The Rich Paying Fair Share?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Perhaps, but that's no excuse for confiscating the fruits of the labor of the productive class in order to support the dependent class.

Leaving aside your ridiculious ideas of who is "productive" and who is "dependent", you claimed in another thread that it's just tough shit that native Americans don't have the land they used to own because they fought wars and lost, and now you're claiming there's no "excuse" for taxing the rich?

You seem strangely inconsistent about when people need excuses for "confiscating" stuff and when they don't. It almost looks exactly like you don't in fact have any kind of morality at all, but just use the language of things being "right" or "wrong" to match whatever suits you.

Tut, tut, play nice now.

Again with the random adherence to rules! Are we supposed to play nice or kill injuns?

[Seth]

So you're badgering people for a clear cut answer about what is the "fair share" of tax for somebody earning X dollars, where X is a completely unknown variable? And you can't see how silly that is?

It's not at all silly, it's a perfect opportunity to show that socialists don't have any principles, but rather are mired in economic jealousy and class conflict. Doesn't matter how much someone makes, all that matters is that you cannot answer the question of what percentage of ANYONE'S income is a "fair share." This is true because socialists always think that THEIR income is too low, and that anyone making more than they do should be taxed more heavily.

2. The implicit assumption behind his rant is that the "fair" default starting point is everybody paying the same amount of tax. He talks about the "amount of road" that his tax pays for, compared to the amount that a teacher's pays for, clearly suggesting that we should assume they'd be roughly the same, so it's AMAZING that his is actually 48 times higher.

Now to anyone with half a brain, this is ridiculous. The idea of flat taxation with no reference to ability to pay is not only morally insupportable, it's financially ridiculous for anyone who wants a government able to do anything whatsoever. You would basically have to take what a guy on the lowest possible wage earns, work out the absolute maximum you can screw out of him without him starving to death, and then levy ONLY THAT MUCH on everyone up to Bill Gates. You'd then basically have no government. Seth would be happy, of course.

It's interesting that in the last 100 years, regardless of the actual top marginal tax rates, the actual amount of money collected by the Treasury has remained very near to 19 percent of the GDP. What this means is that when socialists and progressives raise taxes to punish the rich for being "unfairly rich" what they are actually doing is slowing the economy radically so that whatever the Treasury gains from increased tax collections from the wealthy is offset by reductions in tax collections in general, leading to a stagnation of the economy with no more money available for the kind of dependent-class welfare giveaways that socialists and progressives love so much.

Conversely, when tax rates are lowered, the economy booms and actual dollars flowing into the treasury increase in direct proportion to the health and vitality of the GDP.

This fact, known by some as the Laffer Curve, proves beyond any doubt that socialist and progressive punitive tax policies do nothing more than tank the economy and make everyone more poor.

Capital, you see, flows AWAY from taxation like water flows away from mountains. That's a hard economic fact that socialists simply are too stupid to comprehend.

But that's not even so much the point - he doesn't after all actually advocate a flat tax, he just has it in the background and the assumed starting point that the actual tax regime should be measured against. What's really completely clueless is that his own "argument" doesn't even make sense in that respect. He says "I pay as much as 48 teachers; you're telling me I should pay as much as 51; but I think I could make a good argument that I should only pay as much as 45, and an objective judge would have to accept that." But these numbers are all equally meaningless. If he doesn't accept the principle of people being taxed differently according to ability to pay, then 45 is just as silly a number as 48 or 51. The only number that would be justifiable by that rationale would be 1. But then of course he knows full well that if he tries to argue that he should only pay the same as one teacher, he'd be laughed off the air, even in sociopathic America.

Er, that's exactly the argument he was making, except that you seem to have completely missed it.

So where the fuck does he get 45 from? Out of his arse? And you're asking us what's wrong with his "argument"?

Doesn't matter. His point is that taxing the rich just because they are rich is killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

3. The whole question of what tax rates are "fair" is impossible to consider separately from that of which aspects of capitalism as a whole are "fair" and which aren't. The fairness or otherwise of how each person's life plays out in our society is a result of the total set of economic factors they are subject to. It's ridiculous to take one of those in isolation and think you can arrive at some idea of "fairness" that ignores all the others.

