"Favors the wealthy"

[Kamehameha34]

I keep reading this phrase across the forum, and beyond. What exactly does it mean for legislation to 'favor the wealthy?'

Does it mean that it actually allows the wealthy to utilize their own assets at their own discretion?

It seems to me that whenever it is suggested that the wealthy should have just as much or almost as much as control over their assets as the poor, such thoughts are shrugged off because they 'favor the wealthy' - such as a bill to decrease the top 1% income bracket's tax burden from 21% (or whatever outrageous amount it is) of the total dollar amount to 19%.

Is the only way not to 'favor' anyone to tax everyone to precise proportions so that everyone is making the same amount of money?

These questions are genuine, I truly find this to be an absurd concept.

[ironeagle]

This is the reason I think a fair flat tax is the most fair in our society. Yes it does mean the poor are taxed at the same rate but they pay less when it is based on percentage, yes the rich would pay more but it would still be within the percentage proportion.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: ironeagle This is the reason I think a fair flat tax is the most fair in our society. Yes it does mean the poor are taxed at the same rate but they pay less when it is based on percentage, yes the rich would pay more but it would still be within the percentage proportion.

A flat tax is effectively regressive because the rich use a smaller part of their income for necessities.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I keep reading this phrase across the forum, and beyond. What exactly does it mean for legislation to 'favor the wealthy?' Does it mean that it actually allows the wealthy to utilize their own assets at their own discretion? It seems to me that whenever it is suggested that the wealthy should have just as much or almost as much as control over their assets as the poor, such thoughts are shrugged off because they 'favor the wealthy' - such as a bill to decrease the top 1% income bracket's tax burden from 21% (or whatever outrageous amount it is) of the total dollar amount to 19%. Is the only way not to 'favor' anyone to tax everyone to precise proportions so that everyone is making the same amount of money? These questions are genuine, I truly find this to be an absurd concept.

Consider Bush's famous tax cut for the rich. It benefits them more than it benefits everyone else. A simple example.

TC

[grandpa]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Consider Bush's famous tax cut for the rich. It benefits them more than it benefits everyone else.

Of course, they argued the cuts benefitted all Americans because they led
to faster economic growth.

Grandpa h.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: grandpa Of course, they argued the cuts benefitted all Americans because they led to faster economic growth. Grandpa h.

You know what would lead to faster economic growth? If we stopped spending ourselves into debt by fighting two wars in the middle east. And if we took even a small portion of those trillions of dollars and spent them to fix things here at home.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Consider Bush's famous tax cut for the rich. It benefits them more than it benefits everyone else. A simple example. TC

..When the rich were already shouldering an enormous amount of the national income.

Did you even read the post? I used a hypothetical tax cut for the rich as an example, showing that I very clearly understand the principle. That makes your post pointless.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal A flat tax is effectively regressive because the rich use a smaller part of their income for necessities. TC

WTF? Do you even know what a regressive tax is? It has nothing to do with how much of our 'income we use for necessities', it's the practice of taxing the lower tax brackets a higher percentages than the upper tax brackets, based on the idea that it is the lower tax brackets that take more advantage of certain government programs.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 ..When the rich were already shouldering an enormous amount of the national income. Did you even read the post? I used a hypothetical tax cut for the rich as an example, showing that I very clearly understand the principle. That makes your post pointless.

The rich SHOULD shoulder an enormous amount of the national income, because they're the ones with the money. You fail to understand my point, which is that such cuts serve only to increase the disparity of wealth while depriving the budget of money from the very group that has the most to spare.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

You fail to understand my point

No, because you didn't make one.

which is that such cuts serve only to increase the disparity of wealth while depriving the budget of money from the very group that has the most to spare. TC

Tell me how any of that is indicated from this:

"Consider Bush's famous tax cut for the rich. It benefits them more than it benefits everyone else. A simple example."


Secondly, it's not the government's job to fix a 'disparity of wealth.' We're not a socialist nation, we're a constitutional republic.

