Paying "fair share", and what does that mean to you?

[fskimospy]

You weaken your argument by saying crapping on fairness.

Fairness matters to everyone. (And when we talk about fairness it's not about whether you're born beautiful or not, it's about human rules being fair.) Is it fair for people with more wealth to be taxed more? Sure. They get more benefits from civilization than other people do. The vast majority of people that don't think progressive taxation is fair are people that believe in silly natural law ideas where people pre-existed social rules.

I agree that the rich gain more benefits from society than the poor do, and from a moral perspective I totally agree with you.

From a governance perspective however, fairness isn't really that important to me. All government policy is supposed to exist to provide the best possible overall situation to the greatest number of its citizens possible. (in a very broad sense) If the means by which to do that don't end up being particularly fair, I'm ok with that.

And please. If anyone thinks I'm endorsing communism by that, don't bother. I'm not.

 

[jhu]

Just as an offhand comment, btw. I am very impressed with the right wing contributors to this board! It never ceases to amaze me how well represented the top 1% and above income bracket is on an obscure politics board attached to a tech website. I mean what are the odds that we would have the privilege of being among so many of the well heeled!

EDIT: Fixed my math.

What? If you're only making $250k and posting in these forums, you're poor. At least that's the impression I get here.

 

[fskimospy]

Based on what you said then you shouldn't have any problems with what's going on right now with the debt talks, right? We need majority in both houses to enact tax increases, and if we cannot get that then we should not increase the taxes.

Or are you going to still complain how some don't pay their fair share?

We should enact tax increases because it's good governance, not because of whether it's fair or not. As for your question, of course we shouldn't just unilaterally pass tax increases on people outside the legislative process. How would we do that, and why?

 

[Argo]

OP, what product are you making that's worth $250k/yr? What finished product comes out of your hands that I would say, "Yup, I'd pay $250k for that!"

In all likelihood you are either a financial leech (like a lawyer) or you simply boost the productivity of real workers. Assuming the latter, your high salary is just a function of employers being able to keep the wages of the real labor force stagnant, thus overvaluing your effect.

The real labor force is more productive than ever, yet they aren't seeing any of those gains in their paycheck. Instead the output of their labor is being funneled to the top.
Progressive taxation is merely a simple, straightforward way to funnel some of that money back to the real earners. To do it without taxation would require an insane amount of micromanaged regulation over corporate affairs. You'd be looking at a largely planned economy, and good luck making one of those work. Running a planned economy would be beyond my ability, and I'm fucking God.

So stop complaining.

Swing and miss.

 

[fskimospy]

What? If you're only making $250k and posting in these forums, you're poor. At least that's the impression I get here.

That's true. Maybe we should have Anand add a Mercedes/yacht forum, as best as I can tell there would be plenty of traffic on it.

 

[Infohawk]

What? If you're only making $250k and posting in these forums, you're poor. At least that's the impression I get here.

I'm not accusing OP of this, but a lot of people on these forums like to display their e-peens (whether it be their education or income). I wouldn't take it too seriously. The best part is that so many of them are spending huge amounts of time posting on this forum! How hard-working / important can they be? (And again, I'm not accusing OP of doing this as he's not a regular on P&N as far as I can tell.)

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not accusing OP of this, but a lot of people on these forums like to display their e-peens (whether it be their education or income). I wouldn't take it too seriously. The best part is that so many of them are spending huge amounts of time posting on this forum! How hard-working / important can they be? (And again, I'm not accusing OP of doing this as he's not a regular on P&N as far as I can tell.)

Me too btw, I know I happened to say it in a reply to him, but I meant it as a general statement, not about him specifically.

 

[senseamp]

People think that we can have economic policies of a banana republic but not live in a banana republic. You can't have it both ways. You want to live in your small government tax haven utopia, prepare to live in a third world sh!thole.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Swing and miss.

Answer the question.

 

[Blackjack200]

OP, what product are you making that's worth $250k/yr?

He works for Amazon, probably does development or some type of tech work.

What's interesting is that Amazon makes a fortune by skirting state sales tax laws, a big reason they can afford big fat salaries.

So it seems the OP is indignant for no fucking reason at all.

 

[Lithium381]

if we were to propose new brackets to appease you left wing hacks.... assuming no loopholes, what would they be?

0-50k = 0%
50-100k = 25%
100-200=50%
200-250k=70%
250k+=100% ???

that sounds like what you'd be happy with

 

[Blackjack200]

Let's go with:

0-50k = -15%
50-100k = 5%
100-200=85%
200-250k=100%
250k+=115% !!!

 

[ShawnD1]

OP, what product are you making that's worth $250k/yr? What finished product comes out of your hands that I would say, "Yup, I'd pay $250k for that!"

Don't underestimate the importance of management.

Instead of studying economics or any of that silly nonsense, try playing World of Warcraft with a poorly managed raid group. All the best gear and skill in the world won't help if the management is terrible.

 

[werepossum]

if we were to propose new brackets to appease you left wing hacks.... assuming no loopholes, what would they be?

0-50k = 0%
50-100k = 25%
100-200=50%
200-250k=70%
250k+=100% ???

that sounds like what you'd be happy with

You've got that wrong. It's closer to this:
0-30k = -50% (The poor need MORE money.)
30k-their income = 5%
their income-200k=50%
200k-500k=75%
500k+=150% (Gotta have our share of their accumulated wealth, not just this year's income. Damned richers!)
EDIT: Damn, Blackjack beat me to it!

Morally I think if G-d demands only 10%, let Caesar have the same. However that's probably not workable in a modern economy, or at least not and maintain a significant, superpower-status military. Therefore I'd say the federal government has no right to take more than 25% of anyone's unadjusted income, ever. And no state should have the right to take enough of anyone's income to bring their total "contribution" to federal, state and local government to more than 33% of their unadjusted income.

I'd start the tax rates at the poverty level for the family size, with the tax rate climbing progressively to perhaps 10% of income at twice the poverty rate, 20% at four times the poverty rate, and 25% at eight times the poverty rate. If the poverty level is considered to be $15k for a family of four, then the tax liability for a family of four's adjusted income would be:
$15k: 0
$22.5k: 5%
$30K: 10%
$45k: 15%
$60k: 20%
$120k+: 25%

I'd use a continuous formula or charts, and I'd include all forms of income - why should putting my money to work be preferentially taxed compared to putting myself to work? I've have damned few deductions, perhaps capital gains on one's primary residence only plus a small personal deduction, non-elective medical expenses over 10% of income, and deductions for blindness and other serious physical disability like paralysis. (No mental disability deduction - if you can earn a living them your mental disability isn't that bad.) I would require any wars (including non-shooting with 5% of military deployed) to be separately and completely funded with a surtax on everyone above the poverty level - if it's worth fighting, you should be able to convince us to pay for it.

I'd really prefer that all federal taxation be through import tariffs and sales taxes, such as the FairTax. Everybody pays something; even those in poverty see the effective tax rate every time they buy something new, even if they are prebated the actual tax. But we have far too much wealth envy, and Congress has far too much power with its ability to reward and punish using the tax code, for that to be politically feasible. And I'd restrict federal taxes to one or the other - you can have EITHER an income tax, OR a sales tax. No taking your cut off the top and then grabbing yet another chunk of what's left, even the Mafia doesn't do that.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Don't underestimate the importance of management.

I'm not. It's just the ability to keep labor's wages stagnant and pay management out of the proceeds implies that labor has no part in the process, when it is labor that gives management its multiplicative effect.
Without labor there's nothing to manage.

 

[Argo]

Answer the question.

Software engineer for a major company. Most people on these forums probably use the fruits of my labor in some way. Happy?

 

[Argo]

He works for Amazon, probably does development or some type of tech work.

What's interesting is that Amazon makes a fortune by skirting state sales tax laws, a big reason they can afford big fat salaries.

So it seems the OP is indignant for no fucking reason at all.

Where do you work? So according to you, if there's something your company does that some people disagree with, your opinions immediately become worthless?

 

[boomerang]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

That sums up what defines "fair share" for the brainwashed our public schools have churned out over the last several decades. It's sad to see so many hell bent on repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Software engineer for a major company. Most people on these forums probably use the fruits of my labor in some way. Happy?

So your income depends on millions of people having sufficient disposable income to buy your product.
If we tax them instead of you, your bosses, and their bosses, to the point where they can afford nothing but necessities, what happens to your product? Oh gee, you have no buyers! So guess what, you're now out of a job.

The wealthy depend on the working class having money. We achieve this with progressive taxation.

 

[spidey07]

So your income depends on millions of people having sufficient disposable income to buy your product.
If we tax them instead of you, your bosses, and their bosses, to the point where they can afford nothing but necessities, what happens to your product? Oh gee, you have no buyers! So guess what, you're now out of a job.

The wealthy depend on the working class having money. We achieve this with progressive taxation.

But that's exactly what the left wants. That is their end goal.

 

[DominionSeraph]

But that's exactly what the left wants. That is their end goal.

The left wants an economy in which nobody can afford his software?

You're an idiot spidey. Go away.

 

[Craig234]

From a governance perspective however, fairness isn't really that important to me. All government policy is supposed to exist to provide the best possible overall situation to the greatest number of its citizens possible. (in a very broad sense) If the means by which to do that don't end up being particularly fair, I'm ok with that.

And please. If anyone thinks I'm endorsing communism by that, don't bother. I'm not.

If communism DID provide the 'best possible overall situation to the greatest number', presumably, you WOULD favor it.

People shouldn't get confused by the fact supporters widely have that goal, with the opinion that communism is not good at actually doing that, hence not supporting it.

A lot of right-wing policies are like communism, falsely claiming to 'help the people'.

 

[Blackjack200]

Where do you work? So according to you, if there's something your company does that some people disagree with, your opinions immediately become worthless?

I don't share where I work -I only mentioned where you work because you've posted it in other threads. I will edit it out if you want.

It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with what they're doing: unless you're disputing that your company benefits significantly from its tax treatment, it seems absurd to me that you're complaining about the government taking 16% of your money. That's all.

 

[werepossum]

I don't share where I work -I only mentioned where you work because you've posted it in other threads. I will edit it out if you want.

It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement with what they're doing: unless you're disputing that your company benefits significantly from its tax treatment, it seems absurd to me that you're complaining about the government taking 16% of your money. That's all.

Then presumably anyone who works at General Electric, which benefits greatly from our convoluted tax structure, has no call to complain if government takes 75% of his income, no?

 

[DominionSeraph]

Then presumably anyone who works at General Electric, which benefits greatly from our convoluted tax structure, has no call to complain if government takes 75% of his income, no?

He said, "absurd to me." So the structure you present as a replacement gets inserted into his value structure.
Uhhhh... why would you bother doing that? It's his opinion-forming network -- he owns it completely, so you get no say in its output. You just black-holed your point.

I think someone needs to learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective."


(Every hour is amateur hour in P&N)