Is our tax system progressive enough?

Question for anyone who wants a more progressive income tax - would you prefer a tax on something else instead of income?
 
myke wasn't suggesting each person pays a certain percent adjusted as his income changes, he was talking about that quintile. the idea is that back when there wasn't such an enormous gap between classes a flat tax would have been more fair than it is today -- so institute a flat tax back then but then adjust it for each quintile as the the rich get richer and the poor remain poor.

"If the top quintile makes 200% of the average at year one, and 400% at year ten, then their tax rate in year ten will be double the average tax percentage."

a more explicit example:
year 1 -- average income is 40k. the top quintile makes 80k. everyone is paying 30% tax.
year 10 -- average income is 45k. the top quintile makes 180k. the top quintile's tax burden is shifted accordingly, to correspond with the year 1 flat tax.


i don't think myke actually wants this system, he's just using it to underscore why a flat tax is unfair. keep in mind the top percentiles have grown exponentially despite our progressive taxes... that should be evidence enough they are certainly not too progressive. any shift of the tax burden from the rich would just widen the already enormous chasm.
 
[quote name='Koggit']keep in mind the top percentiles's income has grown 256% compared with the median 32%, and almost eightfold difference in the income gap, which has not corresponded with shifting tax rates[/s]despite our progressive taxes... that should be evidence enough they are certainly not too progressive. any shift of the tax burden from the rich would just widen the already enormous chasm.[/QUOTE]

fixed.
 
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why you guys think the wealth gap is a "problem" to be solved politically. It seems you are still holding on to the fallacious fixed pie idea...that there is only a certain amount of wealth in the world and that one person's gain is necessarily another's loss. I've noticed most feel-good leftist arguments stem from this belief. Once you recognize that wealth is not a fixed quantity, you will realize that the best policies to adapt are those that GROW the pie for everyone rather those that just try to stir things up.
 
And your argument is a philosophical red herring that argues, absolutely and fallaciously, that permitting those who are wealthy to keep said wealth in larger proportions will help the economy on the whole.

Not to mention is naive and intellectually simplistic underlying assumptions that emphasize the folly of supply-side policies that would help the economy, the foolish belief that monies and wealth are gained fairly by all participants, that monies are earned individually, distributed fairly and rationally - and you deny the very nature of exploitation by which wage and wealth disparity grow in this country.

It's childish and silly to think that all wealth is fairly gained and benefits society equitably. Free trade policies have eroded the middle class in this nation, turned blue-collar work from a means of sustaining a family on a single income into a form of hidden poverty even in most two-income households, all the while we no longer have a very good idea what an "American Car" is, given that we can buy a GM car manufactured in Mexico or a Toyota manufactured in Kentucky.

The economy can grow, yes, but the inequitable growth that you tout as "growing the economy" is yet another red herring from you when you fail to mention that the very wealth you're touting as helping all others is purely mythological.

What you're trying to argue is absolutely, demonstrably false. It is the libertarian naivete. "We haven't had a TRUE free market!" you decry, to test these ideals. You're no different than the Marxist who uses cognitive dissonance to deny the historic legacy of failed Communist states, blaming and misattributing the failure to the fact that it wasn't a "TRUE communist state!"

Idealism is well and good, but trying to implement idealism into the society such a flawed species, rife with potential for error and exploitation, and in denial of the very world we live in that serves as a refutation of your hopeless ideology, is a fool's errand. You might as well try to bring us to ascendancy via the comet Hale-Bopp like Marshall Appelwhite did. You'll achieve as much in your career.
 
myke, the very fact that someone can earn vast sums of wealth means they are ALREADY BENEFITING THE ECONOMY on a whole. This is not a red herring. It's fact. Bill Gates has earned tens of billions but his products have created TRILLIONS in wealth..increasing productivity and revenue for countless businesses.. This is NEW wealth that did not exist before and would not have existed without his effort. Gates earned every penny of his wealth and then some. Does the fact that he has $50 billion in the bank mean the rest of us have $50 billion less in the bank? Did he benefit unfairly at the expense of his customers? Are people who paid $100 for Windows less well off? Hell frakking no. They benefited a hundred times over from having his products available to them.. They paid that money willingly and received something much more valuable than that money in return.

