Posted by: realengr | August 19, 2008

Rich People should pay their ‘Fair Share’

Ever hear the above sentiment? The basic premise is that ‘rich’ people should pay their part in supporting government services. ‘Rich’ means anybody making more money than you, by the way……

I agree. I think that everyone should pay their fair share. If you use a road, it doesn’t matter how much you make. The costs for using that road should be the same for each person regardless of how much money they make. I mean, just imagine if we used the current tax system philosophy for shopping at Wal-Mart:

“That will be $50”

“wait a minute, You charged that guy in front of me only $5 for that gallon of milk”

“ I know sir, but he makes much less than you and our groceries are priced on a sliding scale. We think it is ‘fairer’ that way.”

Well, you can see how silly that whole thing is. Of course, there are those of you with limited intelligence who actually think the above scenario is workable.

‘Fairness’ is just a euphemism for thievery. It presupposes there is some cosmic equalization moving us all towards a steady state economic heat death. Just isn’t so. What I think people really want is a ‘fair’ chance. An equal opportunity. But to say that the rich are not paying their fair share is ludicrous.

I’ll tell you what is ‘fair’. Let’s charge everyone an equal dollar amount for every government service they use. By this reasoning the ‘rich’ people will pay very little since they really don’t lean on government services the same way that people of lesser economic means do. You see, a poor person depends on the rich already and the rich pay a disproportionate amount of their wealth already. So there isn’t anything fair about it. It is just thievery from the rich to give to the poor. Robin Hood if you will. Except, often, the money is just taken from the rich and spent on ….whatever.

Obama’s tax policies are predicated on the principle of fairness, not real world revenue needs. When it was pointed out that the capital gains tax increases actually decrease revenue, Obama didn’t care. He just wanted to raise the taxes because it was ‘fairer’ that way. What kind of Crack was Obama smoking back in school? “I’m going to ignore the facts and raise taxes anyway because of my crazy emotional feelings that it would be fair to do that”. Fair to who? If revenues drop, then they have to be made up somewhere. If the investors that lost their money in capital gains tax cut back, you can bet it will hurt the little guy. So in fact, Obama’s policies would hurt the people he is trying to be fair to. This is what putting an inexperienced empty suit in power will get us. More stupid economic and tax policies.

So let’s implement the ultimate ‘fair’ system. If you use a road, then you pay the same fee regardless of your income. If you use any government service you pay the same fee regardless. If you don’t use a govt service then you don’t pay for it. Soon, lower income people will be screaming that it isn’t fair.

Once again, ‘Fair’ = ‘Thievery’

Advertisements

Responses

  1. To a large degree, I do agree with you on “fairness.” I once remember a high school teacher saying that why should a wealthier person have to pay higher taxes than someone who doesn’t make as much? Isn’t that a sort of punishment for fulfilling the American Dream?

    I do agree that everyone should pay their fair share as dictated by laws and regulations. If someone is going out of their way not to pay, then they should accordingly be punished. Whether wealthy or not, if you are supposed to pay a certain quantity in taxes, then you need to be held to it. There are thieves in all shapes, sizes and social strata. Let’s not forget that.

    Jose A. Rodriguez
    adlv2006.wordpress.com


    Thanks for your comment Jose. I have to disagree with one comment above. The SCOTUS has stated that an individual has a right to avoid paying taxes to the best of their ability within the bounds of the law. So you will find me going out of my way to pay as little as possible. By being ‘accordingly’ punished, I’m not sure where you have drawn the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Bill Gates pays about $8k in taxes every year. Not illegal at all. While that may seem ‘unfair’ keep in mind that Bill probably contributes more to the economy than most people and probably does more good voluntarily too.

  2. Legalize recreational drugs and prostitution. Tax them. Tax churches.

    JPTill, Not sure what your above comments have to do with my topic, but I thought I would address them anyway…..

    I actually do not believe the government should be in the business of regulating what individuals do with their bodies unless it directly hurts another human being. For that reason, I would agree with you that those two vices of prostitution and drugs should be legalized. I’m not into taxing them because I do not believe that the govt has any business taxing any transaction like that anyway. Search your constitution and you will find not one line showing that the federal govt can regulate any of those items. Keep in mind that most of our prison population and many of the govt abuses you hear of have really come about from the so called ‘war on drugs’. Take away the war on drugs and you get rid of most of the rationale for militarizing our police. It’s a power play, pure and simple.

    As to taxing churches: Well, that’s just insane. It’s unconstitutional because it gives the govt the power to regulate the church. I have heard people try to argue this point, but it falls flat right out of the gate because the protection that churches have against taxation is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

  3. Once again, I find myself in Violent Agreement with you.

    If we are going to tax, make it a truely fair, ie everyone pays the same amount for services rendered. The only place where proportional taxing makes sense is in vehicle registration. Heavier vehicles damage the roads to a greater degree than lighter ones, so heavier vehicles should pay a higher fee. However, they also use a lot more gas, so the gas tax already covers this.

