people who make more money get taxed more, and this is because they get more utility from society
People who make more money get taxed more because they are able to get taxed more. The whole utility argument is, frankly, bullshit after the fact, and I really wish people would just own up and admit progressive taxation is done for wholly pragmatic reasons.
people who make more money get taxed more, and this is because they get more utility from society
People who make more money get taxed more because they are able to get taxed more. The whole utility argument is, frankly, bullshit after the fact, and I really wish people would just own up and admit progressive taxation is done for wholly pragmatic reasons.
Really to act like either one is the only reason is foolish, it's a combination of both and I'm sure other reasons. At the end of the day though the rich should get taxed more.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself, a bone throw to the less wealthy to assure them rich people don't have too much leverage.
Nobody sane has ever advocated that.
Here, let me summarize the last twenty pages or so:
Poster: "Here's why we should have progressive taxation." (list of reasons follows)
Libertarian / Republican Poster: "But you can't just steal money from the wealthy without a reason just because they're rich!"
Poster: "Correct, so here's WHY we should have progressive taxation." (another list of reasons follows)
Libertarian / Republican Poster: "But if you just steal money from the wealthy without a reason, that's wrong!"
people who make more money get taxed more, and this is because they get more utility from society
People who make more money get taxed more because they are able to get taxed more. The whole utility argument is, frankly, bullshit after the fact, and I really wish people would just own up and admit progressive taxation is done for wholly pragmatic reasons.
if this is actually true, why don't we tax them at a considerably higher level?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
You can only make coherent policy recommendations once you articulate an underlying notion of what results are acceptable and for what reasons. There are very few egalitarians who actually believe that a pure equality of socio-economic status is possible--as far as I know of, there are actually none. However, those that are writing in the literature nonetheless start by articulating their underlying notion of social justice, which allows them to justify those deviations from the ideal which they do permit in service to unfortunate reality, and to explain why other possible deviations are not permissible.
Then unfortunately we'll have to wait for zakk to explain why it's necessary to do so at 90% over 100k.
I have returned, and God Almighty, what happened to this thread?
That tax - again - is for gifts. It is to prevent sidestepping the inheritance tax through massive gift-giving sprees. The inheritance tax is to ensure that everyone gets wealth through work, innovation, or some other personal contribution rather than inheritance. There is no economic value at all to be gained by allowing a class of the idle rich.
I want to address the idea, frequently expressed here, that really we just need to ensure the rich people are investing their wealth. People, the wealthy do not live like Scrooge McDuck. They do not keep their money in vast piles of cash in a vault to go swimming in periodically. They keep it invested. They keep it invested precisely because this allows them to extract additional money from the economy, and this is what allows the fortune sustain itself.
I don't believe this investment is beneficial. It is better than keeping the money in a vault, but not nearly so good as just spending it. Spending it, you see, actually stimulates production, keeps people employed, helps everyone out. If wealthy people were more inclined to spend, trickle-down theory wouldn't be such a crock of shit.
I don't believe this investment is beneficial. It is better than keeping the money in a vault, but not nearly so good as just spending it. Spending it, you see, actually stimulates production, keeps people employed, helps everyone out. If wealthy people were more inclined to spend, trickle-down theory wouldn't be such a crock of shit.
So does investment. The issue of the idle rich is that they themselves are not being productive, not that their assets aren't being productive. That and the social issues that the idle rich politicing can cause.
On the topic of Bill Gates'/Steve Jobs' mountain(s) of cash:
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
On the topic of UPS, and whether or not they benefit more than Bob's Courier Service:
UPS runs more vehicles therefore purchases more fuel, services more, registers more, and pays tolls for more vehicles than Bob's Courier Service. It also means UPS pays all the vehicle-related taxes Bob does, if not many more due to the sheer scale of their operation (gas taxes, tolls for large trucks, more tolls based on distance of road traveled, etc). If Bob has a good business model, he may be lucky enough to employ a fleet of vehicles as large as UPS does one day, and therefore pay the same taxes. If not, he still pays the same proportion UPS does based on his road usage. The argument looks awfully sieve-like.
people who make more money get taxed more, and this is because they get more utility from society
People who make more money get taxed more because they are able to get taxed more. The whole utility argument is, frankly, bullshit after the fact, and I really wish people would just own up and admit progressive taxation is done for wholly pragmatic reasons.
if this is actually true, why don't we tax them at a considerably higher level?
