Thread: Where do entitlements end?

Originally Posted by Billy the Kid

Sure they benefit, but they're paying a lot more, than you or me, for the same goods and services. But you still haven't told me why you believe that someone who worked their way to the top, I'm not talking about folks like the Kennedys, should pay more and support the 48% who don't pay any taxes? How is that fair? Shouldn't everyone pay according to their means?

You are making the assumption that they recieve the same goods and services. That is incorrect, they recieve much more. Their wealth is much higher, thus not only have they benefited more than the average citizen they also have more to protect. Not only is it not unfair for them to pay more (much more), it's an absolute necessity. You know how some people are always complaining that the top 1% pay 30% of the income tax? What if their rate was lowered to zero? Our gov would be bankrupt and our entire system would collapse. The rich have to pay their bills, just like anyone else, and the tax man is a bill collector.

Originally Posted by Billy the Kid

I'm not asking about the tax system. I'm asking what makes anyone worthy of someone elses labor?

Owners of the means of production make money from the labors of others. I go to work and my boss gets richer off of my labor. In a free market capitalisic society, thats the way it should be. What makes the owners worthy of someone elses labor? Capitalism, the free market, and entrapanurial endevor.

You have a lot to learn about basic economics and the way business works.

So why should the wealthy person pay more in taxes? A zillion reasons. First of off, because the wealthy CAN pay more. Secondly, becaused they benefit more from our government and society, thus they pay in relationship to what they benefit. Thirdly because if we don't have some redistribution in our economy, like a game of monopoly we play only until one person ownes everthing and then our economy would end.

By the way, I am a small business owner. I don't quite make $250k, but my family income is far more than average. I don't mind paying more income taxes because I know that is my responsibility. It's just part of the deal. When you are successful, you pay up, and it's no sweat because the taxes I pay don't take any food off my table, I have plenty thank you.

Originally Posted by minnie616

Small business owners like us and others who make over $250,000 a year should pay a bit more taxes so that hopefully the middleclass can have a more decent income.

We are a consumer based economy. When 99% of the people are making a decent wage they will have more money to buy goods and services. Once more money is being spent for goods and services business will be doing better and can grow and hire more people.

If that happens it will be a win/win situation for all of us.

Minnie, I think I should call you "MiniMe" because you are using all my best facts and arguements. Keep it up, you are totally on target!

Originally Posted by imagep

I don't know why the middle class is constantly vilified by conservatives. I find it odd.

How So? Last time I checked no conservatives are lobbying for higher tax rates on the middle class.

Originally Posted by Neomalthusian

There's a non sequitur. Taxing the wealthier does not necessarily result in the less wealthy having better incomes. Might be the opposite, actually.

Not necessarily, but most of the time. The more that a rich person has to pay in taxes, the less that someone else has to pay, thus there is a benefit to that someone else. Also, lets say that a famous movie start decided not to star in as many movies because he has to pay too much in taxes. Do you really think that there would be a great loss to humanity? Wouldn't you think that someone else would be more than capable of playing the same part? The progressive tax system provides an incentive for opportunities to be shared among the most capable, not horded among the most famous.

The number of businesses consumers voluntarily support (via their purchases) determine who makes the money and who doesn't. Redistributing money to the modest classes doesn't result in lasting change unless consumers diversify who gets their money a bit more. Right now we as consumers are failing to do this and it's reinforcing all of the income/wealth problems you're identifying.

Thats why redistribution has to be constant and modist. What we are trying to avoid is cataclismic mass redistribution.

Even as a rigid libertarian, I can agree with this, but I believe the responsibility lies with the People (NOT the government officials they elect) and, at worst, their state governments. If New York wants to heavily tax its $250k/yr+ citizens, let them give that a try and see what happens. If it's a successful policy, it will catch on. If not, well, it won't. And that's good, in either case.

I understand that you would prefer a true democracy and not a representative democracy, but can you identify any succesful true democracies? Or how about libertarian economies (other than Somolia)? I'm always hoping someone will come up with a good example. Havn't seen one yet.

