worker-owned cooperatives, and still another would be the decentralized public company model that I've described before. Neither of these would include government agents managing these decisions.

I made that point before, but I don't think it made an impression. In practice, owners work as hard as possible at minimizing risk (preserving capital) while doing as little managing and allocating as possible. And why not? Just because you own a bunch of stuff doesn't make you good at managing or allocating things. Plus, allocating and managing is work; what's the point of being rich if you can't enjoy yourself?

Then there's the issue of "too big to fail" and of networking. If you're rich and powerful, chances are so are your friends. And what's the point of having friends if they can't help you out when you need them? There's nothing like having Ben Bernanke on your speed-dial, when it comes to preserving capital.

 

[dblack]

I made that point before, but I don't think it made an impression. In practice, owners work as hard as possible at minimizing risk (preserving capital) while doing as little managing and allocating as possible. And why not? Just because you own a bunch of stuff doesn't make you good at managing or allocating things. Plus, allocating and managing is work; what's the point of being rich if you can't enjoy yourself?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I assumed you were complaining about profits generated from investment. That's usually what people are referring to when they talk about 'unearned income'. Investment IS the act of resource allocation. Owning a lot of capital doesn't necessarily mean someone allocates their money wisely, but if they don't, they'll lose it and someone else will have a shot at it instead.

Then there's the issue of "too big to fail" and of networking. If you're rich and powerful, chances are so are your friends. And what's the point of having friends if they can't help you out when you need them? There's nothing like having Ben Bernanke on your speed-dial, when it comes to preserving capital.

And here's where I think think the real problem lies. The incentives for prudent investment are hopelessly distorted when businesses (and by extension, investors) are allowed to write off losses on the taxpayers' dime.

 

[Sundial]

I made that point before, but I don't think it made an impression. In practice, owners work as hard as possible at minimizing risk (preserving capital) while doing as little managing and allocating as possible. And why not? Just because you own a bunch of stuff doesn't make you good at managing or allocating things. Plus, allocating and managing is work; what's the point of being rich if you can't enjoy yourself?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I assumed you were complaining about profits generated from investment. That's usually what people are referring to when they talk about 'unearned income'. Investment IS the act of resource allocation. Owning a lot of capital doesn't necessarily mean someone allocates their money wisely, but if they don't, they'll lose it and someone else will have a shot at it instead.

I'm just getting at the fact that people make unwise decisions all the time, but they don't lose their capital.

Then there's the problem of what's "unwise". If all you mean is that they lose money, then it's circular: a wise decision is one that makes money, and vice-versa. But what if someone throws a dart at a newspaper and makes money? Does that retroactively make him wise? I'd argue financial history is full of dummies who get lucky -'that there's no tight fix between being wise and getting rich. If I cashed out of Maddoffs fund a little before it went under, does that make me wise? What if I did it because my astrologer told me to?

Then there's the issue of "too big to fail" and of networking. If you're rich and powerful, chances are so are your friends. And what's the point of having friends if they can't help you out when you need them? There's nothing like having Ben Bernanke on your speed-dial, when it comes to preserving capital.

And here's where I think think the real problem lies. The incentives for prudent investment are hopelessly distorted when businesses (and by extension, investors) are allowed to write off losses on the taxpayers' dime.[/QUOTE]

Yes. We agree on that.

 

[Two Thumbs]

A national sales tax ought to be right down the alley of you "soak the rich" folks. You'll really be able to nail 'em down when they're out buying their yachts and caviar and whatnot.

That's one of the reasons you would think the left would be all for it.

KIA Sedona= 26k
Cadillac = 50k
Bently = 340k


The numbers don't lie. If the left was honest, they would support this, but they want to keep the poor down and voting for them.

 

[daveman]

We ALL live off the work of others, of course. There isn't one person reading this who is not benefitting from the work other have done.

But those with capital also benefit from the work their capital does for them.

This is one of the DUH! posts, isn't it?

Seriously...who does not already understand this?

Capital doesn't do work.

There is no work without capital...unless you dig working for free.

 

[Sunshine]

We ALL live off the work of others, of course. There isn't one person reading this who is not benefitting from the work other have done.

But those with capital also benefit from the work their capital does for them.

This is one of the DUH! posts, isn't it?

Seriously...who does not already understand this?

Capital doesn't do work.

Yes it does. If you invest your capital it works for you and brings in interst. My teachers in high school used to always be saying things like, 'I could work a lot harder, but I prefer to invest some of my money and let my MONEY work for me.'

