Fun with US Tax statistics.

The problems is that we have a financial burden that needs to be paid. Itd be nice if everyone could pay $1 and the country could run on that. Thats not reality. I dont think its so bad to ask a little more from people who can take the hit easier.

Since when have taxes ever been fair anyway?
 
It is my contention that taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun. And it is.

I love the smell of proof-by-assertions in the morning.

And since we're being redundant:

I love the smell of proof-by-assertions in the morning. I do.

I shake my head at anyone who claims to value individual freedom and who also champions income redistribution schemes.

This position rests on the assumption that the "original distribution" (whatever that means) is just.

Money gets redistributed in a market economy all the time, every second. Hell, the transition to a market economy "redistributes" wealth in a way that otherwise would not take place. National defense entails redistribution. Virtually any type of regulation "redistributes" -- and the same holds for deregulation. If a hurricane strikes the coast-line, there will be a "redistribution."

This sort of typical knee-jerk reaction to the "redistribution" bogeyman is simply astonishing. But then I also have a problem with "that's anti-American!" observations. Misappropriations of the term "socialism" has annoyed me for a long time.

This is a bad morning.
 
AmateurScientist said:


I shake my head at anyone who claims to value individual freedom and who also champions income redistribution schemes.


AS

"Income redistrubition". This term alwyas bugs me. The implication is that tax money goes from the top down. The rich pay taxes and get nothing. The poor pay little taxes and get all sorts of govt freebies!!!

I think this is a myth. Is $100 billion in tax dollars to the war an Iraq "income redistribution" to the poor tax payer? If anything the war in Iraq benefits the rich.

Govt Services. Everyones focus is on schools and police. And how the poor benefit from those services. What about the 1000's of other govt services? For example. THe US patent office. How many poor tax payers are using that service? Securities and Exchange Commission, the Civil Court system, the FAA etc...

The rich like to spin that they get nothing for their tax dollars but thats just not true.
 
Looking at just 2000-2001 picks up the effects of the collapse in the stock market and corporate earnings, so the higher earners would be more adversely affected, as the income distribution stats show. But in terms of tax burden, the numbers show the following:


top 1%:
income fell 16%, tax fell 9%

top 10%
income fell 6% tax fell 5%

bottom 50%
income increased 6%, tax increased 2%


This VERY naive analysis shows that the tax burden increased at the upper income levels and fell at the lower ones.
 
Tmy- Linguist George Lakoff had an interesting article in the last issue of _The American Prospect_ on framing issues such as taxation in a progressive mindset. He discusses similar points:

Taxes look very different when framed from a progressive point of view. As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, taxes are the price of civilization. They are what you pay to live in America -- your dues -- to have democracy, opportunity and access to all the infrastructure that previous taxpayers have built up and made available to you: highways, the Internet, weather reports, parks, the stock market, scientific research, Social Security, rural electrification, communications satellites, and on and on. If you belong to America, you pay a membership fee and you get all that infrastructure plus government services: flood control, air-traffic control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and so on.

Interestingly, the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the American infrastructure. The Securities and Exchange Commission creates honest stock markets. Most of the judicial system is used for corporate law. Drugs developed with National Institutes of Health funding can be patented for private profit. Chemical companies hire scientists trained under National Science Foundation grants. Airlines hire pilots trained by the Air Force. The beef industry grazes its cattle cheaply on public lands. The more wealth you accumulate using what the dues payers have provided, the greater the debt you owe to those who have made your wealth possible. That is the logic of progressive taxation.

No entrepreneur makes it on his own in America. The American infrastructure makes entrepreneurship possible, and others have put it in place. If you've made a bundle, you owe a bundle. The least painful way to repay your debt to the nation is posthumously, through the inheritance tax.

Those who don't pay their dues are turning their backs on our country. American corporations registering abroad to avoid taxes are deserting our nation when their estimated $70 billion in dues and service payments are badly needed, for schools and for rescuing our state and local governments.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/8/lakoff-g.html

Shanek and AS have their own framing: taxation is theft and redistribution is evil. It's not exactly well-founded, but it certainly presents a relatively consistent -- if simplisitc -- outlook on most issues.
 