Political considerations. Congressmen like to get elected, and that's largely made possible through the largesse of the rich. Crank the tax rate up too much and that largesse disappears.
Americans also tend to believe that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, regardless of income level.
Really to act like either one is the only reason is foolish, it's a combination of both and I'm sure other reasons. At the end of the day though the rich should get taxed more.
The people writing the policy are not basing it on the marginal utility each taxpayer receives from the government as a result of their income. They're basing it on where they can get the money to fund their massively bloated budgets without causing riots.
At the end of the day, the rich should be taxed more effectively. These are not the same thing.
Personally I prefer a very low, flat income tax - call it five percent - accompanied by a highly graduated national sales tax based upon the MSRP of the item sold; more expensive goods and services charge higher taxes, food and medical care are exempt. Coupled with tighter customs enforcement this would make it far more difficult for the rich to avoid taxes, but I'm not sure it's actually workable in practice.
Personally I prefer a very low, flat income tax - call it five percent - accompanied by a highly graduated national sales tax based upon the MSRP of the item sold; more expensive goods and services charge higher taxes, food and medical care are exempt. Coupled with tighter customs enforcement this would make it far more difficult for the rich to avoid taxes, but I'm not sure it's actually workable in practice.
This would be stupidly easy to get around. All you have to do is find ways to pay for something ten times instead of once.
Personally I prefer a very low, flat income tax - call it five percent - accompanied by a highly graduated national sales tax based upon the MSRP of the item sold; more expensive goods and services charge higher taxes, food and medical care are exempt. Coupled with tighter customs enforcement this would make it far more difficult for the rich to avoid taxes, but I'm not sure it's actually workable in practice.
This would be stupidly easy to get around. All you have to do is find ways to pay for something ten times instead of once.
If you're basing it on the MSRP of the item, rather than invoice price, it doesn't matter if you're making one payment or ten; the percentages come out the same.
Personally I prefer a very low, flat income tax - call it five percent - accompanied by a highly graduated national sales tax based upon the MSRP of the item sold; more expensive goods and services charge higher taxes, food and medical care are exempt. Coupled with tighter customs enforcement this would make it far more difficult for the rich to avoid taxes, but I'm not sure it's actually workable in practice.
This would be stupidly easy to get around. All you have to do is find ways to pay for something ten times instead of once.
If you're basing it on the MSRP of the item, rather than invoice price, it doesn't matter if you're making one payment or ten; the percentages come out the same.
The MSRP would be $10 followed up by nine $10 support kits. I didn't say PAYMENTS, I said paying for it ten times.
On the topic of Bill Gates'/Steve Jobs' mountain(s) of cash:
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
Do you really think that if Bill Gates hadn't been born, the enitre modern computing industry would never have existedo_O?
On the topic of Bill Gates'/Steve Jobs' mountain(s) of cash:
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
Do you really think that if Bill Gates hadn't been born, the enitre modern computing industry would never have existedo_O?
No. However, their contribution to software development is undeniably immense and provided the overall direction of the operating system (and associated) industry(/ies) to this day. Therefore, they rightfully receive credit and reward for their contributions. If either Gates or Jobs were not born, someone else probably would have eventually produced a similar innovation and they would be sitting on a pile of money.
On the topic of Bill Gates'/Steve Jobs' mountain(s) of cash:
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
Do you really think that if Bill Gates hadn't been born, the enitre modern computing industry would never have existedo_O?
No. However, their contribution to software development is undeniably immense and provided the overall direction of the operating system (and associated) industry(/ies) to this day. Therefore, they rightfully receive credit and reward for their contributions. If either Gates or Jobs were not born, someone else probably would have eventually produced a similar innovation and they would be sitting on a pile of money.
