Aren't all taxes wealth redistribution?

a reply to: CB328

If we all paid them and paid the same percentage so that it really is fair, then why would it be redistributive?

originally posted by: schuyler
You are mostly correct, though I would take issue with social security. And this gets to the heart of the matter when you start talking about the "fair share" corporations supposedly do not pay. ALL taxes are paid by people, including corporate taxes. All a corporation does is pass the taxes on in the higher cost of their products. Everyone who works for a corporation, from high paid CEO to low-paid janitor, pays individual taxes on both income and dividends, and even capital gains should they sell shares.


So it's a myth and a displacement to claim corporations don't pay their "fair share" because if you decide Ford or GM needs to pay more corporate taxes to make everyone feel good, you just will pay more for a car. There really is no such thing as "corporate taxation." It all comes out of our pockets one way or another.

That's just propaganda.

By that measure, the same thing is true for personal income taxes.

You can flip it around. " Raising personal income taxes, or just having any at all, just increases the wages demanded by workers, so in the end it's a cost to corporations. So we should eliminate personal taxes and have companies pay all of the tax."

It's a foolish argument.

Think of it the other way around. If the corporate tax on automobile manufacturers is eliminated, what happens to the price of cars? Absolutely NOTHING. That is set by rough market equilibrium and competitive behavior.

Similarly, if taxes go up on people, do they all get raises? No, of course not. it's never happened. But that's the same argument as saying corporations will raise prices in light of taxes and so it shouldn't be done. Wages are people's prices to employers.

It all comes out of our pockets one way or another.

Whose pockets?
The obvious truth is that yes, it really does matter WHO pays the taxes and how much they pay, and the political movement has been to make more excuses for corporations paying less tax and funding a smaller and smaller share of government than historical norms despite ever higher profit margins.

In practice, higher corporate taxes result in less money available to top management and shareholders [whose results are leveraged to profitability above all], people who are on average far, far, more wealthy than the average citizen, and the average citizen has to relatively pay less in tax or debt than he or she would otherwise have to pay.

Taxes on profits are not the same as added costs. Taxes on inputs are equivalent to added costs.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: muse7
Taxes are essential for a functioning government.

I am all for a non-functioning Federal Government. Screw Washington.

State? Local?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CB328

If we all paid them and paid the same percentage so that it really is fair, then why would it be redistributive?

Because taxes get spent (or not really but it is simpler to think that they do).

Even in a libertarian wet dream of only defence spending you are still redistributing wealth from the tax payers to the net recipients of military spending.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Hmm, I would say it depends on how they are spent. Are they being spent on something I will get a net benefit from? A strong defense accrues a net benefit to all in the form of a strong nation with secure borders and interests.

A program that only advantages some but will never advantage me or others in any way although we are taxed to pay for it? Not so much.

a reply to: onequestion

Yes. This is why the wealth redistribution argument anti-socialists use is absurd.

Death and taxes mate.

Is paying for a service "wealth redistribution"?

Is going to a restaurant wealth redistribution?

a reply to: mbkennel

Think of it the other way around. If the corporate tax on automobile manufacturers is eliminated, what happens to the price of cars? Absolutely NOTHING. That is set by rough market equilibrium and competitive behavior.

This is incorrect.

Corporations don't pay taxes as it is an expense that is passed on to consumers. When that expense is eliminated, it gives the corporation the ability to lower prices and remain more competitive in their market. Only if there is no or little competition would your scenario be valid.

You see this on a smaller scale all the time when consumption taxes are imposed in one jurisdiction but not another. For example, here in Chicago we have some of the highest gas taxes in the country. As such, you see gas stations frequently setting up just across the border to poach consumers. Non chicago gas stations will frequently be 30-50 cents a gallon cheaper.

If what you said were true, then those gas stations would charge the same as the Chicago gas stations since people already pay higher prices. However, they don't because their cost basis is lower without the tax and therefore, they can offer lower prices than their competition regardless if the consumer might pay more. The competition is what acts as incentive to lower prices. If they don't, someone else will. Competition always drives down excessive profits.

It is only when you have no competition or very little when prices become less elastic and the cost savings not passed on. You see this with airlines where low fuel prices have helped their bottomline, but not necessarily translated into lower ticket prices. In many markets, airlines are oligopolies and those markets with fewer competitors are less likely to lower prices. This is why I can fly from Chicago to NYC for less than $200 but a 30 minute flight from Chicago to say Kansas City cost double or triple that amount. I can choose from four or five different airlines to fly to NYC, but only one from Chicago that is direct and the price reflects this scarcity.

a reply to: ketsuko

You would undoubtedly benefit more from some government spending than others but the affect of the government spending is still to redistribute wealth. To continue with the defence example you could argue that all of a states citizens could be said to benefit indirectly from having secure borders, however a defence contractor or member of the armed forces will also have a a direct financial benefit from the spending.

