5 ms·

Wealthier people also receive much greater benefits from the government. The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits ho

Wealthier people also receive much greater benefits from the government. The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits holders of capital. Infrastructure for transportation and information technology benefits everyone, but especially people who own companies that ship goods and deliver services over the internet. Government contracts benefit people who have a stake in the companies that service those contracts. The police tend to provide better protection to wealthier people in wealthier communities, who have more to lose from property crimes in any case. In case you're not persuaded that people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay a greater share, all of these things are valid reasons for the wealthy to kick in a lot more of their wealth, in relative and absolute terms, than other people.

closeparen 8y ago
User fees are a much more accurate way to charge heavy infrastructure users their fair share. The better police, schools, etc. in wealthy communities are funded by the higher property taxes there.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  Except then you often hurt those who can least afford it, those who have to live further away from their jobs due to costs and thus use infrastructure more to make it to work.
throwaway2048 8y ago
It can be considered in terms that wealth would be effectively entirely without meaning (whoever was stronger than you could just club you over the head and steal it) without strong organized governments.
prostoalex 8y ago
At policy level, is this the most robust tax system you want to build heading into the future? What happens when one of those people/families decides to shift their residence? It happened to NJ a while back https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer...
bluedevil2k 8y ago
What kind of anti-capitalist talk is this? How can you justify saying wealthy people receive more benefits? Poor people receive money from the government, like straight up cash on a debit card. They receive an hourly bonus through the earned income tax credit. They can receive free health care through Medicaid. The court system makes contracts fair and equitable precisely so that poor people aren’t taken advantage of. Check out all the mortgage/ home title papers you have to sign to get a house. And police are absolutely not providing better protection. If anything, they use the well off neighborhoods to raise some speeding ticket money.
- andybak 8y ago
  As a European I'm genuinely not sure whether this is satire or not.
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    As an American I can’t tell either.
  - simonh 8y ago
    I used to work for a US bank. It’s not.
  - bluedevil2k 8y ago
    Not satire - if you can provide more concrete examples of how the rich receive more benefits from the government, I’m open for learning.
    - pm24601 8y ago
      Pick a post from this site: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/
      - bluedevil2k 8y ago
        Ha, 3/4 of the page of an anti-capitalism website is trying to convince people to give them money.
lettergram 8y ago
> Wealthier people also receive much greater benefits from the government. I've seen this said a few times before - I'm kind of confused on what this means? I'm technically in the top few percent (idk exactly where) and I receive less from government than I did when I was an undergraduate in college. I'm from a poorer family, so the government was straight up paying my family in the past. I don't think this is remotely true, and if you're arguing that it's protection or something, I'm also calling B.S.. for my taxes I can easily hire a full time body guard, buy a few machine guns and make my house and car a fortress, and after some napkin math, I could still probably pay 10% taxes to keep the roads up (as opposed to the graduated 45% I pay). The vast majority of taxes go to medicare, Medicaid, social security, and payments to foreign countries. I honestly do not see any benefit to me from any of the above. And the people who benefit from the prior mentioned, are also zero threat to me (retired, sick, etc.). Not saying we should get rid of it, but it's definitely not benifiting me. Edit: just for reference, I refused any government grants for school and took up a job to start paying for my own food / clothing when my parents started getting welfare. I didn't want to be a hypocrite at then (at 13), so I can say stuff like this now.
- rayiner 8y ago
  An ordered society with a stable government is a necessary precondition to building a business like say Facebook. (In the absence of a State, your best bet as a nerd is to try to make yourself as useful as possible to the most powerful warlord who will have you.) In that sense, Facebook's shareholders and employees receive a lot more benefits from the existence of government than say a day laborer.
  - lisper 8y ago
    Exactly. The tax rates in Somalia are very low, but there's a reason that rich tech geeks are not rushing to set up shop there.
  - lettergram 8y ago
    I urge you to look at spending, you can have a stable government at 1/4 the cost or less. That's kind of my point.
refurb 8y ago
Complex contracts? Pretty sure the rich pay for their own lawyers for those. And you’re also not looking beyond first order beneficiaries. The factory worker also benefits from the court system that allows for complex contracts as it allows his employer to operate and him to have a job.
- pm24601 8y ago
  Absolutely. 1. Forced Arbitration clauses in an employment contract. 2. Successful reduction of workplace safety laws. 3. Easy relocation of factories and capital to low-wage locations. 4. Poor environmental protections 5. the elimination of defined benefit pension programs 6. CEO income being 400-1000x greater than average worker at same firm. Oh, I see you are talking about factory workers in South-East Asia.
err0ne 8y ago
The problem with your comment is that it assumes that because someone benefits more from something they represent the bulk of the cost of that thing. That's just not true. Or that taxation should be made pro rata of the utility someone derives from something which is an odd idea. Once you give up that calculus you will be hard-pressed to defend these levels of taxation without consciously conceding that this is in fact organized racket. You can dress it with a skirt and call it necessary, moral, or utilitarian, it's still the same beast underneath.
nickik 8y ago
I just don't think that is true. > The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits holders of capital. The court system is not all that expensive to run. Furthermore, just enforcing arbitrary contract would also allow most of these contracts. > Infrastructure for transportation and information technology benefits everyone, but especially people who own companies that ship goods and deliver services over the internet. Again, infrastructure is not the major cost of the government. Secondly, many people who make their living form simple stuff like pluming NEED the roads to make money also. I think its hard to argue that OVERALL, richer people profit more from infrastructure then poorer. > The police tend to provide better protection to wealthier people in wealthier communities, who have more to lose from property crimes in any case. Again, the police is actually not a major cost of the government. Furthermore, property protection is a pretty small part of police work and there a LARGER force of private security already operating to do that. > Government contracts benefit people who have a stake in the companies that service those contracts. That point I actually agree with.

