3 ms·

Only pay 45% of the taxes? What do you want?? Should they pay 70% of the taxes??? At which point will you be happy precisely???? 90%????? When the top 1% pays

Only pay 45% of the taxes? What do you want?? Should they pay 70% of the taxes??? At which point will you be happy precisely???? 90%????? When the top 1% pays for about 50% of the infrastructure, it is time for them to think about seceding. I mean, the top 50% move together, poof they can have something like half of what is provided by the state, without the 99% bothering them anymore.

quonn 11y ago
I think he meant that if the top 1% has 99% of the wealth, we should expect them to pay 99% of the taxes. However, that wealth is not just income, so the argument is not quite correct. This is a democracy, so how much ones owes in taxes is decided by the people. As far as seceding is concerned, good luck with that.
ska 11y ago
It is a surprisingly common fallacy to believe that income is generated in a way that is not deeply coupled to the system in which it was generated. This is just muddy thinking if you are talking about the "1%" or your own IRS bill. I think that the comment you were responding to was suggesting that the tax load should be directly proportional to the income fraction, which I suppose you could make a cogent argument of.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Yup. As one of my economics professors likes to say (paraphrasing): There is no 'natural' equilibrium. The economy develops based on the set of laws already in place. People earn money based on the 'system' already in place. So the idea of 'fairness' is already an artificial construct. It's far easier to make a billion in a society like the US, than say, Vietnam, or Argentina, or Romania. So in a very real way, US billionaires do 'owe' something to the system that allowed them to attain that wealth in the first place (and that 'something' is pretty much 'everything'). If wealth could be attained completely independently of the 'system', then the distribution of billionaires would be completely different than it is right now.
orbitingpluto 11y ago
Someone's been vigorously rubbing Ayn Rand novels against his privates again. The real question is how does wealth manage to concentrate so highly so quickly and by those who actually contribute so little. edit: this guy is literally pulling an Atlas Shrugged. If you think you as the owner of the company 'make all of the money', I heartily suggest you try going it alone.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Just make sure you use the paperback!
- janpieterz 11y ago
  I never got why people read and get this 'owner of the company makes all the money' narrative from the book. She is obviously glorifying these man, making them the 'hero', but don't we do exactly the same in every other fictional book? It's been a while since I read a book about John and Jane that details their virtuous lives that is not played out, one way or another, on a high level (either starting or becoming a hero etc). My take from the story was more that these people exist at every level. I remember parts (I might be grossly mistaken here, but this is what I took from it) where Rearden talks about and with his most valued employees, or where Dagny has her valued associates, where the train men that 'stand their ground' are praised. I'm not sure the 'owner makes the money' story is what she wanted to portray, or possibly I just took my biased view and ran with it while reading ;)
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  "How" is that the people who make the money control the measurement methods for it. Governance is hard. CEOs once upon a time made "too much salary" so pay for performance was used. Now this.
EliRivers 11y ago
I suspect that without having a 99% to take advantage of, they wouldn't earn so much.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
p4bl0 11y ago
> without the 99% bothering them anymore. Do you really believe the 1% richer would earn so much money without exploiting the work of the 99% others you want them to get rid of? That's ridiculous.
GavinMcG 11y ago
Given that it's only those at the top that receive the benefits of economic growth (FTA: the bottom 80% of Californians saw no growth in their adjusted gross incomes between 1994 and 2013) higher is absolutely better. They're clearly skilled at harvesting the economic contributions of those worse off than them.
LeifCarrotson 11y ago
If they secede, they will still need the goods and services provided by the 99% - I doubt that many janitors, mechanics, painters, secretaries etc. are in that 1%. They'd need to have these servicepeople commute in and out of "rich California" every day from far off, and they probably wouldn't want unsightly public transport, enormous highways, high-rises, or low-income housing cluttering up their little paradise, so commutes of an hour or more would become normal. That would never work.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I know an electrician who has been close to, if not in the 1%. And then there's the bad years. I've had this conversation three times: "What'd it take to get you to move to California?" "More than you have." So there's that.
ska 11y ago
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

quonn 11y ago

I think he meant that if the top 1% has 99% of the wealth, we should expect them to pay 99% of the taxes. However, that wealth is not just income, so the argument is not quite correct. This is a democracy, so how much ones owes in taxes is decided by the people. As far as seceding is concerned, good luck with that.

ska 11y ago

It is a surprisingly common fallacy to believe that income is generated in a way that is not deeply coupled to the system in which it was generated. This is just muddy thinking if you are talking about the "1%" or your own IRS bill. I think that the comment you were responding to was suggesting that the tax load should be directly proportional to the income fraction, which I suppose you could make a cogent argument of.

Mikeb85 11y ago
Yup. As one of my economics professors likes to say (paraphrasing): There is no 'natural' equilibrium. The economy develops based on the set of laws already in place. People earn money based on the 'system' already in place. So the idea of 'fairness' is already an artificial construct. It's far easier to make a billion in a society like the US, than say, Vietnam, or Argentina, or Romania. So in a very real way, US billionaires do 'owe' something to the system that allowed them to attain that wealth in the first place (and that 'something' is pretty much 'everything'). If wealth could be attained completely independently of the 'system', then the distribution of billionaires would be completely different than it is right now.

orbitingpluto 11y ago

Someone's been vigorously rubbing Ayn Rand novels against his privates again. The real question is how does wealth manage to concentrate so highly so quickly and by those who actually contribute so little. edit: this guy is literally pulling an Atlas Shrugged. If you think you as the owner of the company 'make all of the money', I heartily suggest you try going it alone.

solipsism 11y ago
Just make sure you use the paperback!
janpieterz 11y ago
I never got why people read and get this 'owner of the company makes all the money' narrative from the book. She is obviously glorifying these man, making them the 'hero', but don't we do exactly the same in every other fictional book? It's been a while since I read a book about John and Jane that details their virtuous lives that is not played out, one way or another, on a high level (either starting or becoming a hero etc). My take from the story was more that these people exist at every level. I remember parts (I might be grossly mistaken here, but this is what I took from it) where Rearden talks about and with his most valued employees, or where Dagny has her valued associates, where the train men that 'stand their ground' are praised. I'm not sure the 'owner makes the money' story is what she wanted to portray, or possibly I just took my biased view and ran with it while reading ;)
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
"How" is that the people who make the money control the measurement methods for it. Governance is hard. CEOs once upon a time made "too much salary" so pay for performance was used. Now this.

EliRivers 11y ago

I suspect that without having a 99% to take advantage of, they wouldn't earn so much.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

p4bl0 11y ago

> without the 99% bothering them anymore. Do you really believe the 1% richer would earn so much money without exploiting the work of the 99% others you want them to get rid of? That's ridiculous.

GavinMcG 11y ago

Given that it's only those at the top that receive the benefits of economic growth (FTA: the bottom 80% of Californians saw no growth in their adjusted gross incomes between 1994 and 2013) higher is absolutely better. They're clearly skilled at harvesting the economic contributions of those worse off than them.

LeifCarrotson 11y ago

If they secede, they will still need the goods and services provided by the 99% - I doubt that many janitors, mechanics, painters, secretaries etc. are in that 1%. They'd need to have these servicepeople commute in and out of "rich California" every day from far off, and they probably wouldn't want unsightly public transport, enormous highways, high-rises, or low-income housing cluttering up their little paradise, so commutes of an hour or more would become normal. That would never work.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I know an electrician who has been close to, if not in the 1%. And then there's the bad years. I've had this conversation three times: "What'd it take to get you to move to California?" "More than you have." So there's that.

ska 11y ago

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif