Is patriotism lowbrow?

Great Debates
61

(BTW, Abe, we may not have conversed enough on these boards for you to have picked up that I’m female, or maybe you were just misled by my deep voice. :))

Abe replied to Ace_Face: *“Do the heads of tabacco companies “deserve” what they earn? The head of Union Carbide in the 80s, when thousands were killed in India?” […]

The nature of the job being done may be disturbing, as in your examples, but as long as everything is done according to the law, the person who earned the money rightfully deserved it and owns it. It’s capitalism.*

But that’s not necessarily sufficient justification. If “extreme capitalism” creates a system that encourages powerful oligarchs to endanger and impoverish people on a grand scale for the sake of their own profits, and to use their political influence to roll back or block legislation that would restrain them, and then to claim that they are rightfully entitled to all of their income because they earned it legally—you can’t make an adequate case for that system by simply shrugging and saying “that’s capitalism”.

Yup, that’s capitalism all right, but that’s exactly why capitalism needs to be moderated and regulated by various non-capitalist principles in civil society, including true democratic sovereignty and some income redistribution. You cannot expect the greater part of a society to let itself be starved, sweated, and poisoned indefinitely just to support the ideals of unregulated capitalism.

*“Yeah, there are rich people in third world countries, can you imagine how most of them got rich? Heredity, race, expoitation. Pay close attention, because the third world model seems to be what you are advocating here…”

Do you perceive this whole affair as an attack on your country? I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that poor and unstable countries do not permit honest (as far as the laws of the country go) persons to rise to riches through hard work (and of course the usual perfectly normal pinch of luck, help, etc.).*

I don’t think Ace_Face is claiming that it’s impossible for a poor person to get rich in such a country. I think he’s just pointing out that most people in such countries (characterized by high foreign debt, low levels of social services, environmental degradation, oligopolistic political/economic systems, high levels of foreign/transnational asset ownership, etc.) are getting richer if they’re already rich and poorer if they’re already poor. The occasional rags-to-riches success story (and I’m sure they occur) doesn’t invalidate this general trend, and it doesn’t make it cease to be a serious problem for such countries.

*“What other countries [does flat taxation work well in]?”

Please find out–Kimstu probably already knows.*

Actually, I don’t know of any major industrialized or developing country that is currently becoming more prosperous under a flat-taxation system; I’d appreciate your providing a cite for this claim.

62

Er, sorry, that keeps happening to me. I look at a username and make a subconscious guess about the gender based on what the username sounds like. I’ve mixed up the sex of quite a few people so far. Apologies.

If it’s done according to the law, there is nothing–short of reviewing the law for flaws of course–that anyone can do. It may not be just, in which case you take up the case in court if you have to; it is not, however, sufficient justification to … actually, what was the point? I didn’t quite understand Ace face’s point when he brought this up in the first place, and I am not sure where we are going now.

never suggested such a thing, and I find it strange that this pigeonhole keeps being offered throughout this discussion. I agree that certain principles must temper capitalism, but they do so in accordance with the law, as I said earlier. Saying that the CEOs of Tobacco companies do not deserve the money they earn is blatant disregard for the system and, again, cannot be supported in a rational discussion with no more backing than the fact that someone doesn’t like what Tobacco company CEOs do (what about all the good and noble CEOs? ;)). Some income redistribution is fine, I do not disagree there at all. But at what point does income redistribution become a penalty for the successful? The wealthy have rights too, and as much as the non-wealthy would like to see as much income redistribution as possible, their case still lacks reasoning.

You are far too kind when it comes to categorical statements, which is possibly the reason we began this discussion in the first place. :slight_smile: At any rate, the original point you made was that the rich “couldn’t stay rich for a day without the advantages of a stable and prosperous country that our tax system maintains”. Although things in some developing countries are less than ideal, the rich do exist, and they do rise to riches through hard work and the usual bag of networking, luck, connections, politics, maneuvering, favours, etc., that that entails. More importantly and to the point, if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in developing countries as you say, it seems to me that the rich would most definitely *stay *rich and probably become richer without the advantages of a stable and prosperous country.

