Hunting the Rich

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Ancalagon, Sep 26, 2011.

  1. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    We just saw government spend a trillion dollars, create no jobs, several high-dollar government "investments" go bankrupt, and unemployment get dramatically worse.

    Lather, rinse, repeat?

    The government will ALWAYS spend beyonds its means. ALWAYS. If it's given X, it will spend X + 1. And if taxing our most successful and productive people is the way to feed that machine, where does that lead?

    Garamet asks the question "Why are so many middle-class people willing to pick up the slack for the wealthy?" First, it isn't "picking up the slack" to demand government not confiscate and misuse ANYONE'S wealth. Second, higher taxes just make growth of the government easier; they don't create any new businesses or any WORTHWHILE new jobs.

    If you believe GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST, why not have them take it all and divide it up? I'm serious. What would be your objection to that? Do you have one?
  2. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,502
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,501
    It's not a literal quote I can attribute to anyone. It's an implied sentiment.

    Those people are paid directly for their time. They are owed nothing further.

    So it's a symbiotic relationship based on mutually agreed-upon terms, yet somehow he owes more, because.....?

    If a millionaire receives some nebulous degree of benefit from society in proportion to his wealth, it follows that those who pay little or nothing in income tax should receive little or nothing from society in return. If not, there's something other than proportionality at work here. That something is entitlement. It's "the world owes me a living." Well, great, so who's gonna provide that living? "How about that rich guy over there. He can afford it. And he owes me for the favor of not just walking over there and stealing his shit."
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,502
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,501
    Society should not be in the business of attending to anyone's "wants."
  4. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    Everyone involved was a voluntary participant who agreed to perform their function at the price negotiated. :shrug:

    I'd also add, that while there are MANY people who can run the machines that copy and package the software, drive the packages around the country, place them on shelves, or record transactions on a cash register, there were VERY FEW who had the knowledge to deliver an operating system that IBM would license.

    Not all "participants" of the project provide equal value. The CEO and the janitor both work in the building; the CEO's labor is worth many, many times what the janitor's is because there are many who could do the janitor's job, but few who could do the CEO's.
    And they would have nothing without the paycheck Gates provides. It's a voluntary, mutually beneficial transaction. Neither owes more to the other than what was promised FREELY.
  5. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,340
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,334
    Implied by whom? I don't think it is an actual sentiment, just some jackass argument against taxing rich people.

    If you can't point specifically at who has this sentiment, then I don't believe the sentiment exists.

    Those people are paid directly for their time. They are owed nothing further. [/quote]

    I'm not talking about pay. I'm talking about contribution to society. Everyone contributes to a working society and everyone benefits.

    Yes, there are people unemployed and collecting welfare - that's another matter altogether and should have nothing to do with whether or not "this" group should not have to pay taxes just because they set up a business within that society.
  6. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,340
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,334
    Again, not talking about pay. We're talking about contribution to society.
  7. Mrs. Albert

    Mrs. Albert demented estrogen monster

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,679
    Ratings:
    +11,589
    I iz confused. :whacko:
  8. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,502
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,501
    Who's against taxing rich people? I'm against using taxation as a vehicle to redistribute wealth, under the pretense of society being credited with their ability to accumulate that wealth. If you claim society owes you something, you're claiming your wealthier neighbor owes you. From there, if you find yourself lacking something you need, society and your neighbor have failed to provide it for you. You're lacking it because your neighbor gets to keep too much. That's the sentiment behind "progressive" social obligation.

    That's not good enough. If you're going to put a price tag on the "contribute" end, you need to assign an exact value to the "benefit" end. It's a popular cop-out to just point at my income and say "that's what society allows you to make," but society doesn't get my ass up for work every morning. Society doesn't deserve partial credit for my efforts just for existing.

    I've already been taxed way more than it ever cost to educate me in small town bumfuck Nebraska, so that shit won't fly either.

    Once again, it's not a question of whether or not someone should pay taxes at all, but justifying someone having to pay way more in taxes.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,502
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,501
    Which means what, exactly? Nail it down. Do we have a "department of social contribution" to verify that everyone is a productive member? No. And it would be seen as an infringment of freedom to force anyone to do so.
  10. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    The one is a reflection of the other.

    How much a job pays is (1) directly related to how much need or want society has for such a function and (2) inversely related to how many people can perform that function. Important jobs that few are qualified to take pay a lot; petty jobs that many are qualified to take pay little.

    Bill Gates is fabulously wealthy because society had a great need for an inexpensive operating system to run on desktop computers, something that few people had the knowledge and the desire to provide (and Gates out-manuvered or beat the few others through competition). By delivering such an operating system, Gates has enabled many millions of people to be more productive at their jobs which has, in turn, made many other people wealthy as they used computers to deliver OTHER goods and services important to society. If one were to make a list of people in history who have provided the greatest benefit to society, Bill Gates would undoubtedly be near the top of the list. And his wealth--rightly--reflects that.