Only if one presumes that each individual is personally responsible for the economic well being of every other person and must therefore be forced to labor on their behalf, which is a stupid socialist conceit that makes no logical or moral sense whatsoever.

Truly one of the worst I have ever seen. Come on man, you've read books and stuff. You can do better than that.

But can you? I haven't seen evidence in that regard so far. All I see is cookie-cutter socialist propaganda so far, with no shred of reason.

[Beatsong]

Capitalism is a fundamentally unfair system. The idea that people who happen to have done exceedingly well out of it can then complain:

"why are we being punished, why do we have to pay so much, it's not fair"

I would submit that socialism is a fundamentally unfair system since it posits that one ought not be able to benefit by working harder than someone else.

No it doesn't. You need to go and find out what socialism is before making such silly strawman statements about it.

We know exactly what socialism is and CES has precisely identified the fundamental flaw of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Stupid. Abysmally, incontrovertably, irredeemably stupid.

LOL. That's a quote from Marx about communism, not socialism. They're not by any means the same thing.

Socialism, while a very wide umbrella term for a varied and complex set of principles and practices, essentially means the collective ownership of certain means of production and distribution. There is nothing in it that says those living and working within it can't be paid different wages according to how hard they work, or that it can't be mixed with aspects of market capitalism where those are appropriate or beneficial.

What do you mean by "fair?"

1. Wealth GENUINELY reflecting levels of hard work and dedication (as opposed to accident of birth, inheritence, early education etc.)

2. That which allows anyone who's willing to work reasonably hard, according to the norms of society, to make a decent living according to the norms of society (including those supporting families, and allowing for not-directly-paid work such as bringing up children within a family).

2. That which allows sufficient quality public services, particularly in health and education, to give every child the realistic opportunity to work, contribute and have a decent life, without being unduly held back by economic inability to take advantage of what society has to offer.

[Beatsong]

So you're badgering people for a clear cut answer about what is the "fair share" of tax for somebody earning X dollars, where X is a completely unknown variable? And you can't see how silly that is?

It's not at all silly, it's a perfect opportunity to show that socialists don't have any principles, but rather are mired in economic jealousy and class conflict. Doesn't matter how much someone makes, all that matters is that you cannot answer the question of what percentage of ANYONE'S income is a "fair share."

That's not the question Coito asked. The question he asked was what percentage of the TOTAL tax burden should be born by the wealthiest 5% of the population AS A WHOLE.

Which is a stupid question.

As for your question, my own answer would be that the fairness of a tax regime does not reside in a particular percentage. It resides in whatever is necessary to make society function properly, according to the concepts of fairness I touched on in previous reply (and other factors). That amount will of course vary according to circumstances, and it's a silly generalisation anyway because what we're talking about here is what people PAY, not what the headline rate is. Governments manipulate not only headline rates, but laws about investment and so on to satisfy all kinds of criteria about what functions they want the economy to serve. And different wealthy people can end up playing very different amounts according to their particular circumstances.

2. The implicit assumption behind his rant is that the "fair" default starting point is everybody paying the same amount of tax. He talks about the "amount of road" that his tax pays for, compared to the amount that a teacher's pays for, clearly suggesting that we should assume they'd be roughly the same, so it's AMAZING that his is actually 48 times higher.

Now to anyone with half a brain, this is ridiculous. The idea of flat taxation with no reference to ability to pay is not only morally insupportable, it's financially ridiculous for anyone who wants a government able to do anything whatsoever. You would basically have to take what a guy on the lowest possible wage earns, work out the absolute maximum you can screw out of him without him starving to death, and then levy ONLY THAT MUCH on everyone up to Bill Gates. You'd then basically have no government. Seth would be happy, of course.

