How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price? I actually agree with tinwhiskers on this point--money is power, and it's doubtful that the utlrarich would suffer the most were the government to provide fewer, or worse services. We can look at countries like the Philippines to see this, where wealth is fantastically concentrated into the hands of a few families that own the country, while the rest live in abject poverty. Those families get by just fine. But, of course, I don't think that we need to justify wealth redistribution on a fee-for-services model. A complete dissolution of government probably wouldn't affect the ultra-rich too adversely. But it would likely affect the people who become ultra-rich in the future. If we had gone post-apocalyptic 100 years ago, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the wealthiest Americans right now. How would the ultra-rich remain ultra-rich when the most dominant economic stabilizing force and most dominant security stabilizing force in the world goes away? How much money is $1 worth if there's no such thing as a dollar? A total dissolution of government would have the potential to seriously fuck everyone, regardless of wealth. Its a very unlikely scenario so the entire conversation starts to get kind of silly when you have to base long arguments on it. Yeah, everyone would be screwed. But those who have the most material assets would be in the best position to be in power. On a micro-level, you'd have the people who can physically beat the fuck out of you in charge. On a larger scale, though, the guys who have huge mansions and a fleet of cars would be in a better situation than most. Crazy libertarians who have arsenals stashed in their cellars would be in pretty good shape, too. People who were extremely wealthy but had few material assets would be boned, though.

Which one is Bubba? Thanatos if not for all the cops. okay, I laughed pretty hard at this

How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price? I actually agree with tinwhiskers on this point--money is power, and it's doubtful that the utlrarich would suffer the most were the government to provide fewer, or worse services. We can look at countries like the Philippines to see this, where wealth is fantastically concentrated into the hands of a few families that own the country, while the rest live in abject poverty. Those families get by just fine. But, of course, I don't think that we need to justify wealth redistribution on a fee-for-services model. A complete dissolution of government probably wouldn't affect the ultra-rich too adversely. But it would likely affect the people who become ultra-rich in the future. If we had gone post-apocalyptic 100 years ago, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the wealthiest Americans right now. How would the ultra-rich remain ultra-rich when the most dominant economic stabilizing force and most dominant security stabilizing force in the world goes away? How much money is $1 worth if there's no such thing as a dollar? A total dissolution of government would have the potential to seriously fuck everyone, regardless of wealth. Its a very unlikely scenario so the entire conversation starts to get kind of silly when you have to base long arguments on it. Yeah, everyone would be screwed. But those who have the most material assets would be in the best position to be in power. On a micro-level, you'd have the people who can physically beat the fuck out of you in charge. On a larger scale, though, the guys who have huge mansions and a fleet of cars would be in a better situation than most. Crazy libertarians who have arsenals stashed in their cellars would be in pretty good shape, too. People who were extremely wealthy but had few material assets would be boned, though. The crazy libertarians would be fucked as they'd gleefully become bullies who no one would barter with and eventually be attacked themselves. That's even assuming they survive the warfare in the first place. I'm mostly libertarian but those that have a hard on for collapse are the least likely to survive it due to an assesment that gold and guns ensure everything else in the world.

Can we maybe stop talking about Doomsday Scenarios and get back to the importance of taxation?

To say that the wealthy benefit more from government because it prevents people from taking their stuff away is specious. Take away government protection of property and wealth and they don't distribute more evenly and level the playing field. The middle class doesn't grow. It shrinks. Even if the rich do lose what they have, it just gets handed over to a different group of the few. Right--it would empower a completely different group of wealthy people. And odds are, Warren Buffett is not going to be the Prime Minister of Thunderdome. So, since the current government empowers him, while screwing Bubba, the 7' tall 250 lb. sociopath, we charge Warren Buffett a fee. Frankly, given what Bubba would probably do to Warren Buffett were it not for the government, he's getting off pretty fantastically cheap. Again, what is the cash value you would place on "not rape?" By this logic rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes if they feel like acquiring their own security team. The police are just the public option. How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price? The only thing protecting them from the security team is the threat of being arrested. I mean, otherwise, why wouldn't the security team just take all their shit?