    Now, lots of people played small roles in that success, but virtually all of them could've easily been replaced with someone else (another truck driver, another cashier). Gates (and his team at the nascent Microsoft) were indispensible: they're the ones who identified the opportunity and made the product a reality.
  11. Ward

    Ward A Stepford Husband

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    28,284
    Location:
    Mayfield
    Ratings:
    +8,642
    On top of that, Gates has taken the opportunity to use his wealth to show the rich how to make a contribution to society above and beyond what Uncle Sugar (and his cousin "Uncle Tom" Buffett) demand. The Gates Foundation has been showing non-profits and the government how to make things happen when entrepreneurialism meets "wanting to give back".

    Maybe that's what Jenee was talking about? :D
  12. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    101,079
    Ratings:
    +81,581
    Ain't because of you. :marathon:
  13. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    101,079
    Ratings:
    +81,581
    :rolleyes: Society is a want.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,340
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,334
    I'm with you so far. I don't agree that it's happening, but I understand what you're saying.

    This is what I'm not understanding. and I think, you're misunderstanding what's happening - either that, or listening to misinformation being put out by people who have a stake in that matter. i.e. the rich who don't want to pay taxes.

    This is a totally different subject than just "paying taxes". Taxes go toward helping society work. Everyone contributes, everyone benefits.

    Welfare, the need for welfare, who "deserves" welfare and other such discussions are not what we're talking about here.

    This discussion is just about paying taxes, not about where those taxes go.

    Again, not only is this a false statement, it's not part of the discussion.

    There is no price tag. There are bills that have to be paid. Bills that addressed to "our society". So, everyone in that society needs to contribute to those bills.

    No, the OP was not addressing the rich paying "more" in taxes, but that they aren't paying taxes at all through loopholes and tax breaks.



    I'm leaving shortly, and won't be back online until late tonight or tomorrow, but will try to respond to all other comments then.
  15. Uncle Albert

    Uncle Albert Part beard. Part machine.

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    60,502
    Location:
    'twixt my nethers
    Ratings:
    +27,501
    If the claim is that those taxes are justified, then the money must be spent on something justifiable.

    At all, or on a specific source of income?

    Explain why you think it's false.
  16. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    Society is an organization people form for satisfying their wants and needs.
  17. Tamar Garish

    Tamar Garish Wanna Snuggle? Deceased Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    35,389
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +22,764
    Of course it's part of it.

    You claimed no redistribution of wealth is happening...and Welfare is a prime example of exactly that.

    The tax money of productive people are taken and given to unproductive people to pay for their needs and wants.

    What else would you call that besides wealth redistribution?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. Man Afraid of his Shoes

    Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    28,021
    Location:
    N.C.
    Ratings:
    +27,815
    I've got a question. I keep hearing that small businesses are the "engine of the economy". That upwards of two thirds of all jobs are created by small businesses. So what's a small business?
  19. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    Here's the Small Business Administration's definition:

    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. Man Afraid of his Shoes

    Man Afraid of his Shoes كافر

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    28,021
    Location:
    N.C.
    Ratings:
    +27,815
    See, I need to get my head straight, because in my mind, 500 employees or $20 million in annual receipts (does that mean net?) isn't a small business. :marathon:
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. enlisted person

    enlisted person Black Swan

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    20,859
    Ratings:
    +3,627
    Its all bullshit smoke and mirrors with the tax rates. If he wanted to do something that might have the effect of fairly taxing the rich, do away with all deductions except one standard dollar amount standard deduction for all.
  22. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,266
    Ratings:
    +22,263
    We weren't discussing policy in that instance - we were discussing what was considered a moderate position.

    That is the position in the middle, and in this case the one that a substantial majority take.

    Only a buffoon would argue that in a center right country that the majority were liberals.

    If they appear that way to you, you are an extremist.

    The people ARE the source of authority for a democracy. And a fair rate of taxation is not theft. You oppose even closing the loopholes that allow the richest to pay fractions of what the middle class bear.

    THAT is class warfare.

    My hairy ass. What an incredible and repulsive distortion. No, that isn't the WHOLE point of our government.

    Try reading the preamble again. You might see words like 'domestic tranquility' and 'general welfare' in there.

    Read a damn book.

    Your definitions of rational and irrational are ridiculous, and you don't get to define that for others. Just useless rhetoric, as always.

