Debate:Why a Progressive Tax?
BlueSprite (Talk | contribs) (→Taxing the rich more as a percentage of income benefits the poor) |
BlueSprite (Talk | contribs) (→The rich should give more back) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
The implication here is that rich people owe society. Why should we draw the conclusion that wealth is evidence of owing people something? [[User:BlueSprite|BlueSprite]] 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST) | The implication here is that rich people owe society. Why should we draw the conclusion that wealth is evidence of owing people something? [[User:BlueSprite|BlueSprite]] 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST) | ||
:Because "society" is what allowed these people to GET that money, instead of digging for grubs with a flint-headed spear under a tree somewhere. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST) | :Because "society" is what allowed these people to GET that money, instead of digging for grubs with a flint-headed spear under a tree somewhere. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | ::Society provides people with certain opportunities true. It is easier to make money when there is rule of law, that is certain. Perhaps there is a case to be made that people owe society, (I might challenge this, but will accept it for the time being for the sake of argument), nevertheless, there is nothing to say that rich people owe more than the others. If it is opportunities that society provides, then the case would have to be made that rich people got more opportunities in order to become rich. This is not clear to me at all. I think a more likely (or at least equally likely) explanation is that people who tend to become rich seize the opportunities that they find more often, more quickly, and more competently than most. In business as in war, those who are lucky tend to be those who are ready when opportunities present themselves. | ||
| + | ::Also do not forget that rich people contribute the lion's share to society even *without* taxes. Consider the following argument: in a free market two people who make a trade or transaction both believe they are better off or they wouldn't make the trade/transaction. If a rich person achieves their wealth within the law, then it follows that their wealth is a valid measure of how much they have '''helped other people''' already. Unless you want to make the case that all rich people are thieves, or that most rich people are thieves, I think this argument describes most wealthy people, or at least those who have achieved their own wealth. | ||
| + | ::You mentioned in another context that wealth tends to form aristocracies, and it seemed that you object to the principle that people should be allowed to inherit wealth. I offer the following counter-argument: Unless the inheritor is committing crimes, then the inheritor spends the money within the law, and does so either wisely or unwisely. If the inheritor spends the money unwisely, they will lose it, or at least a portion of it. If the inheritor spends it wisely and within the law, then spending (or investing) of it necessarily is helpful to people. [[User:BlueSprite|BlueSprite]] 18:25, 2 December 2008 (EST) | ||
== It's unfair that x% of people make y% (for y >> x) of the money, therefore we should tax them more == | == It's unfair that x% of people make y% (for y >> x) of the money, therefore we should tax them more == | ||
Revision as of 23:25, 2 December 2008
Reading the Liberal Beliefs page, I ran into this one (belief in a progressive tax) and the arguments in favor seem incomplete at best.
The following are assertions I feel require justification. Please note that they are not verbatim, but capture the essence of what the speaker was, I believe, trying to say. I am *NOT* attempting to set up straw men here. If you feel I have misrepresented a statement, please say what you think is meant, and we can discuss that. Nevertheless, I would appreciate justifications for the statements in these lists, because I hear them mentioned a lot, not just here.
The list follows:
- "Tax rich people more because they are rich and can afford it."
- "The rich should give more back."
- "It is unfair that x% of the population makes y% of the money, and therefore tax codes should tax them more."
- "Taxing the rich more as a percentage of income benefits the poor."
BlueSprite 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Contents |
Tax rich people more because they are rich and can afford it
The implication here is possession of money is a sufficient condition for having it taken from you. Why? BlueSprite 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- Several reasons:
- Because massive concentration of wealth is undemocratic. How many Senators return your calls, as opposed to, say, Warren Buffett's?
- Said concentration of wealth tends to get passed down along family lines, producing a de facto aristocracy. (See: Paris Hilton, George W. Bush, the Kennedys.)
- After a certain point, money ceases to be anything but a method of keeping score. There's a limit to how much cocaine even Lee Iaccoca could consume.
- "Taxes are the rent we pay to live in a civilization" (Not sure who said it, but I like that quote.) Rich people gain MORE from Society than poor people, in the form of things like police protection from those who would Take Their Stuff. Also, massive social clout: when was the last time anyone offered YOU a tax break to move to a new town?
