Bill Gates did not create the computer. He didn’t create the PC. He didn’t even create DOS.
What he did do was obtain a copyright that allowed him to impose a tax on everyone who bought a computer for the last 30 years or so.
Had Bill Gates never existed, what would be different? Would there be less money in the world? Would we be running Linux instead of Windows? Would there be any fewer jobs?
Actually, dividing 2010 tax revenue of 2.6 trillion by 300 million, we arrive at a fair-share amount of around $8,600 per person. But of course it’s totally fair–everyone is a citizen, everyone pays the same amount. How could that be unfair? Why should we punish the consultant earning six figures for having the brains to get a high paying job rather than be a janitor?
Of course I’m being ironic. It’s absurdly unfair because of the disproportionate effect of the tax bill per person. My point is that even a so-called flat tax is wildly progressive in comparison to my conceptually simple scheme that’s superficially totally fair. Arguing about a flat tax vs. a progressive tax uses mistaken categories. We’re really arguing about how progressive the tax system should be.
Huey Long’s proposed tax system was pretty close to that, actually.
I suspect he got it from Jesus.
Note that any government would have to be crazy to tax operating capital in this way. We’re talking about taxes on net income, not gross.
Just as fair as punishing the consultant for achieving his/her position and success while cutting slack, or basically rewarding, the other guy for his lack thereof.
Having experienced both ends of the spectrum, I’ll still never fathom this argument. That’s probably because I’m just a callous son of a bitch or misguided. I can’t wait to hear you lecture me on why I’m wrong.
When taxation dictates “both of you will give me 5 days’ worth of your work” (or whatever, I don’t actually know what taxes amount to over your side of the pond), who’s being punished ? Who’s being rewarded ?
Of course, ultimately it doesn’t really matter since taxes aren’t supposed to be, nor have they ever been, fair.
I am the Lord High Executioner, here to mete out “fairness”
Your Punishment (spoken to one family) - You will have to buy a slightly smaller yacht.
Your Reward (spoken to 100 families) - You get to eat meat during the last week of the month and still pay all your bills.
Is it “fair”, perhaps, perhaps not, however I think the Lord High Executioner isn’t going to lose a lot of sleep over the punishment he’s delivered, or the excessive reward given to those slackers.
What makes you wrong isn’t that people shouldn’t strive to succeed. It’s that it is impossible for every worker in the economy to be a “success”. Not because they are failures, or do not try, or do not care. Because someone MUST mop the floor at McDonalds. Someone MUST be a waitress at the local diner. Someone MUST man the register at WalMart. Someone MUST unload boxes for Best Buy, or load trucks for UPS, or mow lawns for a landscaper. All of these jobs, and there are a fucking shitload of them, have to be done in order for businesses to run. They’re crappy jobs that require little high-end skill, so nobody is going to pay “success” money to someone working them.
There aren’t tens of millions of “success” type job openings for these people to get, so suggesting that these people should just “be more successful” is useless in a macroeconomic discussion.
Nevermind that I may have invested years of my life as well as a substantial amount of money towards education to obtain my job. That’s very much on par with the guy that strolled up to McDonald’s, filled out an application, and started work the next day.
There’s a reason why I, and many, many others, make well above minimum wage - we made sacrifices to get that job that set us apart from a vast majority of the population.
Of course, I’m omitting any benefit the profession(s) may have to society, be it tangible or not.
I don’t think anyone will disagree with you there.
Define success.
This will largely restate what others have said, but here’s my 25%.
To me, there are two primary justifications for a progressive tax scheme. The first, and more compelling to me, is argument from a position of morality or ethics.
Since I’m typically pitching arguments on this topic to conservatives, I pretty much skip right over issues of morality and ethics.
The second is from a pragmatic standpoint. Even if you believe that a rich person “made” their own money*, there is a system in place that allows them to be rich. They don’t have to spend much money defending themselves from marauding hordes. There is a system of laws and justice in place to help protect them. There is a financial system in place to help them continue to generate wealth from their current wealth. It would seem to be a pretty good position to be in, so the rich person seems undeniably to have a vested interest in making sure the system stays in place.
Now, if that system can be maintained by everyone paying whatever the poorest person can similarly pay, super! You’re in a remarkable system that provides a great deal of benefit from the most meager of means.
Since this doesn’t occur in reality, it means that a progressive tax system is more pragmatic. It’s the more likely to allow you to have and enjoy wealth and to maintain the system as you prefer it. To me, it’s a bit like a baseball park in which there is a single ticket price of $10 for the bleacher seats all the way to the luxury suites. Sure, you could set things up like that, but if you want to be the New York Yankees and not the Pittsburgh Pirates, it ain’t gonna happen.