Capitalism is nothing more than a lack of force..mutual trade for mutual benefit. No transaction takes place in a free economy unless both parties believe they have something to gain from it. Is there some chance involved? Yes. Does fraud happen? Yes. Is the system perfect? Hell no. But even the most ardent Marxists have been forced to conclude that the market system is the best means of producing wealth and lifting the masses out of poverty. Government does not create wealth. Central planning never has and will never work as a means of producing wealth. Progressive taxation and government spending are two sides of the same coin.. They produce nothing new and can only retard the process of true wealth creation... Your philosophy seems to assume that wealth is some static commodity that just popped into existence and will always exist for you to plunder, and you couldn't be farther from the truth.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Question for anyone who wants a more progressive income tax - would you prefer a tax on something else instead of income?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I would. I've read all about the Fair Tax and of course know about VAT systems, but they are somewhat unwieldy and have their own problems. I guess at this point I'd keep the income tax but make it dramatically lower, but more progressive, if I had my way. Other than the proposals I just mentioned, is there another way you would suggest?
 
You're being a simpleton who doesn't understand my arguments if you think I'm arguing that wealth is static.

Respond to points I make, not ones you think I'm making that couldn't be read between the lines unless you have a 12-pack of PBR in you.

Wealth grows, and it grows in equitably. Therefore, taxes should grow to correspond with that inequity in order to remain equitable.

Or would you argue that a Bill Gates would not emerge under our current tax rate? I hope not, lest you also be required to deny the sky's blueness.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Progressive taxation and government spending are two sides of the same coin.[/QUOTE]

Any taxation, and then spending of that revenue, are obviously in tandem. But that doesn't mean that progressive taxation = high government spending. You're not arguing that, right? I think we could construct a system of more progressive taxation that allowed most/all people to pay less tax if our spending was under control, a system that would be more fair than the system we have today. There is no need for anyone making under 30K and using just about all his income to survive to pay income tax, just as there is no need for someone making $5 million a year to get a mortgage interest deduction for his $4 million mansion.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wealth grows, and it grows in equitably. Therefore, taxes should grow to correspond with that inequity in order to remain equitable.[/quote]

Wealth grows unequally..not inequitably. A flat tax with a poverty level exemption is the only truly "equitable" form of taxation. And you've made no points myke.. Calling something "simplistic" is not an argument. It's a substitute for an argument. And your marxist regurgitations about "exploitation" are simply laughable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Wealth grows, and it grows in equitably. Therefore, taxes should grow to correspond with that inequity in order to remain equitable.[/quote]

Wealth grows unequally..not inequitably. A flat tax with a poverty level exemption is the only truly "equitable" form of taxation. And you've made no points myke.. Calling something "simplistic" is not an argument. It's a substitute for an argument. And your marxist regurgitations about "exploitation" are simply laughable.
 
An issue that often seems to be over looked, when alot of these 'mega' companies got there start and grew they benefitted from the freedoms of the US, and the labor here. The got a start and built companies that had for years created a vast amount of jobs and stability in america. But as these companies grew and started to make money they seem to get greedy, not able to settle with a slight profit they opted to Turn their back on the long standing loyalty of american workers, and moving their entire manufacturing from the US, which has now created alot of bitter feelings and scare employment in many areas.. Shouldn't these companies that got there start here in the USA and the hard work of many american's have some sense of loyalty to the country that helped them to begin with. The Laws and protection we have here initially enabled them to get the whole business started and make the money .
For many of the wealthy even today have been heirs from this 'old money' even today..

and sure people still seem to talk about the three class system being here today, however the truth is it's more like two;
" the Rich (elite) or Common'ers (Peasants, Elders, Disabled, & Paupers) Sound familiar? didn't we leave England.?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Wealth grows unequally..not inequitably. A flat tax with a poverty level exemption is the only truly "equitable" form of taxation[/quote]

What I don't understand is - if your flat tax is truly equitable, why is there a poverty exemption? Is that not tantamount to admitting that the tax puts more of a burden on those with less money, to the point that people making a certain amount of money would have so little after paying it that you have to make an exemption for them? Isn't the idea of making an exemption for the poorest using basically the same logic as a progressive tax system?

IMO, making an exemption to a flat tax is antithetical to the idea that a flat tax is the most fair way to tax. Either it's fair for everybody or it's not fair.
 
[quote name='Romis']An issue that often seems to be over looked, when alot of these 'mega' companies got there start and grew they benefitted from the freedoms of the US, and the labor here. The got a start and built companies that had for years created a vast amount of jobs and stability in america. But as these companies grew and started to make money they seem to get greedy, not able to settle with a slight profit they opted to Turn their back on the long standing loyalty of american workers, and moving their entire manufacturing from the US, which has now created alot of bitter feelings and scare employment in many areas.. Shouldn't these companies that got there start here in the USA and the hard work of many american's have some sense of loyalty to the country that helped them to begin with. The Laws and protection we have here initially enabled them to get the whole business started and make the money .
For many of the wealthy even today have been heirs from this 'old money' even today..[/quote]

hmm..yes, you could argue they should stay here but unfortunately the policy prescriptions being argued to accomplish this are likely to make them even more anxious to leave. Imposing new taxes or penalties to discourage companies from outsourcing labor makes it less appealing to remain in the USA..and these policies certainly make it less attractive for foreign companies to set up shop here as well.

