This is how:
Donny Osmond is rich because millions of people have access, finances, and the freedom to go see his concerts, and buy his albums. His income depends on the ability of countless other people to drive on the roads, have the disposable income, etc etc, so they can then purchase his product.
I wonder if he meant tithes, rather than alms?
No they are not. Sales tax and excise taxes are regressive; people with less money spend a larger proportion of it than people with more money. Property tax rates are not progressive either; like sales tax, people with less money spend a larger proportion of it on housing than those with more money. That is true of renters as well, and though they do not pay property taxes directly they pay it indirectly through rent.
As for SS, it is a flat rate with a cap. The benefits are capped as well, but that does not make it progressive.
Yes they are, but Tea Party types don’t seem to understand that.
A flat tax with a cap is called a very regressive tax. If you view SS instead as a fee for benefits-capped insurance then it’s not a regressive tax … because then it’s not a “tax” at all.
If the overwhelming majority of a man’s income derives from collecting rents on property he holds, or a cut of the productivity of other men’s labor, to complain about taxes is hypocritical. Taxes are the rent the people collect on the person, the cut of the nation’s productivity that goes to the state.
I often see educated people say that we should be taxing consumption over investment, or designing taxes to be flat in effect. I think this is wrong. Investment is way of profiting and continuing to profit off other men’s labor. It should be clear, especially to those who claim that government has no more natural authority than any other institution, that taxes are more like rents than either is like wages and salaries. Why should those who work for a living pay a higher rate of tax then those who are already taxing them to accumulate private wealth?
And in this republic, the state belongs to the general populace. So don’t pretend that tax cuts are populist. Not here they’re not.
The private property we retain is a gift that society grants us. We should be grateful for it. Particularly those of us who got most.
Without society there are no property rights. Without society there are no rights, period.
This doesn’t make any sense at all.
A person that owns a rental property is providing a service, the tenant pays for that service. And so it goes for anyone providing a rental service: hotel rooms, banquet hall, car, movie, tuxedo, etc.
“a cut of the productivity of other men’s labor”
There are those that provide labour, and those that provide capital, both are required. A farmer is of little use without land, seed, or equipment. Labour puts capital to work, and capital puts labour to work. We could just as easily, and just as wrongly, turn this around and complain that it’s not fair for labour to profit from someone else’s capital. But that’s what happens when a person takes out a loan for a business–assuming your business earns more than the interest (or rent) on the capital provided.
And as businesses grow and function, there is a larger need for capital, which is provided through the stock market. If labour wants more supplies/equipment it’s going to have to accept that it needs more capital.
The complaint you seem to have is that capital can grow, while labour can’t. The person with something to rent will get more money and be able to buy more rental property. It’s difficult for the person providing labour to “amass labour.” One can only swing a hammer so many times a day.
Some day, you’ll have a little money that you put at risk, and this will all make sense to you.
The really wealthy don’t get their income from labor, they get it from investment. Don’t demean people who actually work for a living by equating gambling in the stock market with “work”.
This is absurd, you obviously don’t understand the work required to make money off the stock market. Making money off an investment is hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it.
It’s really hard if you make $10/hour.
Much easier really if you inherited a stock portfolio from Daddy.
Bullshit. A monkey with darts can make money on Wall Street, and do it better than many professional money managers
Everyone would do it, if everybody had the capital to play with. I stand by my comment; it ain’t work.
ETA: And let us remember that those who are making money on Wall Street aren’t paying the top marginal tax rate, they are paying the absurdly low 15% capital gains tax. Just another insult to Americans who actually work for a living.
:rolleyes: The reason not everyone can do it is more like the reason not everyone can win at the same poker table.
It’s not a fair comparision because workers in Sweden get a lot more out of their taxes than we do. Required paid maternity leave in Sweden: 18 months. Required paid maternity leave in the US: 0 days. Sweden: health care is largely funded by the government. US: health care is largely tied to one’s job. Required paid time off in Sweden: five weeks. Required paid time off in the US: 0 days…
When we raise taxes in the US, we don’t as workers univerally get anything more for our additional tax dollars. At best it adds to the safety net for poor people. Of course people get up in arms when they’re asked to pay more and get nothing more back.
There are businesses the government facilitates, and other businesses the government throws every possible roadblock in front of. It usually comes down to whether that business gratifies the personal whims of some lawmaker.
Nobody of consequence is claiming taxes should be cut even if it means laws go unenforced. But the vast majority of taxes are not spent on law enforcement, or as you put it, “infrastructure”. Most of it goes to social welfare programs and the military, which has many elements of a welfare program.
There are many businesses which are appropriately blocked by government.
This.
I will never have children but I benefit if my fellow citizens are well educated.
I’ll gladly pay taxes for education. I’d like to see state universities offer free tution as well.
My parents are dead. Neither lived long enough to collect the benefits they’d payed into social security or Medicare but I think the elderly are entitled to a decent retirement so I’ll continue to help subsidize your parents if need be.
That’s nice for you. But what about the people that disagree with you? Are they allowed to?
Allowed to what? Disagree? Of course.
However, if you believe that taxes are not part of the responsibilty of participating in a civilized society, why not make a stand and stop using the services that taxes provide.
Then why do so many lottery winners go broke?
If it’s so easy why do people waste money paying for managed funds?
If it’s so easy why do so many people “lose everything” when the market crashes?
If it’s so easy why do people blindly dump their money into a 401k they’ve never bothered to look in to?
If it’s so easy why do people “making $10 an hour” dump money into lottery tickets (or cigarettes or alcohol) instead of buying stock options? Since it’s so easy.
For that matter, why are you (and **foolsguinea **and Fear Itself) wasting time arguing on an internet message board when you could be one of those people you despise so much, just buy investing in what is so easy. And once you’re rich you could lead the charge to raise your own taxes. Better yet, you could voluntarily give money to the government so other people don’t have to. You know, because it’s so easy. Certainly isn’t work.