AmateurScientist said:


Hmmm. The implication is that society has a right to take property it decides is excessive from private property owners.
Not really. Remember we are discussing which is worse, not whether either is justified


One might also call that socialism.

It is antithetical to the concept of individual rights and liberty. It is anti-American to claim such a thing.

I shake my head at anyone who claims to value individual freedom and who also champions income redistribution schemes.

They are utterly inconsistent.

AS

Not really. The whole purpose of government is a collection of people that pool resources for the common good, such as defense, protection from crime, resolution of disputes, and so forth. Uniform agreement as to how to go about this is not practical, so we have an ordered system that decides how much to pool and where those resources come from.

I'm in favor of what you would call "redistribution" not becuase of some wealth hate or dislike of individual liberty or whatever. I'm for it because in the long run in benefits the safety and security of the country. If we want to deal with our own people in a civilized way, we need resources. In short, I'd rather spend money paying for someone else's education or job training than later putting them in prison for stealing my car. It of course gets more complex than this, but the general idea is clear. This isn't "charity," rather it is good sense. This is how I view all "social programs."

I will say I'm against just handing out checks and would rather resources be dedicated to solving problems of poverty rather than filling a bucket that is known to have holes. However, I'd think such activity is within the bounds of reasonable government. I'm not defending the status quo by any means, but I think "concern for the poor" or whatever isn't a question of compassion or charity, rather a legitimate issue with long term ramifications on the heath of the country just like having a strong military or decent roads.

As to why the rich pay more, it is because, as my present sig says, they have more to gain from the very existence of government.
 
AmateurScientist said:


Frankly,

I don't understand how you can claim that regressive taxes are obviously unfair, yet also claim that progressive taxes might be fair.

What is the rational, not emotional, basis for claiming that progressive taxes are "fair"?

AS

I, personally, think that the progressive tax system is both fair and unfair. It is, of course, less fair to people with high income because they are shouldering more of the tax burden.

However, from a "social justice" standpoint, the more money we let the poorest people keep, the less they need to rely on government services. That's the whole point of Earned Income Tax Credit - reward people for not being a burden on the state.

I also think that regressive taxes aren't inherently unfair. I don't mind Social Security being regressive... It's not like Ross Perot can withdraw more from SS than my grandmother.
 
Suddenly said:
(snip)

I'm in favor of what you would call "redistribution" not becuase of some wealth hate or dislike of individual liberty or whatever. I'm for it because in the long run in benefits the safety and security of the country. If we want to deal with our own people in a civilized way, we need resources. In short, I'd rather spend money paying for someone else's education or job training than later putting them in prison for stealing my car. It of course gets more complex than this, but the general idea is clear. This isn't "charity," rather it is good sense. This is how I view all "social programs."

(snip)

I was going to say something along these lines, only less clearly and eloquently.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

Thanz said:

Quick question: is income taxation in the United States constitutionally valid?

Yes, thanks (or otherwise!) to the 16th Amendment.

Slavery was once constitutionally valid, too.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fun with US Tax statistics.

Suddenly said:
Yep. Called government. The "point of a gun" is some nice drama as we could say the same thing w/r/t parking tickets. It is a point against government all together, even those acts of government that protect property.

The point is, since government is force, its use is justified only where force is justified.
 
Cain said:
Money gets redistributed in a market economy all the time, every second.

Not by forceful means. There are only two entities who redistribute money by forceful means: criminals and governments.
 
How would you fun the country Shanek? Do you expect the government to run on donations? With magic pixy dust?
 
Tmy said:
How would you fun the country Shanek? Do you expect the government to run on donations? With magic pixy dust?

User fees.

You've got 1600 posts and you don't know how Shanek proposes we fund the government?
 
Tmy said:


"Income redistrubition". This term alwyas bugs me. The implication is that tax money goes from the top down. The rich pay taxes and get nothing. The poor pay little taxes and get all sorts of govt freebies!!!

I think this is a myth. Is $100 billion in tax dollars to the war an Iraq "income redistribution" to the poor tax payer? If anything the war in Iraq benefits the rich.