John Stossel did a report a while back showing how he got incorporated and started selling merchandise in a Chinese mall in less than 24 hours and for a cost of $20. Doing the same thing in America would take 6 months+ and thousands of dollars. Cheap labor is one of the reasons companies leave, but another major reason (and the one we can control) is the secondary costs..the high corporate tax and red tape companies must go through to exist in the USA. The best way to slow outsourcing and create US jobs is of course is to reduce these burdens..which unfortunately is the opposite of what most lefty politicians want to happen.

[quote name='SpazX']What I don't understand is - if your flat tax is truly equitable, why is there a poverty exemption? Is that not tantamount to admitting that the tax puts more of a burden on those with less money.[/quote]

I don't think anyone can deny taxes are more of a burden to those with less money, and I think it's perfectly fine to be lenient on those at the bottom end of the income spectrum when it comes to owning the basic necessities of life. One people have food, clothing, and shelter however..normal rules should apply and they should face the same burden as everyone else trying to make it in the world. To continually increase their burden as they rise through the ranks however is both unnecessary and immoral. Taxation is a penalty on economic activity..and to tax people as they become more productive is by definition, counter-productive. The only thing it does is enrich politicians and special interest groups at the expense of everyone else.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']On[c]e people have food, clothing, and shelter however..normal rules should apply and they should face the same burden as everyone else trying to make it in the world. To continually increase their burden as they rise through the ranks however is both unnecessary and immoral.[/quote]

But that's the point - a flat tax across the board is not an equal burden. Just because the number is the same, it doesn't make it equal, and you know that. Increasing the tax percentage rate as you make a higher income is not placing more of a burden as you get richer, it's equalizing it.

The rich should not be less burdened than the poor just so that a percentage number is the same.
 
[quote name='SpazX']But that's the point - a flat tax across the board is not an equal burden. Just because the number is the same, it doesn't make it equal, and you know that. Increasing the tax percentage rate as you make a higher income is not placing more of a burden as you get richer, it's equalizing it.

The rich should not be less burdened than the poor just so that a percentage number is the same.[/quote]

I disagree...Once the essentials of life are paid for, it is a relatively equal burden. A person paying $200,000 (making 1 million in my example) is actually hurt more than a person paying $6k (making $50k in my example). Because of the exemption for the first $20k, the rich person is paying a larger portion of his income in taxes (19.8% compared to 11% for the guy making $50k).

Obviously, despite paying more in terms of dollars and percent, the rich guy will still have more $$ left over in the end...but there is nothing wrong with this. He is still giving 20% of his labor back to society with a $200k tax bill. The fact that he has money left over doesn't make the hit on his wallet any less painful.

Anyway..the fact that he can make that much money means he is already doing a great job for society. Leave the cash in his hands and he will likely plow it back into his business or else invest in other areas that create middle class jobs. Money is never doing "nothing" unless it is sitting under a mattress, and thankfully most rich people aren't foolish enough to leave it there. When you leave money in the hands of entrepreneurs, they do FAR more good for society than the most bleeding heart bureaucrat could ever hope to achieve with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about another take on this?

Does not a person with a higher net worth have more for the government to protect? Therefore, should not that person be responsible for more taxes than someone with low/no net worth? Let me give an example.

One person has net worth of zero - rents, lives paycheck to paycheck, no appreciable assets. Another person has housing and investment properties worth $10 million, and makes $1 million per year. Should the latter person not be more responsible for defending his wealth/earnings by funding defense, police, fire, etc.?

I guess I assume you'll say "well, he's paying more under a flat tax anyway," but think about it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']But that's the point - a flat tax across the board is not an equal burden. Just because the number is the same, it doesn't make it equal, and you know that. Increasing the tax percentage rate as you make a higher income is not placing more of a burden as you get richer, it's equalizing it.

The rich should not be less burdened than the poor just so that a percentage number is the same.[/quote]

I disagree...Once the essentials of life are paid for, it is a relatively equal burden. A person paying $200,000 (making 1 million in my example) is actually hurt more than a person paying $6k (making $50k in my example). Because of the exemption for the first $20k, the rich person is paying a larger portion of his income in taxes (19.8% compared to 11% for the guy making $50k).