“Currently” is a bit of a problem here, as the entire world is in recessional bog and most countries are not becoming more prosperous. Anyway, I am not a tax expert by any means, but I browsed the net to see if I could bolster what I already knew, and came across some interesting material that seems to hit the spot. According to this study of 86 countries from the Alex de Tocqueville Institution, some countries with flat income taxation are: Bahamas, Bermuda, Bolivia, Estonia, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and Uruguay. As you see it’s a mixed bag, but I would hardly define countries like Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland as lacking in prosperity. The flat income tax system has been shown to work repeatedly. Additionally, from the same study, I quote:

My emphasis. If you look at overall flat taxation (personal income, corporate, and capital gains) then the picture seems even clearer, according to this study that is.

And another interesting link I found to a flat tax calculator: http://flattax.house.gov/

I apologize for my part in derailing this discussion from the OP.

63

Not everyone likes competition. You may say it is a law of nature, but didn’t we get rid of those when we started eliminating diseases?

64

Responding to your previous post… don’t have time now to respond to your latest…

You said “A worthy objection and one with which I concur, but the main problem with democratic forms of government is that the majority rules.” This is a tautology given that democracy is defined by rule of the majority. Sounds like an attack to me. Your other comments about “unwashed masses” reveal a certain contempt for democracy as well.

How is that wrong on the face of it? On the face of it it is precisely correct. Notice the word “given”.

[/QUOTE]

It’s wrong because it ignores the effects of money in the political system. And it seems relevant to consider the trends, doesn’t it? They point in exactly the opposite direction – repeal of the estate tax, the push for lower cap gains tax, etc. Congress seems intent on lowering the tax burden on the wealthy. Let me put it this way, “given” the current trends, which you seem to support, the US is likely to end up a third-world style plutocracy.

We aren’t? Why not? Seems relevant to me.

I don’t buy into your logic that helping the poor necessarily requires “squeezing the wealthy dry.” Take a look at most of northern Europe for an obvious refutation.

I’ll address your version of capitalism at the end of this post.

No, the burden of proof is on you. And I’m not interested in possibilities, I’d like to hear about probabilities. Just how likely do you think it is that any given child born in, say, the slums of Manila (which I’ve seen first hand) will go “from rags to riches?” Now compare that with a child born in a comfortable middle class family.

When wealthy individuals and corporations consciously evade their civic responsibilities by moving to tax havens, I call this narcissism. These people have a persecution complex, and an utter disregard for larger society – again, narcissism. If they don’t like the system they should work within the democratic process like every other American. I’ve been to third world countries, I’ve seen kids covered with sores, teens selling their bodies to dirty old men tourists, adults missing limbs due to land mines. And you ask me to pity these rich whiners?

Ah, the point, the point, you say. I see this as a debate about progressive taxation. I don’t think you are the type to advocate no taxation. If you are then I have a psychiatrist friend who might like to speak with you. Likewise, I’m no communist, though I’ve been called worse. :smiley: So we agree some taxation is necessary, right? It’s progressive taxation that so upsets you – you would prefer a flat tax, right? You think it is unfair that the “rich are taxed more.” (Of course when you consider payroll, sales, and other taxes their burden isn’t nearly as disproportionate as you seem to believe, see jshore’s reply to China Guy inthis thread). “Taxed more” I find problematic, because you are only considering the absolute value of the tax, not the utility this money represents to the individual. For instance, if I take $4000 from a man making $20,000 (ie 20%), I’ve likely cut into his food and rent money – i.e. his ability to be a productive member of society. Now consider another man making $2,000,000. Let’s take a progressive 30% from him – $600,000. He’s still left with 1.4 million dollars. That’s a lot more utility than the first man, despite the larger tax percentage.

About your version of capitalism. You seem to believe in unfettered labor markets, that the markets are an inherently perfect wage-setting mechanism. You stated that the “rich deserve what they earned.” By your logic the converse must also be true, i.e. “the poor deserve (what little) they earn.” Taking this further in your direction, in a truly unregulated labor market slavery would be acceptable. We see this happening even today, there are reports of Chinese prisoners being used as cheap labor for export manufacturers. Working conditions in many third world factories are only a step removed from this. I don’t think anyone “deserves” to be treated this way, conversely I don’t think anyone deserves to get rich on such exploitation. Thus I find a blanket statement such as “the rich deserve what they earned” to be highly suspect. Some government regulation is required to prevent excess on either end.

This is the problem with markets: they are fundamentally amoral. It may be ugly at times, but one of the most important roles of democracy (which you seem to fear) is to curb the excesses of the market, to inject some humanity into an amoral system.