Originally Posted by Hare

How So? Last time I checked no conservatives are lobbying for higher tax rates on the middle class.

Everytime a conservative whines about "half our population doesn't pay income tax" they are suggesting that we should raise the tax rate on the lower middle class, which most assuridly would increase the tax rate on the upper middle class.

Evertime a conservative wants to "flatten" our tax rate it about increasing taxes on the middle class. Every time a conservative proposes a consumption tax it is conservative code for "higher taxes on the midde class".

Yes, the class warriors are waging battle against the middle class every day. They just don't admit to it publicly.

Originally Posted by imagep

Income tax is just one of many taxes, it shouldn't be surprising to find out that unemployed people, like those who are retired, often don't pay a penny in income tax.

Personally, I think it is a good thing that almost half our population doesn't have to pay income taxes. There was a time when NO one paid income taxes, I would like to see it like that again one day. So do you really think that it is a good thing for everyone to have to pay a bunch of money in taxes? Are you some type of big government person?

Federal income taxes are the single largest source of income for federal revenue, last I read. Perhaps something has changed, but I have my doubts.

Of course I don't think it's a good thing, however I do think it's a necessary thing, because the wealthy in this country couldn't touch meeting our federal debts and mandatory spending requirements even if they were taxed at a 100% rate.

Originally Posted by imagep

Not necessarily, but most of the time. The more that a rich person has to pay in taxes, the less that someone else has to pay,

Mm no I'm pretty sure that's not so. Not with the deficits we're running.

Also, lets say that a famous movie start decided not to star in as many movies because he has to pay too much in taxes. Do you really think that there would be a great loss to humanity?

No singular example is that great a loss to humanity. That's not the issue. The original claim is that when you tax the rich more, it results in higher incomes for the less-rich. I don't think this example translates.

Thats why redistribution has to be constant and modist. What we are trying to avoid is cataclismic mass redistribution.

I'm trying to avoid incrementalist redistribution while encouraging people to feel able to organize to solve their own problems (i.e., not appointing an already-corrupt government to solve their problems). So many people are bleating for the government to redistribute money from the rich back to them, and meanwhile they spend tons of their money on the stuff rich people produce. The People are redistributing their own money to the rich, and then whining that government isn't counter-redistributing it back to them for no reason other than the observation that the wealth gap is increasing.

I understand that you would prefer a true democracy and not a representative democracy, but can you identify any succesful true democracies? Or how about libertarian economies (other than Somolia)? I'm always hoping someone will come up with a good example. Havn't seen one yet.

True democracy is only possible in small groups. Communism is also only possible in smallish groups. I just prefer a rule of law that protects individual liberties and doesn't leave room for vote-seekers to overstep their job duties by pandering to the needy. Success and failure are necessary incentives to learn and grow. Both need to be left alone.

Originally Posted by lizzie

Federal income taxes are the single largest source of income for federal revenue, last I read. Perhaps something has changed, but I have my doubts.

Most Americans think that income tax is the majority of government revenues. But thats not accurate.

Federal income taxes bring in about 42% of the federal revenue, but payroll taxes (which is different that income tax and effects 100% of all employees) is very close at 40%. Yes, taxes on earnings of $92,000 or less just about matches all income taxes put together, including the taxes paid by the rich. It's staggering that most of the tax burdon is on the backs of the middle class, especially during a time where middle class incomes are not even keeping up with inflation.

Originally Posted by imagep

OK, I understand, you aren't a big fan of history. So what happens? I guess we shrink the size of government, or either increase the tax rate that the richest Americans pay. Either way works.

IMO, it's time to downsize gov't. It would be very complicated. Every gov't agency would be cut by the same %. No one is cut more than the other dept. That doesn't mean we cut 10% of the jobs at the State Dept and they hire contractors to pick up the slack. I mean you cut the jobs, and they don't come back.

It's sorta like how you work in your personal life; when your checkbook doesn't have enough for the family to go out to eat, you eat at home. IMO, we'd see more of the "shrimp on a treadmill" programs go to the wayside.