Re: Sleeping in Light


"Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dlmgkf$3q3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

>>> So, refusing to flat tax rich people simply refuses to allow then to
>>> wallow in their greed. I'm fine with that, and it is indeed " fair ".
>>
>> Here's the thing...every time I hear a justification to tax the wealthy
>> more, it's done by villifying them.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.

It is incorrect for you to assume the position that because proof (that had
not been previously requested) has ot been pre-emptively offered does not
exist. I would point you to the archives of this newsgroup...particularly a
conversation I had with Josh a few months back. Your own comment that the
rich "wallow in their greed" would be another example.

If we all had to do a complete research project on every opinion under the
assumption that the other person will accept no common ground as a basis of
conversation then only the most pedantic and polemical people would bother.
In my opinion, it suits a conversation better to express one's opinions and
then after the person states his opinion, *then* challenge the facts that
are the basis of that belief if it's warranted by the conversation or is
mutually enjoyable to do so.

Second...It is certainly fair to ask me to cite any statistic that I offer.
I have no problem being challenged in such a way.

Third, I was discussing my experiences. Is it your position that no one
(other than youself above) has ever made a value judgement and called the
rich "greedy?" I will accept the premise (without proof) there are many
greedy rich people, but not that all rich people are greedy (or even most).
In Josh's opinion a few months ago he stated that there were only 3 or 4
exceptions and apparently I knew all of them.

What I was trying to get to was that I think that stereotyping the rich as
being a number of nasty things seems to be used a number of times as
justification to the public for taxing them more. If your experiences
differ, that's fine...but it is inapropropriate to dismiss mine.

I know that the positions I take on this board may tweak some people's
sensibilities, but I've said a number of times (and repeat to remind some)
that I often take opposing
views simply to challenge people's belief so that I learn why people think
the way they do. No offense is ever intended.

>
> Perhaps you only read check out stand rags. I, OTOH, read a wide variety
> of journals where tax policy comes up, and I cannot recall even one such
> reference.

First, please recall the context..'Every time that I hear..."

Second...I sense that things have the potential (not that they have) to go
downhill and start moving in a personal direction. I hope that doesn't
happen. It will make the discussion meaningless and valueless...and I don't
want that to happen.

Please don't make any asssumptions on my reading habits. My bookshelf
contains a wide variety of books..ranging from the Shakespeare to
Synergetics (Buckminster Fuller), Asimov to Cecil Adams, Lao Tsu to Mathew
Henry. I have NEVER implied anything about your character or suggested that
your reading habits (or anything else) are somehow inferior to mine. I ask
that you please do me the same courtesy.

>
>> They're always greedy and (from a previous
>> conversation) unworthy, robber barons, etc.
>
> Ibid. If you want to make such extraordinary claim, then the sole
> burden of *proving them* is yours, too.

You're honestly taking issue that the rich are referred to in this way?

http://www.progressivewritersbloc.com/BB/Selfish-GreedyRichII.htm

Do your own Google for the term "greedy rich" and you'll find thousands
of sites.

I can't recall a single Democratic Senator ever saying that the rich should
get tax cuts too. I can't recall (though there might be some) instances of
a Democratic Senator
every saying anything positive about the rich as a class. Can you find any?
Just curious.

This is all a trivial side point of the issue we had been discussing.

I'd be just as content to move on...your choice.

>
>> If it is indeed fair...then please specify the exact (non-arbitrary) tax
>> rate that's fair starting at exactly what (non-arbitrary) income level in
>> an argument that has nothing to do with emotional arguments.
>
> Ah, you wnat context free figures, aka Enron class accounting.

Now you're villifying by association, no?

Also, please note that I was speaking of personal taxes, not corporate ones.

All I'm looking for is a set of rules that is equally applied to everyone,
accounting for the case of the poor and needy (who can't pay taxes anyway).
I was simply looking for the rationale behind what makes a "Fair" tax
system.

To associate such a desire wirh Enron is (IMO) reachng quite a bit...but of
course your opinion may vary.

I recall the quote "If it can't be expressed in numbers, it's not science,
it's opinion."

In this case I haven't heard a non-emotional reason to tax the rich at a
higher rate than the middle class, so is it arbitrary?
Is arbitrary ever fair if it treats people inequitably?

> I will say that among the differences in Canadian
> and US tax policy, is that there are differences in the range of things
> that the taxes are used to pay for. So, in a nation that provides, as
> Canada does, no additional charge national health care to it's citizens,
> one would expect that the tax rates charged to similar ranges of income
> will differ from those where such a tax paid for service doesn't exist.

Certainly. It is an entirely different (valid and healthy) discussion as to
what services should be provided by the govt and therefore taxed for.

>
>> The arguments that I've heard in the past are "They don't need the
>> money."
>> which has nothing to do with whether or not it's fair. Emotionally
>> gratifying perhaps.
>
> Also, utterly *irrelevent* to taxation issues.

Exactly my point.

>>> No, whats the societal benefit of that " one rate " ? Exactly. There is
>>> none, unless you're rich, when it gets you loads of money back. IOW,
>>> Trump
>>> class greed. Which is hardly " fair "...
>>
>> I'm not searching for a social benefit for one rate. Fairness does not
>> imply social benefit.
>
> Why not ?

