4 ms·

Since I agree with Thomas Paine's view on the necessity of progressive taxation, what you specifically are taxed would be dependent on your income, but given th

Since I agree with Thomas Paine's view on the necessity of progressive taxation, what you specifically are taxed would be dependent on your income, but given the extraordinary circumstances (two major wars, numerous conflicts, near economic collapse, etc), I would support a temporary 90% tax rate on the upper income brackets similar to what Eisenhower enacted in order to pay down the debts and make major necessary social investments (education, infrastructure, etc). That said, I favor the Nordic social democracies to be good economic models, as they have been proven to support greater class mobility than the current U.S. system. Norway, for instance, ranges from 0-49% tax rates. However, as this may be relevant to the important point that you would like to make, I don't think my personal views on the proper rate of taxation take away from the need to recognize the importance of the existence of economic social relationships.

shawndumas 16y ago
wait; let me guess... and I would pay 49% and Carl would pay 0%, right? So his ratio would be 0:1 and mine would be 1:0.09 (for roads and libraries, of course. Can't forget my welfare benefits now can I?). Thank you for finally answering that question. And when I forked it over I should say, 'thank you for my welfare' and Carl will say, 'thank you for my wel-fairer'! Got it! . Well, either way 90%!? My friend I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  49% assumes you are in a very, very high income bracket. And 0% assumes that your mythical Carl would not be able to survive if he were taxes on what little income he had. You would benefit greatly from a society that does not allow Carl to fall through the cracks, this has been proven. Carl may use public infrastructure and a social safety net to pull himself out of poverty and set himself on a path of entrepreneurship. Conversely, you may find yourself without your high income, your savings eliminated, and in need of the social welfare that was used to help others out of a cycle of poverty. I'm not clear on what your important point was, but I think the point you try and make here is relatively short-sighted.
  - shawndumas 16y ago
    Well the point was that I started by saying that you should not be calling the government not taking as much of my own money welfare. You turned it into the government taking more of my own money as being welfare. So in the end my initial statement still stands. You cannot call the government letting me keep my own money welfare 'cause no body's building libraries for me with that money, are they?!
    - michaelchisari 16y ago
      I think the term "welfare" fully applies, because it pertains to the welfare of the society you live in. Again, I believe you're reacting based on an emotional response to what is often termed "welfare" by detractors of social programs All classes benefit from social welfare programs, albeit in different ways. If your tax dollars are not paid towards society you benefit from, but instead returned as a tax credit, that is as much a form of welfare as the person who pays into the system for 30 years and then receives disability, TANF, or unemployment benefits.
      - shawndumas 16y ago
        Maybe this will help; are the following two statements contradictory in your mind? 1.) The government taking *more* money from me should be called welfare. 2.) The government taking *less* money from me should be called welfare. You see, I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it. The next step was to have you either explain how both of those (to me at least) mutually exclusive statements can be true or you have to accept one or the other as true and reject the other. (Or you can also say that the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction is phooey...) You might be tempted to change the sense in which you are using the term welfare (I have noticed sacre quotes showing up in your last posts) but that's what i would called a fallacy of the fourth term. (And since you keep qualifying the term with 'social programs' I think it would be disingenuous to switch to the general second term and then back to the specific first without making it abundantly clear that you are doing so.) In my mind (and in most common dictionaries) welfare means a. governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need; or b. absolutely anything that aids or promotes anyone's well-being regardless of their prior need. (So at best you could say all of the first sense are of the second but you could not then say that all of the second sense are of the first. i.e. it would be a a concentric venn.) I thought that the article, you, and I where all using the term in the first sense but, once it became expedient to you, you seemed to switch to the second. The only other option as I see it is that you think it all belongs to the government and I should just be happy that they let me keep any of their money at all. And surely if I had it I wouldn't be as enlightened in my use of it anyway so it's really best for me if I just hand it over. But, and this is a very important 'but', the fact that you have declared that a 90% income tax rate is fine in your mind I now see that all hope of us becoming of one mind is utterly hopeless. I have no category that allows for that detestable state of affairs regardless of any circumstances. So, really, I think the best we can do is agree to disagree...

shawndumas 16y ago

wait; let me guess... and I would pay 49% and Carl would pay 0%, right? So his ratio would be 0:1 and mine would be 1:0.09 (for roads and libraries, of course. Can't forget my welfare benefits now can I?). Thank you for finally answering that question. And when I forked it over I should say, 'thank you for my welfare' and Carl will say, 'thank you for my wel-fairer'! Got it! . Well, either way 90%!? My friend I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

michaelchisari 16y ago
49% assumes you are in a very, very high income bracket. And 0% assumes that your mythical Carl would not be able to survive if he were taxes on what little income he had. You would benefit greatly from a society that does not allow Carl to fall through the cracks, this has been proven. Carl may use public infrastructure and a social safety net to pull himself out of poverty and set himself on a path of entrepreneurship. Conversely, you may find yourself without your high income, your savings eliminated, and in need of the social welfare that was used to help others out of a cycle of poverty. I'm not clear on what your important point was, but I think the point you try and make here is relatively short-sighted.
- shawndumas 16y ago
  Well the point was that I started by saying that you should not be calling the government not taking as much of my own money welfare. You turned it into the government taking more of my own money as being welfare. So in the end my initial statement still stands. You cannot call the government letting me keep my own money welfare 'cause no body's building libraries for me with that money, are they?!
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    I think the term "welfare" fully applies, because it pertains to the welfare of the society you live in. Again, I believe you're reacting based on an emotional response to what is often termed "welfare" by detractors of social programs All classes benefit from social welfare programs, albeit in different ways. If your tax dollars are not paid towards society you benefit from, but instead returned as a tax credit, that is as much a form of welfare as the person who pays into the system for 30 years and then receives disability, TANF, or unemployment benefits.
    - shawndumas 16y ago
      Maybe this will help; are the following two statements contradictory in your mind? 1.) The government taking *more* money from me should be called welfare. 2.) The government taking *less* money from me should be called welfare. You see, I was trying to get you to argue both sides and lo-and-behold you did it. The next step was to have you either explain how both of those (to me at least) mutually exclusive statements can be true or you have to accept one or the other as true and reject the other. (Or you can also say that the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction is phooey...) You might be tempted to change the sense in which you are using the term welfare (I have noticed sacre quotes showing up in your last posts) but that's what i would called a fallacy of the fourth term. (And since you keep qualifying the term with 'social programs' I think it would be disingenuous to switch to the general second term and then back to the specific first without making it abundantly clear that you are doing so.) In my mind (and in most common dictionaries) welfare means a. governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need; or b. absolutely anything that aids or promotes anyone's well-being regardless of their prior need. (So at best you could say all of the first sense are of the second but you could not then say that all of the second sense are of the first. i.e. it would be a a concentric venn.) I thought that the article, you, and I where all using the term in the first sense but, once it became expedient to you, you seemed to switch to the second. The only other option as I see it is that you think it all belongs to the government and I should just be happy that they let me keep any of their money at all. And surely if I had it I wouldn't be as enlightened in my use of it anyway so it's really best for me if I just hand it over. But, and this is a very important 'but', the fact that you have declared that a 90% income tax rate is fine in your mind I now see that all hope of us becoming of one mind is utterly hopeless. I have no category that allows for that detestable state of affairs regardless of any circumstances. So, really, I think the best we can do is agree to disagree...