Romney pays 15% tax rate

[Francesca R]

It's unfair to the rich if the only reason for them to pay a higher rate is because they can afford it. If, as you say, the vast majority of wealth is due to their own hard work, then why should they have to pay a higher tax rate?

Because they have benefited from circumstances and their own inherited characteristics that are neither due to their own effort nor due to the state. This is the basis of Rawlsian distibutive justice, or, more closely IMO, Amartya Sen's theory of justice/fairness.

I'm not sure it's possible to determine what proportion it is, but I think it's a fairly large portion.

And I think this is why you inherently have to assume that all of rich folks' wealth is due to the providence of the state, which is one case that I think we can be sure is not the correct one. Which means--to me--that the justification fails.

I don't think the poor and middle class are just lazy, which is the implication if you think that hard work is the only factor that makes the rich rich.

Incorrect--see Rawls and Sen

Actually, it's a fact. I'll post some references if you want, but the rich indeed get more tax expenditures than the poor. When I agreed that the rich don't receive more "direct public spending" I was referring to welfare, in reference to your argument which seemed to ignore all the other benefits provided by government.

Please do.

Whether there would be rich people and poor people would depend on how much wealth is being taken from the rich and given to the poor, and the method by which it is taken.

How did the rich become rich? There must be some systems being set up for allowing them to trade in a fair way, so my guess is that there is some other government going on here that you're not mentioning. I think there's a reason why this scenario only works as a hypothetical and has probably never occurred in real life. In real life, most people have to band together and form governments to become rich.

I think you're supposing that in the absence of a state nobody becomes rich. That's contradicted by places with failed or nonexistent government authorities.

 

[RandFan]

I think you're supposing that in the absence of a state nobody becomes rich. That's contradicted by places with failed or nonexistent government authorities.

I think the argument is that absent a state or given a state without social services A.) the likelihood of becoming rich is much more remote. B.) The degree to which one can become rich is limited.

 

[Francesca R]

The refutation seems to be "but government didn't give those people their wealth -- they did that themselves and you're completely ignoring their hard work."

Not any refutation that I advanced. You exclude, as above, any factor beyond "the state" and "their own effort" in the list of factors responsible for riches.

This is why you have to justify a larger tax take from the rich wholly on the basis that it was "provided by society". But your consideration of factors involved is partial, so your basis of justification is flawed.

 

[Francesca R]

I think the argument is that absent a state or given a state without social services A.) the likelihood of becoming rich is much more remote. B.) The degree to which one can become rich is limited.

I suspect that isn't correct, as per the record of failed/corrupt/illegitimate states where there is evidence of massive and unfair (by any philosophy I can think of other than the one I am challenging here) inequality of riches (and it is inequality that is the issue here).

Yet the more lawless these places are--according to the rationale being advanced by Bri--the more those with the spoils are justified in keeping them.

 

[RandFan]

I suspect that isn't correct, as per the record of failed/corrupt/illegitimate states where there is evidence of massive and unfair (by any philosophy I can think of other than the one I am challenging here) inequality of riches (and it is inequality that is the issue here).

Yet the more lawless these places are--according to the rationale being advanced by Bri--the more those with the spoils are justified in keeping them.

I don't understand your complaint. I don't think I'm saying anything at all controversial. Please to note the correlation of *GDP and HDI. As HDI rises so does GDP. Now you could argue cause and effect fallacy but we evolved to be a social species. Game theory predicts that cooperation produces a synergistic effect resulting in greater good for a greater number of people. IOW: The theory has both explanatory and predictive power. Again, it is, on average, in the best interest of us all to help each other. And the more that is expended to help those on the lower rungs the greater heights those on the higher rungs can achieve.

*Note: GDP not adjusted per capita. HDI is.

 

[BenBurch]

...

I think you're supposing that in the absence of a state nobody becomes rich. That's contradicted by places with failed or nonexistent government authorities.

It is very easy to become rich in a power vacuum. By to a greater or lesser degree becoming a stand-in for state power and using that power to take what you want, you can become rich. Ghengis Khan was a rich and powerful man, after all.

In such a power vacuum, it is impossible to become wealthy by the usual routes that civilized human beings would countenance, however. The first thug to come along can just take it from you. Or you wind up paying protection money to the thug in return for his defending you from other thugs - and suddenly you have a recognizable form of a government.

Power vacuums are unstable, and become despotism after a very short interval.