- --Gulik 16:28, 2 December 2008 (EST)
The rich should give more back
The implication here is that rich people owe society. Why should we draw the conclusion that wealth is evidence of owing people something? BlueSprite 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- Because "society" is what allowed these people to GET that money, instead of digging for grubs with a flint-headed spear under a tree somewhere. --Gulik 16:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- Society provides people with certain opportunities true. It is easier to make money when there is rule of law, that is certain. Perhaps there is a case to be made that people owe society, (I might challenge this, but will accept it for the time being for the sake of argument), nevertheless, there is nothing to say that rich people owe more than the others. If it is opportunities that society provides, then the case would have to be made that rich people got more opportunities in order to become rich. This is not clear to me at all. I think a more likely (or at least equally likely) explanation is that people who tend to become rich seize the opportunities that they find more often, more quickly, and more competently than most. In business as in war, those who are lucky tend to be those who are ready when opportunities present themselves.
- Also do not forget that rich people contribute the lion's share to society even *without* taxes. Consider the following argument: in a free market two people who make a trade or transaction both believe they are better off or they wouldn't make the trade/transaction. If a rich person achieves their wealth within the law, then it follows that their wealth is a valid measure of how much they have helped other people already. Unless you want to make the case that all rich people are thieves, or that most rich people are thieves, I think this argument describes most wealthy people, or at least those who have achieved their own wealth.
- You mentioned in another context that wealth tends to form aristocracies, and it seemed that you object to the principle that people should be allowed to inherit wealth. I offer the following counter-argument: Unless the inheritor is committing crimes, then the inheritor spends the money within the law, and does so either wisely or unwisely. If the inheritor spends the money unwisely, they will lose it, or at least a portion of it. If the inheritor spends it wisely and within the law, then spending (or investing) of it necessarily is helpful to people. BlueSprite 18:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
It's unfair that x% of people make y% (for y >> x) of the money, therefore we should tax them more
Why is it unfair? I see no reason to conclude this. If it is unfair, why is it sensible to tax them rather than some other means of redress of grievance? BlueSprite 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- You seem to be under the mistaken impression that people who favor a progressive tax do so because of sheer ENVY that somebody else worked harder than them and was successful, and must now be PUNISHED for it. Since nobody actually thinks that way outside of a few hardline Bolsheviks and the Imaginary Liberals In Your Brain, the question is moot, and I shall respond to this question with a simple "Mu". --Gulik 16:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- I don't understand what you said here. I can't parse from what you said whether or not you agree with the statement "It's unfair that x% of people make y% (for y >> x) of the money, therefore we should tax them more." Perhaps you feel it's a straw man? I simply don't follow you. BlueSprite 18:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)
Taxing the rich more as a percentage of income benefits the poor
This is a complex assertion that appears to be taken for granted. Why should this be the case? It doesn't seem obvious to me at all. BlueSprite 15:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- Let me quote that great Socialist thinker, Ronald Reagan: "The problem isn't being poor. The problem is people not having any money."
- To add: Most Liberals (and the few remaining Sane Conservatives) think deficit spending is a bad idea. Most Liberals think the government should make a token effort to keep poor people from starving to death of being forced into crime, and possibly even better their wretched lot. This costs money, which the government gets by printing is (usually a bad idea), or by taxing it. And the rich people have more money to tax. (And it won't hurt them as much. When you make $1,200 a month, having $200 taken in taxes HURTS. When you make $120,000 a month, losing $20,000 is an annoyance.)--Gulik 16:31, 2 December 2008 (EST)
- If I understand you, you're saying that it's obvious that we should have social programs, therefore we should tax the rich to pay for them because it will harm poor people. Unless I've missed something, this is circular reason plus an appeal to a non-sequitor (that it's obvious that we should have social programs, which, by the way, I would challenge). Whether or not it's obvious we should have social programs, I don't think it follows that taxing everyone the same leads to poor people starving in the street. In any case, if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that social programs are not always critical, consider two possibly not mutually exclusive approaches: 1) Spending less, 2) a single grade progressive tax, where people below a certain line do not pay.
- If I'm parsing you right, only those in danger of starving in the streets, as you put it, have even been asserted to be worthy of tax relief. So why not tax everyone who isn't in danger of starving in the streets the same?
- But, to summarize, your assumption is that if we eliminate a progressive tax, we have to increase taxes on the poor. That is only true if you insist on maintaining the level of spending, which is not obvious to me.
- I apologize for a somewhat more convoluted response than I'd hoped, but I think everything I wanted to say is here. FYI, I find cute appeals to what some politician said in a moment of populism or lapse of judgement in order to demonstrate some clever irony about a group of thought you think I may belong to singularly unconvincing. If you find them funny, go ahead, but if you're trying to make a concise argument intended to change my mind, I would eschew them.