    “Atlas Shrugged” should be required reading in high school.

  4. “If we are going to tax, make it a truely fair, ie everyone pays the same amount for services rendered.”

    The idea of fairness is the cornerstone of progressive taxation. However, due to the declining marginal utility of money, for the burden of taxation to be equivalent amongst people of different incomes, the richer pay a larger share of their money. “same amount” can be simplistically considered as “same amount of dollars” but is more realistically, and fairly, considered as the “same amount of tax burden.”

    And really, don’t you want everyone to feel the same pain as you do every April when you pay your taxes?

  5. Cod.pease,

    I know some of what you are saying is typical of people pushing ‘fairness’, but if you step back away from it and re-read your statements it appears to be insanity. You are right. the idea of ‘fairness’ to the liberal mind is progressive taxation. Did you even read my illustration? The little Wal-mart allegory applies.

    Is taxation created to support government services to the community or is the purpose a ‘fairness’ in re-distributing wealth or putting a ‘burden of taxation’ on someone? Well, I think you know the answer. There is no LOGICAL reason why the rich should be taxed more dollars. Look at your statement. “more realistically and fairly”. According to whom? Why is it more ‘fair’? This has nothing to do with the same opportunity. It has to do with stealing from one person so the government can give it to someone else. Tell me why it isn’t? And no. I don’t need someone to feel the same pain I do. What the heck is that about? I thought people only thought that way in high school.

    Liberalism: A mental disease.

  6. Good post with good examples. In case you haven’t mentioned it before (I’ve only read two of your posts), giving people money raises the prices of the goods and services they buy. It turns out that it doesn’t do them a lot of good, but it makes them dependent on the government handouts. Social Security is like that. Its existence means that everyone who retires has more disposable income. Whatever help it provides to those who didn’t plan well or experienced misfortune is second order.

  7. Your argument might make a rather skewed sense if #1 the rich person’s use of the Commons and Government were exactly the same and #2 taxes were strictly a means of raising money and had no other purpose.

    Bill: Point #1: What data do you have to support your claim that rich people use the ‘commons’ and government more (I’m assuming you mean more) than poor people? I’ll bet …none.
    Point #2: Sorry to inform you, but taxes only purpose in our republic is to raise revenue to support the government. All other uses are social engineering. And that my friend is what is wrong, wrong, wrong with our country.

    The more accurate analogy would be to wonder why your Fillet Mignon sells for a higher price than chicken guts, and why you rarely see the very wealthy shop at Walmart in any case. They might be cheap, but seek value over price.

    bill: My analogy is quite accurate. I don’t see how your analogy even fits what I was talking about, other than the fact that you obviously resent richer people that do not shop at Wal-mart. BTW, I do most of my shopping at Target. I don’t like supporting the Peoples Republic of China anymore than I have to.

    That is also the case even in roads where those in wealthy areas might cost 15 times those in poorer and would be repaired much more quickly. There are thousands of ways they benefit far more than their poorer brethren. Bill: I don’t know how things are where you live, but I have not seen any signs lately on the roads that say ‘Rich people HOV lane only’. Chicago must be a helluva place. One other point…do those rich people pay more in taxes for their neighborhood roads? Sounds pretty fair to me….. It used to be that people were expected to pay for the paving in front of their house or do the work themselves. That was a very fair system. It only remains in isolated counties now. As to your point that richer people benefit more than their poor brethren…is that from the government? I guarantee you that there are no restrictions on a poor person using government services. What on earth are you talking about? The rich benefit more from their choices than poor people because rich people have statistically been able to make better decisions than poor people. Most poor people are poor for a reason: They have made poor decisions or were too lazy to put off the instant gratification that the richer person delayed for a better benefit later. This is not true in all circumstances, but is nevertheless, a very strong trend. I just took a risk and poured my equity into a bike company. If I succeed, I and i alone should reap the benefits, not some person living inthe HUD project who does not even know me. And if I fail, I fail. Too bad. If there were no poor people that succeeded you might have an argument but there are plenty of poor people that have pulled themselves out of poverty through hard work and making the right decisions. My dad had an eigth grade education and mom did too. They worked hard and did the best they could. He is retired on a 40 acre farm in north Missouri. I come from a poor family and grew up with kids making fun of my bike, my clothes, etc. But I worked hard, got a scholarship, and became a successful professional. And I probably would be considered rich by many people’s standards. My parents raised 4 kids, one of whom became a licensed Professional Engineer, one became one of the top 3 NCOs in the Air Force who is currently the Crew Chief of the largest Air Force base in the world, one is an electronics communications supervisor in Alaska on the North Slope (salary: $260K/year for 7 months work), and the other was the booking manager for ClearChannel concerts who is now finishing up her engineering degree. We did this ON OUR OWN. I will give a helping hand to anyone, but don’t ever tell me I HAVE to.