Thirdly, you're acting as if the rich aren't entitled to any of their money. Whether this is rooted in jealousy or vindictiveness, it's a fundamentally flawed idea. Have you even read the constitution?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, because you didn't make one. Tell me how any of that is indicated from this: "Consider Bush's famous tax cut for the rich. It benefits them more than it benefits everyone else. A simple example." Secondly, it's not the government's job to fix a 'disparity of wealth.' We're not a socialist nation, we're a constitutional republic. Thirdly, you're acting as if the rich aren't entitled to any of their money. Whether this is rooted in jealousy or vindictiveness, it's a fundamentally flawed idea. Have you even read the constitution?

I'll get to the first part in a second, but let me address the other two.

It is, in fact, the government's job to make the economy efficient, and it turns out that concentration of wealth effectively diminishes it while destabilizing society. I realize this doesn't appeal to your libertarian ideals, but that's just too bad for your ideals.

The rich are entitled to money, but not to all of it. As I pointed out earlier, besides merely having larger incomes, a larger portion of that income remains after paying for essentials such as housing and food. So if we tax people on a fixed percentage of the non-essential money, this amounts to taxing the rich on a larger percentage of their overall income.

To address another message you wrote, you claimed that regressive taxes are about taxing the poor more on the theory that they use more government money. The first part is right but the second is not; there is no specific theory needed.

Nor does it have to be explciit. Consider that any tax system which lets the rich take advantage of tax shelters that the poor cannot afford to use would have the consequence of being directly regressive, even if it appears progressive on the surface.

In any case, my point is that even a flat tax is effectively regressive, precisely because it hits the poor harder than the rich because the former spend more of their money on essentials. This point is often made about such flat taxes as sales tax, and is why such tax does not cover things like milk but does cover a restaurant tab. You did not address this point, of course.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

It is, in fact, the government's job to make the economy efficient

Wrong. This is the government's job.

The rich are entitled to money, but not to all of it.

And the amount to be taken away is determined by the government..

Stalin would be proud.

To address another message you wrote, you claimed that regressive taxes are about taxing the poor more on the theory that they use more government money. The first part is right but the second is not; there is no specific theory needed.

No, that is the idea used to validate the notion that the lower income brackets should be taxed more.

Nor does it have to be explciit. Consider that any tax system which lets the rich take advantage of tax shelters that the poor cannot afford to use would have the consequence of being directly regressive, even if it appears progressive on the surface.

That the poor can not afford to use. That means they're already paying less.

In any case, my point is that even a flat tax is effectively regressive

I know, and your point is incorrect.

A flat tax is a flat tax. A regressive tax is a regressive tax. You can't say that a flat tax is a regressive tax because "rich people don't need to keep as much of their money..", because you'd be wrong. Flat tax = equal tax rate, regressive tax = unequal tax rate. It has nothing to do with how much is spent on "necessities".

This point is often made about such flat taxes as sales tax, and is why such tax does not cover things like milk but does cover a restaurant tab. You did not address this point, of course.

Why would I address this point? It isn't even a point! You're showing that the government slightly curves the sales tax progressively, that doesn't mean that a flat tax is suddenly a regressive tax! You're talking nonsense!

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal The rich SHOULD shoulder an enormous amount of the national income, because they're the ones with the money. You fail to understand my point, which is that such cuts serve only to increase the disparity of wealth while depriving the budget of money from the very group that has the most to spare. TC

What amount? What percent of taxes should, say, the richest 1% or 5% of Americans pay? Tell us what you think is fair.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wrong. This is the government's job.

Ah, another conservative invoking strict constructionalism. How uninteresting. Try addressing my argument instead of poiinting at a piece of paper. Explain why it isn't the role of government, based on some non-arbitrary justification. Learn to reason, learn to debate.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And the amount to be taken away is determined by the government.. Stalin would be proud.

Nice straw man. The alternative to laissez-faire capitalism is not Soviet-style communism, it is a market kept free through regulation.

The government creates the legal fiction that we call money. It also provides services that make this a nation, not the state of nature, and you benefit from these services. The only way to sustain this is to require that those who benefit take personal responsibility by paying their fair share of the costs. Too bad Libertarians want to be free riders instead of tax-paying citizens.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, that is the idea used to validate the notion that the lower income brackets should be taxed more.

As I already explained, it doesn't matter what, if any, idea is used to justify regressive taxes, nor does a tax have to be explicitly regressive in order to unduly burden the poor.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That the poor can not afford to use. That means they're already paying less.

That doesn't follow. Consider the case of a person rich enough to shelter their income behind a variety of mostly-legal tricks, declaring a tiny net income after all the deducations. They certainly wind up paying a much smaller percentage of their total income than a poor person, making the tax effectively regressive. In some cases, they might even pay fewer actual dollars!

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I know, and your point is incorrect. A flat tax is a flat tax. A regressive tax is a regressive tax. You can't say that a flat tax is a regressive tax because "rich people don't need to keep as much of their money..", because you'd be wrong. Flat tax = equal tax rate, regressive tax = unequal tax rate. It has nothing to do with how much is spent on "necessities".

Failing to understand a point does not refute it. The idea behind a flat tax is simple: we pay equally since we benefit equally. However, it does not take into account the reality of economic inequality, in which the poor are more burdened by the very same percentage because it constitutes a larger share of the money remaining after necessities. In this way, as I have already explained and you have already failed to refute, a flat tax winds up being effectively regressive.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why would I address this point? It isn't even a point! You're showing that the government slightly curves the sales tax progressively, that doesn't mean that a flat tax is suddenly a regressive tax! You're talking nonsense!

It shows that the government recognizes that a purely flat tax is regressive in practice, so it curves it progressively so as to counteract for this effect. Please do not pretend to be obtuse.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: tivodan1116 What amount? What percent of taxes should, say, the richest 1% or 5% of Americans pay? Tell us what you think is fair.

There's obviously no way I could pick out the right number. You're just putting me on the spot by making an unreasonable request.

The reality is that the tax rate needs to depend on the services provided. If the government does little, it needs to charge little.

Once we arrive at a percentage though looking at the actual numbers, we need to ensure that the tax rate is progressive so that burdens all citizens equally, rather than sparing the rich for the sake of the poor.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

It shows that the government recognizes that a purely flat tax is regressive in practice, so it curves it progressively so as to counteract for this effect. Please do not pretend to be obtuse.

No, it does not!

Stop seeing conspiricacies where there are none - the fact that the government treats the sales tax in a progressive manner doesn't mean they believe that a flat tax equals a regressive tax! How would this argument follow?

1. The government makes the sales tax progressive.
2. Therefore, the government believes a flat tax is regressive..

Sterilized:

1. Y = Z.
2. Therefore, A = B.

That's nonsense. You would know this if you respected the rules of logic in your argumentation.

Failing to understand a point does not refute it.

I understand the point, don't condescend to me when you don't understand the refutation.

A regressive tax is a regressive tax. A flat tax is a flat tax. A flat tax is not a regressive tax.

It does not matter what percentage is used for necessities, because that has no bearing on the definition.

That doesn't follow. Consider the case of a person rich enough to shelter their income behind a variety of mostly-legal tricks, declaring a tiny net income after all the deducations. They certainly wind up paying a much smaller percentage of their total income than a poor person, making the tax effectively regressive. In some cases, they might even pay fewer actual dollars!

Your argument is as lacking in cited examples as it is in actual sense.

As I already explained, it doesn't matter what, if any, idea is used to justify regressive taxes

I WASN'T SAYING THAT IT DID, Jesus Christ.. You're like an overeager student trying to find flaws in a professor's lecture where there are none, in an attempt to make yourself look more intelligent.

, nor does a tax have to be explicitly regressive in order to unduly burden the poor.

The government creates the legal fiction that we call money. It also provides services that make this a nation, not the state of nature, and you benefit from these services. The only way to sustain this is to require that those who benefit take personal responsibility by paying their fair share of the costs. Too bad Libertarians want to be free riders instead of tax-paying citizens.

And you continue to embarass yourself by flaunting your flawed view of libertarianism.

Ah, another conservative invoking strict constructionalism. How uninteresting. Try addressing my argument instead of poiinting at a piece of paper.

What exactly are you 'pointing at', then? You've provided no examples, and you continue to merely make proclamations that your opinion is fact.

America = the constitution. It is a contract that all citizens that consent to live here must adhere to. It is to allow a bastion of personal freedom and rights for those that wish to have them, just as socialists like yourself can choose to live in a socialist country.

