When a person is the victim of a tort, they gain rights as against the tortfeasor. When the tortfeasor is a partner is a business, the partners are jointly and severally liable, up to and including their personal assets. When those same people sign up for a protection agreement with the government, the right of the third-party victim are waived as a result of an agreement between the businesspeople and the government. This amounts to a unilateral removal of rights from the tort victim. It is unlibertarian to remove the rights of a third party in this manner, when the third party is in no way consenting to the removal of rights. It is also quite a boon for the stockholders in the corporation.
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-20-11 at 04:50 PM.
1) Diminishing marginal utility of wealth. The more money somebody has, the less utility it has. Every economist in the world would agree with this. If you have $100, you spend it on the $100 worth of items you want the very most. If you have $200, you spend it on the $100 worth of items you want the most and then the $100 worth of items you want slightly less than the first ones. So, letting all the money accumulate in the pockets of very few is extremely wasteful.
2) Too much concentration of wealth undermines consumption and productivity. The economy relies on having a large middle class that is educated and prosperous enough to be productive at work in an information economy and to buy the products they create. When too much wealth gets soaked up by too few, the middle class's ability to play those roles falls apart.
3) Too much concentration of wealth undermines the incentive to work hard. As the wealth gets more and more concentrated it becomes harder and harder to cross the gulf between regular people and rich people. For example, the difference between the type of education a regular person can get and the education a rich person can get becomes so wide that a regular person would really struggle to perform as well at a job as a person born rich. In particular, with regressive taxation, it becomes harder and harder for a middle class person to save up any money, so starting a business if you were not born rich becomes very hard. All these effects make it futile to work hard if you aren't born rich. We aren't at that point, but we're heading in that direction. When somebody works 80 hours a week and brings in some big customer and delivers a service to them or invents something or whatever, and some rich dude they never met gets 95% of the profit generated, they aren't going to work so hard the next day.
4) Society has expenses that need to be paid. Maintaining the foundations of our society cost money. Most the money is in the hands of the very rich. If we don't tax the very rich adequately we inevitably get big deficits, which is bad for everybody.
5) Morally it just plain isn't right to give special advantages to people who already have a lot at the expense of the well being of people who are having a harder time. This is one of those things that just seems to inherently obvious to me, but I guess some on the right don't share that basic moral belief...
6) Poverty is inefficient. The average American generates almost $3 million worth of GDP in their lifetime. Even somebody who works at McDonalds for their whole career generates almost $2 million in GDP. Somebody who spends their whole life in poverty may generate $0 GDP. That is an enormous waste. If we can help a person get out of poverty with progressive taxation and safety net spending, that is almost always a hugely rewarding investment economically.
7) The rich benefit way, way, more from government. For example, if the federal government spends $1 trillion on bailouts, that may have a very small effect on the average person. Maybe they get rehired 2 weeks earlier or something. But for somebody with a $10 billion stock portfolio, their net worth may go up 20% or $2 billion. Likewise, an individual only benefits from their own education, where somebody who owns a company benefits from the educations of every single employee. A rich person has more to defend, so national defense benefits them more. And so on.
By 2007, the effective tax rate had lessened to 16.6% and they were now earning 23% of all the income earned in America that year.
The reason their collective tax burden is rising is because they keep getting a larger and larger share of the national income. If the middle class were making a larger share of income, their share of taxes would rise.
The tax burden on the wealthy as a part of the overall tax pool is only increasing because their income is increasing.
Even though the effective tax rate on this is the same as it is on a single individual making $30,000, their tax bill is going to go up because their income has increased 3-fold since 2005, according to Forbes Magazine.
Your constant use of their share of the overall burden only proves that it's due to the rapidly increasing income inequality. You can't hoard all the money and then complain about all the taxes that come with it. Well, in the topsy-turvy world where billionaires are victims and working people are lazy whiners, I suppose you can.
you might also claim that it is unlibertarian to remvove vendetta or vigilante justice as well
To me, a "rich" person is not just 1%. That would be a very rich person. Being in the 99th percentile of wealth in the richest country in the world doesn't make you "rich." It makes you...well...a much stronger word for rich. I don't think 20th to 98th is a fair assessment of "middle class" at all.As long as you agree we need to raise the taxes of the rich and close out loopholes, we're all good, but the way you're framing things is confusing to me. The middle class is like from the 20th percentile to the 98th or something like that. The upper middle class is lets say from the 85th percentile to the 98th or something like that. We are saying that the rich do not pay their fair share, which I would take to mean the people in the top 1%, or maybe the top 0.5%. So I don't think anybody was claiming that the middle class isn't paying their fair share. They're paying the most of anybody.
Well, I mean, the share of total federal taxes paid for the top 1% has historically been on or around par with income received. Your objection is noted, but I seriously doubt the inclusion of state taxes significantly alters that percentage...especially since the wealthiest counties often have exorbitantly highly property taxes and such.Well, those aren't parallel numbers. They have 43% of the wealth, not 43% of the income. Their share of the income is a bit lower. But, that is the one progressive tax- income taxes. If you include all taxes- property, sales, etc- then they pay a much smaller portion.
Case in point: Westchester.
Originally Posted by Josie
a flat tax or a consumption tax will increase the take from the top 400 without allowing the masses to only make them pay more and more (or make anyone who is richer than the majority of voters pay more and more)
If a creditor has been given an opportunity to contract for limited liability, it is perfectly fine from a libertarian standpoint. But when the government deprives a third party creditor of its rights for the sake of promoting business, it is nothing more than a government handout, and unlibertarian in the extreme.
What kind of parasite wants the government to step in and force their third party creditors not to collect on their debts?
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-20-11 at 05:05 PM.