Has anyone in this thread mentioned any of the justifications for progressive taxation besides invoking apocalyptic total collapses of government?

Has anyone in this thread mentioned any of the justifications for progressive taxation besides invoking apocalyptic total collapses of government? Yes. Egalitarian (or Utilitarian) redistribution.

Yeah, all this is going away from the basic subject. The government needs money. It can take it from dead rich people or living people of all social classes. I emphatically support the former, because they are dead and rich. I do not shed tears for the heirs, because if they are the descendants of someone eligible for the estate tax, they are the descendants of someone rich, and had enough advantages growing up that it cancels out the benefit of the 40% they don't inherit. I say this as someone whose grandfather's estate (he's still alive, but barely) would have been eligible for WA state estate tax before the stock market took a dive 12 months ago and the estate shrank.

Has anyone in this thread mentioned any of the justifications for progressive taxation besides invoking apocalyptic total collapses of government? Yes. Egalitarian (or Utilitarian) redistribution. Equal utility theories, yeah okay. You know, we've just barely reached this point: Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler and this was in 1938. Unfortunately for this line of argument, interpersonal utility comparisons have generally been discarded since then. A more troubling point is that naive utility equality theories like suggest that we should (for example) tax tall people to compensate short people, since in general tall people can expect to earn more than short people. So we should tax tallness. Matt Ygelsias slapped down Greg Mankiw for making this argument earlier this year, writing: I’m fairly certain that if Mankiw were to walk over to Emerson Hall he could find some folks (possibly T.M. Scanlon who I know sometimes reads this blog) who could explain to him that there’s little grounds for the belief that a commitment to utilitarianism is the main justification for redistributive taxation.

Has anyone in this thread mentioned any of the justifications for progressive taxation besides invoking apocalyptic total collapses of government? We've had both moral and pragmatic arguments in support of it, over and over.

Unfortunately for this line of argument, interpersonal utility comparisons have generally been discarded since then. A more troubling point is that naive utility equality theories like suggest that we should (for example) tax tall people to compensate short people, since in general tall people can expect to earn more than short people. So we should tax tallness. If you think that Utilitarian (and Egalitarian!?) theories died in 1938, then you're confused. I also find it bizarre that you would conflate the two. Matt Ygelsias slapped down Greg Mankiw for making this argument earlier this year, writing: I’m fairly certain that if Mankiw were to walk over to Emerson Hall he could find some folks (possibly T.M. Scanlon who I know sometimes reads this blog) who could explain to him that there’s little grounds for the belief that a commitment to utilitarianism is the main justification for redistributive taxation. First off, I've had more formal philosophy education than Matt Yglesias has, so the fact that you're posting something straight from the horse's mouth doesn't exactly blow me away--especially since it's not like citing a single blogger is an impressive appeal to authority on a subject that's contentious in academic philosophy. But what I find more charming is that you came out, guns blazing, because I didn't mention contractualism. Yes, there is also Rawls et. all. That is another way to justify progressive taxation. Le sigh. Edit: oh wow, now that I've actually read the blog post that puts that Yglesias quote in context, it has even less to do with what I've said than I initially thought! Not only does he not exclude Utilitarian justifications of progressive taxation, he doesn't even claim that a height tax surely must be wrong. The point of his post is strictly meta-ethical, and his goal is to support some recommendation for inertia in first-order normative judgments. Congratulations on your complete reading comprehension fail.

I 'came out, guns blazing' in order to provoke the thread into moving in a more rigorous direction than suggesting the implausible scenario of government collapse over and over again. Or carelessly invoking naive utilitarianism. I cited Yglesias because criticism of any half-baked argument offered here risks being confused with stealth right-wing attacks on progressive taxation in general, so I offered a quote from a well-known liberal blogger. You with the academic background may have more subtlety, but you're not the only one here, and we do have right-wing concern trolls occasionally wandering into D&D. I think there was one earlier in this thread. And since I've gotten someone to mention Rawls for the first time in 63 pages, my work is done.