I would argue that, if someone else would have done the exact same thing, then their contributions were not immense.
Personally I prefer a very low, flat income tax - call it five percent - accompanied by a highly graduated national sales tax based upon the MSRP of the item sold; more expensive goods and services charge higher taxes, food and medical care are exempt. Coupled with tighter customs enforcement this would make it far more difficult for the rich to avoid taxes, but I'm not sure it's actually workable in practice.
This would be stupidly easy to get around. All you have to do is find ways to pay for something ten times instead of once.
If you're basing it on the MSRP of the item, rather than invoice price, it doesn't matter if you're making one payment or ten; the percentages come out the same.
The MSRP would be $10 followed up by nine $10 support kits. I didn't say PAYMENTS, I said paying for it ten times.
Which is when the IRS swoops in and nails your ass for tax evasion.
The tax is based on the entire worth of the contract in the case of services, and you can't tack on "support kits" for cars or paper or land or big fuckoff industrial machinery.
Edit: We might be getting a bit far afield from topic, though.
Which is when the IRS swoops in and nails your ass for tax evasion.
The tax is based on the entire worth of the contract in the case of services, and you can't tack on "support kits" for cars or paper or land or big fuckoff industrial machinery.
You just buy all the parts separately and then pay someone to put them together for you.
Which is when the IRS swoops in and nails your ass for tax evasion.
The tax is based on the entire worth of the contract in the case of services, and you can't tack on "support kits" for cars or paper or land or big fuckoff industrial machinery.
You just buy all the parts separately and then pay someone to put them together for you.
It's also a fucking stupid idea because it would disproportionally tax industry, the sciences, healthcare and any other area where a myriad of individuals have to spend fuckloads of money on single items worth far far more then any luxuries the rich blow a bunch of money on.
I mean, $50,000 birthday parties? We have 4 electrochem potentiostats in our lab worth that much each.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself, a bone throw to the less wealthy to assure them rich people don't have too much leverage.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself, a bone throw to the less wealthy to assure them rich people don't have too much leverage.
Nobody sane has ever advocated that.
I'm fairly sure MrMister and zakkiel both are.
Your surety has not shown any relation to reality.
The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.
As citizens of a democracy we have the right to disagree with "the classical conservative view."
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.
As citizens of a democracy we have the right to disagree with "the classical conservative view."
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Because Classical Conservatives have been dead for decades, now people just label themselves as one when convenient aka: health care debate---we don't want no govt spending/OMGDEFICIT,
but then warwarwar--- minus what, 2 trillion now?
On the topic of Bill Gates'/Steve Jobs' mountain(s) of cash:
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
Do you really think that if Bill Gates hadn't been born, the enitre modern computing industry would never have existedo_O?
No. However, their contribution to software development is undeniably immense and provided the overall direction of the operating system (and associated) industry(/ies) to this day. Therefore, they rightfully receive credit and reward for their contributions. If either Gates or Jobs were not born, someone else probably would have eventually produced a similar innovation and they would be sitting on a pile of money.
I would argue that, if someone else would have done the exact same thing, then their contributions were not immense.
I would argue that, if someone else could have done the exact same thing, then their contribtuions were not ireeplaceable.
Their reward for starting the sofware industry was making a shitloads of money, not getting a permanent tax exemption.
It should be noted that Gates/Jobs are both textbook examples of why inherited wealth begets opertunites. Both where from upper-middleclass homes that gave them the chance to learn about computers, years before anyone else. Bill Gates went to a high school that had a computer, back in 1970! He dropped out of Harvard because they didn't provide student access to computer equipment.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
On the topic of Bill Gates'/Steve Jobs' mountain(s) of cash:
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
Do you really think that if Bill Gates hadn't been born, the enitre modern computing industry would never have existedo_O?