Ironically, you end up making an appeal to morality yourself. “It’s wrong to take from the rich what is rightfully theirs.” To which I counter, its far worse to allow a child to grow up in poverty, regardless of the failings of his/her parents. It’s wrong to assume everyone who needs a helping hand at some point is a worthless piece of crap. It’s wrong to deny otherwise good people a second chance in life. If that means denying Biff the chance to buy a another Maserati, I really don’t see a moral equivalence. And before you point out that this means lost business for the Italians, remember that redistributed wealth doesn’t fall into a black hole, in fact it is more likely to get spent.

I’ve come to believe in the power of markets, but I would compare them to fire – they require constant control and vigilance to do good work. Left to their own devices they become quite destructive – labor markets are no different

65

I do wish you would read this thread rather more carefully, Ace-face, before jumping at the chance to tear me down. I won’t reply to most of your latest message, since the conversation does not really seem to be where you see it. I will make these points in the hope of establishing my position:

  1. I recognize that taxation is necessary

  2. I have never advocated any sort of insane system where the rich do not get taxed, or get taxed less than the non-rich, etc.

  3. “rude mechanicals” and other such phrases to be taken with a grain of salt please. It was a subtle point I made that people seem bothered by such phrases, but express little difficulty with labels like “robber barons” or with attitudes of hostility to the wealthy

  4. that definition of narcissism is yours and yours alone; I suggest you revise it!

  5. Your dedication to your country deserves note, but it is rather irrelevant to this particular argument, as are your moral persuasion and generalizations (poor foreign children covered in sores, etc.)

  6. You must have noticed that we are not talking about the US specifically; the US has come up a couple of times as an example, nothing more. I’m not really interested in what happens in any one particular country for the subject of this debate, and I would prefer not to drag exclusively US politics in it

  7. Yes, I do believe that flat taxation makes more sense than skewed taxation, in fact this is a significant portion of what this discussion is (was?) about. I think I have outlined the reasoning for it, and provided some evidence in support

  8. One of democracy’s problems is the notion that a million people are able to make a better decision than one single person. You must have heard this before. Again, for those with overly delicate political sensibilities, this is not meant as an attack on ANY system of government, but was relevant to an earlier point

  9. You have to abide by the rules, and the rules specify that you need to go through the proper legal channels when you want to nail that Tobacco company CEO for all he’s worth, no matter how despicable he may be. This isn’t a question about my views of capitalism or the markets, it’s a question about laws. All countries have immoral laws, and then it is up to the country itself to revise those laws somehow. It is not up to me to belly-ache about unfair laws in this discussion

  10. The rich deserve what they earn, the poor deserve what they earn (repeating myself here), everyone is ENTITLED to the money that they earn, it belongs to them because they earned it. In essence, the money of the rich is not the property of the poor to redistribute as they see fit, any more than the converse

  11. MOST IMPORTANTLY, and I find it a bit disturbing that I feel I have to say this, the wealthy are free to exercise above and beyond their sense of civic duty by, for example, making donations. On the other hand, it is a different story when the wealthy are informed that “donations” are mandatory simply because the wealthy happen to have more money. IMHO this is merely conducive to encouraging splits between the wealthy and non, as it breeds resentment on both sides

I’m not really looking for a discussion on the above, but I wanted to make sure you understand what I have been saying.

66

No time for a lengthy reply at this point, but I just wanted to point out that I think part of the problem is the sort of ambiguous sense of the word “deserve”. If we’re using it to mean “to be legally entitled to according to existing property law”, then of course everybody “deserves” what they legally earn. But we’re also using the term in its more general ethical sense, as a way of evaluating the fairness of the existing property laws themselves.

(I’d also point out that even if there does exist an absolute right to keep whatever you earn—which I don’t think that anyone is arguing for here, since even Abe concedes that some income redistribution is desirable, which may mean that at bottom we’re not really that much in disagreement—it does not imply any right to inherit something that somebody else earned.)

67

Nothing personal. If I seem pissed, it’s because I’ve been following Congress post 9/11, and can’t believe the level to which they’ve sunk – using the disaster as pretext for huge tax giveways. I’m also annoyed at the tepid reaction of many of my liberal friends, who seem more interested in fluff such as animal rights. I’ll say this about the Right, they seem much more focused on the important issues.