Obviously, despite paying more in terms of dollars and percent, the rich guy will still have more $$ left over in the end...but there is nothing wrong with this. He is still giving 20% of his labor back to society with a $200k tax bill. The fact that he has money left over doesn't make the hit on his wallet any less painful.

Anyway..the fact that he can make that much money means he is already doing a great job for society. Leave the cash in his hands and he will likely plow it back into his business or else invest in other areas that create middle class jobs. Money is never doing "nothing" unless it is sitting under a mattress, and thankfully most rich people aren't foolish enough to leave it there. When you leave money in the hands of entrepreneurs, they do FAR more good for society than the most bleeding heart bureaucrat could ever hope to achieve with it.
 
He's paying more under a flat tax anyway. ;)

And who builds and maintains those housing and investment properties anyway? Who builds the expensive houses and yachts? Hundreds of middle class workers. What would they do for a living if people like him didn't have the wealth to make those investments in the first place? Think about it.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']He's paying more under a flat tax anyway. ;)

And who builds and maintains those housing and investment properties anyway? Who builds the expensive houses and yachts? Hundreds of middle class workers. What would they do for a living if people like him didn't have the wealth to make those investments in the first place? Think about it.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I have, believe me. I think the question we need to be asking is, does the current tax code provide an equal burden to all taxpayers? I think the answer to that question is no. Part of this is due to the loopholes in the tax code and favored activities/etc. inserted by various idiots while on Capitol Hill, and part of it is due to the tax code not being progressive enough.

We're mostly talking about income tax here on this thread. We should also be talking about overall taxation. Income tax is only one facet. What about payroll taxes? Sales taxes? Property taxes? Or our "favorite" here in Virginia, personal property taxes? Many of these are flat or regressive. Hopefully you read the articles I linked to in the OP, they had some great stats that helped illustrate this. A good example of what we should all object to is taxation of basic food, something that has been in place in my state (although reduced a few years ago) for as long as I've lived.

I don't object to people making lots of money if they earn it honestly. I admire anyone who has achieved a lot in life through their own hard work and/or ingenuity. I don't support high tax rates, and I don't support government intervention in setting salaries or anything crazy like that. But yes, I do think those who have more have a responsibility to society as regards taxes, because they're the ones who can pay. Our tax rates are much too high as it is, but I'd lower the lowest brackets before the highest ones - this benefits everyone.
 
Well we can't do much about sales and property taxes since those are decided on a state by state and city by city basis. The best we can do on a national scale is deal with federal income taxes, and as I said earlier, the best way to help the poor is to abolish taxes alltogether for the first $20k of income. This will provide relief to struggling families and enable them to purchase all of the essentials in life. A flat rate above that will demand a proportional sacrifice from everyone. We can eliminate so many loopholes and deductions by going to a flat tax on all income above $20k. This will incentivize the rich to keep their money here and make investments that create jobs, rather than wasting time finding complicated ways to avoid our insane 35% corporate tax rate.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I disagree...Once the essentials of life are paid for, it is a relatively equal burden. A person paying $200,000 (making 1 million in my example) is actually hurt more than a person paying $6k (making $50k in my example). Because of the exemption for the first $20k, the rich person is paying a larger portion of his income in taxes (19.8% compared to 11% for the guy making $50k).

Obviously, despite paying more in terms of dollars and percent, the rich guy will still have more $$ left over in the end...but there is nothing wrong with this. He is still giving 20% of his labor back to society with a $200k tax bill. The fact that he has money left over doesn't make the hit on his wallet any less painful.

Anyway..the fact that he can make that much money means he is already doing a great job for society. Leave the cash in his hands and he will likely plow it back into his business or else invest in other areas that create middle class jobs. Money is never doing "nothing" unless it is sitting under a mattress, and thankfully most rich people aren't foolish enough to leave it there. When you leave money in the hands of entrepreneurs, they do FAR more good for society than the most bleeding heart bureaucrat could ever hope to achieve with it.[/quote]


Sorry if you have addressed this.

But isn't flat tax not equal there is a huge difference in 5% of what a wealthy person makes and 5% of what the middle class makes. 5% of 250,000 a year means looks like I will have to keep my 2007 model and wait to get the 2010 or 11 instead of the 2009. Where 5% of 40,000 dollars means looks like I can't take those 3 days off to visit my family for the holidays.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Wealth grows unequally..not inequitably. A flat tax with a poverty level exemption is the only truly "equitable" form of taxation.[/quote]

Wrong. Your ideology supports that notion, but it's not something based in objective reality.