No. However, their contribution to software development is undeniably immense and provided the overall direction of the operating system (and associated) industry(/ies) to this day. Therefore, they rightfully receive credit and reward for their contributions. If either Gates or Jobs were not born, someone else probably would have eventually produced a similar innovation and they would be sitting on a pile of money.
I would argue that, if someone else would have done the exact same thing, then their contributions were not immense.
It doesn't matter who though, it just matters that it happened. For example, I would say that the of the modern steam engine was an immense contribution, despite the fact that hardly anyone remembers the guy who contributed to its invention (James Watt, the guy who the Watt is named after. Also the same guy who coined the unit "horsepower"). To us, it doesn't matter who invented the steam engine, only that it happened and that it set off the industrial revolution. Personal Computing as pioneered by Jobs & Gates (and Wozniak) led to widespread access to computational power that set off an information revolution of sorts. Therefore, their contributions were immense.
The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.
As citizens of a democracy we have the right to disagree with "the classical conservative view."
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Because Classical Conservatives have been dead for decades, now people just label themselves as one when convenient aka: health care debate---we don't want no govt spending/OMGDEFICIT,
but then warwarwar--- minus what, 2 trillion now?
Classical conservatism is a respectable political philosophy that goes back at least to the time of Edmund Burke during the French Revolution. It combines pessimism about human nature and human potential with skepticism about the value of rapid and untested social and economic changes.
Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism in the United States today is a motley mixture of seventeenth century Protestant religious dogma, nineteenth century social Darwinism, the polite racial bigotry of the country club, and the dishonest equalitarianism of pretending that people like Joe the Plumber know more about politics than those who teach political science, political philosophy, and history at Harvard.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself . . .
Interestingly, taxes can be a reasonable end unto themselves when it comes to fighting inflation with progressive tax rates.
As more money enters the economy, income increases and is pushed into higher brackets. The higher tax rates in those brackets remove more money from the economy to offset inflation and help keep things stable.
Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism in the United States today is a motley mixture of seventeenth century Protestant religious dogma, nineteenth century social Darwinism, the polite racial bigotry of the country club, and the dishonest equalitarianism of pretending that people like Joe the Plumber know more about politics than those who teach political science, political philosophy, and history at Harvard.
If it weren't for my dedication to contractual cock consumption, this would be my new signature.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself . . .
Interestingly, taxes can be a reasonable end unto themselves when it comes to fighting inflation with progressive tax rates.
As more money enters the economy, income increases and is pushed into higher brackets. The higher tax rates in those brackets remove more money from the economy to offset inflation and help keep things stable.
Inflation doesn't work that way; taxation does nothing to reduce inflation in the long run (remember that the modern macroeconomic orthodoxy takes Friedman's "'inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" and just replaces 'always' with 'eventually').
In the short run there is indeed a deflationary impact (since taxation is in essence reverse fiscal policy), but not via income tax brackets. Stable tax does nothing in general. This is the case even if the government takes the money and burns it, since although there is now less money, there is also now less consumption, so fewer money chases fewer goods and there is no net impact. It just reduces consumer spending. But this only applies if you keep dragging taxation rates higher and higher; if you just hold on to a stably high rate there's no effect.
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself . . .
Interestingly, taxes can be a reasonable end unto themselves when it comes to fighting inflation with progressive tax rates.
As more money enters the economy, income increases and is pushed into higher brackets. The higher tax rates in those brackets remove more money from the economy to offset inflation and help keep things stable.
. . . this only applies if you keep dragging taxation rates higher and higher; if you just hold on to a stably high rate there's no effect.
Obviously tax brackets are also indexed to inflation and will rise over time - it is in the short term that the effect is felt, when inflation makes more money available before the brackets are adjusted. Then, when people have more money to spend on consumption, their marginal tax rate on that money will be higher and consumption less than it could have been.
Happy Super Tuesday! To all of the people that have lost their jobs or who are struggling to pay for rent, you might find it interesting to know that the combined campaign spending of both New Jersey Governor candidates exceeded $50 million.
Talk about an upper class disconnect. See, this is the kind of thing that pisses people off.
