Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No man is an island. Nobody has gotten where they are in society without massive help from society, and large parts of that are directly related to the government. You've probably all read some variant of that story about the man who wakes up to go through his day and can do all these regular daily activities without dying because of government agencies checking the quality of his food, water, air, regulating traffic and so on and so on.
Let's take public school as an example. It's provided free at point of service and that doctor making 6 figures a year has certainly needed it to be able to make those 6 figures. Ok, but didn't that retail worker making 20K a year get the same free public schooling? Well, maybe, but we can clearly see that the doctor benefitted much more from it, so it's only fair she should pay more. But what if the doctor went to private school? Well then how about roads? Or the FDA? Doesn't someone who has a million in equity benefit more from the police and justice system enforcing property rights and contracts than someone who has got 500 dollars to his name? If they benefit more, it's only fair that they pay more.
This gets even more pronounced once we start talking about the capitalist class. Let's say a retail chain owner. This person doesn't just benefit from all the services the state has directly provided them, she also benefits from her employees being able to use those roads to make it to work, or not fall ill all the time from food poisoning. She also benefits from her suppliers being able to use all that infrastructure and government services. She also benefits from her customers being able to use those roads to go to her shops, and crucially she even benefits from customers getting government checks for social security for example. Because how else would these people be able to afford to buy her stuff so that she can make a profit? So you can see, these people benefit even more than anyone else in society from society.
Now you might think, aren't corporate taxes already the fee for those extra benefits the government provides to employers? And isn't it then effectively double taxation when the owners of the companies get taxed on top of the company being taxed? No and no, corporate taxes are the fee you've got to pay for the privilege of being able to use the legal status of a corporation. You see, corporations don't exist in nature. We made them up, the technical term for that is a legal fiction. Once we made them up we afforded them a bunch of special rights and privileges unavailable to regular persons. A notable example of such a privilege is limited liability. The traditional reason given for why we've done that is because we think the net societal benefit is greater with these corporate persons than without, although not everyone agrees. Either way, without governments there would be no such thing as a corporation. And in return for you being able to benefit from all these privileges, rights and protections the government affords corporations, you've got to pay a fee in the form of corporate taxes. Once you then transfer the money out of the legal entity of the corporation and into your private bank account, it counts as income or capital gains or dividends (depending on circumstances), and is then taxed, like all other private income. So as you can see, it's not double taxation and corporate taxes have a different justification than income taxes.
Another reason why progressive taxes are actually more fair is the concept of marginal utility. It's a pretty simple idea which says that each dollar acquired is worth less in real terms than the previous dollar. So say you've got 10K a year and you get 10K extra, that's worth more to you than that same 10K extra being given to someone who makes 10 million a year. So when the state has to collect taxes in order to pay for the services it provides (Note: this is a popular explanation of how government works, but it doesn't actually work this way but I think going into that now would derail this post too much) it makes a lot more sense for it to take the bulk of that money from those who can most easily miss it. It makes sense for three reasons, the first being the obvious ethical reason that those with the least amount of income can least afford to part with their money because it'd lead to to the most serious problems. The other two are economical but are both related to the first.
Firstly, making the poor poorer would cause more societal problems, such as say, crime, which would then cost more in spending on police and prisons and so on. So taxing these people more isn't all that efficient in terms of generating net spendable money for the government (again, it doesn't really work like this, but it's helpful to explain). The second economic reason is the most interesting because of how relevant it is to the current economic situation. Remember when I said the retail chain owner benefits from the government providing social security to (potential) customers? The government not taxing these people more benefits that retail chain owner in the exact same way. You see, an important effect of marginal utility is that poor people are much more likely to spend any additional net income they can get their hands on. If you've got problems fulfilling basic needs, any extra money you run into won't be in your pocket for very long, while there's really only so much **** you can buy if you're a multi-millionaire. I mean, I guess a second yacht or private airplane is nice, but is it really worth the money if you'll never use it? Even if that money is literally pocket change to you, the answer is no.
No man is an island. Nobody has gotten where they are in society without massive help from society, and large parts of that are directly related to the government. You've probably all read some variant of that story about the man who wakes up to go through his day and can do all these regular daily activities without dying because of government agencies checking the quality of his food, water, air, regulating traffic and so on and so on.
Let's take public school as an example. It's provided free at point of service and that doctor making 6 figures a year has certainly needed it to be able to make those 6 figures. Ok, but didn't that retail worker making 20K a year get the same free public schooling? Well, maybe, but we can clearly see that the doctor benefitted much more from it, so it's only fair she should pay more. But what if the doctor went to private school? Well then how about roads? Or the FDA? Doesn't someone who has a million in equity benefit more from the police and justice system enforcing property rights and contracts than someone who has got 500 dollars to his name? If they benefit more, it's only fair that they pay more.
