Taxes, Riches and Duty.

[frigidmagi]

There is a bit of debate on whether the rich in the United States should pay more taxes or not. While there has been alot of retread over the political and economic grounds for this, no one in my opinion has really spoken on the moral and ethical side of this discussion.

It seems to be that being members of society for the most part benifits us. Clearly our society benifits the wealthy more than it does say... the single mother working 2 jobs. If being a member of this society benifits you, then it is in your best interest to contribute to it's well being, in fact I would declare it to be a duty both to yourself, your childern and to your soceity at large. I am firmly assured that our founding fathers would agree with me. It is my belief that as of today, Apirl 16th, Year of our Lord 2006, that the wealthiest segiments of this nation do not met this duty.

How could they met this duty? There are many ways they could met this duty. First off and frankly foremost in my mind and soul is that of military service, the protection of this soceity from external and internal enemies by means of armed force. This involves heavy risk, one cannot honorable serve in the military without being willing to put their life, reputation and honor on the line. In the Post Vietnam military, the vast majority of troops and officers come form the middle and lower class usually of orgin in the American South and American Mid-West. So the wealthy do not met this duty via military service, at least not the vast majority. Another way would be through civil or diplomatic service. A quick scan shows that in fact most government officals are not from the wealthy but are from the middle class and are depenent upon their salaries. So they do not met their duty this way.

The path of least effort and risk is frankly through coughing up the money to pay for the workings of soceity. This is achieved by taxes. However due to tax cuts in recent years, the wealthy have found their tax burden decreased, while government spending has increased.

Today our soceity faces threat. Both from without and within, this is not unusual and not a reason for panic or distress, throughout history this as been the status of most soceities. It must be stated, however, that these threats can only be met if members of soceity met their duty. The wealthy benifit from the working of this soceity, it is only reasonable, logical and honorable that if they will not serve that they pay. I do not cry for taxes to be used as a mean of profit redisbrutation. Poeple should be taxed what is needed for the workings of the government, however in dividing up that tax burden the majority should fall on those who not only can afford it, but who benifit the most from the workings of society.

[Scottish Ninja]

To sum up: Is it more ethical to tax those who need the money to pay for food, medical care, education, etc, or those who want the money to buy another yacht?

I see a simple answer.

[Shark Bait]

while those who society has treated well have more to lose society should not force them to lose it anyway, I can say that i do support an income tax that increses as income does but not to the point of wealth redistrobution. However i do not support the idea of a death tax, and I think that it is not the job of the government to do everything for people so many government programs should be cut. Well thats my $0.02.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Well,I tend to look at taxes in terms of econmics. Taxation is like a fee for services, protection of rights through the legal system, social safety nets etc...

Now, my gut instinct tells me it is not right to charge different people different amounts for services.

So, on that basis, I would favor a flat tax. On the other hand, I am a utilitarian at heart, ghoulish as that can be sometimes, so I have tot ake the economic considerations into account, because those form the basis of my ethical system. And the obviously most functioning taxation methodology is to tax on a progressive scale, because frankly, the rich can afford a few extra percent. I would not however that if we tax the rich people too much, the government brings in less revenue due to the Laffer Curve. So, we need to figure out where the optimal point is on that curve, and tax there.

I use the Rhino analogy. If a Rhino is not going where you want it to go, you dont hit it. You dont yell at it and tell it that it is morally obligated plough your fields. That will just piss it off and it wont do anything, or worse yet it will attack you. You hook a carrot to a stick and you trick it into ploughing your fields.

You achieve maximum benefit by working with and manipulating the damn thing.

You do the same thing with the rich. By taxing them in an economically optimal way (this may take some experimentation with tax hikes and tax cuts, last I checked, the Bush tax cuts actually increased gov revenue due to the Laffer Curve, could be mistaken though... not that it matters with the government's spending increases...) you get them to put the most revenue into the governments pocket, and give them enough incentive to remain maximally productive.

Now, here is where the carrot comes in. With the tax code, you can trick the rich into literally paying people to give money away. In order to get into a lower tax bracket, they goive away scholarships, and donate to charities. This may not be as massive an undertaking as the government's efforts, but it saves money because the funds dont have to go through a massive beurocracy and pay government workers before they reach their final destinations.