As per my points - or what it is you're either incapable of reading or grasping due to the stranglehold your ideology has on your cognitive abilities - viewing tax rates as something to be related to the distance between income categories is a quite equitable plan, in my view. Were it not for starting at an arbitrary point to begin such "flat tax."

Look, if you can't even begin to think outside of these disproven supply-side arguments that, the last 30 years of government serving as empirical evidence that supply-side policies are poisonous to the economy (see the tea party thread), then I don't know where to go with you. You're beholden to a means of economic treatment that's simply proven to be unsustainable and one that does not deliver on the promises it makes. You might as well try to make a case for feudalism at this point, your perspective is so lacking for empirical support.

And you've made no points myke.. Calling something "simplistic" is not an argument. It's a substitute for an argument. And your marxist regurgitations about "exploitation" are simply laughable.
Click to expand...

Exploitation is exploitation irrespective of the degree of it. Whether it's shafting someone a penny an hour in their wage, or slave labor conditions, the exploitation in capitalism is as unavoidable as the profit motive itself. Don't be a fool. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because I mention something, that means I side with it. I mention that exploitation happens under capitalism because it does. It's a fact of life, something that simply exists. You admit as much in later posts. Admitting it exists does not make one a Marxist, so I'd recommend, in the future, if you're going to make a claim about someone's debate style, that you don't do so in a set of sentences where you put words in their mouths, jump to conclusions, misread their words, and make the same sort of fallacious claims you accuse them of doing.

It's poor form, really. And makes me a bit ashamed that I'm bothering to exchange words with you.
 
myke, if you're going to criticize "supply side" economics, at least define it first. My understanding is that it means an attempt to reduce the size and power of government by cutting taxes and spending. This was the Reagan "theory" as well as the Bush II theory.. It's what they campaigned on, but unfortunately we have only had one side of that supply side equation over the past 20 years. Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts...with no corresponding spending decreases as promised. On the contrary, spending has SOARED since the Reagan revolution..growing the size of government dramatically Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. Government has grown at an exponentially and at a far faster pace private sector GDP or the rate of inflation. This is a decidedly ANTI-capitalist, pro socialist/fascist trend. So if you want to be pissed at what's been happening over the past 20 years, you should be pissed at the alarming growth of the monster in Washington.

As for exploitation, I suppose it depends how you define it. My definition of exploitation involves force or the threat of force. I don't see that anywhere today. If however you consider it "exploitation" to set up shop in third world countries paying workers .50 an hour (when they would have no job at all otherwise), so be it. I disagree.
 
I grasp that much. But when you're talking about the benefits of a fully free market, increases in spending are more or less irrelevant when spending caps aren't introduced, and we treat deficit spending as something unrelated to the tax cuts that the wealthy receive.

You brought up Bill Gates, and then dropped him like a bad habit when I asked you if you want to claim that Microsoft would never have occurred under our current system of taxation. Why is that?
 
Sorry I don't deal those kind of hypotheticals myke. It's impossible for me to say whether Microsoft would or would not have existed under different circumstances. That's the thing about government policy..It always has thousands of visible beneficiaries but MILLIONS of invisible victims. You can always point to the direct beneficiary of some government program or another and say "See?! Look how happy he is! Government spending works!" What you don't see however are the two teenagers who don't get hired at the local ice cream shop because the San Francisco city council decided to raise the minimum wage from $5.50 to $9.50/hr. You never see the jobs that aren't created..the people that aren't hired, or the business ideas that never get off the ground due to prohibitive costs and red tape. It's impossible to calculate the number of potential jobs that could have been had it not been for excessive government taxation and interference in the marketplace..but my guess is that in the last century it was well over 50 million.
 
Simple logic myke. Increase the minimum wage to $5000 an hour or raise the corporate tax to 98.6% and perhaps .0001% of the country will benefit from it (government contractors). You can easily hold them up as shining examples of government compassion and generosity..but you will never be able to point to the exact number of people who are never hired in private sector because of these policies. They remain unseen and uncounted. And this doesn't just go for the economic realm. The same goes for social policy...things like affirmative action and other government nonsense that penalizes one group to reward another..

Federal intervention = visible beneficiaries and invisible victims. I think we can declare that a universal law.
 
Working backwards from an absurd starting point is not logic, since at the opposite end of the spectrum you have a minimum wage of 0.01/hour and 0% tax rate - and it's not logically possible to argue the effects of those two absurd hypotheticals are the same. So you're arguing for a logical progression in an argument where you're actually displaying a moving target that, evidently, you don't see moving.