THAT is what has gone over your head like a 747!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL! If sales taxes are "voluntary" because the government doesn't force you to participate in the purchase of goods - then so is income tax, because the government doesn't force you to make income, either.

The government doesn't force you to make income? Uh ... yeah. It doesn't force you to breathe either.

Correct on both counts.

Jeez what a dumb argument. Sales taxes aren't voluntary. If a business isn't collecting them and remitting them to government, to use your terminology - GUYS WITH GUNS WILL MAKE THEM.

It is voluntary from the perspective of the taxpayer. You participate in taxation to the extent you choose to as an individual.

The difference here is that the individual may opt out of collection by not running a business. If s/he doesn't want to deal with enforcement, s/he doesn't have to. Jeez, wouldn't that be nice to be able to opt out of IRS enforcement?

LOL! OK, so payroll taxes are an OK form of income tax, since the employee doesn't have to worry about enforcement. Got it. So taxing income or sales or anything is A-OK so long as less people have to worry about compliance.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A national sales tax ought to be right down the alley of you "soak the rich" folks. You'll really be able to nail 'em down when they're out buying their yachts and caviar and whatnot.

A national sales tax would fuck the poor, just like the right wants it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A national sales tax ought to be right down the alley of you "soak the rich" folks. You'll really be able to nail 'em down when they're out buying their yachts and caviar and whatnot.

That's one of the reasons you would think the left would be all for it.

KIA Sedona= 26k
Cadillac = 50k
Bently = 340k


The numbers don't lie. If the left was honest, they would support this, but they want to keep the poor down and voting for them.

The typical rich person who makes 1000 times my income isn't going to buy 1000 cars or even 100 cars 10x more expensive than mine. The tax burden on the rich would be lowered in most all cases, as they don't need to spend most all of their income like the poor and much of the middle class.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A national sales tax ought to be right down the alley of you "soak the rich" folks. You'll really be able to nail 'em down when they're out buying their yachts and caviar and whatnot.

A national sales tax would fuck the poor, just like the right wants it.

of course there is nothing wrong with the poor paying their fair share, In fact, why not make them pay a higher % since they don't invent anything or create new jobs? Since so many don't pay any tax now a fair tax would give them an incentive not to automatically vote for bigger and bigger government. The current no tax policy just encourages immorality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A national sales tax ought to be right down the alley of you "soak the rich" folks. You'll really be able to nail 'em down when they're out buying their yachts and caviar and whatnot.

A national sales tax would fuck the poor, just like the right wants it.

of course there is nothing wrong with the poor paying their fair share, In fact, why not make them pay a higher % since they don't invent anything or create new jobs? Since so many don't pay any tax now a fair tax would give them an incentive not to automatically vote for bigger and bigger government. The current no tax policy just encourages immorality.

Fortunately Americans are generally too humane to go for such a scheme.

Ed, do you think that your type of argument actually persuades people to your point of view?

I was initially confused as to whether you were engagin in parody or were being too frank.

If we are to have any kind of national sales tax, we have to eliminate such taxes on essentials like food, basic energy costs, simple clothing and homes. Beyond that, if any economically disadvantaged people buy it, they can pay tax on it.

 

[Sundial]

We ALL live off the work of others, of course. There isn't one person reading this who is not benefitting from the work other have done.

But those with capital also benefit from the work their capital does for them.

This is one of the DUH! posts, isn't it?

Seriously...who does not already understand this?

Capital doesn't do work.

There is no work without capital...unless you dig working for free.

Suppose there are two people: a baker who needs a chair and a carpenter who needs bread. They can make an exchange, and trade one for the other. Or they can create tokens of exchange. With the tokens, they don't have to carry bread and chairs around in order to buy things.

So yeah, money is helpful.

The leisure class, on the other hand, is just a tax on on the baker and the carpenter. They sit on the chairs and they eat the bread, but they don't produce anything themselves.

 

[Sundial]

We ALL live off the work of others, of course. There isn't one person reading this who is not benefitting from the work other have done.

But those with capital also benefit from the work their capital does for them.

This is one of the DUH! posts, isn't it?

Seriously...who does not already understand this?

Capital doesn't do work.

Yes it does. If you invest your capital it works for you and brings in interst. My teachers in high school used to always be saying things like, 'I could work a lot harder, but I prefer to invest some of my money and let my MONEY work for me.'

THAT is what has gone over your head like a 747!

Can you give me an example of money doing work?