Govt Services. Everyones focus is on schools and police. And how the poor benefit from those services. What about the 1000's of other govt services? For example. THe US patent office. How many poor tax payers are using that service? Securities and Exchange Commission, the Civil Court system, the FAA etc...

The rich like to spin that they get nothing for their tax dollars but thats just not true.


Ummmm..... Excuse me. Please go back and look at your quote to which I was responding. You asserted in it that it is worse to steal the last loaf of bread from a poor man than one loaf from a man who has 100 loaves.

I wasn't referring to taxes at all. Nowhere in my post do I mention taxes. Nowhere. Everyone who responded with suppositions above my beliefs about taxes has simply put words in my mouth.

I was responding directly to your assertion, which implies a sort of legal (or moral, if you like) relativism based on the impact on the victim of a crime, rather than on the accused's conduct. I reject that sort of analysis. When deciding how culpable a wrongdoer's conduct is, it shouldn't matter what sort of impact it has. What should matter is the intent and actions of the wrongdoer.

You take issue with my use of the term "income redistribution?' Jeez, that's bizarre, considering your assertion about stealing loaves of bread. What is stealing if not redistribution of wealth (forget for the sake of argument that income and wealth are not the same)?

As you seem in your example to endorse (or at least excuse somewhat) stealing from the rich a la Robin Hood, I find such a proposition to be antithetical to the notion of freedom and personal property rights.

Fine. Some people don't believe the state should recognize the individual's right to own property. Yet, there it is, antithetical to the notions of individual liberty found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. I feel safe in calling it un-American.

As to your comments in the above post which you think are responsive to mine, I don't care to respond. They are all strawman arguments, as I didn't make any of the arguments you refute.

AS
 
Suddenly said:

As to why the rich pay more, it is because, as my present sig says, they have more to gain from the very existence of government.

This is the point where I feel so many who defend progressive taxation miss the boat. Under a linear scheme those with larger incomes will always pay more in taxes than those with lesser incomes. That's what it means to pay linearly or proportionately (a flat rax rate). Therefore, such a system would already take into account the presumptively greater government resources the richer persons use.

I suspect you may mean that the "rich" use a disproportionately greater amount of government resources than the the less rich. I don't understand how or believe that this is necessarily the case.

In the case of national defense, for instance, each individual benefits the same as any other. Each of us, rich or poor, has only one life to lose. In the case of roads, the same would be true, even for those who do not own automobiles, as they can ride with someone who does have one or on public transportation. In either case, they get the same benefit--the opportunity to use those roads. Of course, roads are a different matter because in part they are in fact funded by "user fees" in the form of gasoline taxes. Clearly, poorer persons who do not drive do not pay as much in "user fees" as richer persons who drive gas guzzling SUVs.

Education is available to all children, rich or poor. If you want to bring equities in benefits derived into the argument, then how is a property tax to fund schools fair to property owners with no children? This is one case where Teddy Roosevelt's argument completely fails.

The presumption of greater use of government resources business does not justify progressive income tax schemes. Flat rate taxes accomplish the same thing, without shifting a disproportionate burden onto higher income earning taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's nothing but class warfare fodder.

AS
 
Tmy said:
How would you fun the country Shanek? Do you expect the government to run on donations? With magic pixy dust?

Well, interestingly enough, our country ran just fine without income taxes until 1913.

AS
 
By "income redistribution" I meant its common Bill Oreilly useage that means taxes from the rich being redistributed to the poor. A common argument in these tax debates.


Defore 1913 we didnt have 250 mill people, two world wars, an international military, an interstate highwy system etc....

And we still had taxes. Jesus paid taxes, there nothing new.
 
shanek said:


Yes, thanks (or otherwise!) to the 16th Amendment.
Then, if my understanding is correct, nothing short of a constitutional amendment will get rid of the income tax. I do not know the US constitution amending procedure, but I imagine that it is fairly difficult to get a constitutional amendment (as it should be). Realistically, I do not see this happening in our lifetime.

