5 ms·

> So stop acting as if the rich are being bled dry or pushed to a limit. I never said they were being bled dry. I said they already pay most of the taxes, and

> So stop acting as if the rich are being bled dry or pushed to a limit. I never said they were being bled dry. I said they already pay most of the taxes, and it seems unjustifiable to ask them for even more, while at the same time demonizing them for not paying their "fair share" -- as if paying more than half of the taxes isn't already a major contribution. Their ability to pay is not relevant to my argument.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. But the only reason the rich pay so much in nominal taxes is because their incomes (which are directly and strongly correlated with their wealth) are so ridiculously high. Keep in mind that just because Bob is paying a million dollars in taxes and Julia is paying ten dollars in taxes does not mean the system is unfair towards Bob. Especially if Bob should actually be paying three million dollars in taxes, but has used creative accounting practices and tax avoidance schemes to reduce his tax burden.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Especially if Bob should actually be paying three million dollars in taxes, but has used creative accounting practices and tax avoidance schemes to reduce his tax burden. If the accounting schemes and tax avoidance schemes are legal according to the tax code, then they are what determine what he should pay. The amount someone should pay is the amount he or she is legally required to pay. The tax laws are the only standard by which the amount of taxes someone should pay can be determined.
  - deathcakes 10y ago
    And of course tax law has been the same since the dawn of time, there can be no argument to brook with the idea that it currently does not work. Morals musn't enter this argument, it would muddy the waters too much.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    I thought we were talking about fairness, not legality. They are different concepts that are only sometimes related.
    - hueving 10y ago
      If we're just talking about 'fairness' in the non legal sense, why is it that taxes should be income-based anyway?
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Agree! Which is why it's time to vote for an increase in taxes on the highest marginal income bands. And then, the law being the law, those taxes will be paid.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >Keep in mind that just because Bob is paying a million dollars in taxes and Julia is paying ten dollars in taxes does not mean the system is unfair towards Bob. Yes it does. The reason Bob pays more has nothing to do with fairness. Bob has money the government can take without his permission and Julia doesn't. That's the long and the short of it.
deathcakes 10y ago
I would have to disagree almost entirely - their ability to pay is why they are being asked to. This much is basic economics, I should have thought. Someone who has no more to give cannot, and there is little point asking. Most of the wealth == most of the taxes. This is justified in a basic arithmetical sense.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > Most of the wealth == most of the taxes. This is justified in a basic arithmetical sense. No, most of the income == most of the taxes, and that is the situation we are already in. My point is that it's hard to justify asking for even more money from the group of people who already pay more than half of the taxes.
  - eli 10y ago
    I think I could justify it just fine.
    - twblalock 10y ago
      > I think I could justify it just fine. Do it, then. Don't just post worthless snark.
      - eli 10y ago
        Taxes on the wealthy are at historic lows and wealth inequality at historic highs at a time when we have many important but underfunded programs that would benefit all of us. What's the argument against it? That it isn't "fair"? That rich people will stop trying to earn more money? I don't find that to be credible.
        twblalock 10y ago
        There are several arguments against it: If you depend on a small number of people for the majority of tax revenue, you will end up with unstable revenue. Look what happened to California's tax revenue during the 2008 recession. It dropped because the small number of rich people who pay more than half of the taxes got hit pretty hard by the recession. Besides, do we really want to live in a society where only a small group of people has a financial stake in the funding of the government? Voters would probably be a bit more informed if they had some skin in the game. We really don't want to live in a society where the majority of voters will always approve spending increases because they know their taxes won't increase, and the cost of the increase will be borne by the top few percent. That will get us a runaway train of government spending.
mixmastamyk 10y ago
Hmm, you didn't address his point about corporate loopholes and capital gains, which I thought was the more interesting part of the argument.

enraged_camel 10y ago

Fair is in the eye of the beholder. But the only reason the rich pay so much in nominal taxes is because their incomes (which are directly and strongly correlated with their wealth) are so ridiculously high. Keep in mind that just because Bob is paying a million dollars in taxes and Julia is paying ten dollars in taxes does not mean the system is unfair towards Bob. Especially if Bob should actually be paying three million dollars in taxes, but has used creative accounting practices and tax avoidance schemes to reduce his tax burden.

twblalock 10y ago
> Especially if Bob should actually be paying three million dollars in taxes, but has used creative accounting practices and tax avoidance schemes to reduce his tax burden. If the accounting schemes and tax avoidance schemes are legal according to the tax code, then they are what determine what he should pay. The amount someone should pay is the amount he or she is legally required to pay. The tax laws are the only standard by which the amount of taxes someone should pay can be determined.
- deathcakes 10y ago
  And of course tax law has been the same since the dawn of time, there can be no argument to brook with the idea that it currently does not work. Morals musn't enter this argument, it would muddy the waters too much.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  I thought we were talking about fairness, not legality. They are different concepts that are only sometimes related.
  - hueving 10y ago
    If we're just talking about 'fairness' in the non legal sense, why is it that taxes should be income-based anyway?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Agree! Which is why it's time to vote for an increase in taxes on the highest marginal income bands. And then, the law being the law, those taxes will be paid.
gozur88 10y ago
>Keep in mind that just because Bob is paying a million dollars in taxes and Julia is paying ten dollars in taxes does not mean the system is unfair towards Bob. Yes it does. The reason Bob pays more has nothing to do with fairness. Bob has money the government can take without his permission and Julia doesn't. That's the long and the short of it.

deathcakes 10y ago

I would have to disagree almost entirely - their ability to pay is why they are being asked to. This much is basic economics, I should have thought. Someone who has no more to give cannot, and there is little point asking. Most of the wealth == most of the taxes. This is justified in a basic arithmetical sense.

twblalock 10y ago
> Most of the wealth == most of the taxes. This is justified in a basic arithmetical sense. No, most of the income == most of the taxes, and that is the situation we are already in. My point is that it's hard to justify asking for even more money from the group of people who already pay more than half of the taxes.
- eli 10y ago
  I think I could justify it just fine.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    > I think I could justify it just fine. Do it, then. Don't just post worthless snark.
    - eli 10y ago
      Taxes on the wealthy are at historic lows and wealth inequality at historic highs at a time when we have many important but underfunded programs that would benefit all of us. What's the argument against it? That it isn't "fair"? That rich people will stop trying to earn more money? I don't find that to be credible.
      - twblalock 10y ago
        There are several arguments against it: If you depend on a small number of people for the majority of tax revenue, you will end up with unstable revenue. Look what happened to California's tax revenue during the 2008 recession. It dropped because the small number of rich people who pay more than half of the taxes got hit pretty hard by the recession. Besides, do we really want to live in a society where only a small group of people has a financial stake in the funding of the government? Voters would probably be a bit more informed if they had some skin in the game. We really don't want to live in a society where the majority of voters will always approve spending increases because they know their taxes won't increase, and the cost of the increase will be borne by the top few percent. That will get us a runaway train of government spending.

mixmastamyk 10y ago

Hmm, you didn't address his point about corporate loopholes and capital gains, which I thought was the more interesting part of the argument.