Government has it's place here, but in the end, the rich person ends up paying a roughly equivalent amount to society. They ust dont do it in the form of taxes.

As for government spending... fuck, politicians are like monkeys on acid with their spending. So many programs wouldnt need to be cut in order to balance the budget if you just made them more efficient. make food stamps more like WIC vouchers. THis restricts the cost to basic food staples like milk eggs bread, and fruit juice. It prevents the poor from buying doritos, and beer.

Welfare can be put into the form of rent vouchers and things of that nature. Administered by state and local governments it would make things tailored to local costs of living. Thus increasing efficiency.

Social security needs a revamp anyway. It could stand to be retailored from the ground up.

Our healthcare system... shit we are already paying per capita for a national healthcare system... sweet fucking jesus. Our healthcare system needs to be remade, because the cost and lack of functioning are fucking rediculous.

I could go on.

But the point is, if yoiu are concerned with actual functioning, and not just with an abstract idea of morality, then you will revamp our government programs,make them cost less to administer, cut spending, and increase taxes to make up any shortfall. When congress has to increase the debt cieling multiple times because they cant keep their fingers out of the fucking purse, there is a problem, and it isnt just with the rich people.

[SirNitram]

Bush's Tax Cuts are being made back? Really. Perhaps you can show me where that projected ~730 billion dollars are. Some evidence would be nice.

The GAO seems to think the tax cuts are damaging the budget.

I beleive the nonpartisan GAO over the theories of economists every day of the week. Because the GAO uses evidence, not disproven theories.

Indeed, simple math shows between his tax cuts and his 'Let's fellate the Drug Companies and damn the old people!' RX bill will cost between 5.1 and 9.5 times as much as worst case SS crisis scenarios.

So to beleive this crap about them being made back, I really want compelling evidence.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Hey man, it was not a solid factual claim, nor is it really central to my argument. WHich means, I will conceede it if you are willing to drop it for the sake of argument

[Cynical Cat]

Hey man, it was not a solid factual claim, nor is it really central to my argument. WHich means, I will conceede it if you are willing to drop it for the sake of argument

You have provided no evidence that the rich give proportionately more than anyone else which is the center of your arguement.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Hey man, it was not a solid factual claim, nor is it really central to my argument. WHich means, I will conceede it if you are willing to drop it for the sake of argument

You have provided no evidence that the rich give proportionately more than anyone else which is the center of your arguement.

We use a progressive tax scale in the US. It is pretty much a given that they pay a higher percentage. ANd I support a progressive tax scale. Provided of course they dont cheat the system with tax shelters, which I wouldnt mind cracking down on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv ... _tax_rates

I know it is a wiki, but those brackets are a matter of public record. The only way a millionaire is going to get down into the 33% bracket is if he gives away the vast majority of his income, Or spends int all on his business and writes it off that way. It doesnt happen very often.

Now, that is just federal income tax, but state taxes are similar (if at lower rates,depending on the state) then there are sales taxes, typically equalling around 7-8% of the price of consumer goods.

[SirNitram]

Let's face it: The richest are able to hire tax preparers that know every loophole that let them lower their taxable income without actually getting rid of money, or at least spending it on anything but themselves. Anything else is naivete. They also have the lawyers for any instance of audit.

Tax breaks for the rich absolutely rely on 'Trickle Down' economic theory, which has been disproven by the factual evidence that they don't make the economy recover. They make more money, but that money revolves around the top tiers in the majority of instances. The problem is it takes as an assumption the rich will invest in new business ventures, not buy another summer home, a new yacht, or five more mistresses.

Trickle down has rightfully been declared voodoo. And it's about as reliable.

[frigidmagi]

Ben just because they pay in a progressive tax system does not mean they are paying all that more in proportion. 10% of annual earnings hurts me alot more than it hurts Bill Gates for example.

However, gentlemen, this is not the point of the thread. The thread point is to discuss this from a moral standpoint, not an economic or political one. That would be an entirely different forum. The point of my arguement was that the wealthy benifit more from soceity and as such have a duty to contribute in some way to it's maintence and protection. I have contended that they do not contribute in a satifactory way and have pointed out that paying a great share of the taxes would be the easiest and most risk free way of meeting that duty.

Am I to take it that no one opposes the idea that the wealthy of the U.S have failed to meet their duty? No one disargees that this duty exist?

[Mayabird]

Not only do they benefit more, but they do need to acknowledge and pay back the benefits that they received that allowed them to become rich in the first place. Someone could claim that they made it all themselves from hard work, starting in a poor family, but then you notice something like how the person was able to earn a scholarship for studying very hard in high school. Where did that scholarship money come from? This person got a great education at this school. Who founded the school, and how does it keep up its quality? What does it need? Etc. Person had a good mentor. How did the mentor get into that position? And so on, and so forth.

Taxes are the most definate way to determine that they do give something back, at least. In a more ideal world, it would probably work better if people had the decency to recognize the benefits they got and give back on their own, but this isn't an ideal world.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Am I to take it that no one opposes the idea that the wealthy of the U.S have failed to meet their duty? No one disargees that this duty exist?

See, here is our problem. I dont subscribe to the notion of prima facia duties. Do I think the rich SHOULD pay more than say, someone in the middle class? Hell yes. But not for the reasons you describe. For me, the moral IS the functional concerns. What a person should do is defined as what works the best. And the need to support society is something that everyone should respond to. However, I would caution against going too far. because if you go to far you start hurting things.

[frigidmagi]

What a person should do is defined as what works the best.

My argument is they are not doing what works best.

And the need to support society is something that everyone should respond to.

Again, my statement is that they are not responding to this need, therefore the moral reason for them to pay greater taxes than a middle class family.

However, I would caution against going too far. because if you go to far you start hurting things.

Outside of the topic.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Alright, "more" is a nebulous term. How much more? Quantify it. What proportion of their income should they pay?

[SirNitram]

Niggling at details which require powerful calcuators and reams of notes on the state of the economy and national budget is not a legitimate argument.

Here's an idea. No 2 million dollar Tax Returns for public servants who get Room and Board. Like, oh, You, Mr. Cheney.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Nitrqam, if someone is going to make the claim that "group X is not doing enough for society" it helps if they define what "enough" is

[SirNitram]

Nitrqam, if someone is going to make the claim that "group X is not doing enough for society" it helps if they define what "enough" is

It is not enough to note these folks are simply profiteering? Or are you going to demand itemized and notated percentages?

[Comrade Tortoise]

Nitrqam, if someone is going to make the claim that "group X is not doing enough for society" it helps if they define what "enough" is

It is not enough to note these folks are simply profiteering? Or are you going to demand itemized and notated percentages?

Nothing inherently wrong with turning a profit. But the point remains, if someone is going to make such as a claim, it helps to know what the standards by which they make it are. Maybe by taking the budget and saying they should pay X percentage of their income toward that budget.

[SirNitram]

Nothing inherently wrong with turning a profit. But the point remains, if someone is going to make such as a claim, it helps to know what the standards by which they make it are. Maybe by taking the budget and saying they should pay X percentage of their income toward that budget.

No, nothing's wrong with turning a profit.. That's why I said profiteering, not profitting. You are aware there's a difference, correct? Or did you not, and simply tried to waltz through it?

It refers to making excessive or unreasonable profits, usually by taking advantage of the system. Which is not 'making a profit'. That's just selling something for less than it cost you to make it.

I'm sure you're now going to launch into a red herring about how to define 'unreasonable'.

[Mayabird]

Nitrqam, if someone is going to make the claim that "group X is not doing enough for society" it helps if they define what "enough" is

It is not enough to note these folks are simply profiteering? Or are you going to demand itemized and notated percentages?

Nothing inherently wrong with turning a profit. But the point remains, if someone is going to make such as a claim, it helps to know what the standards by which they make it are. Maybe by taking the budget and saying they should pay X percentage of their income toward that budget.

I would say that the bare minimum would be giving back as much as the rich person received in aid or help (either in exact replication or some equivalent thereof) that placed them in a position to profit. As I said before, if said person received a scholarship to go to some university, that person should provide at least that much scholarship money (adjusted for inflation to be equivalent - providing a $10,000 scholarship now because you got a full scholarship of $10,000 then won't work since a full scholarship now might require $20,000).

And that's the bare minimum if the person has the tiniest scrap of decency, giving back exactly as much as you got.

Of course, it gets more difficult to factor in things such as lucky breaks (a great position opens up just as you apply for it, and the people who applied before and after that break, even if just as qualified, are just screwed) which can be highly important as well. Someone might not even know where a lucky break made the difference, so really a rich, successful person should give back more than he/she directly got to factor that in. How much that would be, I don't know, and that's all quibbling anyway.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Nothing inherently wrong with turning a profit. But the point remains, if someone is going to make such as a claim, it helps to know what the standards by which they make it are. Maybe by taking the budget and saying they should pay X percentage of their income toward that budget.

No, nothing's wrong with turning a profit.. That's why I said profiteering, not profitting. You are aware there's a difference, correct? Or did you not, and simply tried to waltz through it?

It refers to making excessive or unreasonable profits, usually by taking advantage of the system. Which is not 'making a profit'. That's just selling something for less than it cost you to make it.

I'm sure you're now going to launch into a red herring about how to define 'unreasonable'.

You are right. I will, because it is not a red herring. The moment you claim something is unreasonable you need to define what reasonable and unreasonable are given the circumstances.

Is unreasonable taking advantage of the law and making it work with you, like my mom does with the tax code?

Or is it jacking prices for gasoline up 5 fold during a gas shortage that only decreased the amount of gas by half?

The later I would classify as unreasonable, the former, not so much.

You need to define what "excessive" profits are as well. If you dont define them, they become nebulous buzz words which can mean whatever you want them to mean so that they suit your purpose. And that just wont do if we are trying to have an intellectual discussion.

Is there a solid number somwhere which defines the meaning of "excessive profits"? Or is there some sort of ruberic based on market conditions? Ar the very least give some sort of criteria so we can examine particular instances on a case by case basis.

To use an example of how this could be done: Oil companies reported record profits during the katrina disaster. Were those profits "excessive"? Yes. Why? Because they gouged the price of petrolium products far beyond what they would normally have to charge to make up the supply shortfal in their normal profits following the hurricane.

I am not trying to say that rich people are living up their end of the bargain in our little social contract. I dont think many of them are. But I have a general idea of what they SHOULD be doing, and where their duty stops. I also keep in mind what the consequences and implications of certain actions are. Especially how that relates to our legal system.

Example (and dont hold the niggling details of this as central, I could replace any nunber of circumstances for this one): Rich people taking advantage of the tax code, thus decreasing government revenue, and shirking their duty to society.

How do we fix this? Change the law so that fewer deductions are possible? That leaves us with the problem of poor people trying to lessen their tax burden using the same codes, and being unable to because the IRS changed the rules so that business expenses that come out of one's own pocket still count against your personal income for tax purposes.

Do we change the law so that only people with a certain net worth can take advantage of this? Well then we end up with one law for Joe and another for George. This, clearly is unacceptable and is certainly illegal under the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

SOmetimes, even if we dont think that something is necessarily right, we have to accept the fact that it exists because the consequences of fixing one problem creates more problems that could potentially be worse.

[SirNitram]

You are right. I will, because it is not a red herring. The moment you claim something is unreasonable you need to define what reasonable and unreasonable are given the circumstances.

As predictable as Newtonian physics.

'Oh but it's not unreasonable to do X!!!!'

What a pity it was never about doing X, isn't it? That does, in fact, make it a red herring. I gave some examples. Neither is about getting a little extra on your return legitimately. Indeed, if you looked up profiteering you'd know the latter example you gave is the very definition of it: Exploiting a shortage to make excessive profit.

See how quickly this shit gets resolved when you stop pretending knowledge and actually educate yourself? But it seems obvious you want to continue this tangent, with the knee-jerking of a libertarian. It's never about what's being discussed, it's always some red herring which is harmless.

And your claim that setting different laws for the rich and poor is a violation of the 14th? A bullshit claim. The tax laws already do have differences for income(Hint: I make less than the minimum to actually get taxed, so my return is all the fed tax I paid), and they don't violate 'equal protection under the law'. Protection under the law does not mean you can't declare zero taxable income.

Do I feel there should be no deductions for the top 1%? No. But closing the fucking loopholes that get abused every time, actually incarcerating folks for it.