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand your complaint. I don't think I'm saying anything at all controversial. Please to note the correlation of *GDP and HDI. As HDI rises so does GDP. Now you could argue cause and effect fallacy but we evolved to be a social species. Game theory predicts that cooperation produces a synergistic effect resulting in greater good for a greater number of people. IOW: The theory has both explanatory and predictive power. Again, it is, on average, in the best interest of us all to help each other. And the more that is expended to help those on the lower rungs the greater heights those on the higher rungs can achieve.

*Note: GDP not adjusted per capita. HDI is.

I hve to make a correction here. I do think the theory breaks down in at least one area. There are more super wealthy in America than there are in nations with better social safety nets. Clearly providing social services does place a cap on the upper level. And there may very well be other points I'm missing. I don't mean to come of as absolute here.

 

[Francesca R]

Eh, GDP is not the issue, inequality of assets/income is and what is the justification for fairness. GDP or GDP/capita says nothing about "unfairness".

You are correct--of course--that organised societies get richer. But disorganised ones still have very rich and dirt poor/starving folks. My observation is that if they lack much at all of what's provided by governments, then it follows that the haves are justified--according to this theory I am refuting--in keeping what they have.

 

[Bri]

Because they have benefited from circumstances and their own inherited characteristics that are neither due to their own effort nor due to the state. This is the basis of Rawlsian distibutive justice, or, more closely IMO, Amartya Sen's theory of justice/fairness.

(bolding mine) I must admit that I'm not familiar with Amartya Sen's theory of justice/fairness. What circumstances are you referring to?

And I think this is why you inherently have to assume that all of rich folks' wealth is due to the providence of the state, which is one case that I think we can be sure is not the correct one. Which means--to me--that the justification fails.

(bolding mine) Woah! Because you don't know the exact proportion, you have to assume that all of rich folks' wealth is due to the providence of the state? No you don't.

Please do.

I believe there was a thread on this forum discussing this. I'll see if I can find the references.

I think you're supposing that in the absence of a state nobody becomes rich. That's contradicted by places with failed or nonexistent government authorities.

I know of no place that has no form of government whatsoever to test whether or not there would be rich people. Perhaps if there were self-sufficient individuals living far apart from each other and who don't really interact with each other, there might be no need for some form of government. I would assume in those cases, some might be a bit richer than others by pure luck (though I doubt they would be a lot richer without also working much harder). And yes, in that case it would seem unfair for a richer individual to be forced to give money to a poorer individual who might not have worked as hard "only because he can afford it."

-Bri

 

[BenBurch]

...

(bolding mine) Woah! Because you don't know the exact proportion, you have to assume that all of rich folks' wealth is due to the providence of the state? No you don't.

...

It is a hallmark of a dishonest argument that things that cannot be proven one way or the other by the arguer are asserted to be entirely the thing that most supports the arguer's POV.

Honesty demands that, prior to making such an argument, the arguer determines the answer to the question by a verifiable means, and then, if it supports the argument, fine. Use it. Note that I asked for just this data on the part of Neally earlier in this thread, and it wasn't proffered.

 

[Bri]

Please do.

OK, here's an article from the Tax Policy Center:

It’s also important to recognize that while tax expenditures push many people off the income tax rolls, they provide much larger benefits to higher-income households than to others, measured both in dollar value and as a share of income (see these TPC studies).​

Here are direct links to the studies cited:

http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/411922_expenditures.pdf
http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/1001234_tax_expenditures.pdf

-Bri

 

[Bri]

...according to the rationale being advanced by Bri...

I don't have time to fully respond, but I just wanted to point out that although I'm defending the argument, it's simply an argument that I've heard used quite often (usually framed as "the rich should pay their fair share").

At any rate, I came across this page outlining very similar arguments from a variety of sources:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/i...t_more_from_system,_so_owe_a_greater_tax_debt

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I don't have time to fully respond, but I just wanted to point out that although I'm defending the argument, it's simply an argument that I've heard used quite often (usually framed as "the rich should pay their fair share").

At any rate, I came across this page outlining very similar arguments from a variety of sources:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/i...t_more_from_system,_so_owe_a_greater_tax_debt

-Bri

Good source with good argument points.

ETA: What they term as "common wealth" is what I term "goodwill".

 

[Neally]

FTR: I'm not buying that argument. If I had to choose between living and suffering or not living I may very well chose not living.

Could be yes.

Fair enough, recognize however that in the US the general feeling is that life matters more than property and our laws reflect that feeling.

The argument is simply that they disproportionally benefit from society, so they should disproportionally pay taxes.

I know what the argument is, but you have failed to demonstrate that disproportion as a quantifiable result of the benefits to them of society and that they therefore should pay more than a flat % of their income.

