Re: The poor rich work harder

allan.sanger@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 6, 3:40 pm, Rita <R...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:29:52 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Rita wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:06:59 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Rita wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:52:49 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

allan.san...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 5, 3:55 pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

allan.san...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 5, 1:00 pm, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

allan.san...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Jul 5, 8:45 am, Alan Lichtenstein <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But, still and all, there is still some rational need to do so, as I
have also pointed out. The only thing is that the inequities should be
made less unfair.

I agree - the inequities should be made less unfair. The top 5% of
wage earners pay half the taxes but make only a third of the income.
That's unfair.

Hardly unfair. They make more, so they can afford to pay more.

Each dollar earned should face the same tax rate - otherwise it is
unfair.

That's what I said initially, with which you disagreed, promoting your
consumption scheme to avoid those having lots of dollars avoid having
them taxed.

In the absence of a consumption tax, the fairest income tax is one
that taxes each dollar at the exact same rate - be it a dollar earned
by a millionaire or one earned by a pauper.

According to you reliance earlier on the dictionary definition of
'fair,' if a set of rules is applied which taxes the rich at a higher
rate than those less fortunate, it would be 'fair.' By your own
definition, of course.

However, since you seem to enjoy semantic diversions, I assert that it
would also be 'equitable.'

But even still, our economic system suggests needs that
require some inequity, in order to benefit all.

It does no such thing.

Then you obviously are not conversant with the needs of business and
requirement of investment under our capitalist system, and are likely as
unfamiliar with the recently evolving capitalist global economy.
Under that capitalist system, business has needs that individuals do not
have, and must be addressed somehow. If Government does not address
them through the tax system, then how?

Whether or not it is more "affordable" is a judgment call,

not a measure of fairness:

So you think those who have fewer dollars should pay a greater
percentage of those dollars in taxes than those who have far more
dollars? Think that is 'fair' do you?

That is not what I said. I said exactly the opposite - the fairest
approach is one that treats every dollar of income exactly the same
irrespective of whose it is.

So you ignore the individuals who happen to possess those dollars, do
you? Think a tax system which ignores the individuals is fair, do you?
And even so, given that, you think business should be taxed at that rate
also?

Fair: consistent with rules, logic, or ethics: a fair tactic.

The definition fails because 'rules' can be crafted to be applied
unequally to all. but i guess your strict adherence to the dictionary
would allow you to think the tax system is OK simply because it has
'rules.' Seems your dictionary left out the definition of 'fair' that
deals with equity.

Equity and fairness are not the same concept, in my opinion.

Then you need to alter your erroneous opinions accordingly. How can you
be 'fair' if you don't have equity?

Now, if you want to argue equity, that is a different matter:

Whether you call it equity or fairness, is a subjective issue. But the
result is the same.

You missed the point.

Hardly. I simply recognize the fallacy in your reliance on semantics.

Fairness applies rules which are logical and

consistent.

Then by your definition, which you are now forced to accept, because you
are standing on it, the present tax code is a set of rules, so that
makes it fair. Since the rules are based on a standard definition of
what constitutes and what does not constitute income, then everything
which follows from those rules is logical.

Applying a tax to each dollar is fair.

Which is precisely what we have in the current system.

Applying a

differential rate to dollars depending on whose dollar it is may
result in redistribution you believe is equitable, but it is blatantly
unfair.

Why? It's based on a set of rules, which logically flow from the
fundamental definitions?

Equity: The state, quality, or ideal of being just

And exactly what is the difference between being just and fair? So
don't play with words, because they are subjective.

Rules and logic versus ideals and justness.

You still fail to see the fallacy of your position. Rules are
subjective, and therefore, simply because they exist, and may logically
follow from some beginning, does not make them fair if equity is
ignored. Using your reliance on that definition, the current tax system
is 'fair.'

I find it a bit humorous that you have all the answers as to how my
income needs to be redistributed so it is fair to you.

And I find it quite disconcerting that you, who has profited from this
society, if we are to believe your inference above, and its culture
would be so selfish as not to recognize his responsibility of a citizen
in an aggregate of people in a society in which he has prospered.

But obviously, you don't see it that way.

You say it is

fair for those with greater means to pay not only more taxes but
increasingly higher rates as well because they can "afford" it. How
is that fair?

I have already told you why: Because they can afford it, and still be
left with more than adequate resources to purchases sufficient luxuries.

Tax systems should treat people equally - that is fair.

Oh but they do. Each person is treated exactly the same according to
income. It's when the income is treated differently where the problem
arise. But I've already mentioned a few apparent dilemmas in treating
the source of income.

Do concepts such as "fair" and "equitable" have any meaning except
in particular contexts? The context is defined by the person making
the argument, and the concept can't exist all on its own without that.

You can use the dictionary definitions if you choose, but to ignore the
concept of the relationship between fairness and equity, which this
selfish individual wants to do causes his argument to fail. And that's
just on the semantic basis, without even going into the morality of what
constitutes fairness, a set of circumstances which this deep thinker
also ignores, if he ever thought of them.

So I agree with you, Alan, his argument is based on attempting to
limit their use to a context he has himself defined. And then argue
that is self evident to everyone.

Actually, he logically contradicts himself by standing on his own
definition. By his own definition, the tax code IS a set of rules, so
therefore, it is 'fair.' He makes the claim that it isn't fair because
it taxes the wealthy too much( poor babies-my heart bleeds for them ).
But if it is a set of rules, then by his own definition it cannot be
unfair, and so, he contradicts himself when he asserts the current tax
system is unfair.

I don't think it is even a particularly clever approach.

At the risk of being pompous, he's out of his league when he tries to
argue semantics with the master. mg is also cleaning his clock.

Because at the end of the day, he's nothing but a selfish individual who
wants only to take what he can from our society and avoid having to pay
what is his fair share of the bounty for his privilege of doing so.

I am not going to guess why he holds the views he does. That doesn't
help any argument.

Discretion is the better part of valor, so I won't quarrel with your
taking the high road. However, I have found that motivation is
frequently a far stronger rationale for one's views than are the pure
objective facts. Given that, understanding the foundation of an
adversary's argument, IMHO goes far towards any discussion.

I will note that there is a danger in delving too deeply into those
areas, as they do lead to ad hominem attacks, because the argument then
becomes personal.

Actually there are many people who did not benefit

much from the Bush tax cuts, certainly not as much as certain classes
of people did, but who will defend them to the end.

I agree. Stupidity and emotionalism of the unsophisticated masses is
what the Republicans depend on. How many times have I said that
Republicans are against education, because an educated electorate
doesn't vote Republican?

My quarrel is that he thinks the argument based on semantics is
compelling and it is not.

It might be, if his semantics didn't incorporate a fallacy.
Unfortunately for him, it does.

You know, systems of taxation go way back in

human history. I believe they have been found on stone
and parchment artifacts. And they give us some clues as to what kind
of society produced the system used. Overall I think they are built
around the wishes of those who have the power in any society. When
the power shifts, so may the system of taxation.

A prudent observation. I am inclined to agree.

Moreover, I believe

that in every society those who held the power had reasons for the
system they put in place which certainly were not always about their
fairness or equity. But I am sure they also made some arguments if
challenged as to why they were necessary the way they were.

A prudent conjecture, with which I also agree.

And that

a sizeable number of the populace did not buy those arguments any
more than they do today.

Unfortunately, in the past, failure to confuse the masses frequently led
to revolution. When the spread between the haves and have nots became
sufficiently large, history tells us that is what happened. We're on
our way and it CAN happen here. Maybe not right away, but slowly but
surely, we're moving in that direction. And it will be dolts like Alan
Sanger, who even as they are being led to the guillotine will never
understand that it was their own hubris and selfishness which brought
them to that place.

Month after month of job losses, rising gas prices, rising food prices
with no relief in sight -- just tepid explanations the economy is
going through a "correction" can indeed make the natives fractious.


You two have fun? Good. I'm not opposed to helping people in need.

Except when it comes to costing you more in taxes.

I sit on the board of three philanthropic organizations, have spent
countless hours of my time and close to a million dollars of my money
to support valuable social programs.

Was that to impress us? Or to rationalize your otherwise taking money from them instead of yourself?

I have done this throughout my
life - from the time I was 10 years old selling door to door for the
YMCA so that kids from the other side of the tracks had the same
access to the facility as the kids from families not as poor.

You would have done better to give them more than the pittance of charity that provided, if indeed that.

Rita,
what did you do this past week - personally - to help your fellow
human?

Rita can answer that for herself, but she has done far more than you in terms of helping people than you could ever imagine that your miserly attempts as social assuaging of your guilty conscience could ever do.

My point is not based on selfishness or unwillingness to do my fair
share - I just think the way the tax system is today is the wrong way
to do it. It results in class warfare, it allows all sorts of
shenanigans, it is morally and socially corrupt, and is 1 part
economics to 9 parts politics.

Please forgive me if I say ROTFLMAO.

Neither of you are at all interested in a "fair" tax code - one that
is based on straght forward rules and logic.

On the contrary. As I have pointed out to you the current code IS based on rules of logic. That doesn't make it fair or equitable.

But what I have also pointed out to you, and which you seem to ignore, is that ANY code must contain some ununiform treatment of incomes in order to sustain our capitalist economy. A point which clearly you cannot fathom, for whatever reason. And to understand that the code must contain some fundamental differential treatment, but should contain some leveling elsewhere is something you will go along with just so long as it doesn't cost YOU any money. Hardly the cooperative spirit of an individual assuming his share of paying the costs of Government. True, you rationalize that your spending a few hours on some board compensates for that, but it doesn't. Only in your own mind.

One that is based on
taxing dollars not situations. One which cannot be manipulated by the
rich or the poor.

Dollars do not carry the burden to pay taxes; individuals do, a material point which you have a great deal of difficulty understanding.

You two are interested in social equity and that requires a tax code
that engineers, and that is what we have in the US today.

Rita is far more interested in social justice than am I. I am interested in a fair and equitable tax code which places on each person who lives in the society a fair share of the burden of the costs of the government for which that society exists. Since it is individuals, NOT dollars that make up a society, then individuals bear the burden of paying for the mechanism of government NOT dollars, as your convoluted reasoning would have it. But I recognize that individuals have vastly different sources of income and resources and wealth, so a any system of taxation must recognize those differences and require each individual to pay the costs of government, according to his ab ability to do so. You have a great deal of difficulty understanding that moral obligation, instead, preferring the selfish position of the greedy capitalist who only wants to take, and not give in proportion to what he has taken. An immoral and selfish position. And I might add, that I stand to lose by proposition, but I, unlike you, am cognizant of my moral position to society and my obligation to it. Because, I'll still be left with enough to purchase the luxuries that many can't. You might do well to realize yours.

From
reading what you both write, it appears that what really bothers you
is your perception that there are rich people adept at "un-
engineering" AND your view seems to be that the more we tax the rich
the less we need to tax the un-rich.

You assume that we're not rich simply because we are interested in fairness. You can't possibly fathom why someone who is wealthy would want to pay more of that in taxes. Well, there are a few of us who understand that our moral obligations as members of society transcend wealth. You are stuck in your selfishness and lose sight of that obligation, and in fact are trying mightily to leverage it in your favor.

My only advice to you is that you shouldn't assume. You know what you make of yourself when you ASSume?

Somehow you have a notion that
the rich provide an endless stream of tax dollars and that by being
rich you must have more than you could possible need or worse, that
you can possibly deserve, so it is society's obligation to engineer it
to those who "we" believe need it more.

While the rich don't have an endless stream of money, they certainly have more than most, and can pay more than most so that the cost of government can be spread as equitably as possible among ALL those who benefit from it. And those who benefit MORE should pay MORE.

If you want to play social engineer, you could at least have the
honesty and integrity to call it that and not use a 70,000 page tax
code to achieve your redistribution goals. The simple way is to use a
flat tax and transfer payments. At least in this way it would be
transparent.

Flat taxes raise the percentage of income that the middle and lower economic classes pay, and lower the burden on the rich. Each should pay the cost of society in terms of his ability to do so.

Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy? Can't happen with a flat tax.

ROTFLMAO!!! How much of the wealth's income which are presently subject to taxation will escape taxation under that scheme? Please, only the unintelligent and lower intellectual individuals who aren't wealthy believe that. Except the upper classes understand that such a scheme benefits them.

With a flat tax there would be no possible way to engineer a benefit
to anyone.

Except the wealthy.

Any rate cut effects each dollar equally - dollars earned
by me, you, Joe down the street. Isn't that the best solution?

No. 10% of an income of $10,000 is a far greater slice in taking away what the individual needs to use that income to buy that that same slice of an individual who has an income of $1,000,000.

You
stand on your soap box - you rita, and thumper, screaming bloody
murder that rich people get away with not paying taxes.

They do get away with paying taxes. When their income is in capital gains, they pay a far lower rate than the poor slob who collects a W-2.

Islander
posts that he has four sure fire ways to rip off the government from
paying taxes. Thumper thinks there's corporate welfare. Screw it -
get rid of all of this nonsense. NO tax on companies at all and a flat
tax on personal income.

And how will that slice of revenue which we need to pay the cost of Government be replaced? Please, you're getting more ridiculous with each post.

For example - every dollar of income is taxed at 15% - every single
one - from the first to the last. That becomes your federal budget.
Now, if you are concerned that poor people don't have enough, write
them a check. We did it with the stimulus package this year.

Even the bastion of conservative and reactionary capitalism, the WSJ saw through that one. You get sillier with each passing assertion.

Apparently they can do this in Washington.

Doesn't mean that they were right. All it did was cook the statistics so that they'd have data to rationalize to the plebeians that we're not going into a recession.

Not good enough for you? Then set the rate at 20% and write bigger
checks to the poor. All you need is a definition of what qualifies as
income (anything that isn't returned capital would be fine for me) and
the rate at which it is taxed. It doesn't care if it came from
capital gains, wages, bonuses, or dividends. It doesn't care if it
was paid to a multi-millionaire or a school teacher from Idaho. The
tax code is completely blind to the who and completely aware of the
what. You earned a dollar? The government gets 20 cents. You too
poor? The government sends you a welfare check.

But no, that would make it far too transparent and that means
accountability. The last thing any government - or in this case any
liberal - wants is to be held accountable for the social engineering
you want because people other than you have more money than you.

Actually, it makes it unfair, as any percentage of a smaller amount represents a greater slice of total income in terms of actual dollars than the same percentage represents on a far greater income. You seem to have a hard time understanding that.

Better yet - flat consumption tax. You want to exempt the poor?
Write them a check every year. Again, very transparent with full
accountability.

There you go again, substituting one set of inequities for another with your consumption tax scheme.

Is it your preference to hide the engineering in 70,000 pages of
political compromise?

No. I've said the current tax code needs revision.

And if all you can do is call me names, then enjoy it.

I haven't called you any names. I've called you selfish, but your posts provide the basis for that conclusion.

But, if you
can come up with a better system that is truly fair and not just fancy
income redistribution, post it.

Anything in which the rich pay their fair share you will consider income redistribution.

At least I have the courage to draw a
line in the sand and stand up for a position.

No matter how wrong its premises are.
.

Loading