Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

[Sava]

also the second paragraph of this is completely inane. its perfectly conceivable that a democracy could exist where u raped all ppl of a certain color on tuesday. the democratic process isnt inherently fair. its inherently democratic.

I never said it was fair. Pay closer attention to what I write. But Democracy is the best way to ensure a fair government.

Stick to the point. The point is that you brought up professional sports as an example, and I said that even in a man made sport, with man made rules, one team wins and one team loses.

It was a joke... notice the smiley...

This is by no means clear or established.

Agreed, they are not clear, precise, or universal. They are implied and part of the social contract. see John Locke...

Neither is this.

Government needs resources to survive. Money is the primary resource in our society. So this is a clear and established responsibility you have to society. Again, you can work within the system to change it, or leave.

So either I do what the majority says - or rather, the plurality backed up by those with guns - or I leave? That may be REALITY, but it certainly isn't MORALITY.

It's the best form of government so far. Why don't you come up with a better one if you don't like Democracy?

So, then, you don't believe I have a right to property. By extension, then, you don't either. So, then, if I can get a law passed saying that I can come into your house, take all your possessions, empty your bank accounts, and steal your car, you'll be alright with that?

Nobody has a universal right to property. You ownly have the right to own property because the government says you do. And in Democracy, legislation is the means to legitimize rights. This is Political Science 101, David. You should know this.

Such a law as you described seems unfair, but then again, in a Democracy, such laws that are deemed unfair generally don't exist. Our system of government has checks and balances designed to protect the minority from being treated unfairly, but it isn't perfect. But it is the BEST SYSTEM. You libertarian ideology does not protect against abuses. In fact, such a system, in reality, would be more abusive and unfair than what we currently have! Whether you like the government or not, it's the only thing that ensures your freedoms. Sure, you can wish and want your anarcho-libertarian dream-world; but in such a system, you are the only one who can protect your rights. Personally, I want the entire US military backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS ensuring my freedom instead of a few guns in my basement.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
I never said it was fair. Pay closer attention to what I write. But Democracy is the best way to ensure a fair government.

It was a joke... notice the smiley...

Agreed, they are not clear, precise, or universal. They are implied and part of the social contract. see John Locke...

Government needs resources to survive. Money is the primary resource in our society. So this is a clear and established responsibility you have to society. Again, you can work within the system to change it, or leave.

It's the best form of government so far. Why don't you come up with a better one if you don't like Democracy?

Nobody has a universal right to property. You ownly have the right to own property because the government says you do. And in Democracy, legislation is the means to legitimize rights. This is Political Science 101, David. You should know this.

Such a law as you described seems unfair, but then again, in a Democracy, such laws that are deemed unfair generally don't exist. Our system of government has checks and balances designed to protect the minority from being treated unfairly, but it isn't perfect. But it is the BEST SYSTEM. You libertarian ideology does not protect against abuses. In fact, such a system, in reality, would be more abusive and unfair than what we currently have! Whether you like the government or not, it's the only thing that ensures your freedoms. Sure, you can wish and want your anarcho-libertarian dream-world; but in such a system, you are the only one who can protect your rights. Personally, I want the entire US military backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS ensuring my freedom instead of a few guns in my basement.

envoking democracy in a debate about fairness will only cause headache.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by yavoon
I think this is a fundamental stumbling block for socialists vs more libertarian ppl. a libertarian thinks about fairness before the cards have been dealt. a socialist thinks about fairness after he sees everyones hand.

Wrong. A socialist thinks about fairness before the cards are dealt. The possibility that someone will get lucky a get four aces while someone else might get nothing indicates that the system must ameliorate disparities. Really, is it fair for some lazy chump to inherit millions and get to keep it without doing a damn thing to earn it? Is this the position a libertarian really wants to defend?

As for a progresive tax system versus a flat tax - the more wealth you have, the less the marginal utility. That is, if I make $15K a year, I can barely afford food and rent. If I make $100K a year, I've got food and rent covered. The more I make, the less important each dollar is to me. Thus rich people can afford to pay more tax and feel less pain in doing so. Moreover, the more money you make, the more the status quo benefits you.

And BTW, do you really think anyone wants to make $15K a year to avoid taxes? Is Bill Gates really going to quit business if he has to pay 50% tax on every dollar he makes over $10M instead of 30%? Get real. Nobody wants to make $15K a year.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


Wrong. A socialist thinks about fairness before the cards are dealt. The possibility that someone will get lucky a get four aces while someone else might get nothing indicates that the system must ameliorate disparities. Really, is it fair for some lazy chump to inherit millions and get to keep it without doing a damn thing to earn it? Is this the position a libertarian really wants to defend?

u could no more prove my point if u had just agreed w/ me. Which part of the system is flawed? is it unfair that a father be able to pass on what he has earned to his children? or is it unfair that someone be able to earn that much?