Happy Super Tuesday! To all of the people that have lost their jobs or who are struggling to pay for rent, you might find it interesting to know that the combined campaign spending of both New Jersey Governor candidates exceeded $50 million.
Talk about an upper class disconnect. See, this is the kind of thing that pisses people off.
So the supporters of the two candidates for Governor donated a total of $50 million which was spent on wages, advertising, signs, events, etc.?
I'll repeat what I said earlier, taxation can't be an end unto itself . . .
Interestingly, taxes can be a reasonable end unto themselves when it comes to fighting inflation with progressive tax rates.
As more money enters the economy, income increases and is pushed into higher brackets. The higher tax rates in those brackets remove more money from the economy to offset inflation and help keep things stable.
. . . this only applies if you keep dragging taxation rates higher and higher; if you just hold on to a stably high rate there's no effect.
Obviously tax brackets are also indexed to inflation and will rise over time - it is in the short term that the effect is felt, when inflation makes more money available before the brackets are adjusted. Then, when people have more money to spend on consumption, their marginal tax rate on that money will be higher and consumption less than it could have been.
No, you don't get it. To induce deflation/inflation you need to raise taxes unexpectedly, on a timeframe where people cannot adjust their spending patterns to respond. Otherwise there is no deflationary or inflationary effect, since taxes are a pure fiscal instrument. We are already assuming here that taxes are indexed for inflation, etc., but there is genuinely no difference.
If the government taxes money (by e.g., inflation pushing people into a higher tax bracket) and spends it, then the money is reintroduced by spending. No net change. If the government taxes money and saves it (by e.g., paying off earlier debt) then the money is reintroduced via lower interest rates and increased investment. No net change either.
If the government taxes money and burns it then the money is taken away - but there is also now less spending, since you've stopped someone out there from spending but you're not spending yourself. Inflation does not change! You cannot alter long-run inflation via taxes!
Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism in the United States today is a motley mixture of seventeenth century Protestant religious dogma, nineteenth century social Darwinism, the polite racial bigotry of the country club, and the dishonest equalitarianism of pretending that people like Joe the Plumber know more about politics than those who teach political science, political philosophy, and history at Harvard.
If it weren't for my dedication to contractual cock consumption, this would be my new signature.
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Go read National Review or the Weekly Standard and you'll see that they are.
Certainly, many Republican politicians love business and farm subsidies as much as their Democratic counterparts. But there's no real basis for such subsidies in the writings of people like William F. Buckley and other modern theorists who fleshed out conservative policy positions.
The fact that politicians, whether conservative or liberal, throw their convictions away in order to get re-elected shouldn't surprise anyone.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Happy Super Tuesday! To all of the people that have lost their jobs or who are struggling to pay for rent, you might find it interesting to know that the combined campaign spending of both New Jersey Governor candidates exceeded $50 million.
Talk about an upper class disconnect. See, this is the kind of thing that pisses people off.
So the supporters of the two candidates for Governor donated a total of $50 million which was spent on wages, advertising, signs, events, etc.?
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Go read National Review or the Weekly Standard and you'll see that they are.
Certainly, many Republican politicians love business and farm subsidies as much as their Democratic counterparts. But there's no real basis for such subsidies in the writings of people like William F. Buckley and other modern theorists who fleshed out conservative policy positions.
The fact that politicians, whether conservative or liberal, throw their convictions away in order to get re-elected shouldn't surprise anyone.
It's less "throw their convictions away" and more "most people are moderate" and some Mean Voter Theorem to further discourage ideological purity. Throw in the US federal legislative system's strong preference in favor of dealmaking and compromise and you get your current situation.
But it is genuinely the case that libertarians, classical conservatives, and paleoconservatives are all minorities in the Republican coalition and voting bloc. If classical conservatives have to abandon their beliefs to be re-elected, that should tell you that classical conservatism is deeply unpopular!
The Democratic coalition exhibits even less ideological purity.