But that's not even so much the point - he doesn't after all actually advocate a flat tax, he just has it in the background and the assumed starting point that the actual tax regime should be measured against. What's really completely clueless is that his own "argument" doesn't even make sense in that respect. He says "I pay as much as 48 teachers; you're telling me I should pay as much as 51; but I think I could make a good argument that I should only pay as much as 45, and an objective judge would have to accept that." But these numbers are all equally meaningless. If he doesn't accept the principle of people being taxed differently according to ability to pay, then 45 is just as silly a number as 48 or 51. The only number that would be justifiable by that rationale would be 1. But then of course he knows full well that if he tries to argue that he should only pay the same as one teacher, he'd be laughed off the air, even in sociopathic America.

Er, that's exactly the argument he was making, except that you seem to have completely missed it.

You must not have watched the video. The argument he explicitly made is that he should be paying 45 times what a teacher pays, not 48 times. He gives no rationale whatsoever for the number 45 but simply seems to pull it out of his arse. So it's a pretty stupid argument, regardless of which side you're on.

I'm not actually denying that there can sometimes be some good arguments for reducing taxation. But this is not one of them.

[Seth]

We know exactly what socialism is and CES has precisely identified the fundamental flaw of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Stupid. Abysmally, incontrovertably, irredeemably stupid.

LOL. That's a quote from Marx about communism, not socialism. They're not by any means the same thing.

Yes, they are. Socialism is a way-station on the path to communism. Marx set it up that way. And the principle remains the same in both iterations.

Socialism, while a very wide umbrella term for a varied and complex set of principles and practices, essentially means the collective ownership of certain means of production and distribution.

No, it means collectivism in the name of proletarian egalitarianism.

There is nothing in it that says those living and working within it can't be paid different wages according to how hard they work, or that it can't be mixed with aspects of market capitalism where those are appropriate or beneficial.

Except that it does not and cannot work that way, as Greece (among many others) demonstrates, because collective ownership implies collective management, and every worker in a socialist system insists that they are worthy of the same wage as every other worker, regardless of the economic value of their job. It also means central planning, which Hayek conclusively proved does not and cannot provide a functioning economy.

What do you mean by "fair?"

1. Wealth GENUINELY reflecting levels of hard work and dedication (as opposed to accident of birth, inheritence, early education etc.)

As determined by whom? By a panel of economic "fairness" presumably, which inevitably results in corruption and favoritism and unequal distribution of wealth by dictate, as seen in the Soviet Union. Only capitalism and the free market can properly reward hard work itself without favor or oppression because it consists of billions of individual transactions each day that reward the hard working and innovative and deny reward to the slothful, idle and dependent in an absolutely neutral and completely fair manner.

In a socialist or communist society, the worker is not permitted to enjoy the fruits of his labor, it is stolen from him by the collective and redistributed as the overlords in charge see fit, which is usually to benefit their own privilege and power.

As for inheritance, only the jealous and cupidinous socialist would begrudge the deceased the right to determine to whom his wealth shall be devised. This is because, as above, the socialist doesn't believe that anyone other than themselves is entitled to enjoy the full fruits of their labor, or direct how it shall be disposed of on their death. It may be that the heirs did not do what a socialist would consider sufficient labor to earn that reward, but then again there is no principled socialist argument for assigning the benefit of the deceased's labor to anyone else, or the state. It's pure undiluted envy and government-sanctioned theft, nothing more.

2. That which allows anyone who's willing to work reasonably hard, according to the norms of society, to make a decent living according to the norms of society (including those supporting families, and allowing for not-directly-paid work such as bringing up children within a family).

That's how it works in the US. If you work hard, you can support your family. If you sit around smoking crack and making babies, you deserve to live in penury.

2. That which allows sufficient quality public services, particularly in health and education, to give every child the realistic opportunity to work, contribute and have a decent life, without being unduly held back by economic inability to take advantage of what society has to offer.

Capitalism is perfectly fair in that regard when allowed to function as intended. It is in the rational self-interest of employers to have an educated workforce, so it's their obligation to pay for schooling their future workers. It is also the obligation of parents to work hard to provide for their children so as to give them good opportunity to succeed.

