Tired of 47% not paying any taxes? Shame on us...

If government would remove itself from messing with the free market system, then a non-artificial “minimum-wage” would be established based on the true value of the labor. What this value would be is irrelevant.

How quickly you forget! It was you who initially used the term “adequate compensation” in post #45, when you said this: "About half of the poor are already contributing more than their fair share through labor which is not ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED for, their labor acts to generate profits for the rich, who then use some of that profit to pay taxes". Do you remember now? Thus, from your statement it is obviously that you do indeed believe that the poor are not being “adequately compensated,” and hence (by using logic) it must be inferred that you believe that you have the authority to determine “adequate compensation.”

Neither you or I (or anyone else) have this authority: Only a true free market can determine adequate compensation.

Laissez-faire would certainly be the closest semblance to a true free market system. Hence, it would be the best means to actually determine the true cost of labor. Otherwise, how do you propose we can get the “overall labor demand to equal overall labor supply?”

 

And who determines this “margin" that you refer to above?

What do you mean by “employee output?” How is this figure determined?

How do you propose businesses be forced to compensate “1 to 1” for employee labor?

Then I would say that a substantial number of employees are compensated very well, since many employers help cover these expensive health care plans. Wouldn’t you agree?

I would disagree. Sale of a “processed” product (e.g. a cut-down tree) does not start and end with labor. If it is understood that the seller bought the property that holds the forest, then he already has additional costs (cost of land ownership) not originally addressed. The seller must also initiate the sale and transportation. He must also provide insurance that his trees reach the buyer. Hence, the scenario is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

I already showed that you oversimplified the issue of selling trees. There are loads of costs that are imposed upon the owner (or business) that you did not account for at all. You entirely neglect business liabilities in your example.

Yes: This makes sense both historically and logically. However, I don’t see our power-hungry government suddenly loosening its regulatory grasp any time soon.

 

In my earlier posts, I believe that we were talking about equality regarding taxes in the same sense as we are now. I honestly do not understand your description of “equality of the dollar?” My definition of “equality” is exactly as I have written it above: I believe that the same rules that apply to Citizen A applies to Citizen B and Citizen X. In essence, this is the true meaning of equality. However, I would be willing to make a compromise (regarding taxes) that rather than having every individual pay the same exact dollar amount, they should at least pay at the same rate of taxation.

It makes perfect logical sense. A progressive tax is most certainly unequal, since (as I described many times), each individual is getting essentially the same out of the federal government, in terms of interstate roads, our standing army, legal system, NIH research, etc. (Of course there are many programs like Medicaid, foodstamps, and welfare that specifically help the poor, but I am ignoring them for the sake of simplicity, since such programs are not part of the constitutionally-sanction purposes of the federal government). Thus, since we are all getting the same product, why are we not all paying the same price for that product?

You say that the “same exact rules apply to everyone,” but this is obviously bogus. How do the same rules apply to everyone when a plastic surgeon grossing $800,000 per year pays a substantially more amount in taxes than an elementary school teacher grossing $50,000 per year? They are both getting the same benefit from the federal government (the same army protects them, the same legal system judges them, the food they eat travels on the same interstate roads, etc) yet the plastic surgeon pays MUCH more for the same service. By definition, this is inequality.

If we let a food market act as a microcosm of the federal government, it would be analogous to the market charging individuals buying apples based on their individual income. An apple would be $0.05 to a single mother working a minimum wage job, but the investment banker making a seven-figure salary needs to pay $10.00 for the same exact apple. You call this equality? I disagree strongly.

That is a backwards way of looking at it (you can justify the Jim Crow laws by using the same backwards logic). The fact remains that the federal government provides the same services to citizen A and B, even if citizen A is a schoolteacher making $50,000 and citizen B is a rich plastic surgeon making $800,000. Hence, why should they pay an UNEQUAL amount (and rate) in taxes that pay for the same exact service?

I’m for a Fair Tax, but a Flat Tax would be an acceptable compromise IMO.