Happy Super Tuesday! To all of the people that have lost their jobs or who are struggling to pay for rent, you might find it interesting to know that the combined campaign spending of both New Jersey Governor candidates exceeded $50 million.
Talk about an upper class disconnect. See, this is the kind of thing that pisses people off.
So the supporters of the two candidates for Governor donated a total of $50 million which was spent on wages, advertising, signs, events, etc.?
Please explain why people should be pissed off?
Political spending: Irresponsible use of funds.
Broken window fallacy, too. Donated money could have been otherwise spent, so there aren't any net jobs created, just jobs moved between industries.
The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.
As citizens of a democracy we have the right to disagree with "the classical conservative view."
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Go read National Review or the Weekly Standard and you'll see that they are.
Certainly, many Republican politicians love business and farm subsidies as much as their Democratic counterparts. But there's no real basis for such subsidies in the writings of people like William F. Buckley and other modern theorists who fleshed out conservative policy positions.
The fact that politicians, whether conservative or liberal, throw their convictions away in order to get re-elected shouldn't surprise anyone.
The Republican Party exists in order to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the American people. Anything else Republicans talk about is an effort to win the support of those hurt by their economic policies. If you keep that in mind, you will never be surprised by what the Republicans do. I hope you will be angered, but you will never be surprised.
Business and farm subsidies are paybacks for campaign contributions. Businesses want the lowest possible taxes, the fewest possible regulations, and the highest possible business subsidies. When the Republicans dominate the country, that is what they get.
The classical conservative view is that government exists to protect the rights of the citizenry. Anything beyond that is not a proper role of government and should not be paid for with tax dollars.
As citizens of a democracy we have the right to disagree with "the classical conservative view."
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Posts
People who make more money get taxed more because they are able to get taxed more. The whole utility argument is, frankly, bullshit after the fact, and I really wish people would just own up and admit progressive taxation is done for wholly pragmatic reasons.
Really to act like either one is the only reason is foolish, it's a combination of both and I'm sure other reasons. At the end of the day though the rich should get taxed more.
Here, let me summarize the last twenty pages or so:
Poster: "Here's why we should have progressive taxation." (list of reasons follows)
Libertarian / Republican Poster: "But you can't just steal money from the wealthy without a reason just because they're rich!"
Poster: "Correct, so here's WHY we should have progressive taxation." (another list of reasons follows)
Libertarian / Republican Poster: "But if you just steal money from the wealthy without a reason, that's wrong!"
Repeat ad nauseam.
if this is actually true, why don't we tax them at a considerably higher level?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
I have returned, and God Almighty, what happened to this thread?
That tax - again - is for gifts. It is to prevent sidestepping the inheritance tax through massive gift-giving sprees. The inheritance tax is to ensure that everyone gets wealth through work, innovation, or some other personal contribution rather than inheritance. There is no economic value at all to be gained by allowing a class of the idle rich.
I want to address the idea, frequently expressed here, that really we just need to ensure the rich people are investing their wealth. People, the wealthy do not live like Scrooge McDuck. They do not keep their money in vast piles of cash in a vault to go swimming in periodically. They keep it invested. They keep it invested precisely because this allows them to extract additional money from the economy, and this is what allows the fortune sustain itself.
I don't believe this investment is beneficial. It is better than keeping the money in a vault, but not nearly so good as just spending it. Spending it, you see, actually stimulates production, keeps people employed, helps everyone out. If wealthy people were more inclined to spend, trickle-down theory wouldn't be such a crock of shit.
So does investment. The issue of the idle rich is that they themselves are not being productive, not that their assets aren't being productive. That and the social issues that the idle rich politicing can cause.
Yes, they are riding the initial production of value from waaaay back in the 80's and 90's. However, let's look at what the value they created was: Nearly everything relating to modern computing, which now accounts for an incredible percentage of the world economy. I'd say $70 billion [between them/combined] is a small payment for TRILLIONS of new wealth created every year based on what they were able to accomplish. They created/spurred the growth of an entire industry. In my book, that counts for abnormal compensation.