How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price? I actually agree with tinwhiskers on this point--money is power, and it's doubtful that the utlrarich would suffer the most were the government to provide fewer, or worse services. We can look at countries like the Philippines to see this, where wealth is fantastically concentrated into the hands of a few families that own the country, while the rest live in abject poverty. Those families get by just fine. But, of course, I don't think that we need to justify wealth redistribution on a fee-for-services model. A complete dissolution of government probably wouldn't affect the ultra-rich too adversely. But it would likely affect the people who become ultra-rich in the future. If we had gone post-apocalyptic 100 years ago, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the wealthiest Americans right now. How would the ultra-rich remain ultra-rich when the most dominant economic stabilizing force and most dominant security stabilizing force in the world goes away? How much money is $1 worth if there's no such thing as a dollar? A total dissolution of government would have the potential to seriously fuck everyone, regardless of wealth. Its a very unlikely scenario so the entire conversation starts to get kind of silly when you have to base long arguments on it. Yeah, everyone would be screwed. But those who have the most material assets would be in the best position to be in power. On a micro-level, you'd have the people who can physically beat the fuck out of you in charge. On a larger scale, though, the guys who have huge mansions and a fleet of cars would be in a better situation than most. Crazy libertarians who have arsenals stashed in their cellars would be in pretty good shape, too. People who were extremely wealthy but had few material assets would be boned, though. I tend to disagree there. People in mansions are going to do great.... for about 5 minutes or until their servants realise they can take over, wichever comes first. In a dog eat dog world the rich have nothing special to offer, they have no skill that others can't replicate just as well. There is no reason they should be able to hold on to their position. Libertarian would do well up until, people start getting organised again. Then they would either have to change their tune or become surplus to requirements.

This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little. Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans.

This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little. Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans. Luxury car taxes are one of the nicer types of taxation in the world. I'm against sales taxes because they indiscriminately temper everything. I mean, I have to pay motherfucking GST on buying chemicals for academic research. Why? Why at all? It's like a mini-cycle of government money.

This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little. Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans. It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get. Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity.

This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little. Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans. It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get. Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity. What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water. Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class! Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too!

This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little. Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans. It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get. Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity. What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water. Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class! Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too! Yeah, basically unless you're homeless begging for change at an off-ramp or Bill Gates, you're middle class. Bill, on the other hand, is upper middle class.

This may sound dumb, but I'm not all too educated in these regards. Wouldn't some sort of tax based solely on consumption (IE sales tax) be the best bet to make sure everyone pays their fair share? Rich people buying shit left and right would get taxed in the same way as poor people consuming very little. Sales taxes are regressive because poor people are able to save less of what they earn. What would be better would be to raise taxes on luxery items, while exempting low income people from any taxes at all. At the very least, those in the lower half of the income distribution should get much more from the government than they pay in taxes. They should see the government as a source of good things, guaranteed by the Democrats, and threatened by Republicans. It's not easy to identify unambiguously luxury goods, though. There is the persistent issue that most luxury goods have close non-luxury substitutes (in other words, that there are often fairly similar cheap knockoffs of stuff). So when these are heavily taxed, people shift towards the substitutes and tax revenue becomes hard to get. Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity. What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water. Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class! Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too! Yeah, basically unless you're homeless begging for change at an off-ramp or Bill Gates, you're middle class. Bill, on the other hand, is upper middle class. Anyone who wants something they cannot have, claims they're not upper class.

Tangentially, US income classes traditionally have rarely voted along class lines (esp. compared to Western Europe). Cultural issues have a much larger role than class solidarity. What with everyone claiming they are middle-class, come hell or high water. Person A: I'm still working on paying off my third helicopter, but I have enough for a family vacation in Caracas! I'm middle-class! Person B: I lost my home and am living off food-stamps. Middle class here too! Yeah, basically unless you're homeless begging for change at an off-ramp or Bill Gates, you're middle class. Bill, on the other hand, is upper middle class. Anyone who wants something they cannot have, claims they're not upper class. The orthodox account I was taught was that American historical factors have made cultural institutions much stronger and cross-class than class divisions, but reading this I'm wondering whether it's just an utter absence of class consciousness.

