There are two philosophies regarding taxes:

Taxes are a way for us to pay for our use of government goods and services; or

Taxes are a way to punish wealthy people by taking away their money and giving it to not-quite-as-wealthy people.

I gather that most people on this forum tend to go with the second philosophy, although many will try to deny it.

These people will quack about "people paying their fair share". I gather that means that it is "fair" for a wealthy person to pay more taxes, not because he uses up more government goods and services (because he doesn't) but because his is richer than the other guy and therefore needs to be punished.

Now maybe old age and spending my youth in the 1960's may have caused severe neurological damage, but I always figured that "fair" means "paying your share" If we go to Mickey Ds and both order a Big Mac, fries, and Coke, my guess is that most people agree that we'd each pay $3.19 plus tax. Even if I have ten bucks and you have a hundred, I'd still be paying as much, because I'm getting as much, right?

And when I bought my car, I ended up paying $18,205, and you know what? The car people didn't ask me how much I was making! I could've had a family income of $40,000, $140,000, or $1,040,000, and it would've probably cost me exactly the same. And why not -- No matter how much you make, you end up with a Scion tC, so you pay for the Scion tC.

But for some reason, when we pay for something that we're forced to pay (like taxes) the rules seem to be different. Let's take three guys with incomes of $40k. $140k, and $1,040k. Before we figure out what the cost for the services should be, let's look at the services everyone gets.

National defense. We all get the same. If the government supports the millionaire’s mansion, the middle income woman's house is protected as is the lower-class guy's apartment, too -- right?

Roads. Well, we all get to use the same Interstates and surface streets. Of course, maybe the millionaire and the middle class woman live in a gated community where the HOA bills the homeowners for upkeep on the private roads, so the richer folks might have to pay more. On the other hand, the roads are probably worse in the poorer neighborhood, so it probably balances out.

Public schools The middle class woman wins this one. The poorer guy usually gets crappy schools, and the rich guy who pays more taxes probably has to pay twice, because he's more likely to send his kids to private schools.

Welfare. The poor guy gets his money's worth, because even though he may not pay as much in taxes, the other two individuals probably will never use the welfare, so they're paying for stuff they don't use.

You see where I'm going with this?

If we base taxes on the concept of paying for what government goods and services we use, the richer you are, the more likely it is that you're not getting your money'd worth, i.e., you're getting screwed!

Now supposing you had a flat tax, where anyone with a household income of less than $25,000/year didn't pay anything and everyone else would pay ten percent of their income for government goods and services.

The guy who needs the most government goods and services, i.e. the person with a family income of $25,000, gets it all for free.

The guy with the $140,000 income pays $14,000 in taxes, about $7000 going for him (mostly for schools) and $7000 to pick up the slack for the poor guy.

The rich guy with the $1,040,000 income pays $104,000 in taxes, about $4000 going for him (mostly for the better streets and streetlights) and $100,000 picking up the slack for about 15 poor guys.

You'd think that such an approach would satisfy most everyone, because the poor guy gets his services free, the kinda-poor guy gets his services subsidized, and the middle-class and rich guys still end up with a lot of toy money after helping their poorer neighbors.

But that's not enough, is it?

Most people who do not make a lot of money are resentful of people who do, and believe that those people are Bad And Should Be Punished. It doesn’t matter if you made your money by moving up from a laborer to a carpenter to a contractor and working hard, or going to school for 26 years to become a thoracic surgeon, or whether you won the lottery, or whether your father was William Wilberforce Wadlington III who got all his money from his dad William Wilberforce Wadlington II! If you make a lot of money, you’re a Bad Person.

And we all know what we do to Bad People, right?

It doesn’t matter if you made your money by moving up from a laborer to a carpenter to a contractor and working hard

Are you saying I'm a bad person, because that is exactly what I did.
Shame on me for becoming my own boss and trying to earn a living for myself.

Excellent post, you make alot of great points.

[edit on 6/6/05 by Skibum]

Originally posted by curme
It amazes me how no one questions the patriotism of big companies

Actually, I think you would be surprised by the numbers of people who DO question corporate corruption, no-bid contracts, cronyism, insider trading, tax evasion etc.

It's just not the most popular of topics at ATS.

Anyway, it would need to be demonstrated how corporate corruption, no-bid contracts, cronyism, insider trading and tax evasion are unpatriotic and against the core values of the society you are in.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
These people will quack about "people paying their fair share". I gather that means that it is "fair" for a wealthy person to pay more taxes, not because he uses up more government goods and services (because he doesn't) but because his is richer than the other guy and therefore needs to be punished.

