7 ms·

But how can you morally justify taking 70% of someone’s income at threat of violence?

by xupybd 8y ago

lr4444lr 8y ago
It's a marginal rate, no?
- xupybd 8y ago
  Yes it’s a marginal rate but at some point, after someone has earned enough, for every dollar they earn the government is going to take 70cents of that dollar to spend as they see fit. If the person does not pay they will send around cops with guns and the threat of violence to take that money or put that person in a cage for not paying taxes. It’s not about how much money you have to live on it’s about other people claiming a right to money you have earned.
  - flapjackfritz 8y ago
    The government doesn't just spend it how they want, we have a system where it is collectively decided. That means you have to follow the law whether you agreed with it or not, it's how democracy works.
    - xupybd 8y ago
      Yes, the collective (the government as elected by the people) decides how to spend other peoples money. That is not a moral justification. This is how democracy works. But if collectively a people democratically decide to do something that doesn't make it morally correct. You do have to follow the law, but what I'm saying is that we need to consider the moral implications of the law being suggested.
      - flapjackfritz 8y ago
        The moral implications are important. That's why it's a marginal rate being proposed in the USA, only on income over 10 million. Taxing higher rates on much higher income amount is morally better than taxing that same rate on a lower income. This is because of the impact it has on the earners well being. Income after 10 million has a much lower impact on that persons well being than say, their first 1 million.
smt88 8y ago
What do you mean by violence? Also, those extremely wealthy people are free to leave that country and not pay the tax rate. As long as they have enough advance notice, it's like a contract that they've entered into. The threat is if they don't hold up their end of the bargain.
- xupybd 8y ago
  What I mean by violence is, if you don't pay your taxes the last resort is to arrest you. To arrest you the government will send armed police to take you to jail. If you don't comply they will use force (violence) to make you comply. The point is if we're going to use violence against someone we have to make sure we're justified in doing so. Forcing someone to pay their share of the roads, defense and police sure that's easy. Then forcing them to pay 70 cents in the last dollar they earned, now it's getting a little harder to rationalize. The cut off point is not clear but it should be part of the argument. Fine if it works somewhere that doesn't mean it's right does it? It's easy to make the argument that a person with a lot of wealth should help those less fortunate than them selves but it's not so easy when you are forcing them to help the less fortunate. I don't think two wrongs make a right in this case.
  - smt88 8y ago
    First, let's keep in mind that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested a marginal tax rate on income over $10M/year. That's a pretty mild proposal. It affects a tiny fraction of people, and it still leaves them with more wealth in one year than they'd need to live comfortably for multiple lifetimes. > It's easy to make the argument that a person with a lot of wealth should help those less fortunate than them selves but it's not so easy when you are forcing them to help the less fortunate. I think you may misunderstand the mainstream arguments for tax rates this high. There are several, and this won't be an exhaustive list. 1) Extreme wealth indicates disproportionate benefit from social programs. Every business (and therefore business owner) is an upstream beneficiary of monthly welfare payments, for example. Roads are another: Tim Cook makes a lot more money off of road infrastructure than someone who works at a grocery store. 2) A rising tide raises all ships. A highly-taxed, rich person in a secure, well-funded society may actually end up netting more money in the end. 3) Your actual wealth goes down if your country doesn't have the foundations of a good quality of life. For example, my uncle lives in Brazil and spends $200k/year on a full-time security team. Someone at his level of wealth in the US would never do that. It just isn't worth it because the risk of being kidnapped is almost zero. 4) A lot of ultra-wealthy people aren't value creators. For example, some very highly-paid people every year are actually failed CEOs who are riding their golden parachutes out of their company. There have been literally thousands of books written about this concept, so I suggest digging into it through someone more authoritative than me. Piketty might be a good start.
paobuts 8y ago
Not 70% of someone's income, just 70% of only the portion of any single person's income over $10,000,000 per year. Morally justified the same way all taxes are justified.
- xupybd 8y ago
  Well no the rate that you tax someone at is part of the moral discussion. It’s easy to argue that forcing people to pay for basic services is justifiable. But it’s not so easy when you are taking such a high percentage of their money.
  - hliyan 8y ago
    Counterpoint: is it moral for a small minority of citizens to have, say 1000x the wealth (and therefore the power) of the average citizen, and therefore have a disproportionate amount of political influence, and therefore being able to force upon the general population, laws and policies that they did not vote for? Also, I do understand your point of view. When I was an ardent Ayn Rand fan (much younger then), I used to use this same argument, an in fact the same phrasing: taking income at the threat of violence (which, IIRC, is from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). I've just come to realize over the years that the opposing viewpoint is actually morally superior.
    - xupybd 8y ago
      I'd agree that Ayn Rand is a step too far. I don't think the pure libertarian mind set is at all practical. But their arguments do have weight when you start to get to this level of taxation. I see no issues with some having 1000x the wealth of others. We both probably have 1000x the average citizen in some of the poorest countries in the world. Is this a problem yes. Are we morally wrong for having that wealth, no I don't think so. Is there a problem with the difference in power at the political level, yes, is this a moral issue yes. But I don't think taking from the rich giving to the poor solves this problem. The reason being that as we do this it tends to make the situation worse. Welfare programs tend to restrict the freedom of those on the programs more that the rest of the population and have been shown to develop a learned dependence on these programs. Even if it did work I don't see how that justifies taking so much from someone. It's a good idea to try and level the playing field. But I don't think massive income taxes are moral and as such should not be chosen as the tool to do this.