As for affirmative action, it's funny you mention that. In the absence of AA - hell, in the *presence* of AA - you have discriminatory treatment and racial/ethnic/gender-based hiring preferences. So you're trying to argue that discriminatory treatment doesn't exist in the absence of AA policies, which is demonstrably false and something you should be ashamed to argue. Do you really think that, in the absence of AA policies, all applicants from all sectors in all positions are hired with no discrimination ever?

So you have enforced structural patterned inequality in the absence of intervention in that context, yet you want to argue that such is not the case. Which, again, is not only demonstrably incorrect, but shows a lack of empirical knowledge of the world we live in, but is also philosophically incorrect, in that you're weighing discriminatory treatment differently. And, lastly, is based on a fundamental and completely incorrect (but forgivable since it's such a common one) misconception about how AA policies actually work.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Working backwards from an absurd starting point is not logic, since at the opposite end of the spectrum you have a minimum wage of 0.01/hour and 0% tax rate - and it's not logically possible to argue the effects of those two absurd hypotheticals are the same. So you're arguing for a logical progression in an argument where you're actually displaying a moving target that, evidently, you don't see moving.[/quote]

Everything is a matter of degree myke. The simplest way to see the effects of idiotic government policy is to take it a little further down the path of idiocy. Lets forget the absurd $5000 minimum wage and 98% tax rate.. What if we simply raised rates 50% tomorrow? Do you honestly believe there would be no ill effects on the economy? Can you at least acknowledge that a 50% hike in taxes or wage costs will have an smothering effect on their future economic decisions? And forget a 0% rate on the other end of the spectrum. What if we just cut taxes in half today? Can you imagine the boom that would ensue as the costs of investing in America were halved overnight? The current recession would be blown out of the water..

Incentives matter myke...They always matter. Taxes are a cost, and a higher cost for any activity = less incentive to pursue that activity and greater incentive to find alternatives. A lower tax on any activity = greater incentive to pursue it and less need to find alternatives. Increase corporate taxes = more incentive to leave the country. Double the minimum wage = more incentive to pursue automation and lay off human workers. When you increase the penalty on profits and employment, you tend to get less of both.

As for affirmative action, it's funny you mention that. In the absence of AA - hell, in the *presence* of AA - you have discriminatory treatment and racial/ethnic/gender-based hiring preferences. So you're trying to argue that discriminatory treatment doesn't exist in the absence of AA policies, which is demonstrably false and something you should be ashamed to argue. Do you really think that, in the absence of AA policies, all applicants from all sectors in all positions are hired with no discrimination ever?
Click to expand...
hmm...Did I say that? No. I'm simply pointing out a clear cut case of one group being directly harmed by a policy of government favoritism. It's quite apart from economics but the principle is the same. Two equally qualified college graduates apply to an affirmative action job. Since AA focuses mainly on race/gender/disability and other physical characteristics of the applicants while largely ignoring their economic background, the white could be dirt poor and the black could be the son of Michael Jordan yet the black still gets the job. This makes absolutely no sense under any objective definition of justice and is a clear cut case of government intervention with an invisible victim..so I'd say my analogy stands. On the issue of AA...If it were based entirely on income I'd be more sympathetic..but race? Psh.. I don't think you can remedy one injustice with another. What happened to the MLK ideal of a colorblind society? From my experience, people I've met who would otherwise be race neutral are being pushed into racist attitudes when they see a minority group gaining unearned benefits with these policies. Rather than wiping out racism, the government is permanently institutionalizing it.

Remember what the road to hell is paved with?
 
Your hypothetical demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of AA policies, and is rooted in the most absurd of ideal cases, rather than how it actually works to remedy who is harmed.

Stop talking about AA until you understand how it works.

Moreover, you're still seeping the absolutism of a philosophy behind your political ideals, as opposed to the empirical reality is that wealth and income growth for the lowest 60% of American income earners lags substantially behind the income and wealth growth for the other 40% (and that it's more concentrated the higher you go).

Wealth is grown and gained by those at the top, who are not at all hurting when it comes to financial gain. The tax system you lament is not preventing wealth and income inequality from growing. It is not, thus, doing what you claim it is.

Stop being a philosopher and go become an empiricist.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Wealth is grown and gained by those at the top, who are not at all hurting when it comes to financial gain. The tax system you lament is not preventing wealth and income inequality from growing.[/quote]

*sigh*

On a scale of 1-10, inequality is a negative 98 in terms of importance to me. I don't care about it one bit and you shouldn't either. It's f*cking ridiculous that anyone is concerned about it in my view. What you have is yours and what I have is mine. Inequality would only pose a problem if the amount of worldly wealth was fixed. But IT IS NOT! THERE IS NO FIXED PIE.
FFS...Why is this so difficult to grasp myke?