    A tax that closes the loopholes for the extremely wealthy to ensure that those with the best political patronage money can buy don't govern at the expense of the people is not only rational, but pragmatic.
  23. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,266
    Ratings:
    +22,263
    Ah yes, because the dead to a $20 million building doesn't constitute 'wealth'.

    False analogy - I didn't indicate any such thing. The term wealth when used by economists normally means something of monetary value.

    And I wouldn't define real estate or capital investment as 'boring shit.'

    Of course, most of it is actually held in stocks and bonds, and what that means within the context of the stock is held depends on what the stock is in. But in essence, it is frungible commodities, and it does generally directly translate into more ability to acquire said commodities.

    However, it doesn't mean it's doing that work HERE. So that doesn't mean that a tax break is a stimulation for the local economy.

    But then, I've mentioned this a dozen times and you never, ever comment on it - for the simple reason it destroys any argument you'd make on why a middle class person should be paying more of his income than someone with considerably greater income. It just makes the rich richer now - any side benefits are completely incidental and certainly not required or expected.
  24. Demiurge

    Demiurge Goodbye and Hello, as always.

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    23,266
    Ratings:
    +22,263
    You are conveniently forgetting that a large portion of the stimulus was tax cuts, specifically to offset payroll taxes.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

    http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list

    Cutting taxes didn't create jobs either. And neither did the Bush tax cuts.

    Indeed.
  25. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    Forgetting? Yeah, I did. Because it was a one-time thing, good for at most a few hundred bucks. Most people paid down a little debt with it.

    That wouldn't lead to any significant capital accumulation, which is necessary for significant new growth to occur.
    The "either" says that at least you agree that the stimulus was a total waste.

    But I encourage you to get your lefty candidates to run on the message of higher taxes.
    Employment was a lot higher during the Bush years. I'd also note that for the TWO YEARS Democrats controlled EVERYTHING they did not repeal them. :shrug:
  26. Jenee

    Jenee Driver 8

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    25,340
    Location:
    On the train
    Ratings:
    +19,334
  27. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed Man of Liberty

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    50,154
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +53,511
    They don't. The rich pay far more in taxes than everyone else, not only in absolute terms, but in percentages.

    BTW, that whole "Warren Buffet rule" thing was nonsense: Warren Buffet's income comes from capital gains, not his paycheck (he actually pays himself very little). He games the system in a way that would affect him VERY LITTLE if income tax rates were raised. But suggest raising capital gains tax rates and then you'd see him squeal...
    They only do what the tax code allows. Do you really blame someone who, having the two options (1) do something with their money to reduce tax liability or (2) give the money to the government, chooses (1)? Wouldn't you do the same?
    Why don't they do those things, then?
    Why should ANYONE be forced to pay for it? Why is one group of citizens entitled to live at the expense of others?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. tafkats

    tafkats scream not working because space make deaf Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    24,904
    Location:
    Sunnydale
    Ratings:
    +50,916
    Yes and no.
  29. Oxmyx

    Oxmyx Probably a Dual

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    581
    Ratings:
    +317
    That is pure speculation. Bill Gates may have been just as replaceable as everyone else at Microsoft; we simply don't know. It sounds like you are trying to find a reason why Gates deserved to accumulate so much wealth through his business. The truth is: he didn't. If he deserved it or not is not a concept that can be applied to the right to own property and to benefit from the fruits of that property. Do you deserve to own property? No, because it's a constitutional right that is guaranteed by society. You don't have to deserve it; it's there, it exists without conditions and it's immune to moral objections or justifications.

    However, there's a problem.

    I believe that a society in which people interact and share common living spaces can work, even if wealth is unequally distributed. But there's a limit somewhere when human emotions like greed or envy become too strong. A society in which there is a permanent and gigantic difference in wealth between the poor and the rich will utimately build up so much internal friction that it fails. What good is a new car if your neighbors steal it from you because society has lost its means to keep internal friction under control?

    In all industrialized nations, the value of manual work is on a steady decline. Instead, the value of (academic) education will continue to rise. But there's a large number of people who are not intellectually capable for higher education, and it's unlikely that this will change in the future. This is a major factor in the way how and where wealth accumulates.

    There is a need to redistribute wealth in a way that society can continue to function. Not because it's a moral thing to do, but because people want a society in which they can keep their cars instead of having them stolen. That's why we've got progressive taxes. Of course that is deeply unjust. I can't find a moral reason why someone who creates and accumulates wealth should be forced to give an excessive part of it away. But I can't think of an alternative. It looks wrong, no matter which way I look at it.
  30. Volpone

    Volpone Zombie Hunter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Messages:
    43,777
    Location:
    Bigfoot country
    Ratings:
    +16,255
    Because some of us aspire to BE wealthy--as opposed to just pulling the wealthy down to our level. :cylon:
    • Agree Agree x 1