OR like a good socialist, is the result unfair. aye see, ur lookin at everyone's hand again.

[Giant_Squid]

David:

Don't confuse fairness with success. A system can be absolutely fair, and I can still starve, dependant on many, many factors.

I am not saying that the definition of fairness is one where everyone is successful, or even the fairness and success are linked. I am saying that fairness may exist in more than "this number is equal to that number".

I would define fairness as "everyone is affected equally". If a person with a billion dollars loses five hundred million and a person with ten thousand dollars loses five thousand, than although these people have lost an equal percentage of their money, they're not equally affected. The billionaire may have to give up his private jet and fly to Europe on the Concorde with the rest of us lowlifes, which is certainly not desirable but which doesn't have too awful an effect on his life. The poor person may have to cut back to eating one small meal a day and have his children drop out of high school to get jobs, which has a huge effect on his life. So I would not necessarily call that sort of taxation system "fair". Note that this has nothing to do with success - we could have a system that taxes poor people zero and the poor person could still not be successful, and if that's the case then their problem is obviously somewhere other than taxes.

Incidentally, this whole point is moot because many really rich people manage to pay just about zero through loopholes and back doors that their tax attorneys can find for them with the tacit support of the politicians they finance, which really makes me not feel much sympathy for people complaining about the tax burden of the rich. 81% of multimillionaires in '95 paid less than 30%, which I believe is less than I'm paying out of my minimum-wage summer job.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

It's not about me being entitled to your money. You live in a society and have certain responsibilities.

Why are my "responsibilities" defined by you? And if you say "democracy", why don't you let the majority/plurality decide and then support their decision since "you" aren't defining my responsibilities?

Paying your taxes is one of them.

Why?

Then, by democratic process, this society dictates how it's resources are spent. If you don't like it, you can attempt to work within the system to change it, or you can leave. But to say you have a right to not contribute to society is wrong.

Which brings us back to the reason I started this thread - why do I have an obligation to let you take my money because I have to pay my "share" while so many other people neither have to match my "share", much less pay any income tax? Why don't we all have this "share" to pay?

It's the best form of government so far. Why don't you come up with a better one if you don't like Democracy?

Does that mean "democracy" (which you wouldn't support if the majority was screwing you) is moral? You dodged Floyd's point... No, morality objectively defined is the best way of achieving a moral system, not a democracy. That means morality must be based on something more tangible than the multitude of arbitrary definitions of "fairness".

Nobody has a universal right to property. You ownly have the right to own property because the government says you do. And in Democracy, legislation is the means to legitimize rights. This is Political Science 101, David. You should know this.

Legislation is the means to "legitimize" property in any system, but if this is your position, upon what grounds would you condemn the Nazis for looting the wealth of Jews? How can you condemn the institution of slavery or genocide if these acts meet with the majority's (or plurality) approval? The victims, according to you, have no rights, so nothing was taken from them...

Such a law as you described seems unfair, but then again, in a Democracy, such laws that are deemed unfair generally don't exist. Our system of government has checks and balances designed to protect the minority from being treated unfairly, but it isn't perfect. But it is the BEST SYSTEM.

My God, do we need to run down a list of evils committed by democracies? And what you consider "best" is just as arbitrary as what you consider "fair".

You libertarian ideology does not protect against abuses.

No system can, but a libertarian system seeks to prevent abuses and punish wrong-doers, in your democracy, nothing happens if the majority decides to screw the minority. The difference is that in a libertarian system, power is de-centralised as much as possible to reduce the potential for abuse; in a democracy, the abuse is centralised as much as possible so that your voice in the wilderness is ignored. I believe you agree with me that the drug war is immoral. Now, why do we see a national drug war that has to prevent states and localities from withdrawing from that war? Because of "democracy"! It's no coincidence that corruption in the US grew as the central government grew accompanied by the notion that the treasury existed to re-distribute other people's property to those with the most political clout.

In fact, such a system, in reality, would be more abusive and unfair than what we currently have!

Based only on your desire to forcibly take money from others to "re-distribute". But you would not want others deciding to forcibly take your money, so why the double standard? Frankly, how can you condemn a street thug who robs you at gunpoint when that's what you advocate on a massive scale?

Whether you like the government or not, it's the only thing that ensures your freedoms. Sure, you can wish and want your anarcho-libertarian dream-world; but in such a system, you are the only one who can protect your rights. Personally, I want the entire US military backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS ensuring my freedom instead of a few guns in my basement.