My gain is not your loss..

You will not lose money if I decide to work an hour of overtime tonight..

You will not get fatter if I go on a diet and lose a few pounds..

The world is not a zero sum game. There is an infinite amount of knowledge out there and a potentially infinite amount of wealth.

Once you get this through your head, the whole idea that some people making larger sums of money than others is a "problem" should vanish from your psyche as well. I'm talking about jobs and economic growth myke..trying to inject a little common sense into the discussion and inform you of the negative effects of things like high taxes and government intervention. If you could reign in your "lets get em!!" attitude for a while and look at things objectively, you'd quickly realize that higher penalties on work and investment hurt everyone in society...not just the "rich".
 
Since my question went unaddressed I will try again.

I have 10 sandwiches for the next 2 days , and I have to give up 50% of my sandwiches so now I have 5 sandwiches for the next 2 days. Kinda sucks but I still have 3 sandwiches for today and 2 for tomorrow.

My friend has 2 sandwiches for the next 2 days, and he also has to give up 50% of the sandwiches. Now he has one for both today and the next day. Equal percentage loss but the results to one's life is vastly different from one to the other.

a 50% flat sandwich tax hurts the people with low amounts of sandwiches, and hurts people progressively less as the amount of sandwiches someone has increases.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']If your ass is pullimg in over 100,000 sandwiches a year, you shouldn't mind paying higher taxes.[/quote]


my point exactly.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']is there lettuce and/or mayo?[/quote]


only if you have extra sandwiches to trade for such commodities/condiments
 
[quote name='mykevermin']you're not very good at it.[/quote]

methinks you're the one blinded by philosophy friend. I get the impression the logical side of your brain knows I am right and is battling with your emotional side. You've got lots of hatred/envy of the rich that has built up over the past few years and it's a shame that the emotion usually wins that fight. ;)

[quote name='gareman']Since my question went unaddressed I will try again.[/quote]

The debate is where to draw the line of course. Is it really moral to tax away 60,000 sandwiches just because he can afford it? Or do you want to demand an equal sacrifice from both of them once they get past the ability to feed themselves and their family? Offering say a 6-7 sandwich per day exemption? Offering enough for every man to feed himself and his kids before you start taxing away a flat amount of his excess production seems much more fair than imposing huge penalties on the guy who happens to be able to produce more sandwiches.

And again..the problem with your philosophy is that you seem to assume those sandwiches will always just "be there" for you to tax..that their quantity is fixed in the heavens and will be unaffected by the act of taxing them away or increasing the cost to make them. This is nonsense. Confiscating a large portion of the man's sandwiches certainly effects his desire to keep producing them. If I start a business and employee a few dozen workers on an assembly line to produce a million sandwiches, and you decide to tax away 800,000 of them..because after all 200k is "plenty" for me, Uh Uh...Pardon my language but fuck you.. I'm not going to bother making them any more..risking my time, energy, and hard earned wealth to produce so much when 80% of what I earn is taxed away.. I'll take my business overseas asap, then all of the American bread makers and assembly workers who relied on my productive capacity will starve as well.

Nice job geniuses..Way to help out the little guy!

You folks need to get the idea out of your head that you can help the poor by tearing down the rich. It doesn't work. It never has and it never will. Free markets have provided a general increase in living standards for millions of people over the past century. True, the wealth was not distributed evenly, but the vast majority were much better off than under schemes of central planning. The world is an unequal place. People will always live in different circumstances and have unequal skills, knowledge, opportunities, and ambitions, so naturally inequality will exist. It will ALWAYS be a part of any free society and there's nothing wrong with that. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is to suppress human liberty and drag everyone down to a mediocre average. Look at the squalor of North Korea or Soviet Russia if you want to see the end result of pure economic egalitarianism.
 
If by "change", you mean grabbing torches and pitchforks and storming the homes of the people foolish enough to remain employers in this increasingly hostile environment, hopefully never.
 
[quote name='gareman']Since my question went unaddressed I will try again.

I have 10 sandwiches for the next 2 days , and I have to give up 50% of my sandwiches so now I have 5 sandwiches for the next 2 days. Kinda sucks but I still have 3 sandwiches for today and 2 for tomorrow.