This gets even more pronounced once we start talking about the capitalist class. Let's say a retail chain owner. This person doesn't just benefit from all the services the state has directly provided them, she also benefits from her employees being able to use those roads to make it to work, or not fall ill all the time from food poisoning. She also benefits from her suppliers being able to use all that infrastructure and government services. She also benefits from her customers being able to use those roads to go to her shops, and crucially she even benefits from customers getting government checks for social security for example. Because how else would these people be able to afford to buy her stuff so that she can make a profit? So you can see, these people benefit even more than anyone else in society from society.
Now you might think, aren't corporate taxes already the fee for those extra benefits the government provides to employers? And isn't it then effectively double taxation when the owners of the companies get taxed on top of the company being taxed? No and no, corporate taxes are the fee you've got to pay for the privilege of being able to use the legal status of a corporation. You see, corporations don't exist in nature. We made them up, the technical term for that is a legal fiction. Once we made them up we afforded them a bunch of special rights and privileges unavailable to regular persons. A notable example of such a privilege is limited liability. The traditional reason given for why we've done that is because we think the net societal benefit is greater with these corporate persons than without, although not everyone agrees. Either way, without governments there would be no such thing as a corporation. And in return for you being able to benefit from all these privileges, rights and protections the government affords corporations, you've got to pay a fee in the form of corporate taxes. Once you then transfer the money out of the legal entity of the corporation and into your private bank account, it counts as income or capital gains or dividends (depending on circumstances), and is then taxed, like all other private income. So as you can see, it's not double taxation and corporate taxes have a different justification than income taxes.
Another reason why progressive taxes are actually more fair is the concept of marginal utility. It's a pretty simple idea which says that each dollar acquired is worth less in real terms than the previous dollar. So say you've got 10K a year and you get 10K extra, that's worth more to you than that same 10K extra being given to someone who makes 10 million a year. So when the state has to collect taxes in order to pay for the services it provides (Note: this is a popular explanation of how government works, but it doesn't actually work this way but I think going into that now would derail this post too much) it makes a lot more sense for it to take the bulk of that money from those who can most easily miss it. It makes sense for three reasons, the first being the obvious ethical reason that those with the least amount of income can least afford to part with their money because it'd lead to to the most serious problems. The other two are economical but are both related to the first.
Firstly, making the poor poorer would cause more societal problems, such as say, crime, which would then cost more in spending on police and prisons and so on. So taxing these people more isn't all that efficient in terms of generating net spendable money for the government (again, it doesn't really work like this, but it's helpful to explain). The second economic reason is the most interesting because of how relevant it is to the current economic situation. Remember when I said the retail chain owner benefits from the government providing social security to (potential) customers? The government not taxing these people more benefits that retail chain owner in the exact same way. You see, an important effect of marginal utility is that poor people are much more likely to spend any additional net income they can get their hands on. If you've got problems fulfilling basic needs, any extra money you run into won't be in your pocket for very long, while there's really only so much **** you can buy if you're a multi-millionaire. I mean, I guess a second yacht or private airplane is nice, but is it really worth the money if you'll never use it? Even if that money is literally pocket change to you, the answer is no.
Location: The bustling, world-renowned downtown of Pataskala, OH
188 posts, read 197,835 times
Reputation: 129
sorry but a lawful, just society has never went anywhere without free association laws. Honestly study and interpret united states history and you cant come away with anything other than a deep and avowed passion for the culture in which you live in. ''free'' in political discourse is the watchword for socialism.
No man is an island. Nobody has gotten where they are in society without massive help from society, and large parts of that are directly related to the government. You've probably all read some variant of that story about the man who wakes up to go through his day and can do all these regular daily activities without dying because of government agencies checking the quality of his food, water, air, regulating traffic and so on and so on.
Let's take public school as an example. It's provided free at point of service and that doctor making 6 figures a year has certainly needed it to be able to make those 6 figures. Ok, but didn't that retail worker making 20K a year get the same free public schooling? Well, maybe, but we can clearly see that the doctor benefitted much more from it, so it's only fair she should pay more. But what if the doctor went to private school? Well then how about roads? Or the FDA? Doesn't someone who has a million in equity benefit more from the police and justice system enforcing property rights and contracts than someone who has got 500 dollars to his name? If they benefit more, it's only fair that they pay more.