The conversation is what we make it, right? Of course, given this was originally a thread about patriotism, we are all a bit off course. :smiley: In any case, your 9:27 post, which I only had time to skim, makes your position clearer. I think a flat tax would be a disaster – yet we may be headed in that direction. If I have time I’ll return to this and a few of your other points tonight.

68

Time for a slightly more lengthy reply. Abe said:

7. Yes, I do believe that flat taxation makes more sense than skewed taxation, in fact this is a significant portion of what this discussion is (was?) about. I think I have outlined the reasoning for it, and provided some evidence in support

I’m still not convinced by either your reasoning or your evidence, though I’m mulling them over. As for the evidence of flat taxation correlating to prosperity, one problem with it is that “prosperity” is defined merely as “economic growth”, which is actually a very narrow measure of a country’s well-being. A society can have rapid economic growth even while most of its members experience a steep drop in their standard of living, lower incomes, poorer health and education, etc. This is not uncommon in developing nations that cut social services and sell environmental resources in order to service their foreign debt and attract foreign investment. Much of their population moves from subsistence agriculture to wage employment manufacturing exported goods or harvesting raw materials for export, so their exports and imports increase, which is counted as positive economic growth. But their standard of living in real terms is not necessarily higher, and is often actually lower, so economic growth does not necessarily correlate well to true prosperity for people.

As for the three rich countries you mention as examples of flat-taxation, the linked report points out that they all have high per capita average incomes (over $37,000 US). Countries that already have a very high standard of living and very low poverty incidence are certainly better candidates for adopting a flat tax, because they need less income redistribution. And in the case of Liechtenstein, for example, the article says that the actual tax rate is about 2% (!), so this is clearly not a typical model for the average economically diverse country which depends heavily on larger tax revenues.

Your reasoning that the flat tax is ultimately fairer is also not fully persuasive; you say that rich people don’t actually use disproportionate amounts of national resources, but I’m not at all sure that’s true. Certainly, it’s not demonstrated by the fact that rich people can also flourish in poor countries, because in such countries they usually rely for their security on heavily repressive regimes. In the US, our stability is (for the moment) less dependent on political/military repression than on “promoting the general welfare” with attempts to ensure an acceptable quality of life across the economic spectrum. Yes, we all benefit from that, but those who gain large amounts of wealth from it are benefiting much more.

Furthermore, the national resources that go to finance, environmental regulation, infrastructure, and so forth, though I admit it’s very difficult to cost them out in detail, certainly spend much more time dealing with the economic activities of the rich than with those of the poor. And finally, as Ace_Face pointed out, most forms of taxation other than the federal income tax are non-progressive or even regressive, so taxation as a whole is much less progressive than we tend to think. All of these factors contribute to my skepticism that progressive income taxation is really in any sense a raw deal for the wealthy.

8. One of democracy’s problems is the notion that a million people are able to make a better decision than one single person.

I don’t see why this is necessarily a “problem”; sometimes a million people do make a better decision than one person, and sometimes they don’t. Depends on who the people are, how well-informed they are, and many other things.

9. You have to abide by the rules, and the rules specify that you need to go through the proper legal channels when you want to nail that Tobacco company CEO for all he’s worth, no matter how despicable he may be. This isn’t a question about my views of capitalism or the markets, it’s a question about laws. All countries have immoral laws, and then it is up to the country itself to revise those laws somehow.

Right, and arguments like these are part of the revision process. If we as a nation decide that the rich ought to be taxed more, we can and should enact laws to do so. And I don’t think anybody is seriously suggesting any other approach; not even ssj in his general remarks about his perceived moral imperative for wealth redistribution was saying that the poor have any right to help themselves illegally.

69

Back to the OP, I think that the rich are less likely to display icons in general, not necessarily “patriotic” ones (and plenty of old-school veterans would debate the patriotism of flags that are often tattered, put on backwards, stickers, etc…). Aside from political bumper stickers, I think you’ll be less likely to find displays of any sort less likely on more expensive cars (Jags, Lexi, etc…).As for my WAG, possibly because its considered ostentatious?

70

Good for you Mojo, you stuck to the OP.