    I was struck in recent hurricanes that a wealthy friend had the city come clean up his trees at no charge, while in another poorer neighborhood another person was fined daily because the tree through his house also blocked electricity to the whole neighborhood and there was no such help for him despite a very much greater need. Bill: Sounds like the alderman in that one neighborhood does a great job and the other doesn’t. I don’t think this has anything to do with wealth unless the city is keeping a database on income so they can send the tree cutters out to the rich people first

    The second argument of using taxes to restrain antisocial behavior, like looting a company when regular income will eventually produce more and have much broader social benefit, I suppose you would not agree no matter how stated. bill: I do think that corporate governance is an entirely different issue. The stockholders are the ones who should have the money. Social benefit? Not sure many companies are really into that. I think the main purpose of a business is to make money for its stockholders. I do agree that better protection of stockholder interests is needed. If you are talking about workers….well, I’m one of those too, but I know that I get whatever I can negotiate for. My market value is whatever I can get in the current labor market. That simple. Fair? Life isn’t fair. Get used to it. (JFK said that, by the way).

    We have now had 40 years of Chicago School Antisocialism. Thanks to that it will be many years before parents will again envy the world of their children. Bill: Sounds like you have lost control of your government. There are private schools you know. What do you mean by Anti-socialism???? When were the schools ever supposed to be socialist???

    Bill: By the way…..I’m not rich. I’m just a regular guy trying to support my family. But you probably think I am rich…..After all, you do know what ‘rich’ is don’t you? It’s anyone that makes more money than you.

    Liberal Democrat = Envious Thief

  8. Point #1: What data do you have to support your claim that rich people use the ‘commons’ and government more (I’m assuming you mean more) than poor people? I’ll bet …none.

    Poor folk don’t hire lobbyists to get bailouts or build infrastructure for them.

    They can’t “externalize” their costs to increase their profits.

    They don’t have government trade missions to go to other countries to arrange sales.

    They can’t get government no bid contracts, or usually get help to even get the bidding ones (as they used to under SBIR). Perhaps when Obama is offering help to companies involved in green business you will reject any help as Socialistic.

    They don’t get special deals to collect sales taxes and just keep them.

    The list goes on. Much of this you don’t have access to either. But you are not among the cronies, just propagandized by them.

    Bill: Sounds like the alderman in that one neighborhood does a great job and the other doesn’t. I don’t think this has anything to do with wealth unless the city is keeping a database on income so they can send the tree cutters out to the rich people first

    It is not like there are so many cronies that the city services did not know who was who. It has nothing to do with the political region just political juice.

    bill: I do think that corporate governance is an entirely different issue. The stockholders are the ones who should have the money.

    Even the stock holders are usually frozen out by the pirates. I was even such a (very small) stock holder who was among the ones to have his cash cow looted.

    Power is power, the source is irrelevant. Those with it are held accountable for its use or they are not. When not, they will enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else, and call those who call them on it thieves.

    Bill:There are private schools you know. What do you mean by Anti-socialism???? When were the schools ever supposed to be socialist???

    Quite aside from public schools being among the oldest socialist ideal, I am sorry for speaking over your head.

    The Chicago School is the intellectual wellspring from which Milton Friedman, and Leo Strauss are the iconic figures, interestingly labeled both NeoLiberal and NeoConservative but not much related to the root of either.

    It is a key point in their thinking that there be a two prong source of info. One for the insiders and a fake propaganda one for everyone else to make them hold still while getting raped. That is why there appears to be so much hypocrisy.

    Both Friedman and Strauss are today in utter disrepute as both have been revealed as the thinking of an Unsocialized Gang Of Pirates bent on greed and unconcerned for the destruction left in their wake. Indeed the extreme Antisocialists in every sense of the term.

    There is more here.

    Bill:If you are talking about workers….well, I’m one of those too, but I know that I get whatever I can negotiate for. My market value is whatever I can get in the current labor market.

    The market is whatever the rules define it as. If the rules allow slavery (like the old South, or China) then slaves will “steal” the jobs of all who are not, and even ruin the business of those who are more moral and actually pay, or even treat their slaves better than average.

    Your market value will be relative to others in the same market, but it will be much higher in a socialized market than an unsocialized one. And price will not be improved by low wages, only the profit spread of those profiteering from them.

