Posted on 08/05/2002 5:59:13 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
What if the government were 10% of its current size. How much would he have then?
The issue at hand is the rampant growth of government and the welfare state. Democrats always make the argument that without government the rich wouldn't be rich, but that is a false dichotomy. The argument isn't that government should be abolished - it's that it has grown far too large, consuming far too great a slice of the GDP.
I said money is power.
I did not say that money is the ONLY form of power.
There is no doubt, by the way, that rich and powerful humans have fostered religious beliefs and have influenced religious leaders, all as a way to keep the lower classes compliant to the wishes of the upper classes.
This need not conflict with an individual's belief in his religion.
I'd be hard pressed to think of a religion that has not admitted to some degree having once gone astray from the influence of powerful interests.
Think of Henry VIII's making himself head of the church in England.
Think of the whole protestant movement as a rebellion against the influence of wealth on the Catholic leaders in Rome.
History is replete with examples.
Think of Hammurabi recieving the tablets of laws from the Sun God--an example of convincing people that these are the laws they must follow; that there must be no debate, because the Sun God made these laws (not the rich and powerful), and that is that.
A useful device for governing.
Is there something about my above clarification that you disagree with it? If so, what, specifically, and why?
I strongly suspect that the need for bigger government grows exponentially with population growth.
If you want to keep the need for government to a minimum, today's massive influx immigration must cease.
In my lifetime I have seen America's population double, and our freedoms halved.
From the excerpts I've seen on these forums from that work, I am not impressed.
And in general, I avoid looking to works of fiction for any analysis of reality.
It depends on which 90% is eliminated; whether 10% is enough to protect his assets against thieves and foreign invaders; etc.
You are introducing a new subject about proper level and composition of government. I favor reducing government and paying down debt before any tax cuts are considered. But the subject on this thread is: given that a tax cut is given, who is entitled to it.
That wasn't my impression. I thought the allegory was intended to answer the question about why when lowering the taxes the rich should get a larger share of the refund. It was my impression that rather than arguing that point your posts were intended to switch the subject to one that you felt more comfortable arguing.
My original point, which is quite objective, is that even if you assume that income is the appropriate basis for all taxes, knowing that a particular group pays 40% of the taxes is not sufficient information to determine whether that group deserves 40% of a tax cut until you determine the portion of income they receive.
The statement you fashioned uses the word "deserves". As such it is an undefined term and can mean different things to different people. It would be nice if you provided a definition. If you in fact wish to imply that we should endeavor to place a use tax on those whose who use the various services that the government provides I would be willing to listen to that. But in as much as the subject of this thread is lowering a tax based on incomes and not services you would be mixing one form of tax to justify another form. This is a form of straw man argument. If you wanted to be true to your analysis and expand the scope to look at taxes based on government use of services you would and must take a full picture of it. Lets factor in the propery taxes, excise taxes, road use, UC payroll tax, sales tax, telephone taxes, etc that both Microsof and its customers pays. Lets also look at the expenses and see what parts of the budget is a service provided to Gates that isn;t provided to the poor. Does Gate's A$$ get better protected by the military than mine ? Does Gates take a larger share of social welfare than the poor ?
If they receive 35%, they may deserve more than 40% back; if they earn 60% of the income, they are entitled to less than 40% back.
("deserve ?")I first disagree that you have established your premise that "they" get more from government just because they are wealthy. Further, as stated you are mixing the stated purposes of taxes and if you truly want to do a asset vs. liability analysis you need to take in the entire picture not just the narrow view that suits your point. Third, even assuming all the numbers ran your way the answer to the question of how to rebate an income tax fairly is still the same. It should be in proportion to the amounts originally taxed. Anything else is a shift of the tax burden without justification. Taking in the undefined concept "deserve" is just class envy politics.
I respectfully disagree.
Money is the fruit of successful labor. Those who have a gift for using it are rewarded by obtaining more. This is good economics because a system that tends to put resources in the hands of those with a proven track record is far superior to putting it in the hands of those who don't.
As long as Gates continues to use his money to create wealth he will be rewarded with more and its a very good investment because of his track record. When he fails (and histroy shows he or his compnany will) the funds will flow to another Gates who has a track record.
Government on the other hand can only redistribute Gates money and based on its track record as well as its purposes will not use it as wisely to create wealth for all of us.
In summary, where you see money as an end that is defined as power I see money as a responsibility that goes to those who have proven to be most responsible.
Here is something an older friend once told me when I expressed similar statements as you regarding who deserved what in this world. He told me that if all the money were redistrubuted tomorrow so that we all had an equal share in the assets of the nation that within one year those who were wealthy would be so and those who were poor would be so.
You are assuming they produce less as a group than they receive which hasn't been established. You seem to have a world view that the pie is limited and you will somehow get gyped out of your share. I disagree with this world view.
Let me try to simplify. If you and I buy a $10 pie, I pay 60% and you pay 40%. Now we agree that everybody should theoretically pay the same percent of income. I earn $70 you earn $30. Currently, therefore, I pay 60% but should be paying 70%. Now, a $1 discount is given by the restaurant on the $10 pie. The allegory argues that simply because I pay 60%, I'm entitled to 60 cents of the $1 discount. According to our respective earnings, however, I should ultimately pay 70% of the $9 or $6.30. Therefore, even if you get the entire discount, I am still underpaying. This is purely mathematical. There is no particular political philosophy expressed. To put it another way, the allegory assumes the current tax burden is exactly correct. Only then, should a proportionate refund be given.
Now as a whole other concept, the cost of anything should be borne by those who benefit from it. Here's where a political aspect comes in. You assume that the brighest richest, most powerful members of society get the shaft in our society. (e.g. it's unfair that Gates pays more for the roads). I don't think this analysis passes even the most casual of "smell tests". Common sense should tell you that the smartest, richest, and most powerful would see to it that they not be taken advantage of.
P.S. Here is my favorite excerpt from the book.
"Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it defend their life, men who apologize for being rich -- will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters who stay under the rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt and of his life, as he deserves."
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard - the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money -- the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law --men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims -- then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it is safe to rob defenseless men, once they have passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes on, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter."
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honest becoming self sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed. "
By the character Francisco d'Anaconia in Ayn Rand?'s book Atlas Shrugged
Then you are arguing that he should have paid 70% to begin with without establishing a case for him being undertaxed at the outset. You are then attempting to correct this original imbalance by claiming he doesn't "deserve" it rather than making your case that his original tax was too low.
Attempting a new straw man argument ? No thanks, that isn't what I said at all. I must also note that you seem to have run away from defining "deserve".
You on the other hand assume that the converse is true. That anyone but the richest are getting the shaft.
Unlike your class envy angles, I have yet to make any value judgments as to what or who "deserves". What I have pointed out though is those with proven track records (ieGates) will be more productive with money than others (read congress).
Stop and pause for a moment and see if you can think about taxes and spending without looking through the lens of class envy.
why does everyone forget the tip?... is hillary dining with them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.