But back to the debate at hand. I think we are slipping into quality of life here, which is even more important that redistribution of wealth. Does a person in poverty deserve to live there while a rich person deserves not to? Certainly not. Most often people who are in poverty are there because of chance, because they’re badly governed, and such things. I’m sure they would have a fair chance at riches if they lived in a place such as the U.S., but they don’t. And because of the conditions they are in, it is near impossible. So how should we help those people? To answer that, i think it would go into the government more than money, so i won’t discuss that right now.

71

OK, let me know when you have mulled.

I agree that your points make sense, but this is not evidence. Economic growth is certainly a beginning; aren’t increased foreign investment and reduced foreign debt likely to provide a more solid infrastructure for the well-being and prosperity of the general population? Not necessarily there and then, but perhaps a few years down the road. And, at any rate, what benefits the state will (in theory) benefit the citizens of the state.

Again, that’s a fine opinion but not really an argument.

Poor country does not necessarily equal heavily repressive regime (that’s another generalization). I also don’t think that rich people in the relevant poor countries necessarily rely on heavily repressive regimes. And what exactly do you mean by “rely”? Also, are you failing to distinguish between “wealthy individuals” and “businesses” again?

I don’t see how they are benefiting much more. I may be missing something, but to me this remains an opinion and not an argument. And, in the example of the US, the goal of “promoting general welfare” does not explain the comparatively abundant poverty present in the country.

As noted in an earlier message, there is a difference between a wealthy individual and a business. Certainly most nations invest fair amounts in ensuring the well-being of businesses, but how does this relate to the wealthy individual? How is the state investing more in my case if I have a high-paying salary at company X rather than an average one? And, again, even under flat income tax a wealthy individual pays the state considerably more than a non-wealthy one.

Without getting too lost in the specific example of the US, I don’t see how you justify your last assertion. Your scepticism is appreciated, as are your objections, but a dubious response unpon hearing a claim is not an argument.

That’s why I call it a problem: because it is a system fallible in that respect. There is no likelihood that an informed decision will be made under a democratic system, unless the constituents of the system are certified as informed (something that to my knowledge has never happened and perhaps never will). Democracy is a good system to spread responsibility for a decision, but not necessarily to reach an informed decision. I don’t have a valid alternative to democracy, and I don’t want to seem as if it is my mission to tear down the system. I certainly choose democracy over other forms of government, at least until a reliable informed Philosopher-King hits the scene.

I don’t follow the reasoning. When you earn money, whether you are rich or poor, the money belongs to you. It’s your property to do with as you wish. You can give it to charity, or to your family, or buy someone a car as a present. You can take it out of the country under whatever form and never bring it back again. If you state in your will that the money (or property) goes to your son after your death, how is that different from buying your son a present with that money when you are still alive? It’s still money that you earned the right to call your own and already paid taxes on.

72

I’ve lost track of what the argument is here. Are we arguing about supply-side economics or about flat taxes?

Some background on the flat tax.

Is the progressive income tax unfair in that the rich pay a greater concentration of their income to taxes? Sure, a bit, but I think it’s necessary to get the amount of money needed to provide the services we get from the government. As for the inheritance tax, with the number of breaks and exceptions that go into it, I don’t think that it is that unfair and I think the benefits of it are greater than the costs.

As for supply-side economics, well, they are a crock. Simple economics tell you that if demand is not stimulated to a significant degree then investment in supply side does not occur. Namely, you can give all the tax breaks to businesses and the wealthy that you want, but if there is no market demand, then they aren’t going to waste their money by increasing investment in the supply side. Wealthy people don’t get that way because they are stupid.

Tax breaks to the lower and middle classes is a much better way to get the economy stimulated. That is because added income to them tends to get spent, thus increasing demand. Added income to the wealthy tends not to, because their income after taxes tends to be enough that they can afford what they need anyway, and a few extra dollars are not likely to change their spending habits that much and therefore not change demand as much. When the demand side is stimulated, the wealthy will invest in supply with or without tax breaks because they can already afford to.

73

It is almost impossible to talk about the world without making generalizations, Abe. Your continuing “that’s just a generalization” remarks are not particularly helpful. If I say “most Japanese people like sushi,” that’s a generalization – but (guess what!) it’s still a valid statement of fact.

I’d still like to hear you explain how a typical third world child is going to go from “rags to riches” without the kind of infrastructure provided by a modern welfare state. The fact that it can happen in very rare instances does not make it likely to happen. I’m not sure you appreciate the difference.

74

To say that poor countries = heavily oppressive regimes is going to require some support other than a generalization, and it is a generalization until I see evidence to convince me otherwise. Included under the umbrella of generalizations are also a number of your comments regarding the wealthy. And I feel obliged to point out that “most Japanese people like sushi” is not a generalization. In the light of your definition of narcissism, what’s not particularly helpful here seems to be your dictionary! :smiley:

Is this tiny point in the discussion going to invalidate my entire argument? Oh No! :eek: Seriously, I am not arguing that people have equal opportunities across all countries, although you seem eager to do that for me. Poverty and lack of education certainly do not confer the advantages that wealth and a good education may bring, however it is not correct to make the sort of generalizations we’ve seen in this thread, particularly not in the categorical tone present in some of your posts and a few of Kimstu’s comments. On the other hand, unless you can support the generalization that non-wealthy people in third world countries who become wealthy do so through means other than hard work (except for “very rare instances”), I will stick to my position.

Neurotik thanks for the link to Cecil’s column (he seems to discuss the case specifically for the US, which has an enormous military spending requirement) and thanks for the shrewd observation on the supply and demand side of things. I’ll add that I pay a flat tax of 17%, it takes me about 5 minutes to fill out my yearly tax form (and I know nothing of accounting), I actually have some fairly generous deductions, and I doubt I could ever go back to paying skewed income tax. I do agree that flat tax probably wouldn’t work too well in a country with a substantial number of people living in poverty, but even if it is necessary to tax the wealthy disproportionately, I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is right. In the case of the US (I am trying to avoid a nation-specific argument) the top 3 percent of filers actually pay 40% of the taxes, according to Cecil.

And for that the wealthy are despised?

75

Abe, as for it being right, read the whole column again. He goes on to mention that the progress income tax is to overcome the regressiveness of the sales and property taxes, which fall most heavily as a percentage of income on the lower and middle classes respectively. He then goes on to say that some analysts say that taxes as a whole are about even across every bracket. That’s the best I can come up with, though. I did some more research on that last part and came up with squat, I couldn’t find information either way. If you can come up with something I’d love to see it.

Anyways, that is the defense I’d give the progressive income tax. And even if it turned out to be false, I’d still probably say, look, it may not be fair but the money is needed and the wealthy can afford it so tough luck.

As a post-script, you say that you are paying a flat tax now? Where do you live?

76

No one but you said poor countries equals oppressive regimes. Kimstu used the word usually, which could be anywhere from 51 - 100% of such countries. You seem to have a quite Manichaean view of the world.

Much obliged, but I’m afraid it is a generalization.
http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/stat.htm
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jwood/201/ig.txt

But even if it weren’t, in your very own post, after challenging my sushi example, you continue…

So, saying “most Japanese people like sushi” is not a generalization, but saying most “non-wealthy people in third world countries who become wealthy do so through means other than hard work” is a generalization? Please, at least be internally consistent.

I’d also like to point out the distortion in your point above – I don’t believe (and I doubt Kimstu does either) that most “non-wealthy people in third world countries who become wealthy do so through means other than hard work,” rather that most wealthy people in poor countries were wealthy to begin with – i.e. they were born into the elite groups of middle- and upper class-families in such countries. Repression favors these groups by denying opportunities to “outsider” groups, including the lower class.

Thus the point you’re arguing is a bit of a red herring. I’ll happily concede that those few poor people who managed to get rich in an impoverished nation are, for the most part, hard workers. However, these are a minority of the wealthy in most poor countries. To ensure that more poor people have similar opportunities, some kind of wealth redistribution/infrastructure building is called for.

Finally, I clearly cited the trend of rich people fleeing to tax havens as an example of narcissism, not a definition. Just as your last post is an example of obfuscation, not a definition (though it would make a good entry). :smiley:

77

This leans on the usual Econ 101 explanation for why people work - to make money. If you go on to Econ 201 you learn that most of what you learned in 101 was a simplified approximation intended to introduce you to the terminology and canonical concepts of the subject.

It seems to me that after you reach a certain point, money is just a way of keeping score.

And many people who have a lot of money work because they like the work. Nelson Rockefeller (an inheritor of one of the really large US fortunes of days gone by) didn’t start from scratch and he certainly didn’t become Governor of New York for the money.

