Why I dont feel sorry for the rich having to pay more taxs

Page 4 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,810
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Aug 2012, 4:53 am

anarkhos wrote:
Oh, so I suppose since it's "common sense" you don't have to address anything I said with any specificity.

Bush baaad, Obama goood


Just stating my opinion. And yes, Bush was a bad president.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 Aug 2012, 5:30 am

to the point where he still is one of the prime subject of comedians the world over.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,810
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Aug 2012, 5:34 am

Oodain wrote:
to the point where he still is one of the prime subject of comedians the world over.


:lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

22 Aug 2012, 5:44 am

Oodain wrote:
to the point where he still is one of the prime subject of comedians the world over.


How does this make him a worse president? Obama is no different in terms of policy, but you can't make fun of him because he's so sanctimonious.

I miss the Bush years. I used to go to dubyaspeak.com every day for fresh material. He was a gold mine.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

22 Aug 2012, 9:28 am

anarkhos wrote:
Tax politics has more to do with envy than economics.


QFT



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2012, 9:50 am

anarkhos wrote:
1) The truly rich don't pay taxes. Not only can income be hidden in various tax havens, only the rich can buy foreign assets to avoid the inflation tax (which is how we're *really* paying for this deficit).

2) Most taxes can and are passed down via increased prices. A lot of these costs aren't accounted for in GDP because they occur in higher order goods (which is why we import so much these days). Taxes are ultimately paid by those who are lesser equipped to evade them. Higher taxes for one group will have a greater effect of distorting what economic deals can be made given the tax regulatory structure rather than higher revenue for bureaus.

3) Increasing taxes may make you feel better, but does it make you better off? Does increasing the number of bureaucrats increase the average man's income? Does reducing the overall burden make you cry because rich people are being disproportionately unburdened?

Tax politics has more to do with envy than economics.


1) I don't understand how saying that the ultra-rich are bandits, cheats and swindlers is an argument not to tax them. I think it means we should put them in jail for avoiding paying their share.

2) Cite please. This canard only works for corporate income tax not personal.

3) Appeal to emotion very silly for a cut throat business type.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2012, 10:15 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

1) I don't understand how saying that the ultra-rich are bandits, cheats and swindlers is an argument not to tax them. I think it means we should put them in jail for avoiding paying their share.

.


The main qualification to just what is a "fair share" is to be armed and for the prospective victim not to be armed.


"Fair share" is a polite way of saying "might is right"

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2012, 10:32 am

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

1) I don't understand how saying that the ultra-rich are bandits, cheats and swindlers is an argument not to tax them. I think it means we should put them in jail for avoiding paying their share.

.


The main qualification to just what is a "fair share" is to be armed and for the prospective victim not to be armed.


"Fair share" is a polite way of saying "might is right"

ruveyn


Paying taxes is the same as being robbed in the same way as buying bread for $3 a loaf is being robbed.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

22 Aug 2012, 11:01 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

1) I don't understand how saying that the ultra-rich are bandits, cheats and swindlers is an argument not to tax them. I think it means we should put them in jail for avoiding paying their share.

.


The main qualification to just what is a "fair share" is to be armed and for the prospective victim not to be armed.


"Fair share" is a polite way of saying "might is right"

ruveyn


Paying taxes is the same as being robbed in the same way as buying bread for $3 a loaf is being robbed.


When did the IRS start forcing people to buy bread?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2012, 11:15 am

JakobVirgil wrote:

Paying taxes is the same as being robbed in the same way as buying bread for $3 a loaf is being robbed.


my wife bakes our bread and it costs a great deal less than $3.00. No one is forced to buy bread in this semi-free land. One can make it, bake it, beg it or steal it. Buying it is one alternative among several. Being robbed at gun point gives only two alternatives --- give in or die.

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2012, 12:24 pm

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

Paying taxes is the same as being robbed in the same way as buying bread for $3 a loaf is being robbed.


my wife bakes our bread and it costs a great deal less than $3.00. No one is forced to buy bread in this semi-free land. One can make it, bake it, beg it or steal it. Buying it is one alternative among several. Being robbed at gun point gives only two alternatives --- give in or die.

ruveyn


You are not against all taxes. <-statement whe have already discussed this.
Are the taxes on the wealthy the only ones that are robbery?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Aug 2012, 1:18 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

You are not against all taxes. <-statement whe have already discussed this.
Are the taxes on the wealthy the only ones that are robbery?