According to Adam Smith, one of the canons of taxation is "ability to pay"--ie, a progressive tax. Living in a democracy comes with the duty to use some of your private resources for the public good. Perhaps if people were naturally more charitable, the need for taxes wouldn't exist, but you and I know this isn't the case. Nobody likes paying taxes, but they are necessary--and they should be progressive.

The wealthy may feel "punished" for being wealthy--but they benefit from a stable economy and a prosperous society, no?

A top-heavy society, or one where there is a huge gap between the wealthy and the lower income brackets is not one that is destined to survive. Perhaps there are those with incomes that exceed $1 million a year that have a "let them eat cake" mentality, but these people don't want to live in a society where there is no viable middle class. Remember how good things were in the Dark Ages?

With that in mind, is it more equitable to impose a tax system where people at the bottom of the food chain can't afford basic needs because of their share of the tax burden?

A simplified progressive system is the solution. A proportional (flat tax) or regressive (VAT or national sales tax) system will just tax the people who can't afford it even more and result in misery for everyone.

Masked Avatar says:

Actually, I think you would be surprised by the numbers of people who DO question corporate corruption, no-bid contracts, cronyism, insider trading, tax evasion etc.

It's just not the most popular of topics at ATS.

Anyway, it would need to be demonstrated how corporate corruption, no-bid contracts, cronyism, insider trading and tax evasion are unpatriotic and against the core values of the society you are in.

What does that have to do with a confiscatory tax structure?

These are some ways of filling in the imaginary dots:

1. Promoting the 'confiscatory' nature of tax structures can serve to legitimize tax evasion, even as a sport;

2. Legitimizing tax evasion can serve to legitimize other corrupt practices in an apologist environment based around the importance of entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic and beating the taxman as opposed to corporate citizenship.

The worst offenders are the big corporations, not the petit bourgeois.

Carry on, sport!

lmgnyc says:

According to Adam Smith, one of the canons of taxation is "ability to pay"--ie, a progressive tax.

Ability to pay does not imply progressiveness; I do not recall anywhere in "Wealth of Nations" where ol’ “Invisible Hand” calls for a progressive tax.

Living in a democracy comes with the duty to use some of your private resources for the public good. Perhaps if people were naturally more charitable, the need for taxes wouldn't exist, but you and I know this isn't the case. Nobody likes paying taxes, but they are necessary--and they should be progressive.

While I do not argue with you point about taxes being necessary, but the "they should be progressive" is a non sequitur. It's as if you came up for three highly coherent and valid reasons for buying a Ford -- and therefore conclude that we should all buy green Fords.

The wealthy may feel "punished" for being wealthy--but they benefit from a stable economy and a prosperous society, no?

Not any more than a poorer person who gets to keep all of his money does! As a matter of fact, a confiscatory tax is a disincentive to work hard or get special education to advance oneself; I'd think that such disincentives would work against a "stable economy and a prosperous society" rather than for it.

A top-heavy society, or one where there is a huge gap between the wealthy and the lower income brackets is not one that is destined to survive.

I see no historical evidence for that whatsoever. Indeed, until the 20th century, every society, including that of Japan (which has been socially stable for almost 2000 years), has exhibited exactly the top-heaviness that you abjure.

I would say that history teaches, rather than that top-heavy societies are inherently unstable, is that such large discrepancies of wealth, irrespective of the reasons, are the norm, and not the exception.

Perhaps there are those with incomes that exceed $1 million a year that have a "let them eat cake" mentality, but these people don't want to live in a society where there is no viable middle class. Remember how good things were in the Dark Ages?

I see no evidence that a confiscatory tax system will result in the diminishing of the middle class. The growth of the middle class in America preceded the confiscatory tax scheme by at least fifty years, and was caused by increased work being made available to a wide variety of artisans, as evidenced by people like Henry Ford, who paid his workers a good wage and allowed them to enter the middle class. Indeed, one can make the argument that capitalism itself, long the bugaboo of the left, has done more for the middle class than any share-the-wealth schemes.

One only has to look at the life style of Blacks in New York in 1920 compared to today to see this. In 1920’s a limited-tax, limited-government infrastructure resulted in a myriad of black small business owners. Compare that with the 3rd- and 4th-generation Black underclass today, recipients of the same largess that comes from confiscatory taxes.

How on Earth, in light of your affection for confiscatory taxes, do you explain that sad state of affairs?

With that in mind, is it more equitable to impose a tax system where people at the bottom of the food chain can't afford basic needs because of their share of the tax burden?

