Should the rich have to give back to society?

The poor get tax breaks cause were poor and the rich get tax breaks and loop holes cause they are rich. That leaves the poor bastards in the middle to take the pinch.

@Ed: Tax cuts for the upper crust combined with a fuckton of loopholes that create "income" that's not taxable income, plus stuff like overseas banking, various types of untaxed funds, etc. that's only available if you have more than a certain amount of money.

DG's right(#9). Flat taxation favours higher earners over lower earners, because the relative after tax income for the rich is definitely way surplus to survival, whereas you can't necessarily say the same thing about lower earners, who may have difficulty surviving on their remaining income

say there is country X, where the poor earn $1/day, and the rich earn $10. They're both subjected to 10% tax rate. Obviously, in gross terms, the rich can afford it, because after-tax income is $9. The poor can less afford it, because their after-tax income is $0.90

It wouldn't be a (major) problem if the cost of living essentials was $0.50/day (unless, they have dependents, but economies of scale may help here), but if it's closer to $0.85+, that's really bad (from a large-scale aggregate microeconomic perspective)

I like progressive tax brackets (adjusted for inflation, to avoid fiscal drag), myself

edited 1st Jul '11 7:10:52 PM by pathfinder

I think they should. I mean, say you have a family. If a few members of the family are weak and can't work while others are healthy and strong, you don't force everybody to do exactly the same amount of work as each other, because 'that's the only way to make it fair'. The ones better suited to supporting the others should do so - assuming that they're weak through no fault of their own.

Seconded. The rich aren't being punished when they already have huge tax cuts anyway. Hell, if I were rich, I wouldn't give a shit about paying low taxes if I knew my money was going to help out the less fortunate.

I disagree. If someone is weak and unable to do his share of the work, it is not fair to force the others to do his share. They can, and should, help him, but only by their own free will, not by force.

Guess which direction human greed usually goes with free choice.

edited 1st Jul '11 7:20:57 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Flat tax rates bother me so my answer is a foregone conclusion...

^That is one reason it bugs me. I don't trust people to not be greedy fucks.

edited 1st Jul '11 7:21:39 PM by Aondeug

So it's more fair to let people suffer instead? To not give people a hand up, because some people aren't necessarily willing on their own, even when the vast majority DO consent to it?

That would be the flaw in the reasoning about force, as the ideal is that the government exists on the consent of the governed. Where it doesn't...then it doesn't matter what they do, because that's wrong on its own.

But where it does, then you're going to have to accept that maybe you're not going to get complete autonomy in a given society. There may be choices made that you don't agree with, and that impact you. You only get so much leeway on your own.

If you want to change to another society, fair enough, but don't expect others to agree. But I think that would be digressing too far off topic.

Taxes are not punishments, they're payments for benefits received. It's unfortunate that a real accounting of said benefits is not feasible, but that would require extensive understanding of effects, and a lot of tracking. I don't expect to see it any time soon.

edited 1st Jul '11 7:31:37 PM by blueharp

From each according to their means, to each according to their needs

SHOCK!!!!

Loni Jay's a COMMIE! Quick, grab the pitchforks

But seriously, if you can't work, then society has a very stark choice to make: let you starve and die, or offer support for some standard of life. Necessarily, this support will be small, lest the moral hazard become too risky (and expensive)

There are no perfect solutions to this problem in a complex society, and probably never will be

edited 1st Jul '11 7:32:23 PM by pathfinder

But outright refusal shouldn't be an option.

Well, yes, it IS more fair to let others suffer instead. If someone is suffering though no fault of your own, why should you be obligated to help him? If your conscience says you should, then by all means do so, but you should not be FORCED to do so

Considering how many backs the rich step on to reach or maintain their wealth i would dissagree.

wut.

You forgot the why. You just assert it as if it were true. That is not persuasive.

But is this on-topic for this thread?

edited 1st Jul '11 7:36:32 PM by blueharp

You are making the assumption that wealth can only be acquired by oppression.

Which part lots of people talking at once.

Most of it is by paying absolute miniumum for large portions of your work force, shitty benefits that make the care unaffordable. Using slums and various business plans that are at best shady at worst legalized scams. The banking industry comes to mind largely, as does the security guard industry, and a large number of technical industries.

The wealthy also use lobbyists heavily to ensure they have more political weight then the common man. You know now that direct corporate bribesdonations are perfectly legal now.

The unwillingness of many many employers to pay even a basic living wage for the area they hire most of their workers among a whole host of other shitty and dirty tricks they use to make and keep as much money as possible.

edited 1st Jul '11 7:40:31 PM by TuefelHundenIV

If there are more people suffering because you refuse then yes I think you should be forced. Their happiness outweighs your own desire to control your funds and not pay higher taxes in this case. Then again I think reducing suffering for the greatest number of people and providing everyone with decent and copious amounts of aid and a decent life should be our goal. Even at the cost of certain freedoms like being able to pick health care providers

edited 1st Jul '11 7:39:31 PM by Aondeug

Well logic dictates that if they got it through kindness, they would donate anyway. If they got it through douchebaggery, they should have to give back, as they shouldn't have the money in the first place.

x3

Even leaving oppression aside, how many of them would be wealthy without the benefit of the rest of society doing all it does for them.

Or do people think the government isn't doing anything for them ever? If so, who are these people and how are they not being served?

I'm all for taxing them more than middle and lower class. Higher taxes on the rich are not a deterrent for being rich. At worst, it's only a deterrent for being right at the beginning of the next tax bracket, only being rich enough to have to pay more. Which, in itself is incentive to get richer. Any taxes will disproportionately affect someone more than others- it may as well negatively impact the richer ones. Flat taxes will hurt lower and middle class more just because X% of their income is a lot closer to "not enough to pay the bills anymore" than X% of the rich folks'.

Perhaps this is a measure of my youth, but I don't understand why this is such a shocking and terrible thing to be

The right of a poor person to eat regularly is more important than the right of a rich person to pay exactly the fair amount of tax and no more to me. Is it unfair? Maybe. But I think it would be morally right.

It's not a moral issue. It's about survival as a society. In economics they teach the 80-20 rule - the rich can insulate themselves in a bubble economy that trades exclusively in Porches and jets. I say: let's not encourage them.

Being "rich" as in actually having wealth you can leverage for effect by necessity means you are taking more from society in benefits than payment can express. If your money means anything, it is because you live in a place with property laws, a population of consumers who buy products to move an economy and make what you want to do with your money valuable, a treasury that supports your currency unless you want to try being rich in a barter system, law enforcement so your shit doesn't just get taken, and equally imporantly so that your customers' shit doesn't just get taken allowing them to buy your products, and so on.

The company owner gets more out of society by virtue of being rich than the guy who works part-time at the burger joint. Our burger flipper only needs the infrastructure for electricity and water at his house and place of work, and he only needs good roads for his commute and for the customers who make it to his place of work to spend money (of which only a small fraction makes it to his paycheck). The company owner needs that infrastructure for every building in which his company operates, and a working highway system for all the trucks that ship the stuff he sells around, plus for all his customer base so they can afford to live and work and buy his products, and so on.

Being rich means that society helps you use your wealth more effectively. Hell, that's half of what being rich means. Of course they should give back more. Practically, this could be done by closing loopholes in the current system and going after fraud. Ideally, this would be done with a formulaic income tax increasing with geometric progression, preferably to a limit so it approaches but never actually reaches 90% (this would be at the point when you're making tens of billions of dollars). No brackets, just feeding your income into the formula and paying the percentage of your income the formula says you should.

But they can and should pay more. No doubt about it.

Taoist: Nice post and a nice interlude.