Tax discrimination

From my perspective, it is not jealousy, but expedience since the wealthy simply have more to tax than someone in official poverty in our capital based, mixed market, political economy.

In any case, I believe that the very wealthy have no real cause for concern, even if they paid wartime tax rates during times of war, even if only on abstractions; simply because they already have enough money to make more money than they would pay in taxes if they choose to.

 

ex·pe·di·ent adj \ik-ˈspē-dē-ənt\
Definition of EXPEDIENT

: characterized by concern with what is opportune; especially : governed by self-interest ​

 

I agree with what you said in your first sentence. But applying the rest of what you said to this discussion is misleading. I find it unjust to seize the property of those who committed no crime and unjust to feed only those who are unwilling to feed themselves.​

 

It's the greed of the rich.

No, most people want justice. But you don't. Simple.

That's a false and absurd claim with no basis in fact.

No, it's the nature of the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich.

The rich pay about an order of magnitude more taxes than the poor -- but two orders of magnitude more benefit from government.

That is a bald falsehood.

The greed of the rich is insatiable, as proved by the fact that they have taken trillions from taxpayers since the crisis in 2008, actually increasing their wealth, while ordinary working people have lost ground. Watch "Inside Job" and try to get some kind of clue.

 

Ah, I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," all the greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic rich have to do to make their thievery "just" is buy enough politicians to make it "not a crime" to steal from the productive by owning unjust privileges. I.e., as the slave owners of the antebellum South had "committed no crime" by owning slaves and forcibly compelling them to labor without wages, you would find it "unjust" for government to "seize" their "property" by emancipating the slaves.

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.

That would be the greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic rich. Almost all the poor are willing to feed themselves. They are just deprived of the opportunity to do so by the rich who own those opportunities.

 

Special pleading much?

 

Because the justification you offer for discrimination is a persons "participation in some damaging action" or that they are criminals. I don't feel either of those exceptions applies to folks who simply have a higher income than their neighbor. Since those exceptions don't seem to apply, I find it misleading to use them as justification in this discussion.​

 

The discrimination is in deciding who must give up more wealth. You can't argue that you selected folks for this sacrifice based on their response to being selected.

Also, that the government created the currency is irrelevant. The currency is simply a public marker, it's generic IOUs for the value that exchanged for it. When you seize the currency, you're really seizing the value that the individuals provided in exchange for it -- and the government didn't create that value.​

 

How can anyone complain about economic forms of discrimination under any form of capital based system of markets where it is legal and socially acceptable?

 

Because it is based on lying that the measure of wealth is income, not wealth. Of course those with high incomes pay the majority of income tax. But most of the people who report high incomes in any given year are not rich. They just happen to have a high income in that year. Calling them "rich" and claiming that a billionaire who had a low income in that year is not "rich" is just lying.

Right. Typically the rich pay two orders of magnitude less tax than the poor, as a fraction of total assets or net worth.

Only if you redefine "rich" as, "reporting a high income in that year" instead of "owning a lot of assets," or "having a high net worth."

No, I'm using the correct and honest definition of "rich."

 

Or that they get more benefit. Which the rich do, by far, as already proved.

The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy are "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay." Both are therefore legitimate and morally rightful grounds for "tax discrimination." And not coincidentally, both imply that the rich should be paying far more tax than they do.

Are you lying that "high-income" = "rich"?​

 

Who has argued that? Which established principle of sound taxation policy -- i.e., tax "discrimination" -- are you arguing against:
1. ability to pay
2. beneficiary pay

If you are arguing against the principle of ability to pay, then you will need to explain how government can get taxes from people who have no money to pay taxes with, and why it should tax people who have so little money that confiscating it by taxation will drive them into destitution, making them a burden on society, and why it is rightful for government to take so much in taxes from the poor and middle class that they live under constant financial duress, in order to ensure that the rich pay so little tax they don't even notice it.

If you are arguing against the principle of beneficiary pay, then you will need to explain why the people who get most of the benefit from government spending should not be required to repay the value of what they are taking from society.

You will forgive my skepticism that you are able to explain these things.

Wrong. Flat, outright wrong. Whether government created that value depends on whether that value actually was created by the individuals concerned -- i.e., if it was earned -- or WAS in fact created by government, as is the value of privileges such as land titles, IP monopolies, corporate limited liability, bank debt money creation, spectrum allocations, etc., from which the rich get far more benefit than the rest of us, and the great majority of their wealth and incomes.

 

No. It is the concentration of wealth that provides a source for business investment and business is what drives the economy. In fact business is the source of every single nickel of wealth in our society. You only need to look at socialist societies to see what happens when government tries to level things. It ends up hurting everyone. We didn't get to be the wealthiest nation in the world by stealing from the rich.

 

Then you offered an irrelevant comment that introduced the topics of crime and damaging action. One that was misleading in appearing to justify this type of discrimination. My comments with regard to crime were only in response to you broaching that topic as possible justification. ​

(Note: emphasis was yours, not mine)​

 

No, that is just stupid garbage with no basis in fact. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of the privileged, idle rich, all they do with it is bid up the prices of each other's privileges. The source of productive investment is wealth left in the hands of those who produce wealth, not wealth taken from producers and given to those who already own most of the wealth.

In fact, that's just more stupid garbage from you. It is the productive who create wealth, not "business."

Which "socialist" societies would those be? Norway? Canada? Switzerland? Funny how the people who live in those societies don't think they are being hurt and are happier than Americans.

It is the rich who are doing the stealing. Watch "Inside Job" and try to get a clue.

 

Actually, if we paid off all the externally held debt at par we would be all but broke. The U.S. has become the largest debtor nation to ever exist. We do consume a lot, but produce very little, and that is going to catch up to us sooner or later.

There was a time in the U.S. when productive work paid a fairer wage. This was a time when you could leave your doors unlocked without fear of theft. When the husband could earn enough through honest work that the wife did not have to work, and could stay at home and take care of family matters. A time when the U.S. ran trade surpluses and was the worlds largest creditor nation. That time was in the 50’s and 60’s. A time when the top income tax rate was over 90%. Soaking the rich (or more specifically the privileged) is what made America rich. When we stopped taxing the rich is when things started going down hill fast.

Here are the historical income tax rates for the U.S. http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

 

the rich do not need the extra super-sized Bush tax cuts, there is no reason we can not go back to the tax rates under Reagan

your trying to say letting the tax cut expire is raising their taxes, it was temporary, they have been getting a freebee all this time, we can't afford it and they do not need it