My friend has 2 sandwiches for the next 2 days, and he also has to give up 50% of the sandwiches. Now he has one for both today and the next day. Equal percentage loss but the results to one's life is vastly different from one to the other.

a 50% flat sandwich tax hurts the people with low amounts of sandwiches, and hurts people progressively less as the amount of sandwiches someone has increases.[/QUOTE]

If you only make enough money to earn two sandwiches, then it is your responsibility to work so that you can afford more than two sandwiches. It is not everyone else's responsibility to ensure you get your fill of sandwiches, it is your own. Not to mention those extra 3 sandwiches your friend have will likely be sliced up into different pet projects by the government and only a tiny morsel of bread will remain of the original 3 sandwiches you thought you were getting - while the rest of the sandwiches went towards raising money for a solar panel somewhere.

If you are unable to work due to disability of some sort, there are numerous ways to get more sandwiches such as meals on wheels and public food pantries - not to mention SSI/SSDI which is taken out of people's paychecks in addition to tax.

Finally, your sandwich tax is too high. The previous discussion was of a flat tax of 20%, not 50%.

Just because it is easier for one person to give up half their sandwiches than another doesn't make it right, fair, or necessary.
 
[quote name='Ruined']If you only make enough money to earn two sandwiches, then it is your responsibility to work so that you can afford more than two sandwiches. It is not everyone else's responsibility to ensure you get your fill of sandwiches, it is your own. Not to mention those extra 3 sandwiches your friend have will likely be sliced up into different programs by the government and only a tiny morsel of bread will remain of the original 3 sandwiches you thought you were getting.

If you are unable to work due to disability of some sort, there are numerous ways to get more sandwiches such as meals on wheels and public food pantries - not to mention SSI/SSDI.

Just because it is easier for one person to give up half their sandwiches than another doesn't make it right, fair, or necessary.[/QUOTE]

Eventually humanity is going to have to learn to work together toward goals that make life better for everyone. This every man for themselves attitude will only lead to our own destruction. Together we stand, divided we fall. It's time people started caring about people.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']Eventually humanity is going to have to learn to work together toward goals that make life better for everyone. This every man for themselves attitude will only lead to our own destruction. Together we stand, divided we fall. It's time people started caring about people.[/QUOTE]

If people didn't care about people programs like aforementioned SSI/SSDI, food pantries, meals on wheels, charities, etc, would not exist. There are already a wealth of social programs and we already have rigged the system so people who earn more actually earn a lower percentage of their salary than people who earn less.

The problem is that there is a point where too many of aforementioned programs and too much dipping into someone else's paycheck can eventually lead to dependency on the system and the government, instead of dependency on oneself, in order to get the basic needs met. And that is most definitely a bad thing as it reduces financial reward motivation + also increases the control the government has over your daily life by means of the strings attached to their payouts. I think many feel that this country is rapidly approaching that unfortunate tipping point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Ruined']If people didn't care about people programs like aforementioned SSI/SSDI, food pantries, meals on wheels, charities, etc, would not exist. There are already a wealth of social programs and we already have rigged the system so people who earn more actually earn a lower percentage of their salary than people who earn less.

The problem is that there is a point where too many of aforementioned programs and too much dipping into someone else's paycheck can eventually lead to dependency on the system and the government, instead of dependency on oneself, in order to get the basic needs met. And that is most definitely a bad thing as it reduces financial reward motivation + also increases the control the government has over your daily life by means of the strings attached to their payouts. I think many feel that this country is rapidly approaching that unfortunate tipping point.[/QUOTE]

You don't really subscribe to the theory that if you work hard in this country you'll be wealthy? The theory that everyone has an equal opportunity in this country is false ideology. Most people who are more successful than other people is because they were lucky, hard work has little to do with anything. I'm sure there are plenty of people who work much harder than i do for less or equal pay. How's that fair?

If someone is putting 40+ hours a week and they still cant make ends meet even though they are living as modestly as they can, whats wrong with them receiving the help they need? I hate when people complain about this idea that everyone who receives some form welfare are just lazy. I believe the number of people who abuse those programs are such a small percentage in the scheme of things it's a moot point.

I have no problem with people receiving financial assistance from the government as long as they give back to the system. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with such a small percentage of the population holding on to so much of the wealth. The rich are still rich, even with the percentage of taxes they pay. It basically just comes down to greed, and greed is never good no matter how you spin it.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']I have no problem with people receiving financial assistance from the government as long as they give back to the system. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with such a small percentage of the population holding on to so much of the wealth. The rich are still rich, even with the percentage of taxes they pay. It basically just comes down to greed, and greed is never good no matter how you spin it.[/quote]

But they don't give it back to the system, that's the problem, and some people actually make a pretty good living off of screwing the rest of us over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top