*As to the “making” of money, I also argue that those who have become wealthy in America have done so by taking advantage of the system in place. In addition to the features that allow one to remain wealthy, the system offers the benefits of transportation and communication infrastructure, an educated populace, public health protections, and so on and so forth. Not only does the entrepreneur directly benefit from these things, but they also provide him or her with a good pool to draw employees from, and critically, a market of consumers that allows him or her to benefit in order to make that money.
I don’t begrudge anyone the opportunity to benefit in such a way, but it certainly pisses me off when people turn around and pretend that those benefits were solely the result of the efforts of the individual. If that person didn’t educate everyone, build the roads, provide the police services, dig the sewers, electrify the households, write and enforce the laws, and again so on and so forth, they did not do it all independently of the system they ought to be obliged to continue to support.
You say sacrifice. I say investment. A sacrifice is supposed to cost you, not bring you more in return. I’m pretty sure every burger flipper out there would have been more than happy to make the “sacrifice” of going to college, which is so very hard and unpleasant (hell, these days many of them have). But they didn’t have the starting capital to make that investment in the first place, so fuck’em, right ?
And you are being rewarded for this investment by financial wealth. Even after taxation, you *still *have more of that than the vast majority of the population. So what is the problem ?
You don’t like being “punished” ? You want to be “rewarded” ? Flip burgers. See how you like the ample rewards.
Honestly ? The benefit the burger flipper brings to me is probably more tangible and direct than whatever it is you do.
What arrogance. Who died and made you the backbone of society ? You’re not special. You didn’t make yourself or pull yourself by your bootstraps or any other such nonsense.
And you don’t deserve a goddamn thing.
It’s whatever we were “punishing” Mr Consultant for in your earlier post. Considering this is a discussion about progressive income tax, I assumed you were talking about his financial success, where a progressive tax would punish him for earning more money.
From an individual standpoint, one can invest in education work hard and have a chance of getting a high paying job. There are not nearly enough high paying jobs for the tens of millions of semi-skilled laborers out there to get, even if every single one of them worked just as hard as you to improve their skills. Some of them will get the high paying job, but all they’re really doing is displacing someone else who was also gunning for that job. That displaced person is going to have to work somewhere, and they’ve missed out on the high paying job.
So assume he pays what? $20k or more towards taxes? That extra bit is success? Or just his total income in general?
Welcome to competition! You didn’t think it would be easy, did you?
And yet, after that oh-so-harsh “punishment”, the consultant is still far more “rewarded” than the minimum wage McDonald’s worker.
Your argument would make complete sense if we were comparing apples to apples but we’re not. They’re both jobs and they both make money, but that’s where the similarities end.
Why is it the responsibility of the consultant to foot more of the bill? Because he/she can afford it? Nonsense. Do you charge a richer man/woman more for the same product simply because he/she can afford it?
There’s a difference between not easy and impossible. We don’t live in Lake Fucking Wobegon, we can’t all be above average.
The reason you’re a (in your words) callous son of a bitch, is that you are predefining a large segment of the population as losers. It is an inescapable fact that 20% of the population will have the lowest 20% of income, and will work the least skilled jobs that are necessary for the economy to function. You’re happy to let these people wallow in shit because they deserve it, they’re not as successful as the other 80%.
What’s that supposed to mean ? Please, do elaborate.
If you go back and read the thread, you will discover the answer that has been repeatedly provided: because the government is providing him with more services (e.g. he has more property, ergo, the government’s police function provides him with greater value).
You expect to get that extra level of service without paying a premium? Fie, freeloader!
(If someone making this argument also ranted against his car insurance company for charging more to cover his new Maserati than it charges Joe Burgerflipper for his beater VW, then I’d at least give him credit for being consistent. Consistently stupid, but, hey, you take what you can get.)
So I guess losing a job to other competitors means its impossible for people to get those jobs? Or it’s just not easy?
Protip: You do not need hundreds of thousands of dollars to live a happy and comfortable life.
I got by just fine making $37,000 pre-tax when I was 22 (which was just under $30,000 after taxes). It’s called living within your means. I gaurantee there are a lot of jobs near, at, or above that annual income. I didn’t have children, I didn’t splurge on flatscreen TV’s or new cars or other costly purchases. I lived in a modest apartment with modest furnishings. I even had plenty of money to either save or contribute to my 401k.
When I worked a minimum wage job in school, 30-35 hours a week, I was able to cover living costs fairly well.
You live within your means.
Going back to what I said previously, you’re more likely to invest more into that higher paying job be it with time, money, or all of the above. Higher pay usually indicates a higher level of experience, education, etc., right? In other words, you worked, presumably hard, to get to that level.
Do I have to sign up for this service or will they send my introductory package via mail? While I don’t own property (I rent), I would like it if the postal service would provide their function at a greater value to me.
And ?