On the topic of UPS, and whether or not they benefit more than Bob's Courier Service:
UPS runs more vehicles therefore purchases more fuel, services more, registers more, and pays tolls for more vehicles than Bob's Courier Service. It also means UPS pays all the vehicle-related taxes Bob does, if not many more due to the sheer scale of their operation (gas taxes, tolls for large trucks, more tolls based on distance of road traveled, etc). If Bob has a good business model, he may be lucky enough to employ a fleet of vehicles as large as UPS does one day, and therefore pay the same taxes. If not, he still pays the same proportion UPS does based on his road usage. The argument looks awfully sieve-like.
Political considerations. Congressmen like to get elected, and that's largely made possible through the largesse of the rich. Crank the tax rate up too much and that largesse disappears.
Americans also tend to believe that a man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, regardless of income level.
The people writing the policy are not basing it on the marginal utility each taxpayer receives from the government as a result of their income. They're basing it on where they can get the money to fund their massively bloated budgets without causing riots.
At the end of the day, the rich should be taxed more effectively. These are not the same thing.
Personally I prefer a very low, flat income tax - call it five percent - accompanied by a highly graduated national sales tax based upon the MSRP of the item sold; more expensive goods and services charge higher taxes, food and medical care are exempt. Coupled with tighter customs enforcement this would make it far more difficult for the rich to avoid taxes, but I'm not sure it's actually workable in practice.
This would be stupidly easy to get around. All you have to do is find ways to pay for something ten times instead of once.
If you're basing it on the MSRP of the item, rather than invoice price, it doesn't matter if you're making one payment or ten; the percentages come out the same.
The MSRP would be $10 followed up by nine $10 support kits. I didn't say PAYMENTS, I said paying for it ten times.
No. However, their contribution to software development is undeniably immense and provided the overall direction of the operating system (and associated) industry(/ies) to this day. Therefore, they rightfully receive credit and reward for their contributions. If either Gates or Jobs were not born, someone else probably would have eventually produced a similar innovation and they would be sitting on a pile of money.
I would argue that, if someone else would have done the exact same thing, then their contributions were not immense.
Which is when the IRS swoops in and nails your ass for tax evasion.
The tax is based on the entire worth of the contract in the case of services, and you can't tack on "support kits" for cars or paper or land or big fuckoff industrial machinery.
Edit: We might be getting a bit far afield from topic, though.
You just buy all the parts separately and then pay someone to put them together for you.
It's also a fucking stupid idea because it would disproportionally tax industry, the sciences, healthcare and any other area where a myriad of individuals have to spend fuckloads of money on single items worth far far more then any luxuries the rich blow a bunch of money on.
I mean, $50,000 birthday parties? We have 4 electrochem potentiostats in our lab worth that much each.
I'm fairly sure MrMister and zakkiel both are.
Your surety has not shown any relation to reality.
As citizens of a democracy we have the right to disagree with "the classical conservative view."
Also, why aren't "classical conservatives" complaining about business and farm subsidies?
Because Classical Conservatives have been dead for decades, now people just label themselves as one when convenient aka: health care debate---we don't want no govt spending/OMGDEFICIT,
but then warwarwar--- minus what, 2 trillion now?
I would argue that, if someone else could have done the exact same thing, then their contribtuions were not ireeplaceable.
Their reward for starting the sofware industry was making a shitloads of money, not getting a permanent tax exemption.
It should be noted that Gates/Jobs are both textbook examples of why inherited wealth begets opertunites. Both where from upper-middleclass homes that gave them the chance to learn about computers, years before anyone else. Bill Gates went to a high school that had a computer, back in 1970! He dropped out of Harvard because they didn't provide student access to computer equipment.
It doesn't matter who though, it just matters that it happened. For example, I would say that the of the modern steam engine was an immense contribution, despite the fact that hardly anyone remembers the guy who contributed to its invention (James Watt, the guy who the Watt is named after. Also the same guy who coined the unit "horsepower"). To us, it doesn't matter who invented the steam engine, only that it happened and that it set off the industrial revolution. Personal Computing as pioneered by Jobs & Gates (and Wozniak) led to widespread access to computational power that set off an information revolution of sorts. Therefore, their contributions were immense.
