3 ms·

I think higher taxes for the rich make more sense, and here is why. When I have more money, I am more careless, and I start to lose sight of the value of a dol

I think higher taxes for the rich make more sense, and here is why. When I have more money, I am more careless, and I start to lose sight of the value of a dollar. I am more out of touch with where my money goes ($1 ATM fees unnoticed), and I tend to not spend as much time looking for values when I shop. Heck, I even see myself doing this in "fake" economies, such as World of Warcraft. The tendency to be reckless when economically "safe", is very real. If money is spent recklessly anyway, and is barely noticed when it's gone, why not put it into a pot where it at least stands a chance of benefiting more of society? People living paycheck to paycheck are much more in tune with what their lives are costing them. They could tell you instantly what $1000 more in taxes would mean, and having to pay it would completely change their lives. Whereas, someone with millions of dollars would have no clue what $1000 is worth. (Actually, they would; see the $1000 pizza: "http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1429852020070315 http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN14298520...)

callmeed 18y ago
My main beef with your argument is that (IMO) the government is no less careless than us as individuals. In fact, when you look at the sad state of California (see http://tinyurl.com/cy6rxe http://tinyurl.com/cy6rxe), you might argue that governments are even more reckless than us when they have a surplus of revenue. There is also Hauser's Law to consider (see http://tinyurl.com/6fnjml http://tinyurl.com/6fnjml).
- makecheck 18y ago
  I definitely agree that a government could simply blow it. And in some respects, raising taxes may amount to just throwing money at a problem: without plans or government workers to back up the money, there's no guarantee anything will come from it. You could certainly argue that the first problem to solve is not where the money comes from, or the amount of money, but rather how it is spent (and ensuring every penny is spent responsibly). The whole tax question would go away if we discovered that the government can actually do the same job with half the money it had been using.
CWuestefeld 18y ago
You seem to be arguing against high spending, and using that to condemn high income. The thing is, spending and income are two different things. And your income tax is going to prevent me from investing my money in a positive manner. So I think that what you're really arguing for is high sales tax. But your argument doesn't work anyway. You're really only pointed out the truism of decreasing marginal utility while assuming that the spending that can be positively identified is more efficient than whatever the other guy can't remember. You've provided no argument for why that would actually be true. If those having higher income are spending their money less efficiently than those who have less, then how do the former group achieve and maintain those high incomes?
- makecheck 18y ago
  I'm aware that (for instance) a rich man is going to have to shop somewhere, and whatever he buys -- even if it's useless and pointless, or it costs much more than it should -- will put money back into the economy. The question is, where in the economy does that money usually go? In a lot of cases, employees do not directly see the benefits of their company's success, other than to continue having a job. The money would seem to directly benefit shareholders, who are largely rich people who decided to "risk" buying a piece of a company. Yes, the people who invest should see some of the return. And yes, the company probably wouldn't exist (along with all its jobs) without these investors. But the gains from the company are likely only to benefit other rich people, other shareholders. And investments are going to concentrate on ventures that are likely to be profitable, not in things that are more basic, such as building roads. Tax money tends to favor the stuff like building roads. The money has to be there, though arguably the government may need to become more efficient than it is. I answered in a different post how people become rich...sometimes it definitely is hard work, but a lot of times it is just luck and opportunity.
darkxanthos 18y ago
"If money is spent recklessly anyway, and is barely noticed when it's gone, why not put it into a pot where it at least stands a chance of benefiting more of society?" Because it's my money that I earned that represents my hard work and the risks I've taken to generate that wealth. Part of my freedom is to spend the fruits of my effort as I wish. Who are you to decide that spending recklessly is an unnecessary freedom? I don't disagree with taxes, but this notion of increasing our taxing of the rich every time WE'VE spent OUR money recklessly seems somewhat like thieving to me now (I'm halfway through Atlas Shrugged). In a capitalist society you don't own my work and my effort, I do. If you would rather the community own my work, then please convert to a communist society so I can leave forthwith.
- darkxanthos 18y ago
  As an addendum to this I'd like to say I'd love to tax SOME of the rich more. The ones who aren't creating real value for the economy and who are really just leeching off of others' ideas and stifling growth (coughauto industrycough for ex).
- nollidge 18y ago
  "Because it's my money that I earned that represents my hard work and the risks I've taken to generate that wealth." Interesting. I, for one, am reticent to take credit for having been conceived by a pair of white, upper-middle-class, nurturing people. Nor do I wish to take credit for living in a society in which every one of my medical needs are accounted for without any effort on my part. Nor do I take credit for finding myself in an economy that values my particular skill set (for now, at least).
  - darkxanthos 18y ago
    I lived most of my childhood buying clothes from thrift stores since that was all my waitress single mother could afford. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination but I am definitely upper middle class now and it's conceivable that I could be wealthy at some point in my future. Some of my friends are less fortunate and I worry about them, but that doesn't mean that I feel that they have some right to mine or anyone else's money. They've spent their money somewhat poorly, while I've racked up credit card debt to teach myself new skills and get equipment to afford further learning (said debt is now repaid and long gone). I make the money I do because I have and still do work my ass off. I have never been a "privileged" kid so I know for a fact that where there is a will there is a way. If you don't want to put in that effort I'm cool with that. Seriously, it takes all kinds. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you have a right to be carried on someone else's back. (not you specifically of course :) )