Well being that I’m a Fair Tax guy, I choose option #5: There is no income tax, and instead a national sales tax is instituted, and people are taxed based upon the amount of stuff they buy. This tax system actually rewards frugality and independent savings accounts and punishes irresponsible spendthrifts. Another benefit of this system is that it is blind to one’s income (The plastic surgeon who makes $800,000 may indeed lead a very frugal lifestyle when the teacher making $50,000 may buy every single tech gadget that comes on the market).

However, since you asked a fair multiple choice question, I will answer it using the choices that you have given. I would opt for choice #2, since it is essentially describing a Flat Tax. Of your four options, it is, in my opinion, clearly the most fair and sensible.

 

Yes. In our “free country”, they both have equal opportunities. They can both go to school, study hard and work hard and eventually achieve their goals/dreams. One might find the journey easier than the other, but their opportunities remain the same. However, you should not confuse opportunity for success with ease of success
Money does not (and cannot) buy success. Let’s say two young women want to be physicians. One is the daughter of a wealthy couple and the other is the daughter of a lower-middle class couple. Both women must take the same tests and courses to qualify for med school. Both must then pass their med school courses. Both must finish their clinical years and pass their USMLE exams. Wealth, in this case, will be of no significance benefit in accomplishing the above goals. Hence, the opportunity for success as a physician is the same for both women, since becoming a physician is about accomplishment and merit, not about wealth.

Will the poorer woman end up with a larger debt, since she will likely need to take a large loan to pay for med school while the parents of the richer woman may help foot the costly bill? Sure that’s probably likely, but again this has little to do with their OPPORTUNITY to become a medical doctor.

You again are confusing ease of success with opportunity for success. Regardless of how poor a child is, he has the same exact opportunity as the child of wealthy parents to study hard in elementary school and secondary school, work his way through college, and succeed in life.

Money has nothing to do with opportunity here in America. Look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg: These three were not born to especially wealthy parents, yet they were very intelligent and followed through with their ingenious dream/ideas, and they became FAR wealthier than their colleagues who were born into wealthier families.

You are again guilty of the same fallacy of confusing “ease of success” with “opportunity for success”

 

More nonsense. I am advocating FAIRNESS in the sense that Citizen A and Citizen B should be paying the same amount in taxes (or at least the same rate) for the same federal services. This is what true equality is, and this is what I am advocating.

I am certainly not advocating that some citizens pay a “disproportionate amount more in labor than others purely based on circumstances.” Unlike you, I would never be so foolish to attempt to determine the “true cost of labor.”

YOU are the one discriminating base on income. I am doing the opposite (by advocating for a Fair Tax that eliminates the income tax).

You’re right. We’ve already established the fact that the POOR get WAY more out of the federal government than the RICH, with programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, welfare, etc. However, I would like to simplify this conundrum and overlook the aforementioned programs and look at programs that the federal government is supposed to provide based on the US Constitution. These include the following

1) National Armed Services: They protect the country as a whole (hence the term “common defense&#8221, hence we are all protected equally.
2) Interstate Roads: The products that I buy that travel on these roads cost the same for me and you, regardless of our income. Murder committed by a rich man is punishable by the same system as murder committed by a poor man.
3) Legal System: The crimes that I commit will be dealt with by the same legal system as the crimes as you commit , regardless of our income
4) Border Security: …..

On the contrary, my simplification was apt. You have nothing substantive to say, so you merely typed filler here.

Nonsensical analogy. Just because NYC is a higher risk target does mean that if a terrorist attack occurred in Bismark North Dakota that our national army wouldn't swing into action just as swiftly as if an attack occurred in NYC. And if a attack occurred in NYC, would the army help only the wealthy people and neglect the poor? Of course not. Yet this is what you are trying (and failing) to convey.

The national army protects the country as a whole. If the current leader of Al Qaeda and his upper echelon of superior officers took over Oprah Winfrey’s mega mansion, kicked Oprah out, and started to use this mansion as their head of operations, do you think that the US army would hesitate for a second before bombing Oprah’s home into oblivion? Of course not, since the rich (or ultra rich in this case) get no special treatment, and the purpose of the army is to protect the collective nation.

For the last time, it certainly cannot be said that the army protects my home. The Army protects the COLLECTIVE Unite States, not my house or your house. I cannot use the army as my personal bodyguards or as guards for my home, so you ridiculous analogy falls apart immediately.

Then he will pay less in sales taxes than the other person, but he still benefits from interstate roads in the same respect.

Because the roads are built for everyone (COLLECTIVE again) to travel on and for goods to be transported for the benefit for everyone. The rich do not benefit more than the poor, since the poor have to eat and buy items too.

It indeed is. I used this phrase ("supposed to") to indicate that the government has stepped beyond its bounds by creating institutions like Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, and welfare that help only a selective population while stealing money from another population of people who will not benefit from these entitlement programs. As I have proven with data, the poor benefit much more from the government than the rich.

Again, I know that the poor clearly have been proven to benefit more. However, this is because the government has created programs that should never have been created if it adhered to the bounds of the Constitution. If we look at Constitutionally-sanctioned programs (like the ones that I mentioned above), then it is clear that we all benefit equally, since such programs (like the border enforcement, legal system and the armed services) protect us COLLECTIVELY.

There are no false premises in my argument.

That’s why, for simplicity sake, I only was looking at programs that are sanctioned by the US Constitution. Certainly unsanctioned programs like welfare and Medicaid/Medicare benefit the poor substantially more than they benefit the rich. However, if we eliminate these programs that are outside of the confines of the Constitution, then indeed the federal government is supposed to benefit all of us equally.

 

You can only look at gross income though, which, in my opinion, is a horrible indicator of wealth.

Let’s say ‘Husband A’ and ‘Wife A’ are both teachers and make $60,000 each. They each work 7 hours per day (including lunch) and have the entire months of July and August off. Their children are all grown and no longer dependent on them, their mortgage is paid off, they have no costly health problems, and they live well within their means with no remaining debt.

Now let’s say ‘Husband B’ and ‘Wife B’ are both physicians (solo-practitioners) who work, on average, 65 hours per week each. Their combined gross income is $700,000. However, they have overhead costs to account for, as well as malpractice insurance. They have an autistic child, requiring special care, and another child with severe Crohn’s disease, who requires $100,000 in out-of-pocket medications/treatment per year.

Now can you tell me who lives a “richer” lifestyle, ‘Family A’ or ‘Family B?’ Now, do you think it’s foolish to merely use gross income to determine who is richer? It’s clear, in the example above, that Family A leads a more ‘luxurious’ lifestyle, yet they gross $580,000 less than ‘Family B’?

Great. This would only serve to hurt Family B more (or make them more dependent on the government for assistance). We already have an “actual” progressive tax system, and I believe that it is disingenuous calling it a “semi-progressive system.”

 

Brilliant rebuttal.

Equally brilliant.

Yet another brilliant response. I must be debating the reincarnation of Albert Einstein

So what if the aspects are not inherent?! The considerations are profound enough where different people are indeed being charged different prices for the same federal service. It would be as the government taxed people with brown hair at a different rate than people with blonde hair. Sure, one can always get your hair color changed easily, but you’d be kidding yourself if you think anyone in their right mind would consider this “equality.”

One’s vocation may not be an inherent aspect of ourselves, but for those of us with a career, it is certainly profound enough that it almost becomes part of our identity. Like one’s hair color, it can be changed, but taxing people differently based on one’s income (which is largely based on vocation) or hair color certainly falls under the category of inequality. Is it the same as judging a black person differently than a white person? No, but it is still discrimination nonetheless.

Yet another genius rebuttal.

From the citation that you posted: Fascism - a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control .

Your common theme is that the rich don’t pay enough taxes. Yet, between state and federal taxes, some “rich” people are easily paying around 50% of their gross income to taxes. At the same time, you advocate that the poor, who pay little taxes in comparison, are paying too much, and their lifestyles should be further subsidized by the “rich”. Thus, you are dictating that a certain class of people, merely based on their wealth, should pay for the entitlements of another class of people. Essentially, you are stripping the rights away from those “rich” who you want to pay more and more taxes. How does this not meet the criteria of the definition above?

 

Poor example: He wouldn’t be a “wilderness man” if he shopped at a local Walgreens.

There is no cutoff point. The point that I have been trying to make time and time again is that the interstate highways are built for the general population for the general good, and do not benefit one class of citizen. When the NIH does research, it is for the general good of the population, and not for the benefit of one citizenry class defined by wealth. The same can be said for our armed services, our legal system, and all other Constitutionally-sanctioned functions of the federal government.

I think it is foolish for you to nitpick to this extent, since you are getting away from the original argument. We were originally talking about the federal government possibly benefiting one class of citizenry over another, and the facts remain: The constitutionally-sanctioned purposes of the federal government benefit us all equally, and the wealthy-class is certainly not favored by these programs over the poorer class.

 

What is "morally wrong" with a progressive income tax in any political-economy that lays any claim to Capitalism?

 

Why would it matter, if it acts to improve our standard of living in a manner analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but why insist that a person need work and have a work ethic, to merely stay in official poverty by having to work if that wage is below the poverty guidelines?

Why not subsidize human capital with better infrastructure?

What objection is there to a minimum wage that also solves for official poverty, and that can be applied for under the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will?

 

Why not simply subsidize the least efficient, to not provide labor input to the economy and save employers some of that cost by not having to "weed" through persons who are not very motivated to work?

A minimum wage that pays people not to provide labor input to the economy may mean that employers are not burdened with an artificial minimum wage that is not based on the market based metrics of supply and demand.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say concerning persons who would be free to pursue Happiness in the manner most conducive to the individual, but for official poverty which can easily be solved with an appropriate amount of socialism that merely conforms to the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.

 

I really don't think you understand the term. You are convinced that at-will employment means something totally different from what it means.

At-will employment means that you can quit whenever you want and the boss can fire you whenever he wants. That is all it means.

You seem to believe that it means you will get paid even if you don't work. That is totally untrue. If you choose to quit or get fired, you stop getting paid. You have to find some other means of getting an income. You don't have to take a job, you could sell things you own, start your own business, sponge off family or pitch a tent in the woods.

At-will employment has nothing to do with providing an income to the unemployed. It simply means you can quit or be fired with no real reason or justification.

 

From my perspective, employment at will means exactly that. I don't need to resort to special pleading or pleadings in the alternative for such a simple point. Why such cognitive dissonance on your part? Simply quitting on an at-will basis should not be an excuse to deny or disparage that legal privilege and immunity regarding unemployment compensation on that same legal basis. There is no reason why a labor market participant could not pay for half of that "tax" to share those market based metrics with an employer.

 

The point is that is the opposite of at-will employment. Instead, you are forcing the companies to employ everyone, whether or not they work. They have no option to avoid or stop paying the employees in your system. Therefore the employment is mandatory, not at-will.

 

Promoting and providing for the general welfare and common defense is one reason our form of federal government exists.

I find your point of view disingenuous, especially when corporate welfare even pays bonuses in any more well developed political-economy.

Why do you believe that simply subsidizing the least efficient to not provide labor input to the economy could in any way shape or form, be immoral or unethical, if it would otherwise improve our standard of living in a market friendly manner, in a manner analogous to a rising tide lifting all boats?

 

I am not sure why you believe my interpretation of at-will employment is the opposite of what is claimed by that legal doctrine. How would unemployment compensation force any hiring authority to do anything, other than consider costs?

From my perspective, employment at will means exactly that. I don't need to resort to special pleading or pleadings in the alternative for such a simple point.

Why such cognitive dissonance on your part?

Simply quitting on an at-will basis should not be an excuse to deny or disparage that legal privilege and immunity regarding unemployment compensation on that same legal basis.

There is no reason why a labor market participant could not pay for half of that "tax" to share those market based metrics with an employer.