    We purchased it at Toys “R” Us, $29.99. We have the customs shipping documents with this toy entering the United States with a landed customs value of just $9. The landed customs value is the total cost of production. So the packaging, the materials, the accessories, the direct labor—indirect labor, profit to the factory in China, the total cost of production is $9. So that means Mattel and the other companies are marking this up by $20.99. That’s a 233% markup.

    .

    If you would understand what a Liberal really is rather than your Strawman you might even discover that they would make a better world for everyone, especially those who are smart and willing to work hard, and only a threat to thieves, cons, and pirates.

  9. Thanks Freedem for enlightening me. I visited your site and really liked it. First of all, I separate ‘rich’ people and corporations. In your comments you seem to equate the two. Everything you mentioned up there on rich people getting help had to do with corporations. You really didn’t answer the question on that.

    After going to your site, I may have to change my definition of who I am. While I say I am a Libertarian, that does not necessarily mean that I don’t believe in our Republic. The Republic has rules that should be enforced to ensure that everyone has their personal freedoms without infringing on anyone else. Your definition of Liberal is certainly different than what one would perceive today from many Democratic Socialists. What has the word Liberal come to signify today? I see a group of people who want to tax me, control me, give my wealth to others, engender a dependency on government, etc.,etc. I see a party that pushes to have new rights legislated from the bench out of thin air. I also see a group of people who want to create new special rights that trump the rights that are actually denoted by the Constitution. I know that isn’t what they started out to be, but that is what the Democrat party has turned out to be today. Don’t get me wrong. I HATE the Republicans since they have abandoned most of their ‘Libertarian’ principles and are just another form of the same repressive politicians. I just know that oftentimes they are a ‘lesser evil’.

    I think we probably agree on more things than you might think at first. For instance, my point on stockholders was that the corporate pirates should be shot.

    I think one thing you seem to be doing is equating ‘rich people’ with ‘corporations’. There are many rich people who have created their wealth through dishonest and illegal means, but the solution to that is to prosecute them for that, not tax them to death. Because in taxing them for ‘wealth’ or ‘income’, you are hitting the guys who are rich and got their wealth honestly.

    I’m going to do a new post tonight stating where I am at on individuals and government, etc. I may not come across at first as believing in community, but I really do believe in that and helping everyone out and working together. So, maybe when I post tonight, you can tell me if I am a true Libertarian or liberal.

  10. Bill:
    Perhaps I equate “rich” with “corporate” because in the top “one percenters” there is not much if any differences. The propaganda meme would make each person think it was his income that the taxes would fall even when there is no such possibility.

    As I noted in my blog when you take the entire Libertarian thinking and remove their very artificial division between Government and any other form of power, and then clean up the theorems derived from the logical error you very quickly arrive at the real Liberal agenda, or certainly most of it.

    The fear of “social engineering” becomes simple laws and rules to prevent bad outcomes and helping others such as the original GI bill (the “Veteran” excuse was just that, the point was to create an economic boom by increasing economic ability)created a massive increase in American capability that was not sustained, and it has been downhill ever since.

    Even the most hated form of welfare ends up putting a floor on wages (would have to be more than welfare) and while many might resent the money going there, the fact that the wage floor existed means that all jobs are paid more, and in a good economy and sensible welfare system, nobody would stay there that did not need to, and in a bad one, disaster is averted, and the bad times are much shorter.

    Thus with repaired Libertarian logic, almost all liberal thinking actually produces results that are in the self interest of anyone without larceny in his heart, providing he thinks things through enough, and is not diverted by propaganda or illogical thinking.

  11. Your definition of Liberal is certainly different than what one would perceive today from many Democratic Socialists.

    No, it’s not. The corporate media has hoodwinked you into believing so with “reports” of welfare cheats riding around in chauffeur-driven Cadillacs. I’m happy to tell you that they are a far smaller danger to our country and to your freedoms than the Friedmans, Regans, and Greenspans of the world. Behold! Their handiwork has come to fruition and it is ruinous. If only folks like you were paying attention earlier, perhaps it could have been avoided. Pity.

    • Wow, talk about painting with broad strokes……I thought I was the only one guilty of that….
      1) I don’t have TV, other than renting DVDs. I don’t subscribe to newspapers. Not much exposure to the ‘corporate media’, so probably not much opportunity for being ‘hoodwinked’ by them.
      2) i don’t believe welfare cheats are our big problem. Illegal immigration probably rates way up there…..along with disregard for the law by activist judges.
      3) Oh, come now. The main reason we have the massive economic problems we have now is because of massive breakdown in people’s attitudes toward debt, consumption, etc.. Granted, the Fed had something to do with it and massive govt spending didn’t help. But that’s not our subject here. Please address my analogy in my post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: