California Budget : Same tune .. Different year (Sacramento: taxation, living, cost)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

To address your additional comment, why should the 2M+ pay 75% while the <100k pay 15%?

Because those making $2 million are no longer deriving income from what they do instead by what they own. Yet what they own derives its value form society as a whole....

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

This question isn't well formed, all wages are paid from earnings and therefore a "percentage of his earnings". Now, perhaps you mean whether a workers wage should be determined by the labor market or whether it should be determined by some preset fraction of the farmers earnings....and if that is what you mean...well my answer is: neither. Both have issues.

The point of my commentary is simple: the determination of wages is not straight-forward and market determined wages are only reliable if the labor market isn't being manipulated or there isn't some other sort of market failure. As mentioned, the US has some mechanism to help deal with these factors. We have a minimum wage, we have labor laws, we have a lightly progressive tax system etc....but these devices are proving to be insufficient in today's economy.

The point of mentioning illegal farm labor is entirely straight-forward, you are trying to use an example yet...only in the abstract. We don't live in an abstract world without market failures, without market manipulation, etc. So then, in the case of farming, we live in a world where there are millions of illegal laborers (in fact slave labor as well) and the existence of these laborers artificially (from the perspective of the US economy) drives down wages without corresponding pressure on agricultural prices since the laborers aren't, strictly speaking, part of the US economy.

I am asking for an answer without additional rhetoric interjection. I am coming to the conclusion that you are incapable of such an answer.

What should the farmer pay the worker who plowed his field and how do you determine the rate or method?

If you want the farm worker to be illegal, that is up to you.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

Because those making $2 million are no longer deriving income from what they do instead by what they own. Yet what they own derives its value form society as a whole....

You do not know how they derive their income.

From a tax perspective, why should it matter how they derive their income. Earnings from what you do is determined by the society as well.

Again, a flat tax treats all equal and without making moral judgements. Everyone keeps the same percentage of their earnings. It is very simple and some people are afraid of that.

You seem to confuse your morality with a government need to fund it's financial obligations.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

I am asking for an answer without additional rhetoric interjection. I am coming to the conclusion that you are incapable of such an answer.

You're asking me a vague and loaded question and then getting upset that I'm not falling for your trap. I answered your question in the way I interpreted it. If you meant something else, well its your job to make yourself clearer.

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

What should the farmer pay the worker who plowed his field and how do you determine the rate or method?

I answered this, if the labor market was free of distortions, then then you'd pay him the market wage. On the other hand if there are market failures (as is the case in reality), then determining fair wages becomes rather difficult.

Sorry that my answer doesn't met your needs.

[TNEC_Dad]

Hey user_id, I just feel compelled to say that it is a pleasure to verbally wrestle with you. Your agenda speak is predictable and boring and I wish you could speak plainly, but nonetheless, you have not been rude and that is appreciated.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

You do not know how they derive their income.

Yes you do, just look at IRS records. The "income" of those making millions a hear is mostly from capital gain, dividends, etc.....not wages.

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

Again, a flat tax treats all equal and without making moral judgements.

Yep, it treats everyone equal even-though they aren't equal...which is precisely the problem.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

You're asking me a vague and loaded question and then getting upset that I'm not falling for your trap. I answered your question in the way I interpreted it. If you meant something else, well its your job to make yourself clearer.


I answered this, if the labor market was free of distortions, then then you'd pay him the market wage. On the other hand if there are market failures (as is the case in reality), then determining fair wages becomes rather difficult.

Sorry that my answer doesn't met your needs.

It is ok, you are just too contained to speak openly.

I just wish you could find answers inside of yourself.

You are fighting for your cause the best you can I am sure. I respect you for trying to be true to that.

I really don't have any needs from you. I do wish for decency and you have been kind to oblige.

[TNEC_Dad]

Originally Posted by user_id

Yes you do, just look at IRS records. The "income" of those making millions a hear is mostly from capital gain, dividends, etc.....not wages.


Yep, it treats everyone equal even-though they aren't equal...which is precisely the problem.

Yes, everyone is equal in their basic rights. What did you mean by your statement?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

It is ok, you are just too contained to speak openly.

I just wish you could find answers inside of yourself.

Sure thing, but tell me....how many sides does a square circle have?

Originally Posted by TNEC_Dad

Yes, everyone is equal in their basic rights. What did you mean by your statement?

Yep people are equal in their "basic rights". But I'm not talking about "basic rights", people's wealth in society isn't determined by their "basic rights" instead by their intelligence, their talent, their family origin, their access to opportunities, etc.... And people are not equal under those terms.....therefore taxing them as if they are makes little sense.

[TrapperJohn]

Originally Posted by user_id

Sure thing, but tell me....how many sides does a square circle have?


Yep people are equal in their "basic rights". But I'm not talking about "basic rights", people's wealth in society isn't determined by their "basic rights" instead by their intelligence, their talent, their family origin, their access to opportunities, etc.... And people are not equal under those terms.....therefore taxing them as if they are makes little sense.

A smart tax! Since you liberal-types are sure you are smarter than all us conservatives put your money where your mouth is.