Perhaps but as I noted before there are LOTS of taxes we all pay that the poor pay as well. Sales tax, property tax, luxury tax, transfer tax and so on. Many of these may be considered regressive towards the poor.
Your arguments make assertions that you have not provided any basis of proof. You counter with this:
Which infers that those who benefit from the labor of others are somehow taking advantage of the flawed system that you are against. I challenge you again to name one job, task, or profession that does not take advantage of other’s labor and as such, does not have a role in the unfair system in which you propose to change.
Everyone works off of the backs of the others this society. The fact that some benefit greater than others is inherent to the system.
I owned stock in Google. I purchased it two days before they announced their quarterly earnings at which point the stock shot up by 80 points that day. It continued to go up. Had I sold it at the peak of its stock price, I could’ve made 40% or so on my initial investment. Would that money I made be due to the fruits of my labor and some merit on my part?
‘Please justify my straw man, is generally not a tenable position.’, I never said that there are any professions that don’t take advantage of someone’s labor. I actually said quite the opposite, and stated that altering taxation is simply altering the structure of how people benefit from each other’s labor.
Right. So why is it unfair to change the rules of the system so that those with a miniscule part marginally increase their miniscule part when those who have a disproporationate share have theirs decreased by a miniscule amount?
There is also a notion that everybody, no matter how small their income, should pay something, if only $10, to ensure that everyone is invested in the system in some fashion.
I owned stock in Google. I purchased it two days before they announced their quarterly earnings at which point the stock shot up by 80 points that day. It continued to go up. Had I sold it at the peak of its stock price, I could’ve made 40% or so on my initial investment. Would that money I made be due to the fruits of my labor and some merit on my part?
‘Please justify my straw man’, is generally not a tenable position., I never said that there are any professions that don’t take advantage of someone’s labor. I actually said quite the opposite, and stated that altering taxation is simply altering the structure of how people benefit from each other’s labor.
Right. So why is it unfair to change the rules of the system so that those with a miniscule part marginally increase their miniscule part when those who have a disproporationate share have theirs decreased by a miniscule amount?
But sales tax and property tax are state issues. Barack Obama has nothing to do with my FL sales tax.
If he wants to do those other taxes, he should do so directly instead of using the misleading notion of “lowering” a burden when a person has zero of that burden.
I don’t see how sales or property taxes are “regressive”. If anything, they are flat.
Sales tax is usually considered to be regressive because low-income wage earners spend more of their income buying items that are taxed compared to higher-income consumers.
Sales tax is regressive because it hurts a poor person disproportionately than it hurts a wealthy person to pay.
The sales tax is a flat rate regardless of income it is regressive.
Say you have $1000 to your name and buy a $100 item with a 10% tax. You pay $110 total. The taxes just ate 1% of your net worth.
If you have $100,000 and buy the same item the taxes ate 0.01% of your net worth.
For the sake of argument assume that purchase is a necessity (your food bill) and not a luxury.
Yep.
You’ll also notice how fair it was. No matter who you were, when you invested your $100 in Google, you got a $40 return.
They didn’t check to see how big your house was, what car you drove, what your job was, or any other investments first. You just got the $40.
Now, if they had checked all that stuff first, and then decided that you should only get $30 or $20 because you already had a big house, that would be just as unfair as if they had saw you drove a '87 Chevy Cavalier and gave you $50 instead.
Can you actually provide a site for that? At least in MN, Sales taxes aren’t on necessities like food and clothing. So a poor person, who spends most of their money on necessities, doesn’t pay much sales tax, as opposed to rich people who buy 34" LCD TVs and such.
After that, its essentially a use tax, and I think it’s entirely fair. If two people both buy the same LCD TV, why should one person pay more taxes? Its the same TV.
Right, but it required less labor than what I am putting in right now reclining on my sofa.
Well I never actually sold. 
But that’s beside the point of the example.
Right, but they did in a way value all that. Because I bought the amount that I could afford. So my wealth did factor into it. A rich man could have bought a million worth of Google stock. We put about $ 4000 into it. There are people who can’t even afford to buy stock at all.