callmeed 18y ago

My main beef with your argument is that (IMO) the government is no less careless than us as individuals. In fact, when you look at the sad state of California (see http://tinyurl.com/cy6rxe http://tinyurl.com/cy6rxe), you might argue that governments are even more reckless than us when they have a surplus of revenue. There is also Hauser's Law to consider (see http://tinyurl.com/6fnjml http://tinyurl.com/6fnjml).

makecheck 18y ago
I definitely agree that a government could simply blow it. And in some respects, raising taxes may amount to just throwing money at a problem: without plans or government workers to back up the money, there's no guarantee anything will come from it. You could certainly argue that the first problem to solve is not where the money comes from, or the amount of money, but rather how it is spent (and ensuring every penny is spent responsibly). The whole tax question would go away if we discovered that the government can actually do the same job with half the money it had been using.

CWuestefeld 18y ago

You seem to be arguing against high spending, and using that to condemn high income. The thing is, spending and income are two different things. And your income tax is going to prevent me from investing my money in a positive manner. So I think that what you're really arguing for is high sales tax. But your argument doesn't work anyway. You're really only pointed out the truism of decreasing marginal utility while assuming that the spending that can be positively identified is more efficient than whatever the other guy can't remember. You've provided no argument for why that would actually be true. If those having higher income are spending their money less efficiently than those who have less, then how do the former group achieve and maintain those high incomes?

makecheck 18y ago
I'm aware that (for instance) a rich man is going to have to shop somewhere, and whatever he buys -- even if it's useless and pointless, or it costs much more than it should -- will put money back into the economy. The question is, where in the economy does that money usually go? In a lot of cases, employees do not directly see the benefits of their company's success, other than to continue having a job. The money would seem to directly benefit shareholders, who are largely rich people who decided to "risk" buying a piece of a company. Yes, the people who invest should see some of the return. And yes, the company probably wouldn't exist (along with all its jobs) without these investors. But the gains from the company are likely only to benefit other rich people, other shareholders. And investments are going to concentrate on ventures that are likely to be profitable, not in things that are more basic, such as building roads. Tax money tends to favor the stuff like building roads. The money has to be there, though arguably the government may need to become more efficient than it is. I answered in a different post how people become rich...sometimes it definitely is hard work, but a lot of times it is just luck and opportunity.

darkxanthos 18y ago

"If money is spent recklessly anyway, and is barely noticed when it's gone, why not put it into a pot where it at least stands a chance of benefiting more of society?" Because it's my money that I earned that represents my hard work and the risks I've taken to generate that wealth. Part of my freedom is to spend the fruits of my effort as I wish. Who are you to decide that spending recklessly is an unnecessary freedom? I don't disagree with taxes, but this notion of increasing our taxing of the rich every time WE'VE spent OUR money recklessly seems somewhat like thieving to me now (I'm halfway through Atlas Shrugged). In a capitalist society you don't own my work and my effort, I do. If you would rather the community own my work, then please convert to a communist society so I can leave forthwith.

darkxanthos 18y ago
As an addendum to this I'd like to say I'd love to tax SOME of the rich more. The ones who aren't creating real value for the economy and who are really just leeching off of others' ideas and stifling growth (coughauto industrycough for ex).
nollidge 18y ago
"Because it's my money that I earned that represents my hard work and the risks I've taken to generate that wealth." Interesting. I, for one, am reticent to take credit for having been conceived by a pair of white, upper-middle-class, nurturing people. Nor do I wish to take credit for living in a society in which every one of my medical needs are accounted for without any effort on my part. Nor do I take credit for finding myself in an economy that values my particular skill set (for now, at least).
- darkxanthos 18y ago
  I lived most of my childhood buying clothes from thrift stores since that was all my waitress single mother could afford. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination but I am definitely upper middle class now and it's conceivable that I could be wealthy at some point in my future. Some of my friends are less fortunate and I worry about them, but that doesn't mean that I feel that they have some right to mine or anyone else's money. They've spent their money somewhat poorly, while I've racked up credit card debt to teach myself new skills and get equipment to afford further learning (said debt is now repaid and long gone). I make the money I do because I have and still do work my ass off. I have never been a "privileged" kid so I know for a fact that where there is a will there is a way. If you don't want to put in that effort I'm cool with that. Seriously, it takes all kinds. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you have a right to be carried on someone else's back. (not you specifically of course :) )