[Beatsong]

We know exactly what socialism is and CES has precisely identified the fundamental flaw of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Stupid. Abysmally, incontrovertably, irredeemably stupid.

LOL. That's a quote from Marx about communism, not socialism. They're not by any means the same thing.

Yes, they are.

No they're not. There is an entire history and body of literature concerning the subject and you don't get to pretend it doesn't exist and redefine the language according to your own childish simplifications.

[MrJonno]

One of the big failures of the Greek economy is private individuals/companies not having taxes collected properly (Public sector employees certainly pay there).

Greek is a liberatarian failure not a socialist one

[Tyrannical]

Tax avoidance has been called a national past time in Greece. They all want to enjoy the benefits of a generous government, but no one is willing to pick up the tab for it. That is definitely a socialist failure.

[Seth]

We know exactly what socialism is and CES has precisely identified the fundamental flaw of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Stupid. Abysmally, incontrovertably, irredeemably stupid.

LOL. That's a quote from Marx about communism, not socialism. They're not by any means the same thing.

Yes, they are.

No they're not. There is an entire history and body of literature concerning the subject and you don't get to pretend it doesn't exist and redefine the language according to your own childish simplifications.

Yes, they are. And I get to reject socialist propaganda and horseshit rationalizations however and whenever it pleases me to do so.

There's not one single socialist (including you) who has ever been able to rationally defend the root concepts of socialism when challenged that I've ever encountered anywhere. When challenged, they ALWAYS resort to personal insult and mindless Marxist drumbeating. This is because socialism, much less Communism, is an indefensible social system that relies on tyranny and oppression as a fundamental precept of the philosophy.

[Svartalf]

Tax avoidance has been called a national past time in Greece. They all want to enjoy the benefits of a generous government, but no one is willing to pick up the tab for it. That is definitely a socialist failure.

It's also a national sport in Italy, Spain, France... would be in many South and Eastern Europe countries if their fiscal structure was mature enough to make avoidance necessary on the part of tax payers. it's the rare country where the wealthy have so much clout that they can afford to get their tax avoidance written in the budget laws.

[Beatsong]

There's not one single socialist (including you) who has ever been able to rationally defend the root concepts of socialism when challenged that I've ever encountered anywhere.

Well I don't actually believe in the "root concepts of socialism" as you seem to perceive them, so it's not surprising that I wouldn't try to do that.

This is because socialism, much less Communism, is an indefensible social system that relies on tyranny and oppression as a fundamental precept of the philosophy.

I thought you just insisted socialism and communism were the same thing?

[Svartalf]

He's just effing with your mind, as he's got no want to try and eff you in da azz.

[Wandering Through]

Greek is a liberatarian failure not a socialist one

Yeah, those damned Greek libertarians and their limited-government dogma! If only Greece's public sector were a little larger, catastrophe could have been averted. After all, it isn't as though they couldn't afford a bigger government teat for all those public employees (and pensioners over 45) to swing from!

[Seth]

There's not one single socialist (including you) who has ever been able to rationally defend the root concepts of socialism when challenged that I've ever encountered anywhere.

Well I don't actually believe in the "root concepts of socialism" as you seem to perceive them, so it's not surprising that I wouldn't try to do that.

Doesn't matter whether you believe in them or not, they exist and they affect you and everyone else who suffers under the oppression of socialism.

This is because socialism, much less Communism, is an indefensible social system that relies on tyranny and oppression as a fundamental precept of the philosophy.

I thought you just insisted socialism and communism were the same thing?

No, I said, quite specifically, that socialism is a way-station on the path to communism, and it is. Marx himself said so.

[Seth]

Greek is a liberatarian failure not a socialist one

Yeah, those damned Greek libertarians and their limited-government dogma! If only Greece's public sector were a little larger, catastrophe could have been averted. After all, it isn't as though they couldn't afford a bigger government teat for all those public employees (and pensioners over 45) to swing from!

Well said! Anyone who can call Greece a "liberatarian (sic) failure" is simply too stupid to live.