Should the rich pay more taxes?

[Merryprankster]

Most of the time when I read about the rich paying more taxes, the argument runs along the lines of tax burdens (ie, the rich can afford it, etc). They also talk about social justice, which I don't really dig as an argument.

Only rarely, and in a not fully developed form, in my opinion, is what I consider to be a potentially more compelling argument, should it pan out: The rich derive greater benefit, on the whole, from common property and services.

Business, for instance relies on the interstate transportation system. Public education creates a cadre of at least competent people that the rich employ in various capacities to make more money. In essence, publicly supported infrastructure, in a variety of forms, is a common good that the rich may derive greater utility from, individually, than the middle class and poor.

For the purposes of this discussion I would include corporations in this construct.

Note that I am not necessarily suggesting we increase taxes (although I think it's a good idea), I am merely making a tentative argument for progressive taxation.

What say you?

Has anybody done any studies estimating the relative benefit to the rich from common property and services? Do they benefit - in a proportional sense - more heavily than the middle class or poor? (ie, they can trace a greater percentage of their wealth/income to public goods/services than the middle class/poor?)

[rogue]

The hard part comes when we charge them for that system and they pull their factories out of some congressman's district.

The problem I have with progressive taxes is that they tend to progress downwards from the rich to the middle class.

[Merryprankster]

rogue,

True, but if you were to institute a federal tax raise it hits everybody/corporation across the states.

How are we defining middle class? According to statistics I'm in a rather high income bracket, but I sure don't feel that way or live that way, LOL.

[unkokusai]

............................................Flat Tax

[Merryprankster]

Sorry, the laffer curve has been discredited about a gazillion times unkokusai.

The flat tax has an inherent appeal, but it wouldn't be fair if somebody could demonstrate who derives more benefit, relatively from public goods and services.

If somebody could establish THAT, that would lead us to a fair tax system.

[Merryprankster]

Maybe a way to get at it is to examine corporate/personal gross income in some relationship to the relatively fixed cost of certain public goods and services?

[mantis108]

The rich doesn't necessary get richer by working hard. This is the most common misconception that hard work translate to riches. What gives rich people wealth is the triangle of power (ideas, connections and timing). Being rich is never about how many zeros you have written in your bank book. That is just common perception of wealth which is misguided in the first place. Rich people have a good understanding of the political and economic systems that they can shelter their wealth and at the same time leverage other people money or properties (intellectual or otherwise) to their own advantage. They know how to ride the systems better than most. That's how they get rich. Unless there is no tax heaven such as Bahamas, Swiss banks, etc. You will never really formulate a "fair" tax system.

The best thing to do is stop politicians to treat war as chess games. That will cut a big chunck of the budget already. A "fair" goods and services tax (that means paid as you go and everyone pays regardless) say 7% - 10% and no personal income. Government don't like that because that's not a stable revenue collecting source. Coperate responsibility show be around 10 - 15% max. This way you encourage people to work harder and restore wealth to the people (they don't need to hide the money from government when the tax responsibility is minimum). Greed can drive the enconomy too.

Just a thought.

Mantix108

[golden arhat]

............................................Flat Tax

heres what happened here when something quite similar called the poll tax was introduced
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdeFc0OPcmc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YCfVCAsas...elated&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zdVquOmFJ...elated&search=

this is the best one

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zdVquOmFJ...elated&search=

[Merryprankster]

The best thing to do is stop politicians to treat war as chess games.

Huh?

And as far as the sales tax goes, sales tax (a general goods and services tax) DEFINITELY hurts the poor more than anybody else, as a greater percentage of their income goes to paying the sales tax on necessities.

The tax burden in this country is not especially high, so I'm not sure how the rest of your post makes and sense or difference.

[Yum Cha]

Merry,
You nailed it in one. A national economy is not the sole property of one or another "group", it is common property. Some say it is simply a cr@p-shoot for entrepreneurs, but I find that rather pessimistic, however not to be ignored.

Some of the biggest profits are made by speculators, who are simply gamblers, and create no service, no jobs and no resources. People who provide capital for development, growth and expansion are not just speculators. Future traders in petrol, or heating oil are. Are they necessary, possibly, are they to be rewarded and lauded for increasing costs to the economy. Hardly.

Its simply a user-pays proposition. The more you use the economy, the more you pay.

But there is more, beyond the welfare disincentive, economic rationalism, petit Bougouis greed and social climbing and paternal corporate posturing to disguise the usery - the very real fact that a society has certain realities that can't be ignored. Or rather, ignoring them brings about certain "costs" and the lowest cost is associated with simple redistribution of income.

The engine room needs fuel, and the masters of the machine need to fuel it.
i.e. workers need to eat, be healthy and have education to keep working, and driving the profits.

The entrepreneurs need higher rewards to mitigate the higher risk, and they get it in real terms, through higher wages, equity and lifestyle.

I don't buy the argument that CEO's need 300 times the workers wage to motivate them, when the CEO's in Japan have been kicking Yankee A$$ in a lot of fields for a very long time at a fraction of the wage.

As for punishing the people who create jobs and drive the economy? That old middle class climber chestnut? Consumers create jobs and drive the economy, I suggest. Cut the Sales Tax, not the income tax.

Yea, I know, Socialism in Australia has poisoned my mind. Any poison round your parts there partner?

[mantis108]

Military spending has always been one of the big ticket items on all Government budgets. I believe much of the US deficits came from war spending nowadays (even in Canada) although politicians deny it anywhich way they can. Anyway I am just saying politicians should becareful with how they spend tax payers' money.

Goods and services tax is democratic in nature IMHO. No one is discriminated against by such a system. You only pay as you need the goods or the service. If you are a citizen or resident (even illegal immigrants), you have to paid period. Sale tax in geneal don't apply to food or necessities items. So I don't think that "hurts" the poor. If a person is "poor" but he or she still wants to smoke a cigarette or drink a beer, etc., which is not good for him/her in the first place, I think it's fair enough to tax them in those cases. If one can afford such "luxury" or "decadant" items, I don't think he/she should complain being "poor". As long as you work hard, you should never be in the "poor" category anyway.

Mantis108

[BoulderDawg]

I have no problem with a flat tax that you paid no matter what. However it should start at income over 100K.

You know the conservatives are constanly preaching cut taxes, cut taxes cut taxes....Why not just do away with taxes altogether. The government doesn't need revenue from taxes. It has the paper, it has the ink and the printing presses.......When ever Bush needs money for the war all he has to do is just print up several billion!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

The Rich already pay more taxes than the poor, or middle class.

A person with a million dollar income pays more in taxes, even with his tax breaks, then the average person MAKES all year (Imagine making 50,000 a year, and having to give it all to Uncle Sam).

I don't think it is fair, and the rich need some relife from thier excessive taxes...especially when they are often the ones who provide the JOBS that the midle income people use to pay *Thier* taxes in the first place.

[NJM]

I hear conservatives and liberals arguing about who should get money. I heard an arguement against wellfare once, and couldn't help but jump in. The guy said, "Why should I give my money that I earned by working hard to wellfare slackoffs?"

My answer: Because of the same values that you want the country run by.

[Merryprankster]

Goods and services tax is democratic in nature IMHO. No one is discriminated against by such a system. You only pay as you need the goods or the service. If you are a citizen or resident (even illegal immigrants), you have to paid period. Sale tax in geneal don't apply to food or necessities items. So I don't think that "hurts" the poor. If a person is "poor" but he or she still wants to smoke a cigarette or drink a beer, etc., which is not good for him/her in the first place, I think it's fair enough to tax them in those cases. If one can afford such "luxury" or "decadant" items, I don't think he/she should complain being "poor". As long as you work hard, you should never be in the "poor" category anyway.

Sin taxes are different from what you were proposing and sales tax does indeed apply to clothing and such, gas etc. So I really don't think it's a good idea. Sure, you could sacrifice modern life to avoid it, but since quality of life is the issue, at the end of the day, it subverts the intent.

Finally, there are lots of working poor, so that still makes no sense at all.

Yum Cha, I can see in your posting one of the reasons strident socialists tend to turn me off; the idea that economics is zero sum and somebody must be getting screwed. I don't believe that. I don't believe it from an intentional perspective or from a structural/systematic one. The marxist/neo-marxist argument, whether intentional or structural in nature is SO cynical, it's an impediment to human progress.

I also think speculators play a very useful role. First they create capital for use in other market sectors. Secondly, the sheer number of them means they serve as useful market regulators - they are the most responsive corrective mechanism in tha modern marketplace. While this leads to short term crisis, I think you'll find it mitigates larger scale disaster. Thinking that only people/corporations that produce things adds value is, I think, the sort of Dobbsian populism that is stuck in the 1950's.