Because that seems to imply that the masses have a right to take as much
from the individual
as they want for the "Common good." Such decisions seem to result in an
end result that
is (in my own opinion) not fair to the those whose property is being seized.

For instance, there was a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court that took
a family's property
(that they had owned for something like 40 years) so that the city could
give the property to
a hotel developer in order to provide jobs for the city.

If you're arguing that fairness does imply social benefit, are you arguing
Mox's point?
(Disclaimer...I'm only aware of a quick summary of Mox's view).


>> I'm looking for a non-arbitrary reason why it's fair..
>
> If you mean for flat tax, again note that I am arguing *against* that
> miasma of greed...

Of course, but I also note that you are using an emotional argument,
not a statistical one. I infer from that only that a flat tax violates your
sense of fairness, which I take no issue with.

Please note that I am not suggesting the rich pay less in taxes. Again, I'm
simply looking for a system that treats all taxpayers the same, without
justifying that any group pay a greater percentage because of emotional
justifications. It's still dancing around the issue of fairness.


<snip>

>>
>> I'm not trying to pull anything from the poor. Take the first $X and
>> make
>> it tax free. Pick a reasonable point based on the cost of living.
>
> Cost of living where ? Manhattan ? Omaha ? Uttumwa ? All have greatly
> different costs of living. So, you're already blown at this point...

There's already a specific point below which a person isn't taxed. All I'm
saying is that point could be adjusted upward if necessary.

>
>> Tax at a constant
>> rate on income above that point only...but pick ONE rate only rather than
>> picking arbitrary rates out of the air and calling it fair because the
>> wealthy are greedy.
>
> Progressive tax rates are NOT " arbitrary ".

Picking arbitrary income levels to add additionaly arbitrary rates seems so.
Either arbitrary or punitive.

>>>> I'm not wealthy (but certainly a poor person might disagree) and so I'm
>>>> not speaking for myself.
>>>
>>> So, you're in the economic demographic range that would be greatly
>>> screwed by a Steve Forbes " Let the wealthy design tax policy; What
>>> could go wrong for everyone else from doing that ? " Flat Tax Ponzi
>>> Scheme...

The wealthy lawmakers already define tax policy.

You would have the poor define tax policy? The whole point of having one
set of rules for everyone that pays taxes is that no group gets treated
"unfairly." It always seems
perfectly reasonable and fair to let someone else pay more taxes.


>>
>> I suppose that would depend on at what point a constant tax rate would
>> kick in.
>
> So, screwing some is OK by you ? Fascinating... Insane, but fascinating.

I was only suggesting that below a certain point you can't tax people. I
believe you made that point already somewhere. You're saying that making
someone who makes 3 times more than someone else pay 3 times more in taxes
is screwing someone? You'd define as fair that a person making 3 times more
that he or she pays 5 times more in taxes? How about 7 times more? What
specific, non-emotional criteria do you use to get the multiplier?

We simply disagree here....but I would never call you insane because of it.

>
>>>> I do find myself fascinated when someone discusses "fair" as an
>>>> absolute or as a justification for some action.
>>>
>>> Well, go ask Mox why he did that. We didn't.
>>
>> I wasn't trying to point a finger at anyone.
>
> Indeed, and thats most... evasive of you. Its dishonest to equally tar
> many for what only one did.

I wasn't evading anything, nor was I trying to "tar" ANYONE. I find such
discussions interesting because I wish to try to remove the emotion from
discussions of fairness. I also find such discussions fascinating because
(as I've said on this board a number of times) I enjoy learning how other
people think.

I think (and I hope) that I have been consistent in this attitude with what
I've written, and I don't recall criticizing anyone (other than an
implication that vilifying the rich simply because they're rich is
inappropriate).









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fairtax: how does this math work out?
    ... As> I understand it, they want to get rid of the income tax altogether, and> raise the sales tax on items to 23%. ... They argue that low income, medium income, and high> income families will all benefit from lower taxation, while the> government will be able to increase the revenue it brings in from> taxation. ... If he doesn't pay that income tax, but instead goes broke by spending every single penny of that 30 million in the economy, he would still end up contributing 5.3 million dollars less to the government than he would under the income tax system. ... The answer is that it would appear that the wealthy would pay less than they do now in taxes. ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: > Hussein bin Obamas "Tax Cut" is Socialist Income Redistribution!
    ... Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution ... Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought. ... pay no income tax. ... One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Fairtax: how does this math work out?
    ... The answer is that it would appear that the wealthy would pay ... they do now in taxes. ... exactly the same tax on every individual that the sales tax appears to impose ... I challenged the idea that the middle class pays more in income to ...
    (misc.taxes)
  • Re: The poor rich work harder
    ... wage earners pay half the taxes but make only a third of the income. ... Think a tax system which ignores the individuals is fair, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The poor rich work harder
    ... wage earners pay half the taxes but make only a third of the income. ... Think a tax system which ignores the individuals is fair, ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading