First of all, Obama’s not a Liberal. But even so: how would it be hypocritical if Obama favored redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor when that includes taking a lot of wealth from a rich person called Barrack Obama?
He doesn’t say that all rich people—except for himself—should pay higher taxes. Because THAT would be hypocritical.
You missed my point. I’m not worried about a couple of people who abuse welfare. I’m talking about a huge chunk of the population, the 40%+ of workers who don’t pay income taxes. The context for my controversial statement, of course, is that the rich have a moral duty to pay even more taxes in order to sustain our infrastructure, because they benefit from our infrastructure.
The thing is, everyone benefits, so why shouldn’t poor people make some type of contribution? Obviously they don’t have money, else we would tax them, so some type of universal conscription – which people could by their way out of – would level the playing field for our infrastructure.
It’s not a well thought out plan; we’re talking 40% of the working population being conscripted, after all. I mean, it’s not even a plan at all. What’s your counterproposal for getting the 40% of the population who use our infrastructure free of charge to contribute their fare share?
I think most people who don’t pay income taxes are too busy trying not to die to be able to afford not working for a while to handle a mandatory conscription.
Change the economy so that everyone makes a living wage and pays taxes? Or, alternatively, accept that those fucked by capitalism are contributing enough already simply by being cogs in the machine?
I feel like you’re coming at this issue from entirely the wrong end.
The problem, as presented: “Hey, a lot of people in the economy make so little money that taxing them makes no economic sense whatsoever.”
The actual problem: “A lot of people are impoverished.”
Not actually a problem: “A lot of people don’t contribute to the public good because they’re too poor.”
I will absolutely agree that this is not a well-thought-out plan. It’s also callous, cruel, and kicks people while they’re down.
My point wasn’t that my parents shouldn’t have paid school tax, but that we didn’t derive any direct benefit from it- I didn’t attend public school. I’m not seeing what your argument is- that somehow I derived some benefit from the money my parents paid to our local school district, that I didn’t attend? That doesn’t make any sense.
As far as the relative value of communal services, you’re trying to have it both ways, by saying that $1 in tax burden to a minimum wage person is more of a burden to them than $1000 is to a person making 15 million a year is to them, and then turning around and saying that if the minimum wage person’s home burned down and cost them $60k that it’s less of an impact to them than the 15 million income person losing a house worth millions of dollars.
I’d argue that either way, the lower income person bears a heavier burden of tax AND if basic services/law and order were to break down. The rich guy has resources- insurance, cash reserves, other property, and so on- he might lose a $5 million house, but he can go live at the Omni for a few months until he finds another one. That poor person is screwed, even if it’s “only” a house worth 80k.
You can’t say that the burden is greater in one situation because of the differing relative value of money for the two people, and then turn around and deal in absolute dollar amounts and say that the guy losing more money has more at stake.
“Not paying income tax” does not equal “not paying taxes”. Sales taxes, taxes on specific articles, government fees, price hikes due to tariffs… are not waived because you’re poor.
You benefit from having an educated population. If only people who could afford it could go to school that would be very bad for the country and for all of us individually.
I was saying that your parents had potential direct benefit, while a childless couple (or person) did not have even that. And the indirect benefits are pretty substantial. Imagine a world in which large chunks of the population is illiterate and unable to get good jobs, and the ensuing rise in crime. You can’t brush those benefits away.
There is not a direct correlation between house prices and income. In my neighborhood hardly any of us could afford our houses today. Many states have property tax breaks for seniors which recognize this. The correlation does tail off when you get to really expensive houses, but it is much weaker.
The poor person is probably not getting the benefits the better off person has as it is. “When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.” But I didn’t argue from the benefit side in terms of taxes. Benefit is very hard to quantify, pain is a lot easier.
BTW the insurance company will pay for alternate housing. Happened to the family of my daughter’s ex-boyfriend. If your coverage is good enough, I suppose. But it would have been very painful for them to pay to rebuild - they might have had a near million dollar house but they were not rich.