You mean you wouldn't help defend your family and friends from attack? But nice try, so often leftists will try to defend their desire to commit mass robbery (ya ya, "taxes" ) to pay for their socialist wet dream by pointing to such things as the military that benefit us all. Yes, we must let you take our money to pay for your welfare state because we hired a sheriff.

[rev]

Quoting federal tax rates isn't looking at the big picture -- you've got to assume that the poor will spend a higher portion of their income in sales taxes. Not much higher, but let's face it -- the rich don't get rich by spending all their money.

[GePap]

Yet another poor bunch suckered into discussing with the libertarians.... run you fools, run!

[Berzerker]

Templar -

Wrong. A socialist thinks about fairness before the cards are dealt. The possibility that someone will get lucky a get four aces while someone else might get nothing indicates that the system must ameliorate disparities.

Like how? Letting the guy with lousy cards see everyone else's hand?

Really, is it fair for some lazy chump to inherit millions and get to keep it without doing a damn thing to earn it? Is this the position a libertarian really wants to defend?

Yes and yes, because the person who worked to earn that money wanted that lazy chump to have his money, and that income earner has a greater moral authority to make that decision than your alleged moral authority to steal it.

As for a progresive tax system versus a flat tax - the more wealth you have, the less the marginal utility. That is, if I make $15K a year, I can barely afford food and rent. If I make $100K a year, I've got food and rent covered. The more I make, the less important each dollar is to me. Thus rich people can afford to pay more tax and feel less pain in doing so. Moreover, the more money you make, the more the status quo benefits you.

Okay, let us know how many people making $15 k a year offered you a job. Yeah, those rich people usually own, run, or manage part or all of a business and their money is used to create jobs even if all they do with expendable money is buy expensive cars and yachts.

And BTW, do you really think anyone wants to make $15K a year to avoid taxes?

Nope, but there are people who will settle for government welfare checks rather than get jobs because they won't make much more, if at all, than they get for sitting on their rears.

Is Bill Gates really going to quit business if he has to pay 50% tax on every dollar he makes over $10M instead of 30%? Get real. Nobody wants to make $15K a year.

That's just one problem with your argument, you presume politicians are wiser at spending other people's money than the people who make the money. If you were going to buy a car, would you ask a politician off in Washington to take a cut of your money to make your decision for you?

[David Floyd]

Sava,

It was a joke... notice the smiley...

Then address the point made and admit to a faulty example. Don't try to laugh your way out of it.

They are implied and part of the social contract.

I don't recall signing one, nor are you using the word "contract" correctly.

Government needs resources to survive. Money is the primary resource in our society. So this is a clear and established responsibility you have to society.

Assuming this is true, then the government should not be spending money that I gave it for its own survival on things such as social welfare programs.

In any case, however, while a government does need money to survive, this money need not necessarily be supplied through forced taxation.

It's the best form of government so far. Why don't you come up with a better one if you don't like Democracy?

I have several times, although you may not have been listening.

Nobody has a universal right to property.

That's your opinion. Unfortunately, because you don't seem to believe in either natural rights or absolute morality, both of which are fairly easy concepts, I'm not too concerned with your opinion about my property.

You ownly have the right to own property because the government says you do.

Really? So the concept of property didn't predate the concept of government? Is this your claim?

And in Democracy, legislation is the means to legitimize rights.

This is not the case in the United States, nor is the United States a democracy.

Such a law as you described seems unfair, but then again, in a Democracy, such laws that are deemed unfair generally don't exist. Our system of government has checks and balances designed to protect the minority from being treated unfairly, but it isn't perfect.

So your argument is that because democracy is fair, unfair laws can't be passed. Laws that seem unfair are NOT unfair, because after all, we're in a democracy.

But it is the BEST SYSTEM. You libertarian ideology does not protect against abuses. In fact, such a system, in reality, would be more abusive and unfair than what we currently have!

Explain how a government which exists only to protect individual rights would be abusive and unfair towards those rights.

Whether you like the government or not, it's the only thing that ensures your freedoms.

Oh, so now we are talking about the protection of freedom, rather than the existence of freedom. Good, you've moved on a step - and here we can agree. Government exists to protect individual rights.

Sure, you can wish and want your anarcho-libertarian dream-world; but in such a system, you are the only one who can protect your rights.

No, you just took a step back. Government exists to protect individual rights.

Personally, I want the entire US military backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS ensuring my freedom instead of a few guns in my basement.

Irrelevant. Why would you assume that a Libertarian state would be devoid of government? That's anarchy, which has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

Templar,

If I make $100K a year, I've got food and rent covered. The more I make, the less important each dollar is to me. Thus rich people can afford to pay more tax and feel less pain in doing so. Moreover, the more money you make, the more the status quo benefits you.