78

I am getting in on this thread rather late, but I think that this phenomenon can be shown as a lack of worldly experience. The more low income families are as likely to have almost never left their homestate as they are to have been to Asia or Europe, whereas the higher income people are more likely have gone on vacation to Paris one year and London the next instead of Lake MispronouncedIndiannameica, therefore these people probably realize that London is every bit as cool in it’s own way as New York is. (To some of these people New York is a foreign country in and of itself) So in otherwords I think it comes down to people not really having a larger view of the world and therefore they get into a “hometeam” mentality and talk about how it’s so much better to live here than anywhere else in the world, even though you can walk into a McDonald’s almost anywhere in the world. Also, I think the wealthy tend to display their patriotism in other ways, such as campaign funding.

Then there is also the idea of the wealthy wishing to seperate themselves from the poor, especially if they know what it’s like to be from the lower income percentile and they want to get away from that sort of situation.

Erek

79

Abe: When you earn money, whether you are rich or poor, the money belongs to you. It’s your property to do with as you wish. You can give it to charity, or to your family, or buy someone a car as a present. You can take it out of the country under whatever form and never bring it back again.

Not quite; there is no truly absolute right to earned income, because all (or almost all) earned income is subject to taxes. Taking that idea further, it’s perfectly possible to define property rights so that property owners have only a lifetime interest in their wealth, or have rights to a certain amount of income but no right at all to any income beyond a stated maximum (as in countries with a top marginal tax rate of 100%), or may enjoy it in their own country but not elsewhere (as in countries with laws against capital flight). We may not currently define property rights that way, and you may not like the idea of so defining them, but we are perfectly free to do so if we think it best.

At present, we in the US (to resume being nation-specific, sorry about that) have a fairly wide spectrum of variation in the “absoluteness” of property rights, which is loosely based on the concept of universal human need. Thus the first however-many-thousand-dollars of income is considered to be what one has the most “absolute” right to, because it’s the most crucial to basic survival. Beyond that level, one’s rights to income and/or wealth are limited by the obligation to contribute part of it to society via taxes. And one’s rights to successive levels of marginal income get progressively more limited as they get farther and farther above the survival baseline. Moreover, one’s right to absolute control of extensive wealth is further restricted at death by additional taxes on large estates (at least, for the moment), because dead people don’t need money. It’s convenient to talk about “our” money as though we really had some kind of absolute, innate right to it, and it’s a reasonably good approximation to the truth for most everyday conversational purposes, but it’s not entirely accurate.

I do agree that flat tax probably wouldn’t work too well in a country with a substantial number of people living in poverty, but even if it is necessary to tax the wealthy disproportionately, I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is right. In the case of the US (I am trying to avoid a nation-specific argument) the top 3 percent of filers actually pay 40% of the taxes, according to Cecil.

Considering that the top 40% of the wealth in the US is currently controlled by the richest 1% of the population, that doesn’t strike me as necessarily unfair. And your claim that “even if it’s necessary, it isn’t right” reflects that same preconception that property rights are a priori absolute, that somehow you intrinsically and innately have the same amount and kind of rights with respect to every part of your property, so it must be unfair to tax different parts of it at different rates. Nope. You personally may like the idea of defining property rights that way—and if so, you’ve made the right decision for yourself in living in a flat-tax country, where that definition holds—but you don’t get to make it a universal principle. Allocating property rights is a matter of social policy, and your individual moral disapproval of progressive taxation carries no more weight than, say, ssj’s individual moral approval of it.

80

I read that part and found it quite fascinating. If the claims of those analysts is true, and the tax burden falls across everyone as a roughly equal percentage of their income, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a simpler (flat) system in the first place? I didn’t find anything on these claims either.

Yes, as I said earlier somewhere I agree with this point. I don’t find it a correct stance, but it does seem necessary (at least until a given system is improved?).

Hong Kong, which has a novel tax system. No sales taxes; luxury taxes on cars, tobacco, alcohol, and perfumes; flat income tax. It makes life for an ordinary person like me much simpler, and frees up for use the money I would be sending the taxman in most other countries. I find the system excellent, expeditious, and non-invasive. The only argument against it is that Hong Kong of course does not have to support much of an army. And that is where a frightening amount of tax money ends up, isn’t it?