Not really. If it were a different system of government, a person who is currently wealthy might not be wealthy. In fact, might be poor. And therefore might die (according to your argument).

He might be poor but the poor person would then be beyond poor, dead. That assumes that there is a skill level between someone rich or poor.

OK, here's an article from the Tax Policy Center:

It’s also important to recognize that while tax expenditures push many people off the income tax rolls, they provide much larger benefits to higher-income households than to others, measured both in dollar value and as a share of income (see these TPC studies).​

Here are direct links to the studies cited:

http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/411922_expenditures.pdf
http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/1001234_tax_expenditures.pdf

-Bri

I don't think "tax expenditures" mean what you think they mean.

 

[Francesca R]

I must admit that I'm not familiar with Amartya Sen's theory of justice/fairness. What circumstances are you referring to?

Broadly, anything that can be regarded as luck. High intelligence, good looks, caring parents, being born in an abundant (EG "buoyant economy") year, lack of disability etc. Sen's best book in this regard is "Development as Freedom".

Woah! Because you don't know the exact proportion, you have to assume that all of rich folks' wealth is due to the providence of the state? No you don't.

You have consistently referred to their wealth (and the total of it) as the metric of their benefit, at the same time as admitting it is not easy to quantify. You could equally well measure it as zero.

I know of no place that has no form of government whatsoever to test whether or not there would be rich people.

(Bolding mine) Whoa! Because there is not an example of no government whatsoever you have to assume that any extent of government, however minute, must be the cause of riches? No you don't.

And yes, in that case it would seem unfair for a richer individual to be forced to give money to a poorer individual who might not have worked as hard "only because he can afford it."

If you really believe this, I find it strange, because you reject egalitarianism in favour of libertarianism in this sense. Except that the difference in your case from libertarianism is that you seem to argue that, whenever there is a government (seemingly any government), it is largely responsible for wealth creation. This does seem muddled.

 

[Francesca R]

OK, here's an article from the Tax Policy Center:

[ . . . ]

Here are direct links to the studies cited:

http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/411922_expenditures.pdf
http://www.urban.org//UploadedPDF/1001234_tax_expenditures.pdf

-Bri

OK, I thought that might be what you were thinking of. What the Tax Policy Center, and the US congress, refer to as "tax expenditures" are not at all government spending. They are eligible deductions and allowances relative to a uniform application of rates of taxation to the entire tax base.

It is highly disingenuous IMO (of the US government, rather than you) to refer to these as "expenditures" as though they represent public spending.

And yes--the wealthy "benefit" a lot more in the realm of deductions/allowances, but that is because they have a higher taxable amount to deduct from. Nowhere as far as I know, outside the vagiaries of US tax documentation, are exemptions and deductions referred to as public spending.

So I don't (yet) accept that the rich receive more spending or more benefit from spending.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't have time to fully respond, but I just wanted to point out that although I'm defending the argument, it's simply an argument that I've heard used quite often (usually framed as "the rich should pay their fair share").

I've heard it too (see earlier in the thread). I know you didn't conceive it. However by defending it, it is "your rationale" as far as I am concerned, unless you now wish to distance yourself from it.

 

[RandFan]

... in the US the general feeling is that life matters more than property and our laws reflect that feeling.

Not even close to my point. My point is that a life of suffering isn't necessarily, inherently, good or better than being dead. In fact the argument is fallacious. It is in effect saying, "well, on the other hand you could be dead" (see false consolation).

 

[RandFan]

So I don't (yet) accept that the rich receive more spending or more benefit from spending.

I'm curious, do you accept that a rational philosophical argument can be made in support of the proposition? It doesn't at all bother me that one should disagree. What I find problematic is the refusal to acknowledge that there exists reasonable arguments counter to your view. You might not find them compelling but there are reasonable people who do. Right?

 

[Bri]

It is highly disingenuous IMO (of the US government, rather than you) to refer to these as "expenditures" as though they represent public spending.

They aren't that different from public spending. They represent money that the public would keep otherwise that's instead given to an individual. It just happens that they're calculated through the same system that collects taxes -- otherwise, the government would send out checks just like any other spending.

So I don't (yet) accept that the rich receive more spending or more benefit from spending.

They don't receive more direct spending, but they do get more tax expenditures as a share of income. They may also receive more benefit from spending if you buy the argument that they benefit from employees that receive direct public spending, use of public schools, etc. They also benefit from laws and government functions such as those I listed in a previous post that cannot be measured as easily in terms of dollars.

-Bri