10 ms·

Still not fair. Furthermore, taxation should be created out of neccesity, and should not just be thrown around for anything. If we really need the extra tax dol

Still not fair. Furthermore, taxation should be created out of neccesity, and should not just be thrown around for anything. If we really need the extra tax dollars figure out a way to allocate some money from other parts of the budget instead of increasing the tax willy nilly. Also, it is absurd that anybody would have to give away more of their legally earned income than they get to keep.

jimcsharp 8y ago
By our collective grace are people permitted to be so successful. Not one of our most successful billionaires would be where they are today without the people around them. The fairness/absurd thing doesn't really fly with me because of this.
- dahfizz 8y ago
  This strikes me as incredibly entitled. Do you think you deserve part of Jeff bezos's money because you voluntarily bought something from Amazon? >"By our collective grace are people permitted to be so successful" While I fundamentally disagree with you, if this applies to rich people, why doesn't it apply to everyone? Why shouldn't the government take 90% of your income? The logical conclusion to your position is communism. Nobody may have more than another because we all helped equally to build Amazon (no we didn't). The reason I disagree with your statement is that nobody participated in another's success unwillingly. It is not by "grace", it is by mutually beneficial transactions. Yeah you can make the argument that Amazon relies on the entire society around them to run: people to build and maintian roads, people who build and maintain and drive trucks, people who make cardboard and tape, people who buy from Amazon, etc etc etc. But here is the thing: all those people have been paid in the process. A fundamental principle of capitalism is that two rational actors only ever make a transaction if both people find it to be beneficial. Again, this is why I find it so entitled to claim some stake in Amazon's success when, by definition, you've already been compensated for your participation.
  - CPLX 8y ago
    > Do you think you deserve part of Jeff bezos's money because you voluntarily bought something from Amazon? No. But I think that if Jeff Bezos wants to live in a world where people don’t climb over the gates of his mansion and eat him then he better make sure to contribute enough to ensure an orderly, well functioning, and somewhat equitable society. This dynamic is as old as civilization itself. The rich can claim to be entitled to whatever they want, but it’s only by the grace of the masses that they avoid the guillotine. Literally.
    - dahfizz 8y ago
      So now you're a highwayman, killing people if they don't give you what you want? I don't want to live in that society. That's not "fairness". That's entitlement.
      - CPLX 8y ago
        You already do live in that society. People have made it pretty clear over thousands of years and seven continents that if you don't share the spoils of society reasonably they will eventually storm the castles, mansions, or government buildings and put everyone's head on a spike. The rich should never get too confused about the fact that they are alive because the masses are choosing not to kill them and take their possessions, not the other way around. Billionaires are pretty outnumbered, it's not a fair fight.
        onlydeadheroes 8y ago
        Good luck Robespierre!
        emaginniss 8y ago
        "seven continents" I think you malign the penguins, sir.
        CPLX 8y ago
sacheendra 8y ago
The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. It is not absurd at all that society thinks you shouldn't have this right if it is at the expense of others. Society can take all the wealth it wants from you if it thinks there is a problem to be solved. Poverty for example. Taxes are tool at civil society's disposal to tackle problems. Considering them immoral that they should only be used as a last resort is absurd. It quite funny that we consider property more important than people's lives. In the current political climate, going to warnis easier than rising taxes.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. NO! The right to the fruit of one's labor is a basic human right! The form the fruit of one's labor takes is irrelevant. It basically boils down to the right to private property or to be able to have ownership of things. What you legally own is yours. If you grow a tomato in your garden it's your tomato. If you trade that tomato for a dollar it's your dollar. If you help someone grow tow tomatoes and they give you one it's your tomato. If you help someone grow a ton of tomatoes and they give you money it's your money. We just so happen to tolerate society (via the government) skimming some off the top because the benefits (i.e. everything taxes pay for) far outweigh the cost. Pretty much every society ever recognizes the right to private property. Taxes in various forms are an exception to that rule. To proclaim that it is the other way around and that society owns everything by default and one may only keep what society lets them is basically the same as medieval Europe where the land and everything on it (people included) and all wealth generated by it are property of the lord by default and he/she can do with them as he/she pleases (only the lord is replaced with "society"). Taxes are an important part of a functioning modern society but people would do well to remember that private property is the rule and a forced contribution to the group fund is the exception not the other way around.
  - sacheendra 8y ago
    It is debatable of course. But the current consensus is that property is not fundamental to the existence of a human. The term property doesn't appear once on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human.... Following your tomato example, you grew the tomato on some land and the plant absorbed nutrients from the land. Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? How did humans come to own land? Was everybody born with their piece which they chose to trade? Of course not. What we call property came about over thousands of years due to complex interactions between people. There is a concept of fairness to getting to keep what you made. But, there is nothing simple or fundamental about it.
_archon_ 8y ago
The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played shell games to cover the cost, with the net result being huge national debt and the social security fund being low enough that it may not be able to continue full payments through my lifetime. Wars cost money. Taxing the wealthiest the most keeps wealth in investments and productive companies while securing the lower and middle class to provide demand with their lower rates. If you want low taxes on the wealthy, avoid allowing a geopolitical situation in which war occurs, and don't enter into them unnecessarily.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. It went back up above 90% for 1950-1963 after a brief dip into the 80s. > The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played shell games to cover the cost It was never less than 70% during Vietnam; though you are right it wasn't up into the 90%+ range if, as many people wrongly do, you count the US war in Vietnam from the Gulf of Tonkin. Desert Shield/Storm was an extremely brief war without a major post-conflict occupation.