[Comrade Tortoise]

What a pity it was never about doing X, isn't it? That does, in fact, make it a red herring. I gave some examples. Neither is about getting a little extra on your return legitimately. Indeed, if you looked up profiteering you'd know the latter example you gave is the very definition of it: Exploiting a shortage to make excessive profit.

At least now we have both defined now dont we? Now we can have a meaningful discussion without emoting all over the place like real politicians.

Also: Hint: That is why I posited it as an example.

See how quickly this shit gets resolved when you stop pretending knowledge and actually educate yourself? But it seems obvious you want to continue this tangent, with the knee-jerking of a libertarian. It's never about what's being discussed, it's always some red herring which is harmless

Are you capable of making an argument which does not mischaracterise what someone is saying? DO I look like a knee-jerking libertarian to you? Fucking A, I am supporting the same fucking position as you, but simoly ask clarification on your reasoning, is that oo fucking much to ask? That you define your terms so that a meaningful discussion can be had?

And your claim that setting different laws for the rich and poor is a violation of the 14th? A bullshit claim. The tax laws already do have differences for income(Hint: I make less than the minimum to actually get taxed, so my return is all the fed tax I paid), and they don't violate 'equal protection under the law'. Protection under the law does not mean you can't declare zero taxable income.

Way to miss the point Martin. The tax brackets are one thing, allowable deductions are another. Here is an analogy: Hopefully it's point wont go over your head

Crimes have different degrees. Prison times are different, depending on parameters of the event etc etc. But the process is still the same for everyone. Changing allowable categories of deductions based upoin income is like saying "well because you are charged with first degree murder, you dont get to hire an attourney"

The tax brackets are analagous to the "degrees" of a violent felony. They arent the same and carry different penalties.

While the allowable deductions are analagous to court processes. Used to determine quilt or innocence (which tax bracket you belong in)

Do I agree that loopholes in the code need to be closed? SUre. Sort of like how I think spousal priviledge needs to be modifed so a wife can testify against her husband in a murder trial if she wants (but cannot be compelled to do so)

Again. In essence, we are not in disagreement about the END RESULT. Only in how each of us get there. SO dont get pissy.

[SirNitram]

What a pity it was never about doing X, isn't it? That does, in fact, make it a red herring. I gave some examples. Neither is about getting a little extra on your return legitimately. Indeed, if you looked up profiteering you'd know the latter example you gave is the very definition of it: Exploiting a shortage to make excessive profit.

At least now we have both defined now dont we? Now we can have a meaningful discussion without emoting all over the place like real politicians.

Also: Hint: That is why I posited it as an example.

In the spirit of Dogbert, a clue for the clueless:

The word Profiteer has always meant exploiting shortages or massive demand(Functionally the same thing) for excessive profit, IE, far out of line with sense. Hence why I used the word. If you had either known the word, in a mature and adult individual's way, asked what it meant, we wouldn't have this stupid little tangent.

See how quickly this shit gets resolved when you stop pretending knowledge and actually educate yourself? But it seems obvious you want to continue this tangent, with the knee-jerking of a libertarian. It's never about what's being discussed, it's always some red herring which is harmless

Are you capable of making an argument which does not mischaracterise what someone is saying? DO I look like a knee-jerking libertarian to you? Fucking A, I am supporting the same fucking position as you, but simoly ask clarification on your reasoning, is that oo fucking much to ask? That you define your terms so that a meaningful discussion can be had?

Yes, you do look like a knee-jerker, and you have the libertarian 'Make excuses for the rich' down pat. So your rhetorical kinda fails. The reasoning is clear, by the way. You haven't even objected to that. So I've not mischaracterized you at all; you're just complaining that we haven't attached numerical cash values to everything. Not everything can be done on the fly like that.

And your claim that setting different laws for the rich and poor is a violation of the 14th? A bullshit claim. The tax laws already do have differences for income(Hint: I make less than the minimum to actually get taxed, so my return is all the fed tax I paid), and they don't violate 'equal protection under the law'. Protection under the law does not mean you can't declare zero taxable income.

Way to miss the point Martin. The tax brackets are one thing, allowable deductions are another. Here is an analogy: Hopefully it's point wont go over your head

No, I got the point. The point is you're making up a distinction that doesn't exist. I don't care what you try and rephrase this into, because the 'point' you claim is non-existant and the distinction is a fantasy.

