6 ms·

Then do you punish the rest of society to bring the rich up? You can go around in circles here. My opinion is that no matter what you call the oligarchy of cor

by msg 17y ago

Then do you punish the rest of society to bring the rich up? You can go around in circles here. My opinion is that no matter what you call the oligarchy of corporate wealth and public influence that runs the United States, you can't call it fair. The playing field is tilted toward those with power to tilt the playing field. People are profiting from the unfairness in the playing field. So the moral thing to do is to tilt it back. You don't have to nationalize Nabisco or send millionaires to debtor's prison to improve the situation. But you can tax them disproportionately compared to the poor, and use the money on social programs. Put another way, above the line of FU money, the marginal value of the millionaire's last dollar is lower. It takes more of their dollars to make a proportionate impact on their income, compared to the impact of the payroll, property, and income taxes on the middle-class salary.

BrentRitterbeck 17y ago
Please explain where the rest of society is being punished. I hope your answer does not include anything similar to "they have to pay for things." As for social programs, if you give a man enough money to live for a day, he's not going to work for a day. Welfare encourages people to do absolutely nothing.
- msg 17y ago
  Read the GGP, it refers to punishing the rich to help society. I was pointing out that if you see taxation as a zero sum game of winners and losers, then of course someone will always be crying that they are being punished. The rich and their multi-national corporations, evading taxes and lobbying for sweetheart deals from the government, are doing a lot of damage to the American lower class and middle class. I don't have to look far to rip examples from the headlines. The health and drug systems are messed up. The corporate welfare for Wall Street is messed up. Education is messed up. In all cases the poor are disadvantaged to the benefit of the wealthy. They are literally paying taxes for the excesses of powerful corporations and lobbies. Maybe I used the wrong term, but I consider education a social program. We spend far too little on it. We were hemming and hawing about funding HeadStart not too long ago. We underpay our teachers and then lower our taxes and call it a balanced budget. There are social programs that are important beyond welfare, so just ignore that one if it is distracting you from the main point.
  - daemin 17y ago
    If the rich get taxed more, effectively being taxed out of being rich, what incentive is there to become rich? Would it not be better in that case to do what you like and let the government pay you for doing absolutely sweet FA?
    - msg 17y ago
      I think you think I want to destroy the upper class. I don't. I just think that FU money should be taxed more heavily than regular money. When Warren Buffett's janitor pays a higher effective tax rate than he does, something is wrong. But that doesn't mean it's right to pauperize Warren Buffett. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffe... I am in pretty good company with this argument I think. We should have a more progressive tax system. There is a lot of room to make it more progressive without damaging incentives to become rich. There are so many incentives to become rich that it's laughable to say that you could destroy them all through a carefully calculated welfare program.
anamax 17y ago
> My opinion is that no matter what you call the oligarchy of corporate wealth and public influence that runs the United States, you can't call it fair. The playing field is tilted toward those with power to tilt the playing field. Ignoring the bit about "fair", that's true, but you don't understand what it means, especially as it relates to "fair". > So the moral thing to do is to tilt it back. If it was possible to tilt it back, it wouldn't be tilted. (Reread the first paragraph quoted.) If you insist on giving govt power, that power will favor those who are the best equipped at tilting govt power to their benefit. You can't keep them from tilting things in their direction - you can only affect whether there's anything to tilt in their direction. If you're satisfied with crumbs, keep shoveling power at govt, but stop complaining that others are getting a full meal. If you want to stop them from getting a full meal, you've got to get govt out of the food biz. Yes, you'll lose your crumbs, so you get to make a choice.

by msg 17y ago

BrentRitterbeck 17y ago

Please explain where the rest of society is being punished. I hope your answer does not include anything similar to "they have to pay for things." As for social programs, if you give a man enough money to live for a day, he's not going to work for a day. Welfare encourages people to do absolutely nothing.

msg 17y ago
Read the GGP, it refers to punishing the rich to help society. I was pointing out that if you see taxation as a zero sum game of winners and losers, then of course someone will always be crying that they are being punished. The rich and their multi-national corporations, evading taxes and lobbying for sweetheart deals from the government, are doing a lot of damage to the American lower class and middle class. I don't have to look far to rip examples from the headlines. The health and drug systems are messed up. The corporate welfare for Wall Street is messed up. Education is messed up. In all cases the poor are disadvantaged to the benefit of the wealthy. They are literally paying taxes for the excesses of powerful corporations and lobbies. Maybe I used the wrong term, but I consider education a social program. We spend far too little on it. We were hemming and hawing about funding HeadStart not too long ago. We underpay our teachers and then lower our taxes and call it a balanced budget. There are social programs that are important beyond welfare, so just ignore that one if it is distracting you from the main point.
- daemin 17y ago
  If the rich get taxed more, effectively being taxed out of being rich, what incentive is there to become rich? Would it not be better in that case to do what you like and let the government pay you for doing absolutely sweet FA?
  - msg 17y ago
    I think you think I want to destroy the upper class. I don't. I just think that FU money should be taxed more heavily than regular money. When Warren Buffett's janitor pays a higher effective tax rate than he does, something is wrong. But that doesn't mean it's right to pauperize Warren Buffett. http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffe... I am in pretty good company with this argument I think. We should have a more progressive tax system. There is a lot of room to make it more progressive without damaging incentives to become rich. There are so many incentives to become rich that it's laughable to say that you could destroy them all through a carefully calculated welfare program.

anamax 17y ago

> My opinion is that no matter what you call the oligarchy of corporate wealth and public influence that runs the United States, you can't call it fair. The playing field is tilted toward those with power to tilt the playing field. Ignoring the bit about "fair", that's true, but you don't understand what it means, especially as it relates to "fair". > So the moral thing to do is to tilt it back. If it was possible to tilt it back, it wouldn't be tilted. (Reread the first paragraph quoted.) If you insist on giving govt power, that power will favor those who are the best equipped at tilting govt power to their benefit. You can't keep them from tilting things in their direction - you can only affect whether there's anything to tilt in their direction. If you're satisfied with crumbs, keep shoveling power at govt, but stop complaining that others are getting a full meal. If you want to stop them from getting a full meal, you've got to get govt out of the food biz. Yes, you'll lose your crumbs, so you get to make a choice.