Yes, unless you found or were given the money to buy the stock in the first place. I assume that you worked to earn your initial stake to purchase the stock. As such, what you chose to do with it was the fruits or your labor. Instead of buying a car, a TV or something you bought stock.
I am asking you to defend your position, not any strawman. If you are not railing against those who benefit from the labor of others, please set me straight. My point is that EVERYONE benefits off of the work of others, not just the rich.
I would repeat what the other posters who have said in that “disproportionate” is an extremely subjective term, and minuscule is only applicable when looking up the earning scale. Once everyone agrees on these terms, a serious discussion will ensue.
Your per share earnings were not affected by the size or your bank account nor by the number of shares that you purchased. If you and the the guy who bought a million shares each bought and sold on the same day, you would have earned the exact same per share profit. In the end, who you are or how much money you earn would not affect that per share earning.
There are lots of people, rich and poor, who cannot afford to buy lots of things. This is not an unfair situation.
Your notions of value and production are narrowly construed, that anything else is going to look distorted. Production does not equal effort. Value is the relative worth to each person in the transaction. A person who puts up capital and takes on risk stands more to lose than the person who just volunteers time (and effort) to the transaction. That is why menial labor pays so poorly.
The concept you seem to not realize or simply ignore (as indicated by your Google example) is that money works. People by far realize that this a greater indicator of working than one’s own time. Or put another way: the amount of money risked is far more objectively measured than someone’s effort. Working money may not show any real physical effort, but there is real risk involved. The opportunity for production wouldn’t even have been there if it weren’t for someone’s ingenuity and someone’s capital.
Or, perhaps they have bad negotiating skills. A desperate writer is desperate because no one is buying his work. He has no value. The fact that someone was risking money to take the work to production means that the risk has now shifted to the movie producer away from the screen writer. The writer is now compensated (assuming mutually negotiated bargained for transactions – and if you argue against this, then there is no justice in your world) for his labor. If the movie goes on to become a hit, then the movie producer is rewarded for the risk that he took, and the writer gets extra laurels for having his work recognized such that his next work he can have more leverage.
This doesn’t even make any sense. Is anyone forcing anyone to involuntarily enter into transactions? If so, then there is no justice in your world. There’s also no economy, and the only real form of government is one of command or despotism. Taxing for more than function of government is exactly taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, i.e. wealth re-distribution, either in the form of government services or straight out cash contributions. I’m not arguing that they are unneeded, I would never argue that. The question in the title of the OP asks of fairness. The poor, like everyone else should pay into the government because they receive services just like everyone else. I do agree that they shouldn’t pay as much as everyone else, but they should at least pay something. It also helps eliminate the free-rider problem and introduces more efficiency and accountability.
This is going to start getting political, but not everyone who is rich can “trick” the system – if by “trick” you mean by taking an advantage of something in the law based on subjectivity other than objectivity.
Sure:
As you noted and that snippet does as well it is possible to structure a sales tax to be non-regressive. Or at least mitigate the effect of it on the poor.
I agree that we should both pay the same tax on a TV purchase but the fact remains that tax hurts the poorer of the two of us more than the wealthier one.
Actually it was in stock from my wife’s family equity. We sold Intel passed on from her Mother to buy Google.
This is a direct response to me setting you straight.
Sure. My point is simply that wealth distribution occurs due to a trick of the system, and as such there is no reason to say it is ‘unfair’ to change the way tax is distributed in order to benefit the poor.
Right, what is unequal is the number of shares, not the value per share. So discussing value per share is irrelevant.
Yes it is.
Money doesn’t work, it sits in spreadsheets. People work, and then they divide the fruits of that labor up based on the values entered into the spreadsheet.
Yes, I understand how it works, but the point of leverage is to make it so that the transaction benefits you more and the other parties less.
Government services in general are a form of wealth redistribution. Taxation arguments are not about whether or not we should redistribute wealth, but how we should redistribute wealth.
I think we are coming from such disparate worlds that it will be pointless to continue.
Really? I have found that a win-win scenario provides far better short and long term benefits. May I ask what you do for a living to come up with this view of negotiations?