jayd16 8y ago
When it can make many lives much better and a single life not significantly worse, its an easy choice.
- danschumann 8y ago
  Considering what has happened in many socialist countries there is also the possibility that millions of people are murdered. It makes the government much more powerful. Imagine if Trump had 5x the power he has now.
  - hliyan 8y ago
    It would do you well to learn the difference between socialism and communism.
    - danschumann 8y ago
      Well. You can seize the means of production, or you can tax 100%, and then dole out 100%, which is the same effect.. so that the different is merely an intellectual one. It would do you well to move out of a big city into a small town.
  - jayd16 8y ago
    Budgets are a congressional power.
CBLT 8y ago
The same way we morally justify taxing people to pave highways: it helps. Also, you misspoke, it's not 70% of someone's income, it's 70% of income over $10 million. The first $10 million isn't being seized, you'll find it's quite comfortable to live on.
- geomark 8y ago
  From the article: "...70 percent marginal tax rate and it kicks in, not at $10 million like AOC proposes, but at around $98,000"
  - CBLT 8y ago
    I could argue that I am talking about US taxes. The overall discussion (beyond this news article) is entirely about US taxes, I live in the US, and most bait posts like the one I responded to are also American in origin. I'd rather be frank: I was not commenting in good faith. There was obviously no good discussion to come of the subtree, and I was bored and felt like getting my quill wet. I hope you found my comment as I intended it: polite but smug, responding but unanswering, and steering the discussion but noncommittal. Yes, it's not a good comment, it's a polarizing comment. Comment voting systems like these are quite interesting I think. Immediately after posting I was upvoted and you were downvoted by some other reader. They surely cast their votes on how they feel: I was disagreeing with the grandparent (bait post) and they too disagreed. Upvote. As I hinted above, my post isn't strong enough to stand on it's own merits, it was upvoted merely by context. Since you seemed to disagree (or at least not agree), you're an enemy, part of the opposing faction. Downvote. Again, your post wasn't irrelevant or otherwise misinformed, it was downvoted by context. I'm sorry that happened to you, I didn't do it but I'll say you need tough skin in flamebait trees.
    - xupybd 8y ago
      The "Bait Post" is from a New Zealander. I live under socialized health care and generally in a very socialist society similar to most European countries. I wasn't trying to start a flame war but a discussion on the morality of taking such a high percentage. I knew very well that this a marginal rate but still after some level of earnings they're suggesting taking 70% of someone's income. I just think that's far too high to justify. topher515 has provided an interesting link to a well thought out and articulated article. That while I don't agree with it entirely I do think that sort of thing is a sign of a fruitful discussion. The position "tax is theft" is hard to justify but I'd say the other extreme where a 70% marginal tax rate is suggested is also hard to justify.
hannasanarion 8y ago
By not taking 70% of their income. That's not how taxes work. You take 70% of their income after they've already made a ton of money that is more than enough to live in comfort. The effective tax rate for the median Swede is 27%
henrikschroder 8y ago
The thing that annoys me to no end when discussing these things is that people advocating lower taxes make their arguments as if everyone was an isolated island, living in some sort of vacuum, no interaction with others at all. But, for better or worse, we're all in this together. We drive on the same roads, we breathe the same air, we swim in the same waters, we use the same electricity grid, we live in the same cities, we share many, many things with each other, whether we like it or not. Taxes buys you civilization, better shared infrastructure, better environment, less social unrest. If you are rich, these things benefit you too. You can't isolate yourself from the rest of the world and just hope that the bad outside goes away. Instead, if you invest in it, the world becomes a better place for everyone, and in turn, it becomes a better place for you.
- xupybd 8y ago
  Yes we need taxes, yes we live in societies that benefit from commons that need to be paid for by taxes. But if you were to tax someone at 100% even at a marginal rate most would not agree that is moral. I think 70% is getting to the point that it needs a moral justification. Not just a discussion on the feasibility.
topher515 8y ago
I suggest you take a look at this article[1] which reframes the idea of who “owns”, on first principle, your pre-tax income. I’m not sure I completely buy into the article’s thesis. But I think it’s extrmely valuable viewpoint to consider on taxation. And I do think it’s at least “coherent”, so if someone made it the moral framework with which they analyzed taxes they wouldn’t be being intellectually dishonest. [1] https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/ https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-th...
hliyan 8y ago
Taxation is not 'taking' income. It is basically fees for services provided by the government + a social insurance premium. That welfare program that you pay for is available for you when you yourself are down on your luck. That state education system that you pay for, is why your less wealthy neighbors and colleagues are also generally civilized people.
- xupybd 8y ago
  The difference between tax and fees is that with fees you can opt in or out of the service they're for. Taxes are compulsory, in most other interactions the exchange of money is voluntary and can be negotiated by the parties involved. That is why we should take care thinking about tax changes. You are forcing someone to provide money. It's obvious we have to force people to pay for somethings. But how much should they have to pay for? At 70% I think there has to be a solid discussion about the moral implications not just about the feasibility.
flapjackfritz 8y ago
Using a publicly funded and regulated government institution? We are a nation of laws, and you don't get to reject laws piecemeal because you just want more money.
happytoexplain 8y ago
The same way civilized nations morally justify the enforcement of all laws at threat of violence. Phrasing it that way is just shit-stirring.
dang 8y ago
Please don't post ideological talking points to HN. They're not interesting, in the sense that matters here, because the discussion they produce is tedious and repetitive.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
danschumann 8y ago
For each % of tax raised on the rich, what % do you actually collect? The rich are the ones who have money to avoid tax laws. They could just move. Or just move their money.

But how can you morally justify taking 70% of someone’s income at threat of violence?

by xupybd 8y ago

But how can you morally justify taking 70% of someone’s income at threat of violence?

lr4444lr 8y ago

It's a marginal rate, no?

xupybd 8y ago
Yes it’s a marginal rate but at some point, after someone has earned enough, for every dollar they earn the government is going to take 70cents of that dollar to spend as they see fit. If the person does not pay they will send around cops with guns and the threat of violence to take that money or put that person in a cage for not paying taxes. It’s not about how much money you have to live on it’s about other people claiming a right to money you have earned.
- flapjackfritz 8y ago
  The government doesn't just spend it how they want, we have a system where it is collectively decided. That means you have to follow the law whether you agreed with it or not, it's how democracy works.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    Yes, the collective (the government as elected by the people) decides how to spend other peoples money. That is not a moral justification. This is how democracy works. But if collectively a people democratically decide to do something that doesn't make it morally correct. You do have to follow the law, but what I'm saying is that we need to consider the moral implications of the law being suggested.
    - flapjackfritz 8y ago
      The moral implications are important. That's why it's a marginal rate being proposed in the USA, only on income over 10 million. Taxing higher rates on much higher income amount is morally better than taxing that same rate on a lower income. This is because of the impact it has on the earners well being. Income after 10 million has a much lower impact on that persons well being than say, their first 1 million.

smt88 8y ago

What do you mean by violence? Also, those extremely wealthy people are free to leave that country and not pay the tax rate. As long as they have enough advance notice, it's like a contract that they've entered into. The threat is if they don't hold up their end of the bargain.

xupybd 8y ago
What I mean by violence is, if you don't pay your taxes the last resort is to arrest you. To arrest you the government will send armed police to take you to jail. If you don't comply they will use force (violence) to make you comply. The point is if we're going to use violence against someone we have to make sure we're justified in doing so. Forcing someone to pay their share of the roads, defense and police sure that's easy. Then forcing them to pay 70 cents in the last dollar they earned, now it's getting a little harder to rationalize. The cut off point is not clear but it should be part of the argument. Fine if it works somewhere that doesn't mean it's right does it? It's easy to make the argument that a person with a lot of wealth should help those less fortunate than them selves but it's not so easy when you are forcing them to help the less fortunate. I don't think two wrongs make a right in this case.
- smt88 8y ago
  First, let's keep in mind that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested a marginal tax rate on income over $10M/year. That's a pretty mild proposal. It affects a tiny fraction of people, and it still leaves them with more wealth in one year than they'd need to live comfortably for multiple lifetimes. > It's easy to make the argument that a person with a lot of wealth should help those less fortunate than them selves but it's not so easy when you are forcing them to help the less fortunate. I think you may misunderstand the mainstream arguments for tax rates this high. There are several, and this won't be an exhaustive list. 1) Extreme wealth indicates disproportionate benefit from social programs. Every business (and therefore business owner) is an upstream beneficiary of monthly welfare payments, for example. Roads are another: Tim Cook makes a lot more money off of road infrastructure than someone who works at a grocery store. 2) A rising tide raises all ships. A highly-taxed, rich person in a secure, well-funded society may actually end up netting more money in the end. 3) Your actual wealth goes down if your country doesn't have the foundations of a good quality of life. For example, my uncle lives in Brazil and spends $200k/year on a full-time security team. Someone at his level of wealth in the US would never do that. It just isn't worth it because the risk of being kidnapped is almost zero. 4) A lot of ultra-wealthy people aren't value creators. For example, some very highly-paid people every year are actually failed CEOs who are riding their golden parachutes out of their company. There have been literally thousands of books written about this concept, so I suggest digging into it through someone more authoritative than me. Piketty might be a good start.

paobuts 8y ago

Not 70% of someone's income, just 70% of only the portion of any single person's income over $10,000,000 per year. Morally justified the same way all taxes are justified.

xupybd 8y ago
Well no the rate that you tax someone at is part of the moral discussion. It’s easy to argue that forcing people to pay for basic services is justifiable. But it’s not so easy when you are taking such a high percentage of their money.
- hliyan 8y ago
  Counterpoint: is it moral for a small minority of citizens to have, say 1000x the wealth (and therefore the power) of the average citizen, and therefore have a disproportionate amount of political influence, and therefore being able to force upon the general population, laws and policies that they did not vote for? Also, I do understand your point of view. When I was an ardent Ayn Rand fan (much younger then), I used to use this same argument, an in fact the same phrasing: taking income at the threat of violence (which, IIRC, is from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). I've just come to realize over the years that the opposing viewpoint is actually morally superior.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    I'd agree that Ayn Rand is a step too far. I don't think the pure libertarian mind set is at all practical. But their arguments do have weight when you start to get to this level of taxation. I see no issues with some having 1000x the wealth of others. We both probably have 1000x the average citizen in some of the poorest countries in the world. Is this a problem yes. Are we morally wrong for having that wealth, no I don't think so. Is there a problem with the difference in power at the political level, yes, is this a moral issue yes. But I don't think taking from the rich giving to the poor solves this problem. The reason being that as we do this it tends to make the situation worse. Welfare programs tend to restrict the freedom of those on the programs more that the rest of the population and have been shown to develop a learned dependence on these programs. Even if it did work I don't see how that justifies taking so much from someone. It's a good idea to try and level the playing field. But I don't think massive income taxes are moral and as such should not be chosen as the tool to do this.

jayd16 8y ago

When it can make many lives much better and a single life not significantly worse, its an easy choice.

danschumann 8y ago
Considering what has happened in many socialist countries there is also the possibility that millions of people are murdered. It makes the government much more powerful. Imagine if Trump had 5x the power he has now.
- hliyan 8y ago
  It would do you well to learn the difference between socialism and communism.
  - danschumann 8y ago
    Well. You can seize the means of production, or you can tax 100%, and then dole out 100%, which is the same effect.. so that the different is merely an intellectual one. It would do you well to move out of a big city into a small town.
- jayd16 8y ago
  Budgets are a congressional power.

CBLT 8y ago

The same way we morally justify taxing people to pave highways: it helps. Also, you misspoke, it's not 70% of someone's income, it's 70% of income over $10 million. The first $10 million isn't being seized, you'll find it's quite comfortable to live on.

geomark 8y ago
From the article: "...70 percent marginal tax rate and it kicks in, not at $10 million like AOC proposes, but at around $98,000"
- CBLT 8y ago
  I could argue that I am talking about US taxes. The overall discussion (beyond this news article) is entirely about US taxes, I live in the US, and most bait posts like the one I responded to are also American in origin. I'd rather be frank: I was not commenting in good faith. There was obviously no good discussion to come of the subtree, and I was bored and felt like getting my quill wet. I hope you found my comment as I intended it: polite but smug, responding but unanswering, and steering the discussion but noncommittal. Yes, it's not a good comment, it's a polarizing comment. Comment voting systems like these are quite interesting I think. Immediately after posting I was upvoted and you were downvoted by some other reader. They surely cast their votes on how they feel: I was disagreeing with the grandparent (bait post) and they too disagreed. Upvote. As I hinted above, my post isn't strong enough to stand on it's own merits, it was upvoted merely by context. Since you seemed to disagree (or at least not agree), you're an enemy, part of the opposing faction. Downvote. Again, your post wasn't irrelevant or otherwise misinformed, it was downvoted by context. I'm sorry that happened to you, I didn't do it but I'll say you need tough skin in flamebait trees.
  - xupybd 8y ago
    The "Bait Post" is from a New Zealander. I live under socialized health care and generally in a very socialist society similar to most European countries. I wasn't trying to start a flame war but a discussion on the morality of taking such a high percentage. I knew very well that this a marginal rate but still after some level of earnings they're suggesting taking 70% of someone's income. I just think that's far too high to justify. topher515 has provided an interesting link to a well thought out and articulated article. That while I don't agree with it entirely I do think that sort of thing is a sign of a fruitful discussion. The position "tax is theft" is hard to justify but I'd say the other extreme where a 70% marginal tax rate is suggested is also hard to justify.

hannasanarion 8y ago

By not taking 70% of their income. That's not how taxes work. You take 70% of their income after they've already made a ton of money that is more than enough to live in comfort. The effective tax rate for the median Swede is 27%

henrikschroder 8y ago

The thing that annoys me to no end when discussing these things is that people advocating lower taxes make their arguments as if everyone was an isolated island, living in some sort of vacuum, no interaction with others at all. But, for better or worse, we're all in this together. We drive on the same roads, we breathe the same air, we swim in the same waters, we use the same electricity grid, we live in the same cities, we share many, many things with each other, whether we like it or not. Taxes buys you civilization, better shared infrastructure, better environment, less social unrest. If you are rich, these things benefit you too. You can't isolate yourself from the rest of the world and just hope that the bad outside goes away. Instead, if you invest in it, the world becomes a better place for everyone, and in turn, it becomes a better place for you.

xupybd 8y ago
Yes we need taxes, yes we live in societies that benefit from commons that need to be paid for by taxes. But if you were to tax someone at 100% even at a marginal rate most would not agree that is moral. I think 70% is getting to the point that it needs a moral justification. Not just a discussion on the feasibility.

topher515 8y ago

I suggest you take a look at this article[1] which reframes the idea of who “owns”, on first principle, your pre-tax income. I’m not sure I completely buy into the article’s thesis. But I think it’s extrmely valuable viewpoint to consider on taxation. And I do think it’s at least “coherent”, so if someone made it the moral framework with which they analyzed taxes they wouldn’t be being intellectually dishonest. [1] https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/ https://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-th...

hliyan 8y ago

Taxation is not 'taking' income. It is basically fees for services provided by the government + a social insurance premium. That welfare program that you pay for is available for you when you yourself are down on your luck. That state education system that you pay for, is why your less wealthy neighbors and colleagues are also generally civilized people.

xupybd 8y ago
The difference between tax and fees is that with fees you can opt in or out of the service they're for. Taxes are compulsory, in most other interactions the exchange of money is voluntary and can be negotiated by the parties involved. That is why we should take care thinking about tax changes. You are forcing someone to provide money. It's obvious we have to force people to pay for somethings. But how much should they have to pay for? At 70% I think there has to be a solid discussion about the moral implications not just about the feasibility.

flapjackfritz 8y ago

Using a publicly funded and regulated government institution? We are a nation of laws, and you don't get to reject laws piecemeal because you just want more money.

happytoexplain 8y ago

The same way civilized nations morally justify the enforcement of all laws at threat of violence. Phrasing it that way is just shit-stirring.

dang 8y ago

Please don't post ideological talking points to HN. They're not interesting, in the sense that matters here, because the discussion they produce is tedious and repetitive.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

danschumann 8y ago

For each % of tax raised on the rich, what % do you actually collect? The rich are the ones who have money to avoid tax laws. They could just move. Or just move their money.