I consider that comment disingenuous. As I mentioned in my previous post, I consider a flat tax system with no taxes at all for a family with an income of less than, say $25,000/year to be the best compromise between allowing wealthy people the fruits of their labors while ensuring that no one is deprived of necessities and needs.

A simplified progressive system is the solution. A proportional (flat tax) or regressive (VAT or national sales tax) system will just tax the people who can't afford it even more and result in misery for everyone.

I am not suggesting a VAT or national sales tax, although some of my more Chicago-school colleagues can make a good argument for such. A flat ten percent tax means that if you're truly poor, you get the government infrastructure absolutely free of charge. Moreover, it would ensure that if I were ten times as rich as you, I would pay ten times as much taxes as you do, even though I probably won't use as much of the government’s support structure as you would.

And you say even that isn't enough?

Originally posted by RANT
my next biggest pet peeve is poor people that don't know they're poor.

If you don't know you're poor, you're not. All you are doing is comparing incomes. Poverty is not merley having less than someone else, but failure to have enough to sustain oneself. There's hardly a person in the US who isn't fabulously wealthy by this standard.

Redistribution to those who are not really in need is just a way of buying votes with OPM (other peoples money).

skippytjc
Flat tax!!!! On ALL income, including interest. Same for everybody, no tax breaks on anykind.

I can't agree enough, as long as the top rate is 0%.

Masked avatar says:

1. Promoting the 'confiscatory' nature of tax structures can serve to legitimize tax evasion, even as a sport;

I gather you mean that a person who complains about the high taxes is somehow responsible for someone else evading taxes? I guess, by that same logic, that someone's complained about Bush's war policies, he'd somehow be responsible if some potential assassin took a potshot at him?

That is strange logic indeed!

2. Legitimizing tax evasion can serve to legitimize other corrupt practices in an apologist environment based around the importance of entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic and beating the taxman as opposed to corporate citizenship.

Yes, and so can legitimizing pirating MP3s and cheating in school. But I don't see how someone talking about reforming the tax system is "legitimizing" either tax evasion or pirating MP3s, Masked Avatar. Your logic here escapes me completely.

The worst offenders are the big corporations, not the petit bourgeois.

If you mean tax evasion by dollar amount, I wouldn't be surprised, although I'm a "petit bourgeois" (I guess) and I do whatever I can to avoid taxes, like buying a house with tax-deductible mortgage interest, buying Roth IRAs, and tallying up my medical expenses.

But what's your point? We are talking about reforming the tax system to make it less confiscatory of money earned by successful people -- and you keep going off on a tangent.

The argument for a progressive income tax scheme has been trumpeted by the new-liberals and socialists from the late 18th and thoughout 19th century. The argument of the 19th century socialist and new-liberal is like this. If you prosper greatly in our society at societies expense, it is your social and moral obligation to pay back some of what you have earned off society at the expense of your means. this helps take the load off those without great means (i.e. the poor) and makes life easier for them to feed and clothe their children. It's about bearing the burden each can carry by their means.

This reminds me of the Offenburg Programme of the South-West German Democrats in 1847 which proudly proclaimed:

We Demand A Just System of Taxation. Each should bear the burden he can carry. In the place of existing taxes there should be a progressive income tax.

There's two camps to this, those who believe in the social and moral rights of a progressive tax scheme and those who think its the root of all evil and that it rewards the slackers and the ignorant who didnt come up with a great invention or dont have a great education.

The conservatives (i.e. usually the rich) believe they dont owe society a cent and that taking their money is 'theft'. This argument has been going on for centuries.

Did you know conservatives use to fight the notion of taxation paying at the public expense sewerage treatment plants and water treatment plants to improve overall public health?? this battle never end just the battlefields change.

thanks,
drfunk

I hope that my son will be in the higher tax bracket, and I hope that he'll be one of those who benefit most.

I guess that, according to the New York Tiems, I don't benefit, although I did receive the largest return I've seen ever, but this is the country where you can start out poor and make it to the Big Time if you're willing to arm yourself with knowledge and motivate yourself to success.

In other words, shoot for the bracket you'd prefer to be in, and fight the numan desire to stay where you're at, and don't simply sit, complacent, and feel jealousy toward those who are successful!

The point is, tax is not about wealth redistribution. It is about development of infrastructure to make a society function for all its members - including the provision of services for the public good without a profit motive.

The decades-old arguments about tax as a disincentive for "successful" people is based on an idealistic vision of capital and meritocracy that has never existed in the US.

Tax evasion and legitimization of it are tangential. And it is not I who makes the logical leap, it is tax evaders.