Classical conservatism is a respectable political philosophy that goes back at least to the time of Edmund Burke during the French Revolution. It combines pessimism about human nature and human potential with skepticism about the value of rapid and untested social and economic changes.
Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism in the United States today is a motley mixture of seventeenth century Protestant religious dogma, nineteenth century social Darwinism, the polite racial bigotry of the country club, and the dishonest equalitarianism of pretending that people like Joe the Plumber know more about politics than those who teach political science, political philosophy, and history at Harvard.
As more money enters the economy, income increases and is pushed into higher brackets. The higher tax rates in those brackets remove more money from the economy to offset inflation and help keep things stable.
Inflation doesn't work that way; taxation does nothing to reduce inflation in the long run (remember that the modern macroeconomic orthodoxy takes Friedman's "'inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" and just replaces 'always' with 'eventually').
In the short run there is indeed a deflationary impact (since taxation is in essence reverse fiscal policy), but not via income tax brackets. Stable tax does nothing in general. This is the case even if the government takes the money and burns it, since although there is now less money, there is also now less consumption, so fewer money chases fewer goods and there is no net impact. It just reduces consumer spending. But this only applies if you keep dragging taxation rates higher and higher; if you just hold on to a stably high rate there's no effect.
Talk about an upper class disconnect. See, this is the kind of thing that pisses people off.
Please explain why people should be pissed off?
No, you don't get it. To induce deflation/inflation you need to raise taxes unexpectedly, on a timeframe where people cannot adjust their spending patterns to respond. Otherwise there is no deflationary or inflationary effect, since taxes are a pure fiscal instrument. We are already assuming here that taxes are indexed for inflation, etc., but there is genuinely no difference.
If the government taxes money (by e.g., inflation pushing people into a higher tax bracket) and spends it, then the money is reintroduced by spending. No net change. If the government taxes money and saves it (by e.g., paying off earlier debt) then the money is reintroduced via lower interest rates and increased investment. No net change either.
If the government taxes money and burns it then the money is taken away - but there is also now less spending, since you've stopped someone out there from spending but you're not spending yourself. Inflation does not change! You cannot alter long-run inflation via taxes!
Thank you.
Certainly, many Republican politicians love business and farm subsidies as much as their Democratic counterparts. But there's no real basis for such subsidies in the writings of people like William F. Buckley and other modern theorists who fleshed out conservative policy positions.
The fact that politicians, whether conservative or liberal, throw their convictions away in order to get re-elected shouldn't surprise anyone.
Rigorous Scholarship
Political spending: Irresponsible use of funds.
It's less "throw their convictions away" and more "most people are moderate" and some Mean Voter Theorem to further discourage ideological purity. Throw in the US federal legislative system's strong preference in favor of dealmaking and compromise and you get your current situation.
But it is genuinely the case that libertarians, classical conservatives, and paleoconservatives are all minorities in the Republican coalition and voting bloc. If classical conservatives have to abandon their beliefs to be re-elected, that should tell you that classical conservatism is deeply unpopular!
The Democratic coalition exhibits even less ideological purity.
Broken window fallacy, too. Donated money could have been otherwise spent, so there aren't any net jobs created, just jobs moved between industries.
They do.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/08/06/mccain-opposes-farm-subsidies-popular-in-midwest/
The Republican Party exists in order to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the American people. Anything else Republicans talk about is an effort to win the support of those hurt by their economic policies. If you keep that in mind, you will never be surprised by what the Republicans do. I hope you will be angered, but you will never be surprised.
Business and farm subsidies are paybacks for campaign contributions. Businesses want the lowest possible taxes, the fewest possible regulations, and the highest possible business subsidies. When the Republicans dominate the country, that is what they get.
Anyone else besides McCain?
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=790
Sure. But support for those subsidies is quite bi-partisan.
Rigorous Scholarship