One's Fair Share and the Sweat of Your Labors

tivo

tivo

CAGiversary!
Philosophical questions and progressive taxes:

What is the "fair share" expected from each individual? Who decides? How should the state enforce it?

Are people that pay no taxes but receive society's benefits paying their "fair share"? Is society doing enough for them?

What do you owe your family, neighbors, state, future generations? What do they owe you? What do we owe to the rest of the world?


And lastly, What tax system best represents your stance on these issues?
 
[quote name='tivo']Are people that pay no taxes[/quote]

False premise. There are people who pay no *income* tax, but there is nobody who pays "no taxes."

And lastly, What tax system best represents your stance on these issues?
Click to expand...

Raising the capital gains tax to match or exceed the income tax. If we're going to incorrectly assert that there are persons who "pay no taxes," then let's keep that canard going and include in that category of no-tax-paying-persons those who derive the bulk of their income from investments and securities.

Kthx.
 
Hmm. Was considering creating a new thread for this, but I figure a brief tangent couldn't really hurt this one. So!

"Sweat of your brow," and the stealing thereof. "The fruits of your labour," and their unfair taxation. Phrases like those are meant to evoke images of bronze-skinned farmers toiling in the silence of the morning. Or lamp-lit miners bathed in coal dust. Large trucks caked in mud, steel girders, logging chains wrapped 'round ball hitches and pulled taught, and the smell of sawdust. Not just evoke, glorify. 'Cause it's good work. It's hard work. It's thankless work where the only reward is the knowledge that the job is done. All that shit.

So, show of hands - how many people here actually get sweaty brows in their average work day? How many people's labours produce fruit? fuck me to Tuesday, do any of us actually labour around here? Or is this all just a bunch of pandering to an ideal we neither want nor try to live up to?

When we say "sweat of your brow", are we even thinking of what the individual words mean? Do those words still have meaning when put together like that? Or are we just throwing a frozen pizza in the electric oven and pretending we're all god damn master chefs, now (or perhaps wiggling undersized doorknobs and clicking plastic buttons and pretending we're master chiefs)? Do we need to hide our actual thoughts behind grand-sounding phrases so old and clichéd they don't even register as words anymore? Do we have to rob from metaphor's graveyard just to put together a coherent sentence? Or are there more hands raised in the air than I actually think, here?

Yes, I did re-read a certain essay by a long-dead Englishman this summer; how did you know?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']False premise. There are people who pay no *income* tax, but there is nobody who pays "no taxes." [/QUOTE]

Just stop saying Republicans are against raising taxes. They're willing to raise taxes on poor people, that's for sure.
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']People always think the "fair share" should be higher for all the people who make more money than they do.[/QUOTE]

Haha. You really think the rich think this way?
 
[quote name='soonersfan60']People always think the "fair share" should be higher for all the people who make more money than they do.[/QUOTE]

Only people with common sense believe that.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Only people with common sense believe that.[/QUOTE]

Come on Msut, it's only been the basis of America's income tax code for over 100 years. The last century could have been a fluke - we need to go way back to the days of debtor's prison and indentured servitude - that will serve those poor people right for borrowing money to eat because they were poor!
 
[quote name='camoor'] we need to go way back to the days of debtor's prison and indentured servitude[/QUOTE]
We're halfway there my friend, but I'm guessing our conservative contingent has no idea how.
 
Note that there has been many attacks on those who believe counter to what the poster believes and lots of snippy little comments....but pretty much no one has answered the question.

Answering your question from the "philosophical" end you asked it from. To me taxes and "fair share" is about what we as a society need and what we as individuals can afford. As for who decides, its not fair for anyone to decide really...but someone still has to. That is why I think that in these coming elections a serious debate needs to be had in public about the role of government. Who do we as Americans see ourselves? Let both parties put their true feelings on the table and then let the American people decide(which is a terrifying idea for me because of how ignorant the average American is).

As for what I owe my country, my neighbors etc etc and what they owe me. I owe them the best I can give them at any given moment in time. I owe them educating myself on issues vs simply going with what my gut or my party says. And I owe them civil discussion. I try my hardest in all these areas, even if I fail sometimes, I still try very hard. Meanwhile I feel very very few citizens do any of this. Most people are content to sit at home getting fat watching sports and ignoring their kids. They would rather lower their taxes by $1,000 a year then fund education(even if they have kids/grandkids!). I feel no one tries to educate themselves, their decisions are gut reactions along party lines and they cant have a discussion without hyperbole and insults.

As for what tax system represents me. Not sure what exactly you mean by that. Basically though again I propose trying to figure out what is needed and tax what is appropriate. Right now at a time where we have had low taxes for years, corporations and rich people using loop holes to not pay their fair share and done all this while fighting two wars and underfunding things like science, infrastructure, technology and education....then yes I propose taxing people at the highest rate we feel we can tax them without effecting their lives too negatively. Meaning yes, if you are rich you will pay more, and yes my wife and I will pay less being middle class...but we are also content to pay much less then some poor underemployed factory working making $10 an hour.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Just stop saying Republicans are against raising taxes. They're willing to raise taxes on poor people, that's for sure.[/QUOTE]

Those aren't taxes, those are "fees"
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's set by the society. There is free choice in western society. If you don't like it, vote differently or leave.[/QUOTE]

There sure is free choice when compared to third-world countries. Like conservatives loved to point out, Dubya was better then Saddam.