But do carry on, flat tack(s).

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
let's look at the services everyone gets.

National defense. We all get the same.

Not true. The wealthy have much more to lose in the event of an invasion by a foreign power. In most cases, they are the only ones who would actually lose anything under such a scenario, assuming there were no such thing as national defense. An invading army would just walk in and take what was easy to take, which would be the ewelath of those who have accumulated it. National defense serves the powerfull almost exclusively.

I have no problem with your other arguments in the list, they seem reasonable.

The underpinning theory for government is to protect our rights. The one right most at risk is property rights, and takes the lions share in the pool of rights to be defended. From a "pay your share" perspective, the rich should pay proportionately more for these, just as they would if these were offered by private insurance instead of the state - Hmmm...

I don't know, seems to me the businessness sector of manhatten gets more police protection than the south side of the city near me where there's at least one shooting everynight and the police are kind of edgy about venturing too far down some of the streets....

The richer you are, the more crap that you will buy...more clothes, a new car every year, shoes, ect. ect.....you use more resources, buy more imported goods, add more to our national debt, thus add more interest to our bill!!

Companies and corporations decide they want to more a branch of their business into an area, and well, roads need to be widened, and other changes made to accomodate them....who pays for this?

In plain simple words, the businesses and the Rich more than likely get as much a the poor do in benefit from our government. and it probably equals out overall.

I'm sure the poor would be comfortable paying their share, just so long as they were assured the corproations that overshadow them are doing the same.

Nobody wants punishment, they want equality and fairness. Remember when you were a little kid, how much it pissed you off when someone wasn't playing fairly? What happened to that righteous indignation OTS? How to find it again?

Why should trusts, insider information, offshore accounts, and market manipulations be allowed to occur when they very clearly do not benefit the country. These obscenely wealthy individuals, and the entities they profit from, are in most ways above the law. How often do you see them on the six o' clock news, despite their persistent criminality?

It's an injustice to the country to allow these bastards to suck the life out of it.

If they're doing it with intent to kill..I'll stand by and watch. We've done horrible things as a nation, and we deserve to fall. But if they're doing it out of greed, pure and simple, I'll resist out of spite for their unwarranted selfishness.

Edit: Oh, and I agree with MA regarding the purpose of taxes. That was a bullseye.

We need to stop wasting the money, it's ridiculous how it gets spent sometimes. We need reliable, durable, sensible infrastructure like affordable housing, and clean water. We need to get more out of every dollar, and that means shrinking government wherever possible, to reduce overhead. Spend more, get more.

The super rich should first of all, pay on what they owe. One of the premiere ways to get and keep wealth is by cheating the system. It's no coincidence, many of the wealthiest folks, if not most or even all, got where they are by playing ruthlessly and bending every rule they could. If you have 400 billion dollars, or even 40, will

I think the mentality of capitalism is flawed, because there comes a point where having more money will do only bad things to you. I think a meritocracy would be superior, in the sense that it would reward people based on their merits, not their clever manipulation of an archaic system.

I'd love to be a part of redistribution, but the simple fact is, things will return to their natural state in no time flat. Put 10 guys on an island with a dollar each, in a week one guy will have 8 dollars, and two guys will have a dollar each. It's our nature I think, some are more cunning, more greedy, more creative.

Better to fix the inability to live without money. That would reduce crime to a tiny fraction of what it is now. As it is now, you need money to LIVE! Take that pressure away, and watch the relative value of money plummet.



[edit on 7-6-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Your second philosophy is shared not only by most people on this thread, it’s shared by most humans. It’s called Progressive Taxation and I doubt anyone would be embarrassed to admit that they support it. Your description is a bit jaded, but the right thought is there. Perhaps a more accurate description would be: “Taxes are a way to redistribute income within our society to improve income mobility and mitigate class warfare.”

- Income and ‘wealth’ are relative. This is the most important thing for a person to learn in life. When thinking about taxes and redistribution of income, I think it’s better to consider what percentage of income any person has to pay for common assets (houses, burgers). So in the case of buying a burger at $3.19, someone earning $10,000 a year would be spending .03% of his income vs. someone who earns $100,000 a year that’s paying .003% of his income. Burgers are hard to measure, this is most important when thinking of large assets (homes), where it becomes prohibitive for a person in the bottom couple of income brackets to ever make that purchase.

- The car example is better—the car people might not ask you how much you make, but the people supplying the financing do. You and the poor person might pay the same face value (if the poor person even qualifies) but with the inevitable higher rate and longer term financing the poor person is going to pay significantly more money than you are. Back to the ‘wealth is relative’ concept, that poor person is going to be paying a higher percentage of his income than you are, before even factoring in the higher overall cost of the purchase.