Nobody likes taxes. They are, however, accepted by most as necessary for the proper functioning of government. And a properly functioning government is seen as necessary for a stable society, from which all benefit. So, I think that you really are tilting at windmills when you work to try and abolish income taxes. It just isn't going to happen.

Slavery was once constitutionally valid, too.
So what?

Slaves did not have the freedom to go to where they would not be slaves. Some managed to do this covertly - escaping to places like Canada. However, this was quite dangerous.

No such danger exists for you. If you really feel that taxes are theft, and the government is a bunch of incompetant crooks, move to some place without income taxes. Move to a nice tropical island like Grand Cayman that has no income taxes. Vote with your feet. Why stay in the US and get continually robbed?

I am not saying "America - love it or leave it!". I am saying that your philosophy seems to be directly at odds with the country, and that it would appear that you would be happier some place else. I have been to Grand Cayman. Its nice. Felt a little like home, only a lot warmer. A Canadian bank on every corner.
 
Cain said:
Tmy- Linguist George Lakoff had an interesting article in the last issue of _The American Prospect_ on framing issues such as taxation in a progressive mindset. He discusses similar points:


I find it interesting that Holmes' so often quoted remark, which is on the IRS Building in Washington, was made in 1904, before federal income taxes became legal. He didn't advocate a progressive income tax structure. He wasn't discussing income taxes at all.

The quote comes from this case:

Compania de Tabacos v. Collector, 275 U.S. 87, 100 (1904).



Shanek and AS have their own framing: taxation is theft and redistribution is evil. It's not exactly well-founded, but it certainly presents a relatively consistent -- if simplisitc -- outlook on most issues.

Where have I said any such thing? I have never called taxation theft. I would appreciate your not lumping me or my ideas in with those of Shane's.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:

In the case of national defense, for instance, each individual benefits the same as any other. Each of us, rich or poor, has only one life to lose. In the case of roads, the same would be true, even for those who do not own automobiles, as they can ride with someone who does have one or on public transportation. In either case, they get the same benefit--the opportunity to use those roads.

Here's a slightly different way to look at the benefits of government: if you were to hire a private security firm to guard your posessions, the cost of that security would depend rather greatly on how much you were having them defend. Government serves that purpose for most people. It enforces property rights. If you've got more property, you're getting more benefit from government rather automatically. That is the single greatest source of government benefit for the rich, and it's a pretty damn big benefit too.


If you want to bring equities in benefits derived into the argument, then how is a property tax to fund schools fair to property owners with no children? This is one case where Teddy Roosevelt's argument completely fails.

The benefit comes in rather easily, in two ways: first, education lowers crime rate, and therefore indirectly protects your property (real estate and otherwise). More directly, if you don't have any children, then when you grow old it will be other people's children you will need to depend upon, even if you're still working (because when you get old, the workforce is going to remain primarily younger people). You will derive benefit from that workforce being well-educated.

The thing that always bugged me about libertarians, and your argument strikes me as being fairly libertarian, is a disregard for the necessity of families. Society depends on families, we can't function without them. Even when you are an adult, EVERYONE benefits from the sacrifices parents make to perpetuate society through their children. So I don't buy into arguments that just because YOU might not have kids you can't be obliged to contribute to this necessary function of society.


Sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's nothing but class warfare fodder.

That's funny, I seem to recall hearing a lot of rich people advocating progressive tax structure. Sure must be a lot of traitors to their own class.

Class warfare is certainly something we should avoid, and the rich shouldn't just be viewed as some tap from which we can extract as much money as we want. But extreme economic inequality is unhealthy for society as a whole (regardless of fairness, it creates stresses that are harmful to everyone, and that's not a statement of class warfare), and we need to make sure that our society is structured so that economic inequality isn't ever-increasing. One way to do that is a progressive tax structure. If you want to go with a flax tax system (and again, you need to make sure that you're not just implementing flat income tax, because that would make overall taxes regressive), you can still keep inequality in check by instituting a rather stiff estate tax (possibly with a high deductible to allow for small family businesses, family farms, etc), so that if you want to be really rich you need to earn most of that money yourself. A steep estate tax is something Andrew Carnegie, for example, was very much in favor of.
 

Back
Top Bottom