But let's not overplay it. It's the economy stupid and we're still doing quite poorly. When you look at the wealth inequality gap, America is ranked alongside countries such as Uganda, Jamaica and the Philippines, hardly the type of rarefied company your quote would seem to suggest. That doesn't happen by accident, a dedicated team of the executive class, pro-industry lobbyists, and corporatist politicians work around the clock to make this happen. America might be free for the rich, but the middle class is paying through the nose.
 
I think a society, any society needs to provide a floor of sustenance. It needs to nurture those at the bottom, with support from those above. Because there isn't anything without the society. There is no land ownership, no resource ownership, no wealth accumulation without society.
So those at the top, those who have large shares of land and resources need the existence of the society very, very much, just as those at the bottom, whose basic needs are unmet, also need the society.
You could make a case that someone who pays no taxes deserves no services. But then you would also need to charge anyone with wealth a huge tax bill because that wealth disappears if the society fails.
 
[quote name='vherub']I think a society, any society needs to provide a floor of sustenance. It needs to nurture those at the bottom, with support from those above. Because there isn't anything without the society. There is no land ownership, no resource ownership, no wealth accumulation without society.
So those at the top, those who have large shares of land and resources need the existence of the society very, very much, just as those at the bottom, whose basic needs are unmet, also need the society.
You could make a case that someone who pays no taxes deserves no services. But then you would also need to charge anyone with wealth a huge tax bill because that wealth disappears if the society fails.[/QUOTE]

This is not a very controversial concept, except in the modern United States, where we have a party of science* deniers, who insist on relying on maladjusted gut instinct to the chagrin of the rest of the nation

*science doesn't just refer to climatology and other 'hard sciences,' but perhaps more importantly, economics and other soft sciences. They do not understand nor do they advocate policy from a platform with the slightest understanding of economics. See Michele Bachman's $2/gallon gasoline claim.
 
I feel like my first post didn't take your question seriously but the more I've thought about it the more I've wanted to correct that. My "philosophical" thoughts on this stuff is based in my business degree. I don't understand why business people don't think the way I do, but I guess that's life.
[quote name='tivo']Philosophical questions and progressive taxes:

What is the "fair share" expected from each individual? Who decides?[/quote]
I would say that the question that should be asked here is "How best do we untether business from non-core competencies?" Software firms should not be spending time and money worrying about health care or the availability of earthquake insurance or whether they can pay enough to a private firefighting service or how much of a military they need in case Cuba invades. They should be laser focused on making software. It's the whole friggin point of Wealth of Nations. As vherub said, we define what the floor looks like.

When we work backwards from what companies shouldn't be doing, it becomes clear that the government should be in the insurance business. Insuring that our property is secure via policing, emergency services, military might, and regulation. Insuring that our persons are secure via health insurance availability, providing food security, and affordable dwellings.

And then we tax based on that amount.

Remember, we're talking philosophically here. Don't get all crazy on me.
How should the state enforce it?
Click to expand...
By force, naturally. There is no other means. To deny that is to deny human nature. Period.
Are people that pay no taxes but receive society's benefits paying their "fair share"? Is society doing enough for them?
Click to expand...
They are not paying their fair share. There's no ambiguity there. But I would argue that the America where you pull your boot straps up doesn't exist anymore (if it ever truly did). There just aren't jobs there anymore. 49.999% of the population has a below average intelligence. Put those two together* and you have a bottomless hole you can't get out of. That also happens to be the timeless formula for revolt. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually.

We as Americans have an uncanny ability to both love America and hate our fellow Americans. To demand a "we're all in it together" mindset while simultaneously loathing those that fail and demanding penance in the form of abject poverty.

81% of those classified as in poverty have microwaves!?! HOW fuckING DARE THEY. Sure you can get one for $20 at a garage sale or Goodwill BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!!!!111! They should be more poor. MORE POOR.

:sadface:
What do you owe your family, neighbors, state, future generations? What do they owe you? What do we owe to the rest of the world?
Click to expand...
You owe it to them to do everything in your power to try. To support them and be supported by them. To do a good job. To help the low when you're flying high and to try to get back up when you're down low.
And lastly, What tax system best represents your stance on these issues?
Click to expand...
Tiered progressive. No tax breaks at all ever. The capital gains tax at 15% is fucking robbery.

*I'm not shittin on people that aren't smart in the way needed to get ahead in your career. How many people do you know that are friggin awesome at a bunch of stuff but just absolutely suck at finances and career path awareness/job security awareness? They just don't get it. Should they be eating out of the food bank and living under the bridge because they broke their arm, declared bankruptcy, and lost their car and job?
 
5vr9k.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top