- National Defense. You left out the part where the lower-income person has to actually go over and die to provide defense for everyone. What’s a life worth? How many top-earners fight in any war? The lower-incomes brackets are grossly over-represented not just on an absolute basis, but in terms of the proportion of people from their respective income levels. This one actually (I would argue) pays the way for all poor people and the very concept of progressive taxation. Poor people fight and die to keep you safe in your home—it comes at a cost.

- Roads—agree. National highway system is the basic building block for the success of our economy. Until we invent a teleporter, we still have to drive those burgers to each and every Micky D’s.

- Public schools are terrible, but I disagree that the rich guy loses out. It’s his choice to send his kid to a private school—that’s like a rich person complaining that they have to pay more for first class on an airplane. I would encourage all wealthy people to put their kids back in public school—maybe then someone will pay attention and actually improve the system. I don’t think it’s unrelated that as more wealthy families pull their kids out of public schools, the overall system deteriorates.

- Welfare does benefit the poor disproportionately, that’s why it’s there.

- I don’t think of looking on a straight-up ROI for your taxes is the right way to think about taxes. We’re all part of a society—we have agreed to live by certain laws and pay into the coffers of government to improve our society. As income is redistributed and the lower end gets brought up, everyone’s safer and happier. You might not agree with how the government goes about doing this or the choices it makes—I personally believe we spend too much money on national defense. We’re way ahead on this one, and we continue to spend much more than any other country and a higher percentage of our GDP on national defense. Yes, protect the clan, but exactly how well-protected do we have to be? I’d be up for some more risk of Canada invading us if it meant a couple thousand more kids got access to food stamps.

- Class warfare is still healthy everywhere, it’s in our nature. I’ve been fortunate to be on both sides and they both are ridiculous. I don’t think people are usually resentful of people who make more money—it’s when the people who make more money dismiss their plights that things get ugly.



The American Dream has a dirty (and unintended side). We’re taught all our lives that if you work hard and play right, you’ll get rich and make it in this world. The unfortunate corollary is that if you haven’t made it and you aren’t rich, you haven’t worked hard and are generally lazy or somehow inferior. Our entire culture is built around the individual, which is not necessarily good when you consider all the factors that contribute to economic success. What assets did your family have? What education was available? What kind of environment did you grow up in?



It’s also basic psychology—when you do something successful, you’re likely to attribute your success to your own actions. When someone else does something successful, you’re likely to attribute it to outside factors, not that individual. Opposite is true for bad things—when you screw up you blame it on external factors, when someone else screws up you blame it on internal (his) actions. There’s your rich/poor conflict, in a nutshell.

Masked Avatar says:

The point is, tax is not about wealth redistribution. It is about development of infrastructure to make a society function for all its members - including the provision of services for the public good without a profit motive.

That sounds great, even though it's complete rubbish. Everyone in favor of a "progressive" task I talk with -- including the people on this forum -- defend this tax as a means of "playing fairly" and "class warfare". Certainly the bulk of taxes (which, by the way, go to "entitlement", not defense) have not done a single thing to improve the "infrastructure"; instead, they are instrumental in creating a permenent underclass, disproportionately minority and urban. So much for making a "society function for all its members"!

The decades-old arguments about tax as a disincentive for "successful" people is based on an idealistic vision of capital and meritocracy that has never existed in the US.

Perhaps you'd care to explain, then, why many US corporations move their corporate offices (and payrolls) to places (like Delaware in the United States or the several tax havens overseas) where the tax bite is minimized.

spamandham says:

Redistribution to those who are not really in need is just a way of buying votes with OPM (other peoples money).

Amen to that. Remember the most important electoral calculus:

If you make as much money as ten non-workers, and provide ten times as much money as those non-workers, and your donations improve the infrastructure ten times as much as they do, then those non-workers will win every time, because they have ten times the votes that you do.

Originally posted by Skibum

usually for those people ( middle class and poor ) they cant have a limit in reaching something because usually if you have and idea and want to you use it onther guy with much power and money than you will take your idea and use it for his use.

Thats what patents, copyrights and trademarks are for.


Funny you mentioned Bill Gates because IIRC he didn't start off being the richest person in the world. Imagine if he had resigned himself to finishing college and going on to work for someone else. Instead he had the guts to drop out and persue his own wealth.

[edit on 6/6/05 by Skibum]

I know he started by himself but does he give people opptuinites from third wolrd countries ?