jimcsharp 8y ago

By our collective grace are people permitted to be so successful. Not one of our most successful billionaires would be where they are today without the people around them. The fairness/absurd thing doesn't really fly with me because of this.

dahfizz 8y ago
This strikes me as incredibly entitled. Do you think you deserve part of Jeff bezos's money because you voluntarily bought something from Amazon? >"By our collective grace are people permitted to be so successful" While I fundamentally disagree with you, if this applies to rich people, why doesn't it apply to everyone? Why shouldn't the government take 90% of your income? The logical conclusion to your position is communism. Nobody may have more than another because we all helped equally to build Amazon (no we didn't). The reason I disagree with your statement is that nobody participated in another's success unwillingly. It is not by "grace", it is by mutually beneficial transactions. Yeah you can make the argument that Amazon relies on the entire society around them to run: people to build and maintian roads, people who build and maintain and drive trucks, people who make cardboard and tape, people who buy from Amazon, etc etc etc. But here is the thing: all those people have been paid in the process. A fundamental principle of capitalism is that two rational actors only ever make a transaction if both people find it to be beneficial. Again, this is why I find it so entitled to claim some stake in Amazon's success when, by definition, you've already been compensated for your participation.
- CPLX 8y ago
  > Do you think you deserve part of Jeff bezos's money because you voluntarily bought something from Amazon? No. But I think that if Jeff Bezos wants to live in a world where people don’t climb over the gates of his mansion and eat him then he better make sure to contribute enough to ensure an orderly, well functioning, and somewhat equitable society. This dynamic is as old as civilization itself. The rich can claim to be entitled to whatever they want, but it’s only by the grace of the masses that they avoid the guillotine. Literally.
  - dahfizz 8y ago
    So now you're a highwayman, killing people if they don't give you what you want? I don't want to live in that society. That's not "fairness". That's entitlement.
    - CPLX 8y ago
      You already do live in that society. People have made it pretty clear over thousands of years and seven continents that if you don't share the spoils of society reasonably they will eventually storm the castles, mansions, or government buildings and put everyone's head on a spike. The rich should never get too confused about the fact that they are alive because the masses are choosing not to kill them and take their possessions, not the other way around. Billionaires are pretty outnumbered, it's not a fair fight.
      - onlydeadheroes 8y ago
        Good luck Robespierre!
      - emaginniss 8y ago
        "seven continents" I think you malign the penguins, sir.
        CPLX 8y ago

sacheendra 8y ago

The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. It is not absurd at all that society thinks you shouldn't have this right if it is at the expense of others. Society can take all the wealth it wants from you if it thinks there is a problem to be solved. Poverty for example. Taxes are tool at civil society's disposal to tackle problems. Considering them immoral that they should only be used as a last resort is absurd. It quite funny that we consider property more important than people's lives. In the current political climate, going to warnis easier than rising taxes.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>The right to have your legally earned income is one given to you by society. It's not something that arose out of natural order, or given by God if you are a believer. NO! The right to the fruit of one's labor is a basic human right! The form the fruit of one's labor takes is irrelevant. It basically boils down to the right to private property or to be able to have ownership of things. What you legally own is yours. If you grow a tomato in your garden it's your tomato. If you trade that tomato for a dollar it's your dollar. If you help someone grow tow tomatoes and they give you one it's your tomato. If you help someone grow a ton of tomatoes and they give you money it's your money. We just so happen to tolerate society (via the government) skimming some off the top because the benefits (i.e. everything taxes pay for) far outweigh the cost. Pretty much every society ever recognizes the right to private property. Taxes in various forms are an exception to that rule. To proclaim that it is the other way around and that society owns everything by default and one may only keep what society lets them is basically the same as medieval Europe where the land and everything on it (people included) and all wealth generated by it are property of the lord by default and he/she can do with them as he/she pleases (only the lord is replaced with "society"). Taxes are an important part of a functioning modern society but people would do well to remember that private property is the rule and a forced contribution to the group fund is the exception not the other way around.
- sacheendra 8y ago
  It is debatable of course. But the current consensus is that property is not fundamental to the existence of a human. The term property doesn't appear once on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human.... Following your tomato example, you grew the tomato on some land and the plant absorbed nutrients from the land. Who gave your the right to do that? Do you own the nutrients? How did humans come to own land? Was everybody born with their piece which they chose to trade? Of course not. What we call property came about over thousands of years due to complex interactions between people. There is a concept of fairness to getting to keep what you made. But, there is nothing simple or fundamental about it.

_archon_ 8y ago

The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played shell games to cover the cost, with the net result being huge national debt and the social security fund being low enough that it may not be able to continue full payments through my lifetime. Wars cost money. Taxing the wealthiest the most keeps wealth in investments and productive companies while securing the lower and middle class to provide demand with their lower rates. If you want low taxes on the wealthy, avoid allowing a geopolitical situation in which war occurs, and don't enter into them unnecessarily.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> The top tier rate was that high to pay for WWII. It went back up above 90% for 1950-1963 after a brief dip into the 80s. > The rate didn't go similarly high for Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, or Afghanistan/Iraq because we have played shell games to cover the cost It was never less than 70% during Vietnam; though you are right it wasn't up into the 90%+ range if, as many people wrongly do, you count the US war in Vietnam from the Gulf of Tonkin. Desert Shield/Storm was an extremely brief war without a major post-conflict occupation.