That is the purpose of the constitution. If you propose a change for America that goes against it, then you are wrong. It's that simple.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal There's obviously no way I could pick out the right number. You're just putting me on the spot by making an unreasonable request.

No, I'm not. I just want an idea of how much of the government you think rich people should be responsible for. Throw out a number.

The richest 1% of people... 10% of the burden? 25%? 30%?

Or richest 5% if you like. What should be their burden?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, it does not! Stop seeing conspiricacies where there are none - the fact that the government treats the sales tax in a progressive manner doesn't mean they believe that a flat tax equals a regressive tax! How would this argument follow? 1. The government makes the sales tax progressive. 2. Therefore, the government believes a flat tax is regressive.. Sterilized: 1. Y = Z. 2. Therefore, A = B. That's nonsense. You would know this if you respected the rules of logic in your argumentation.

Good job on that straw man. As it turns out, this is not my argument. My argument, quite simply, is that a purely flat income tax would unduly burden the poor, making it effectively regressive. You have not refuted this.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I understand the point, don't condescend to me when you don't understand the refutation. A regressive tax is a regressive tax. A flat tax is a flat tax. A flat tax is not a regressive tax. It does not matter what percentage is used for necessities, because that has no bearing on the definition. Your argument is as lacking in cited examples as it is in actual sense.

A flat tax is flat by percentage, but has the effect of unduly burdening the poor, making it effectively regressive. Which part of this do you have any refutation for?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I WASN'T SAYING THAT IT DID, Jesus Christ.. You're like an overeager student trying to find flaws in a professor's lecture where there are none, in an attempt to make yourself look more intelligent. , nor does a tax have to be explicitly regressive in order to unduly burden the poor. And you continue to embarass yourself by flaunting your flawed view of libertarianism.

Disagreement is not refutation. If there are any specific errors in my view of libertarianism, you have yet to point them out. You seem not to understand how this whole debate thing is supposed to work.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What exactly are you 'pointing at', then? You've provided no examples, and you continue to merely make proclamations that your opinion is fact. America = the constitution. It is a contract that all citizens that consent to live here must adhere to. It is to allow a bastion of personal freedom and rights for those that wish to have them, just as socialists like yourself can choose to live in a socialist country. That is the purpose of the constitution. If you propose a change for America that goes against it, then you are wrong. It's that simple.

America is not the Constitution, it is built atop the Constitution. The foundation of a building is not the building.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No, I'm not. I just want an idea of how much of the government you think rich people should be responsible for. Throw out a number. The richest 1% of people... 10% of the burden? 25%? 30%? Or richest 5% if you like. What should be their burden?

I believe I've answered your question by explaining how the level of taxation must depend on the level of services. I've also added that, once we have a total amount, we should ensure that the tax is progressive.

I do not offer a specific dollar amount, as this is to be determined by the data, not something I pluck of out the ether. The method is to determine the percentage of income in each bracket that goes to necessities, then apply a flat tax on the remainder, which of course ends up as a progressive tax on the whole.

You'll note that I do not pretend that we can determine any numbers in a factual vacuum.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

Good job on that straw man. As it turns out, this is not my argument. My argument, quite simply, is that a purely flat income tax would unduly burden the poor, making it effectively regressive. You have not refuted this.

Backpedaller.

Anyway, the fact that you think it would "unduly burden the poor" does not make it regressive. THAT argument would follow thusly:

1. A flat tax unduly burden's the poor.
2. Anything that unduly burden's the poor is regressive.
3. A flat tax is regressive.

Let's ignore for a second that 1 is completely insubstantiated - if we look at 2, it is simply incorrect. The definition of a regressive tax has been cited several times, and that is not it. Period.

If there are any specific errors in my view of libertarianism, you have yet to point them out.

No, in fact I have pointed at least two of them out. I will not continue to in this thread because 1) that is not the topic and 2) you would simply disagree and continue to push your false view, effectively wasting my time.

America is not the Constitution, it is built atop the Constitution. The foundation of a building is not the building.

Whatever. Anything in disagreement with the constitution is inherently unAmerican.