This gets even more pronounced once we start talking about the capitalist class. Let's say a retail chain owner. This person doesn't just benefit from all the services the state has directly provided them, she also benefits from her employees being able to use those roads to make it to work, or not fall ill all the time from food poisoning. She also benefits from her suppliers being able to use all that infrastructure and government services. She also benefits from her customers being able to use those roads to go to her shops, and crucially she even benefits from customers getting government checks for social security for example. Because how else would these people be able to afford to buy her stuff so that she can make a profit? So you can see, these people benefit even more than anyone else in society from society.
Now you might think, aren't corporate taxes already the fee for those extra benefits the government provides to employers? And isn't it then effectively double taxation when the owners of the companies get taxed on top of the company being taxed? No and no, corporate taxes are the fee you've got to pay for the privilege of being able to use the legal status of a corporation. You see, corporations don't exist in nature. We made them up, the technical term for that is a legal fiction. Once we made them up we afforded them a bunch of special rights and privileges unavailable to regular persons. A notable example of such a privilege is limited liability. The traditional reason given for why we've done that is because we think the net societal benefit is greater with these corporate persons than without, although not everyone agrees. Either way, without governments there would be no such thing as a corporation. And in return for you being able to benefit from all these privileges, rights and protections the government affords corporations, you've got to pay a fee in the form of corporate taxes. Once you then transfer the money out of the legal entity of the corporation and into your private bank account, it counts as income or capital gains or dividends (depending on circumstances), and is then taxed, like all other private income. So as you can see, it's not double taxation and corporate taxes have a different justification than income taxes.
Another reason why progressive taxes are actually more fair is the concept of marginal utility. It's a pretty simple idea which says that each dollar acquired is worth less in real terms than the previous dollar. So say you've got 10K a year and you get 10K extra, that's worth more to you than that same 10K extra being given to someone who makes 10 million a year. So when the state has to collect taxes in order to pay for the services it provides (Note: this is a popular explanation of how government works, but it doesn't actually work this way but I think going into that now would derail this post too much) it makes a lot more sense for it to take the bulk of that money from those who can most easily miss it. It makes sense for three reasons, the first being the obvious ethical reason that those with the least amount of income can least afford to part with their money because it'd lead to to the most serious problems. The other two are economical but are both related to the first.
Firstly, making the poor poorer would cause more societal problems, such as say, crime, which would then cost more in spending on police and prisons and so on. So taxing these people more isn't all that efficient in terms of generating net spendable money for the government (again, it doesn't really work like this, but it's helpful to explain). The second economic reason is the most interesting because of how relevant it is to the current economic situation. Remember when I said the retail chain owner benefits from the government providing social security to (potential) customers? The government not taxing these people more benefits that retail chain owner in the exact same way. You see, an important effect of marginal utility is that poor people are much more likely to spend any additional net income they can get their hands on. If you've got problems fulfilling basic needs, any extra money you run into won't be in your pocket for very long, while there's really only so much **** you can buy if you're a multi-millionaire. I mean, I guess a second yacht or private airplane is nice, but is it really worth the money if you'll never use it? Even if that money is literally pocket change to you, the answer is no.
I disagree with the concept of taxing income...PERIOD! And I vehemently disagree with the "progressive" concept which is the road to Socialism and eventually Communism!
If we want "fairness" we need to remove taxation from income and put it on expenditures. Aside from "fairness" it is more important to me that I...me alone...has control of my taxation, meaning that if my expenditures are taxed then I have control of how much tax I pay. The more I spend, the more taxes I pay and the reverse is also applied. In addition, EVERYONE who spends $'s will pay the same share of taxes. The base will broaden by 50% to include those now paying NO income taxes and it will also broaden more to include any and all illegal $'s that are expended which are now not taxed. Then add the bonus that NO POLITICIAN will be able to practice the class warfare that is now being used to attack the "so-called rich" ... you know, the people who actually apply themselves, create business and hire employees. Anyone here ever get a job from a poor person??
I think those who do not understand what the word "progressive" means in the political world should do a bit of research and study! Yes, indeed, it is a red flag to anyone who does understand the real definition!
You're not scaring me with the socialism canard, especially since you don't really seem to know what that word means.
I'm glad that you recognize that your views are only important to you and you alone. Unfortunately, you live in a society. I want a social structure where the driving force isn't the accumulation of wealth, but rather providing a minimum comfortable standard of living for *everyone*. Transportation, job security, public safety, health care, child care, education, high-quality nutrition. The questions boils down to something very basic and something quite philosophical. What really matters in life? That you have a huge mansion, a garage full of expensive cars and bank vault full of gold? Is that what you are going to think about on your deathbed? If yes, then I pity you.
What I want is there to ultimately be no one living in poverty, no one dying or suffering because they can't afford medical care, no one starving. I want us to reach other planets and stars one day. And I want everyone to have a part in this.
I'm afraid that is something you will never understand. F-you, got mine, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