The orthodox account I was taught was that American historical factors have made cultural institutions much stronger and cross-class than class divisions, but reading this I'm wondering whether it's just an utter absence of class consciousness. Lack of class consciousness, along with a severely distorted perception of class mobility, certainly plays a significant role. EDIT: Basically 90% of the country thinks they are middle class, and 90% of those think they might one day be upper class.

EDIT: Basically 90% of the country thinks they are middle class, and 90% of those think they might one day be upper class. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/793/inside-the-middle-class Some 53% of adults in America say they are middle class. On key measures of well-being -- income, wealth, health, optimism about the future -- they tend to fall between those who identify with classes above and below them. But within this self-defined middle class, there are notable economic and demographic differences. For example, four-in-ten Americans with incomes below $20,000 say they are middle class, as do a third of those with incomes above $150,000. And about the same percentages of blacks (50%), Hispanics (54%) and whites (53%) self-identify as middle class, even though members of minority groups who say they are middle class have far less income and wealth than do whites who say they are middle class.

How much did the ultra rich pay in taxes last year? How many Blackwater personal security detachments could they have had for that price? I actually agree with tinwhiskers on this point--money is power, and it's doubtful that the utlrarich would suffer the most were the government to provide fewer, or worse services. We can look at countries like the Philippines to see this, where wealth is fantastically concentrated into the hands of a few families that own the country, while the rest live in abject poverty. Those families get by just fine. But, of course, I don't think that we need to justify wealth redistribution on a fee-for-services model. A complete dissolution of government probably wouldn't affect the ultra-rich too adversely. But it would likely affect the people who become ultra-rich in the future. If we had gone post-apocalyptic 100 years ago, Bill Gates wouldn't be one of the wealthiest Americans right now. How would the ultra-rich remain ultra-rich when the most dominant economic stabilizing force and most dominant security stabilizing force in the world goes away? How much money is $1 worth if there's no such thing as a dollar? A total dissolution of government would have the potential to seriously fuck everyone, regardless of wealth. Its a very unlikely scenario so the entire conversation starts to get kind of silly when you have to base long arguments on it. Yeah, everyone would be screwed. But those who have the most material assets would be in the best position to be in power. On a micro-level, you'd have the people who can physically beat the fuck out of you in charge. On a larger scale, though, the guys who have huge mansions and a fleet of cars would be in a better situation than most. Crazy libertarians who have arsenals stashed in their cellars would be in pretty good shape, too. People who were extremely wealthy but had few material assets would be boned, though. I tend to disagree there. People in mansions are going to do great.... for about 5 minutes or until their servants realise they can take over, wichever comes first. In a dog eat dog world the rich have nothing special to offer, they have no skill that others can't replicate just as well. There is no reason they should be able to hold on to their position. Libertarian would do well up until, people start getting organised again. Then they would either have to change their tune or become surplus to requirements. You underestimate the power of fear and loyalty. They surely would have attempts on their life, but their "Servents" would not rise up against them. Drug Lords are not overthrown every week, neither would these hypothetical people. And the attitude that if Rich people don't like it, then they can get the hell out needs to be squashed. Wouldn't that be great if all Rich people got tired of the high rate of taxes and just all moved out of the country? No, that would suck cause then all social programs would cease to exist and the country would fall into ruin. That isn't to say that we should pander to the rich and keep them happy, but to tax as much as we can without pissing them off long enough to make them leave. And im skeptical that there is a line where sales tax will both create enough tax revenue to support the government and not make those items so expensive that it's not seen as worth buying.

We'll never tax the rich to the point that they start to leave en masse, because we'd still have taxes well below almost any other developed nation.

We'll never tax the rich to the point that they start to leave en masse, because we'd still have taxes well below almost any other developed nation. Also: opening a bank account in the Caymans is not the same thing as "being forced out of the country due to authoritarian redistibution". It's not retreating to Galt's Gulch in order to spite the parasites. It's just tax evasion.