Crimes have different degrees. Prison times are different, depending on parameters of the event etc etc. But the process is still the same for everyone. Changing allowable categories of deductions based upoin income is like saying "well because you are charged with first degree murder, you dont get to hire an attourney"

Tax deductions == Class A Felonies? You're smoking the crack, I see. Or freebasing pixie dust.

The tax brackets are analagous to the "degrees" of a violent felony. They arent the same and carry different penalties.

Not on your life.

While the allowable deductions are analagous to court processes. Used to determine quilt or innocence (which tax bracket you belong in)

This is such profound bullshit I'm simply flabbergasted you can pretend to be reasonable while presenting it. Tax deductions are priveledges. They are not guaranteed by the Constitution, like, say, representation by an attorney. You read that document? You appear to have no understanding of it.

Do I agree that loopholes in the code need to be closed? SUre. Sort of like how I think spousal priviledge needs to be modifed so a wife can testify against her husband in a murder trial if she wants (but cannot be compelled to do so)

Again. In essence, we are not in disagreement about the END RESULT. Only in how each of us get there. SO dont get pissy.

You keep throwing out utter bullshit, I'll get insulting. But to beleive you are getting me 'pissy' shows that despite all these years, you've yet to understand me much.

[Comrade Tortoise]

The word Profiteer has always meant exploiting shortages or massive demand(Functionally the same thing) for excessive profit, IE, far out of line with sense. Hence why I used the word. If you had either known the word, in a mature and adult individual's way, asked what it meant, we wouldn't have this stupid little tangent.

Ok, the dictionary definition of profiteering is one thing Martin, but if I ask 12 different people what constitutes it I am going to get 12 different answers. These differences in answer are going to depend on what each individual thinks constitutes unreasonable, or excessive profits. I know some people who think that sweatshops in Thailand are no producing excessive profits because "it s a free market, and the children knew what they were getting in to"(note: I DO NOT HOLD THAT VIEW) I know others that think it constitutes the exact opposite. So it is not unreasonable to ask what exactly you think constitutes profiteering in order to evaluate your position.

We both think profiteering is bad (and if you ignore this sentence in favor of being your usual rabid-weasel self, I wont be a happy panda) but we need to define our terms and make sure we are on the same page intellectually. Otherwise we will both be accusing eachother of strawmanning the other person's position and we wont get anywhere.

Yes, you do look like a knee-jerker, and you have the libertarian 'Make excuses for the rich' down pat.

Are you on acid? WHere the fuck have I made excuses for the rich? Stop breaking your own nose with your knees every time you think someone might diagree with you. Here, I will go through my posts and point out to you every single time when I have flat out said that I dont think the rich are paying enough in taxes.

See, here is our problem. I dont subscribe to the notion of prima facia duties. Do I think the rich SHOULD pay more than say, someone in the middle class? Hell yes.

I am not trying to say that rich people are living up their end of the bargain in our little social contract. I dont think many of them are. But I have a general idea of what they SHOULD be doing, and where their duty stops. I also keep in mind what the consequences and implications of certain actions are. Especially how that relates to our legal system.

So yes, you HAVE been misrepresenting me. Mr. Scarecrow may not have a brain, but he can still feel pain when the wicked brit of the west sets him on fire.

No, I got the point. The point is you're making up a distinction that doesn't exist. I don't care what you try and rephrase this into, because the 'point' you claim is non-existant and the distinction is a fantasy.

So it doesnt matter what sort of evidence or reasoning I present, I am automatically wrong because you say so. Nice job thinking like a creationist.

Tax deductions == Class A Felonies? You're smoking the crack, I see. Or freebasing pixie dust.

No. Tax BRACKETS. Nice strawman, I am impressed with your handiwork

They are not the same in practice, but in principle. The tax bracket you land in is something which needs to be determined when you sit down to do your taxes. The itemized tax form is the process by which you determine what your tax bracket is.

Maybe a grand jury would be a better analogy, but I digress.

If you change the process by which such things are determined for different classes of people, then the process is not equitable (Brown V. Board of Education). Sorry Martin, it just isnt. Which is why we have a uniform tax code for individuals.

Businesses are different, and last I checked have different allowable deductions because a business is not a person and thus can be treated differently.