All tax and spending does this, It is just who are the beneficiaries that change.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: onequestion

Socialism is when all major industries are owned by the state....taxes has nothing to do with it.

www.merriam-webster.com...

quit listening to Rush

Correct, but I often see people (typically Bernie supporters) retort that if you hate socialism.... you hate driving on roads, public education... etc.
Those things are paid for by taxes.

a reply to: onequestion

It dawned on me that no matter taxes are essentially redistribution of wealth.

Not at all.
Do you live in a city where trash is collected ?
Do you live where you can call the police ?

Most taxes are not wealth redistribution but simply services rendered.
The bickering starts when one segment of society gets tax paid benefits that others do not.
That is wealth redistribution.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: onequestion

It dawned on me that no matter taxes are essentially redistribution of wealth.

Not at all.
Do you live in a city where trash is collected ?
Do you live where you can call the police ?

Most taxes are not wealth redistribution but simply services rendered.
The bickering starts when one segment of society gets tax paid benefits that others do not.
That is wealth redistribution.

Correct, unequal treatment under the law is a hallmark of socialism and wealth redistribution is but one example of it.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: muse7
Taxes are essential for a functioning government.

I am all for a non-functioning Federal Government. Screw Washington.

So how about state taxes? Would you support all of your federal taxes instead going to your state?

You're still paying the same amount either way.

originally posted by: onequestion
It dawned on me that no matter taxes are essentially redistribution of wealth.

Weather it be, salary, buildings, social security, Medicaid, government contracts any of it. It all goes towards the creation of high paying jobs at some point. Non of the money just sits in an account it all ends up in someone's pocket at some point.

So I realized that as long as we are in this System of paying taxes then we're a socialist country no matter how you look at it. It's just to what extent are we socialist, how much do they control the means of production?

Under socialism, government owns the means of production. In the US the government produces nothing (aside from the military), it only signs paychecks to the private sector to do something.

Note that this would remain true under Bernie Sanders as well.

Not that you can take this one step further as well. If all tax income is coming back out through checks being signed, then taxes don't actually take anything away from people because it is all injected back into the economy through government action. This is actually the logic behind the various stimulus checks W sent out. So you can either not tax and nothing gets done, or you can tax, things get done, and people on average have the same amount of money.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CB328

If we all paid them and paid the same percentage so that it really is fair, then why would it be redistributive?

Why is the same percentage fair? Any percentage as a disproportionately higher impact on those at lower income because they use a greater portion of their income to meet basic needs.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: onequestion
It dawned on me that no matter taxes are essentially redistribution of wealth.

Weather it be, salary, buildings, social security, Medicaid, government contracts any of it. It all goes towards the creation of high paying jobs at some point. Non of the money just sits in an account it all ends up in someone's pocket at some point.

So I realized that as long as we are in this System of paying taxes then we're a socialist country no matter how you look at it. It's just to what extent are we socialist, how much do they control the means of production?

Under socialism, government owns the means of production. In the US the government produces nothing (aside from the military), it only signs paychecks to the private sector to do something.

Note that this would remain true under Bernie Sanders as well.

Not that you can take this one step further as well. If all tax income is coming back out through checks being signed, then taxes don't actually take anything away from people because it is all injected back into the economy through government action. This is actually the logic behind the various stimulus checks W sent out. So you can either not tax and nothing gets done, or you can tax, things get done, and people on average have the same amount of money.

Yes and yes. More people should listen to you Aaz.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: onequestion
It dawned on me that no matter taxes are essentially redistribution of wealth.

Weather it be, salary, buildings, social security, Medicaid, government contracts any of it. It all goes towards the creation of high paying jobs at some point. Non of the money just sits in an account it all ends up in someone's pocket at some point.

So I realized that as long as we are in this System of paying taxes then we're a socialist country no matter how you look at it. It's just to what extent are we socialist, how much do they control the means of production?

Under socialism, government owns the means of production. In the US the government produces nothing (aside from the military), it only signs paychecks to the private sector to do something.

Note that this would remain true under Bernie Sanders as well.

Not that you can take this one step further as well. If all tax income is coming back out through checks being signed, then taxes don't actually take anything away from people because it is all injected back into the economy through government action. This is actually the logic behind the various stimulus checks W sent out. So you can either not tax and nothing gets done, or you can tax, things get done, and people on average have the same amount of money.

You are demonstrating the broken window fallacy. The fact of the matter is that you are taking money from someone. Because others might benefit is irrelevant. The person who paid the tax is harmed. In addition, government is notoriously inefficient in allocating resources.

Broken Window Fallacy