Taxes necessary to insure the peace and protect the land are kosher. Taxes which transfer income from the productive to the incompetent are not kosher.

I am perfectly willing to pay for law courts, police forces and sufficient military power to protect the nation. I am not that willing to pay for handouts to the lazy and stupid folks who will not attempt to earn their keep. I am also opposed to taxes which subsidize business firms. Privatizing profits while socializing losses is just plain theft. Let each individual and each firm earn its keep in a sufficiently free market place.

ruveyn



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

22 Aug 2012, 4:53 pm

The bread analogy is a good one. If you force everyone to buy government bread at the point of a gun, then you:

• Preclude any alternative means of feeding oneself. This not only includes currently known methods, but methods which aren't currently known. Maybe I want to make my own bread, or use a tortilla, or eat better quality or less expensive bread.

• Eliminate market forces thus making it impossible to know a) How much bread to make b) What the price should be c) what are the opportunity costs of buying bread for $3 a loaf d) what quality and type of bread to make. Not only are we unable to perform the economic calculation necessary to determine how many resources to dedicate to bread, there are other entrepreneurial functions which are impossible to perform. For example does the government run the bread factory at 100% output and wear it out sooner, or at 80% and make it last longer. This involves not only time preference, but predicting future demands and costs. Bureaucrats do not succeed or fail based on money they personally invested and are wholly unable to perform this task.

• Set the stage for institutional corruption. Regardless of whether the bread-maing is contracted out or is made within the bureaucratic machine (like a massive vertically integrated monopoly), someone is going to benefit from this bread-making privilege and we end up with rent-seekers. There has never been a system of welfare or rationing or public utility without such corruption. Ultimately, the only regulation which matters is the ability to refuse payment. This is true regardless if you're talking about payment via taxes or having to buy from a privileged monopoly or not being allowed to remove your money from a banking institution. No amount of rule-making will remove corruption if we're forced to pay.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2012, 5:07 pm

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

You are not against all taxes. <-statement whe have already discussed this.
Are the taxes on the wealthy the only ones that are robbery?


Taxes necessary to insure the peace and protect the land are kosher. Taxes which transfer income from the productive to the incompetent are not kosher.

I am perfectly willing to pay for law courts, police forces and sufficient military power to protect the nation. I am not that willing to pay for handouts to the lazy and stupid folks who will not attempt to earn their keep. I am also opposed to taxes which subsidize business firms. Privatizing profits while socializing losses is just plain theft. Let each individual and each firm earn its keep in a sufficiently free market place.

ruveyn


What about business practices that transfer money from the productive to the Lazy and incompetent?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

22 Aug 2012, 5:18 pm

anarkhos wrote:
The bread analogy is a good one.
[blah blah blah here].




It is a perfect analogy. Paying Taxes is uncoerced it is a result of a decision, a implicit contract made when a persons decide to make taxable income. Paying taxes is a cost of doing business in a country if the very rich do not want to do business they don't have to no one has a gun to their heads. They can Galt it up and starve in a valley in Colorado if they want to.

It's not like the very rich made a bunch of money and shock 8O horrors they are ambushed and forced to pay tax. If one does business in a country they should be smart enough that they will have to pay taxes in that country.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

22 Aug 2012, 5:34 pm

Welfare has two forms that I can think of:

SNAP -- foodstamps (normally ~30 billion, now around ~80 billion with economy as it is). 2/3rds goes to poor families with disabled people, kids or the elderly.
TANF -- for poor families with kids (~20 billion / year). There is a five year lifetime limit and you have to work 30-50 hours per week.

What many people don't know is that SNAP is actually pushed for by famers. It's a farming subsidy administered by the Department of Agriculture and would have been shut down if not for agricultural lobbying. They want people to eat who otherwise might not because ultimately it moves their products.

You could entirely eliminate both programs and not put much of a dent in the 1.2 trillion yearlydeficit. And for comparison, under Bush the Republicans passed the Medicare drug expansion, which today is costing $60 billion a year and was not offset with new taxes. But old people might vote more than poor people so maybe it was bribe money well spent.