The rich pay their "fair share"...

[pErvinalia]

Do the rich pay their fair share?

Define fair.

The guy in the OP did. It was a pretty symmetry. So not only does that make it fair, but it makes it cool too!

[rainbow]

It doesn't matter what system you have.

Rich people have the resources to hide their real wealth, so progressive taxation just gives their tax consultants more work.

[pErvinalia]

True, but it doesn't mean you just give up.

[mistermack]

Going by that summary, the standard for being a professor at UCLA is incredibly low.

He claims to be qualified in economics, but he throws around words like ''earn'' without any definition at all. He makes no distinction between receiving income, and earning income.

Talking about fair shares, without exploring how the money was acquired, is moronic.

I've never done an hour's study of economics, but even I can see that there's a difference between earning, and acquiring.

[laklak]

Why should there be a difference? If I acquire money through rents, stock dividends, or inheritance is that somehow less moral or ethical than earning money by digging ditches?

[Rum]

Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.

[mistermack]

Why should there be a difference? If I acquire money through rents, stock dividends, or inheritance is that somehow less moral or ethical than earning money by digging ditches?

The question was about fairness of taxation, not morality or ethics.
I think it's perfectly fair for someone who earns billions through investments to pay higher rates than someone who shovels shit.
I know that I personally don't resent tax paid on money I haven't grafted for.

Also, your post ignores the fact that capital makes makes capital, and without effective taxation of the super rich, you end up with a tiny few owning everything, and nobody else even having a chance.

I favour one hundred percent tax on inheritances over a reasonable figure. If everyone had the same start in life, it might be easier to sustain your argument.

[Seth]

Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.

If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"

[Seth]

Going by that summary, the standard for being a professor at UCLA is incredibly low.

He claims to be qualified in economics, but he throws around words like ''earn'' without any definition at all. He makes no distinction between receiving income, and earning income.

Talking about fair shares, without exploring how the money was acquired, is moronic.

I've never done an hour's study of economics, but even I can see that there's a difference between earning, and acquiring.

Depends on how you define "earning." Marx's definition doesn't include investment risk (rent seeking) as "labor" and therefore any such income is "unearned" therefore illegitimate and therefore exploitative of the workers in the factory. And that's the single, slender, fallacious reed upon which his entire philosophy, and the philosophy of every Marxist who has come after him, rests.

When one comes to understand that ownership of the means of production are the result of substantial capital risk, and that the returns on that investment risk are just as legitimately "earned" as anything else, Marxism's slender reed collapses completely, along with his entire philosophy.

No capital, no mean of production. No means of production, no jobs for workers. No jobs for workers, no income.

[Seth]

Why should there be a difference? If I acquire money through rents, stock dividends, or inheritance is that somehow less moral or ethical than earning money by digging ditches?

The question was about fairness of taxation, not morality or ethics.
I think it's perfectly fair for someone who earns billions through investments to pay higher rates than someone who shovels shit.

Why is it "perfectly fair?" As long as each pays for the benefits and amenities of society that each uses, why does the rich person have to pay more than someone else for each "quantum" of public benefits?

Also, your post ignores the fact that capital makes makes capital, and without effective taxation of the super rich, you end up with a tiny few owning everything, and nobody else even having a chance.

Who the fuck do you think build the factories, ships, trucks and other means of making and getting products to market?

I favour one hundred percent tax on inheritances over a reasonable figure. If everyone had the same start in life, it might be easier to sustain your argument.

Why? Because you're jealous of those who inherit wealth from their families? Do you work hard every day so that your children can have the same shitty start in life that you did, or do you hope to pass something on to them that will give them a leg up in life and make it easier for them to succeed even more?

Sounds to me like you envy the advanced economic position of those who come from economically successful families and you just want to take them down a peg or two because your pissed that your dad was an alcoholic abuser who lived on the dole and gave you nothing when he died.

Classic Marxist class-warfare propaganda. Jealousy and envy and greed aimed at those who work hard to improve their lives and the lives of their children. In your world everyone would start out in the same shit-hole poverty you had to suffer through.

All that does is ensure that generation after generation will stayed mired in dependent-class poverty.

[JimC]

Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.

If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"

When there is a surplus of labour (which is most often the case), and if the wage paid is a pittance compared to the value the employer gets from selling the goods, and if the wage earner is barely able to support a family in a state of poverty, then I call it exploitation.

Unions are the working man's only defence against rapacious employer scum.

[mistermack]

It doesn't have to be earned or unearned. It's not a black or white world.
Investment is gambling. There's no reason why it shouldn't attract heavy taxation, compared to shovelling shit.

If a poor person buys a lottery ticket, for a pound, a huge chunk gets taken out.
I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to much bigger bets.

[Seth]

Marx called it exploitation of labour. Your stocks, rents etc. were acquired one way and another through the labour of others (in classical Marxist theory). The rich own the means of production and exploit the labour of others in the process of acquiring more wealth. They seem to be doing pretty well at it right now.

If the employer pays the employee an agreed-upon wage for that labor, how is the worker being "exploited?"

When there is a surplus of labour (which is most often the case), and if the wage paid is a pittance compared to the value the employer gets from selling the goods, and if the wage earner is barely able to support a family in a state of poverty, then I call it exploitation.

Then the worker needs to improve his or her skill set to make them worth more to the employer, or find another employer.

Unions are the working man's only defence against rapacious employer scum.

Unions are fine so long as membership is entirely voluntary and the government does not favor labor unions over employers at the bargaining table or in the law.

So, assuming that the situation is not the strawman argument you pose, and the employee agrees to the compensation, is the worker being "exploited?"

[Seth]

It doesn't have to be earned or unearned. It's not a black or white world.
Investment is gambling. There's no reason why it shouldn't attract heavy taxation, compared to shovelling shit.

By that dubious metric shoveling shit is "gambling" because one may not have any shit to shovel, or someone else could offer to shovel it cheaper than you do.

If a poor person buys a lottery ticket, for a pound, a huge chunk gets taken out.
I see no reason why the same shouldn't apply to much bigger bets.

I see no reason why state-operated lotteries should be taxed at all.

Your argument for taxation is based on your moral scruples and your personal feelings about gambling, not on any rational analysis. Why should gambling winnings be taxed any differently from any other income?

[mistermack]

Because gambling isn't work, in the way that other work is.
It's no more work to bet a million, than to bet a pound.
But if you load a thousand bricks, it's twice the work to load two thousand.

There might be some work that goes into gambling. But mostly, it's money making money.
Not work making money.
I'm happy to be taxed higher on money I've done little work to get.
But if I've worked my bollocks off to put a bit of food on the table, I don't think I should be paying as much.