You’re assuming that house value correlates to non-real estate net worth. Not true around here.
Their fair (ahem) share in this case might be zero. But I’m fine with the idea of making everyone pay taxes by raising the minimum wage enough to put everyone in tax paying range.
Though the poor do pay regressive sales taxes, and when riding public transportation pay the same in fare as the rich do. Or more if they don’t have the spare money to buy a monthly pass.
ETA: Acknowledging that other people noted this too.
I am not talking about the Obama quote but the idea that rich people should pay more in taxes because without government they would not have been able to be rich.
But since you mentioned it, Obama was doing his customary straw manning implying that there are those who think rich people should pay no taxes. No one believes that.
If this fact isn’t conspicuously addressed when discussing a person’s “fair share” of taxes one must conclude that the speaker is arguing disingenuously.
So, before we sell 40% of the working population into indentured servitude, perhaps we could look at how much tax they actually pay instead of focusing on the one tax they don’t pay?
Obama has a big house, he owns a 8.5 million dollar mansion in Washington DC. He may also own homes in Chicago, California, and Hawaii. The $15 million compound on Martha’s Vineyard is in addition to all those things. There is no difference between building a bigger house, which he specifically criticized and buy a huge compound to summer in. Both have the same opportunity cost, which was what he was criticizing.
No, you were talking about the Obama quote, which is why I quoted you
Jordan didn’t build the infrastructure that made him rich, the government built most of it, and the rest was in collaboration with the government to use natural resources like the broadcast spectrum.
Jordan would not have become rich playing basketball if he didn’t have access to the vast infrastructure created by the government.
Obama did not “specifically” (or in any way) criticize “building a bigger house”. I believe this is the 2nd time you’ve mischaracterized his words, and the 2nd time I’ve called you out on it (with no response).
Maybe he didn’t respond because what you are claiming is too obviously false to require it.
Regards,
Shodan
Then let’s see a cite – the full quote previously provided said something very different from “it’s wrong to build big/bigger houses” or any other criticism of building big/bigger houses.
“There’s only so big a house you can have.” Is your contention over “have” vs “build”? Is that what you’re hanging your defense on?
Here’s the full quote again, for anyone who missed it:
Reading the full quote in context, it’s very clear that he’s talking about his own experiences as a relative newcomer to wealth, and how being asked to pay more taxes (and contribute to charity) as a wealthy person would not be a significant detriment to his lifestyle. He still is able to eat as much as he wants; live in as big a house as he likes; take as many nice trips as he desires; etc. Paying more taxes, and contributing to charity, would not take away his ability, as a wealthy person, to live a very comfortable and pleasurable life.
For a guy who was famous for his use of “I”, he used “you” an awful lot there while “talking about his own experiences”. Reading the “full quote” you provided, it’s not at all clear to me that his list of “only so” things is a reference to himself rather than the “these folks” that have twice, or ten times, or a hundred times as much money as him from the preceding sentence.
Here’s the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlrWhx8Spp8
The passage in question starts at about 48:00. I think the text makes it clear enough, but his mannerisms and the audience’s response make it even clearer – it’s using self-deprecation about his own wealth to make a larger point that when you’re wealthy, you have plenty of money left over even after spending it on a very nice lifestyle, and thus progressive taxation is nothing to fear.
And in the sentence immediately preceding, he says the following (bolding mine):
I don’t see any possible interpretation of the full context of these quotes that’s other than the equivalent of “the rich have nothing to worry about with more progressive taxation – and I should know because I’m rich and I have plenty of money left over after doing all the things I want to do”.
Those inclined to see Obama as evil or a commie or whatever probably see things differently, similar to the way that the guy I pass on my way to work who thinks he’s Jesus seems to see things differently.
He said let me help him out, he said I can afford to pay more taxes. And he was generalizing his experience to others. If he can afford to pay more taxes, so can those who have ten times more than he does. If he has enough money to pay for anything he wants and still have enough left over to help others, so should those with a lot more than him.
It’s pretty obvious.