None of this makes an argument for the fairness of taxing some people at different rates than other people. It just says some can afford it and some can't. That's a totally different concept.

GS,

I am not saying that the definition of fairness is one where everyone is successful, or even the fairness and success are linked. I am saying that fairness may exist in more than "this number is equal to that number".

And I agree. Which is why I don't insist that everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes (well, again, other than $0, anyway). What you are doing is looking at discretionary income, and trying to determine the effects of various tax rates on that income. But the problem is, not everyone has the same amount of discretionary income - that is, due to debts, etc., someone who makes $100,000/year could have less money to spend after expenses than someone who makes $30,000/year. What you are doing, though, is that saying "by definition", anyone who makes six figures is rich, and can afford a proportionally higher amount of income. Let's take an example.

Person A makes $120,000/year - call it $10,000/month. Person B makes $36,000/year, or $3,000/month.

Your system says that Person A is automatically richer, and thus can afford to pay more in taxes, and thus SHOULD pay more in taxes out of "fairness".

But wait. Let's say that Person A is divorced, and has to pay alimony and child support. Let's say that when he was married, he and his wife bought a house that they could afford easily on a dual income (say, ~$3000/month), but after the divorce he was stuck with the house, paying for it on only one income. Stick in a car payment and food, clothing, gas, etc., and the guy is looking at a huge amount of money, BEFORE we even factor in taxes.

Person B, on the other hand, is just out of college, which he worked his way through on scholarships, grants, and a job. He lives in a small single bedroom apartment which costs $450/month, is unmarried, and has an older car he paid cash for, with his parents' help. That is, other than his apartment payment and food/clothing/gas, he has no real expenses.

In this scenario, who is better off, financially speaking? I think that it's fairly clear that Person B is much better off, in that he has no debt and very few expenses. Person A, even though he makes 3 times as much money, is riddled with debt and expenses, and has little money left over.

Obviously, a 50% tax rate is going to hurt Person A MORE than Person B. Probably a LOT more. Which brings us to the biggest problem with your system - in order to make it "work", we would have to look at the exact financial/lifestyle situation of EVERY SINGLE TAXPAYER. Privacy issues aside, this is simply impractical.

Now, let's apply my system to these same two people. In my system, there is a flat tax of, say, 15%. Person A is going to be fine with a 15% tax rate, and Person B not only won't starve, but will probably increase his financial stability, relative to Person A.

Of course, we'll run into issues where the 15% tax rate will be nothing more than peanuts to a billionaire, and will hurt him not in the slightest, while someone who makes only $20,000/year will be affected worse. However, this tax rate is designed so that no one starved - that is, the poorest of the poor can pay this tax rate, and still eat/live, as long as they are working. Granted, this system of taxation is not punitive towards rich people, and it doesn't redistribute wealth, but OTOH, it does not make unfounded assumptions and generalities about the financial status of people, based solely upon their income.

Now, which system sounds more fair to you, using any definition of fair you want?

If a person with a billion dollars loses five hundred million and a person with ten thousand dollars loses five thousand, than although these people have lost an equal percentage of their money, they're not equally affected.

I suppose that depends on a number of things. Rich people don't tend to be very liquid in terms of assets - I doubt there is any billionaire in the world who could pony up $500 million in cash at any given moment. And don't try to bring non-liquid assets into the game - the poor person has to pay cash.

[Al B. Sure!]

skimming through this mess of a thread, i've realized something...

how popular do you think yall ideas would be, dave and berzerker? I can't imagine the majority of americans looking kindly on your ideas concerning taxes... whether your ideas are right or fair is irrelevent if they are unpopular in the eyes of the citizens for whatever reason. how does the libertarian party plan to become a major party while being so radical?

[David Floyd]

If people are consistent in their beliefs, I believe that a lot more people would arrive at Libertarianism. I believe that if Libertarians were allowed to debate major political candidates in televised debates, the mainstream parties would look silly.

[Al B. Sure!]

nevertheless, libertarian ideas like drug legalization are very unpopular... and it is easy for the voting population to mistake libertarian economic beliefs as nothing but letting robber barons take over the country...

[David Floyd]

True, most people are idiots. Again, though, if they stop and think, and stop with the kneejerk reactions, a lot of them will realize how utterly inconsistent and wrong their beliefs truly are.

[Dis]

Re: Al Sharpton - We Need to Pay Our Share

Originally posted by Berzerker
Of taxes. Now, why do these liberals who keep saying this want some people to pay "their share" of taxes while exempting so many other people from paying their share?
Yeah, you make $100,000 a year so your " share" is ~$50,000 or more, but if you make $15,000, your share is $0. Hmm... so much for paying our "share"...

that's not true. I had to pay taxes when I made $15,000 a year in the military