45 ms·

The temporary or permanent cessation on an individuals rights based off their inability to follow the law (this is very general) has always been the purview of

The temporary or permanent cessation on an individuals rights based off their inability to follow the law (this is very general) has always been the purview of government. My original comment is more geared towards the idea that these individuals have, for the most part, put in the work to make something which earned them the money. Why exactly does the government think it is entitled to such high portions simply because the earner is making lots of it?

dane-pgp 5y ago
The government thinks it is entitled to whatever portions it has a democratic mandate to demand, regardless of whether the earner is making a lot or a little. It has also always been the purview of government to tax the population/businesses whatever it can get away with, just as it has been the purview of government to regulate commerce for the benefit of its citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_competition_law#Roman_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_competition_law#Rom...
- lax4ever 5y ago
  Certainly it has been their purview, but to some of our representatives they place themselves on some sort of moral high ground in trying to impose increasingly larger taxes on those who have more simply because they have more. There is no argument that they are doing it, I don't understand why especially given the government's incredible inability to responsibly manage it.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > impose increasingly larger taxes on those who have more simply because they have more You're free to disagree on the ethics, but hopefully you can accept the logic of it. If I may ironically steal a line from William Francis Sutton Jr., they tax the rich because "that's where the money is". To be a little more nuanced, though, money has diminishing marginal utility, in the sense that $10 means less to a billionaire than to someone who is broke, and therefore if a tax system takes into account the perspectives of the people who hold the money, rather than the perspectives of the pieces of money themselves, it makes sense to tax not just as a fixed proportion of people's wealth, but to tax wealth above certain thresholds at higher rates. Consider also that the median US household pays about $10k in taxes per year, and has a net worth of about $120k. That means that, just to tax billionaires proportionally (not progressively), there could be a wealth tax of 8% per year. Instead we tax income, which punishes people for working and rewards the idle rich.

dane-pgp 5y ago

The government thinks it is entitled to whatever portions it has a democratic mandate to demand, regardless of whether the earner is making a lot or a little. It has also always been the purview of government to tax the population/businesses whatever it can get away with, just as it has been the purview of government to regulate commerce for the benefit of its citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_competition_law#Roman_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_competition_law#Rom...

lax4ever 5y ago
Certainly it has been their purview, but to some of our representatives they place themselves on some sort of moral high ground in trying to impose increasingly larger taxes on those who have more simply because they have more. There is no argument that they are doing it, I don't understand why especially given the government's incredible inability to responsibly manage it.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > impose increasingly larger taxes on those who have more simply because they have more You're free to disagree on the ethics, but hopefully you can accept the logic of it. If I may ironically steal a line from William Francis Sutton Jr., they tax the rich because "that's where the money is". To be a little more nuanced, though, money has diminishing marginal utility, in the sense that $10 means less to a billionaire than to someone who is broke, and therefore if a tax system takes into account the perspectives of the people who hold the money, rather than the perspectives of the pieces of money themselves, it makes sense to tax not just as a fixed proportion of people's wealth, but to tax wealth above certain thresholds at higher rates. Consider also that the median US household pays about $10k in taxes per year, and has a net worth of about $120k. That means that, just to tax billionaires proportionally (not progressively), there could be a wealth tax of 8% per year. Instead we tax income, which punishes people for working and rewards the idle rich.