closeparen 8y ago

User fees are a much more accurate way to charge heavy infrastructure users their fair share. The better police, schools, etc. in wealthy communities are funded by the higher property taxes there.

dorchadas 8y ago
Except then you often hurt those who can least afford it, those who have to live further away from their jobs due to costs and thus use infrastructure more to make it to work.

throwaway2048 8y ago

It can be considered in terms that wealth would be effectively entirely without meaning (whoever was stronger than you could just club you over the head and steal it) without strong organized governments.

prostoalex 8y ago

At policy level, is this the most robust tax system you want to build heading into the future? What happens when one of those people/families decides to shift their residence? It happened to NJ a while back https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer...

bluedevil2k 8y ago

What kind of anti-capitalist talk is this? How can you justify saying wealthy people receive more benefits? Poor people receive money from the government, like straight up cash on a debit card. They receive an hourly bonus through the earned income tax credit. They can receive free health care through Medicaid. The court system makes contracts fair and equitable precisely so that poor people aren’t taken advantage of. Check out all the mortgage/ home title papers you have to sign to get a house. And police are absolutely not providing better protection. If anything, they use the well off neighborhoods to raise some speeding ticket money.

andybak 8y ago
As a European I'm genuinely not sure whether this is satire or not.
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  As an American I can’t tell either.
- simonh 8y ago
  I used to work for a US bank. It’s not.
- bluedevil2k 8y ago
  Not satire - if you can provide more concrete examples of how the rich receive more benefits from the government, I’m open for learning.
  - pm24601 8y ago
    Pick a post from this site: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/
    - bluedevil2k 8y ago
      Ha, 3/4 of the page of an anti-capitalism website is trying to convince people to give them money.

lettergram 8y ago

> Wealthier people also receive much greater benefits from the government. I've seen this said a few times before - I'm kind of confused on what this means? I'm technically in the top few percent (idk exactly where) and I receive less from government than I did when I was an undergraduate in college. I'm from a poorer family, so the government was straight up paying my family in the past. I don't think this is remotely true, and if you're arguing that it's protection or something, I'm also calling B.S.. for my taxes I can easily hire a full time body guard, buy a few machine guns and make my house and car a fortress, and after some napkin math, I could still probably pay 10% taxes to keep the roads up (as opposed to the graduated 45% I pay). The vast majority of taxes go to medicare, Medicaid, social security, and payments to foreign countries. I honestly do not see any benefit to me from any of the above. And the people who benefit from the prior mentioned, are also zero threat to me (retired, sick, etc.). Not saying we should get rid of it, but it's definitely not benifiting me. Edit: just for reference, I refused any government grants for school and took up a job to start paying for my own food / clothing when my parents started getting welfare. I didn't want to be a hypocrite at then (at 13), so I can say stuff like this now.

rayiner 8y ago
An ordered society with a stable government is a necessary precondition to building a business like say Facebook. (In the absence of a State, your best bet as a nerd is to try to make yourself as useful as possible to the most powerful warlord who will have you.) In that sense, Facebook's shareholders and employees receive a lot more benefits from the existence of government than say a day laborer.
- lisper 8y ago
  Exactly. The tax rates in Somalia are very low, but there's a reason that rich tech geeks are not rushing to set up shop there.
- lettergram 8y ago
  I urge you to look at spending, you can have a stable government at 1/4 the cost or less. That's kind of my point.

refurb 8y ago

Complex contracts? Pretty sure the rich pay for their own lawyers for those. And you’re also not looking beyond first order beneficiaries. The factory worker also benefits from the court system that allows for complex contracts as it allows his employer to operate and him to have a job.

pm24601 8y ago
Absolutely. 1. Forced Arbitration clauses in an employment contract. 2. Successful reduction of workplace safety laws. 3. Easy relocation of factories and capital to low-wage locations. 4. Poor environmental protections 5. the elimination of defined benefit pension programs 6. CEO income being 400-1000x greater than average worker at same firm. Oh, I see you are talking about factory workers in South-East Asia.

err0ne 8y ago

The problem with your comment is that it assumes that because someone benefits more from something they represent the bulk of the cost of that thing. That's just not true. Or that taxation should be made pro rata of the utility someone derives from something which is an odd idea. Once you give up that calculus you will be hard-pressed to defend these levels of taxation without consciously conceding that this is in fact organized racket. You can dress it with a skirt and call it necessary, moral, or utilitarian, it's still the same beast underneath.

nickik 8y ago

I just don't think that is true. > The court system makes complex contracts possible in a way that really only benefits holders of capital. The court system is not all that expensive to run. Furthermore, just enforcing arbitrary contract would also allow most of these contracts. > Infrastructure for transportation and information technology benefits everyone, but especially people who own companies that ship goods and deliver services over the internet. Again, infrastructure is not the major cost of the government. Secondly, many people who make their living form simple stuff like pluming NEED the roads to make money also. I think its hard to argue that OVERALL, richer people profit more from infrastructure then poorer. > The police tend to provide better protection to wealthier people in wealthier communities, who have more to lose from property crimes in any case. Again, the police is actually not a major cost of the government. Furthermore, property protection is a pretty small part of police work and there a LARGER force of private security already operating to do that. > Government contracts benefit people who have a stake in the companies that service those contracts. That point I actually agree with.