Raising taxes is unfair!

[SteveK]

Penalizing productivity is sure to help the economy!

[Aaron]

Penalizing productivity is sure to help the economy!

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's print more money!

[Tsukiyumi]

How is it penalizing productivity to require people to pay a fair share?

[SteveK]

Suppose you worked for a factory. Your boss offers you and your friend Jim a schedule of either 40 hours or 60 hours, if you work 40 hours he'll pay you $400 if you work 60 he'll pay you $700.

Would you work 60 hours if somebody decided that the fair share of somebody who makes $400 is $50 tax, and for $700 the fair share is $300? I mean, why should somebody make almost twice as much as somebody else! That isn't fair!

Sure you still come out ahead of the guy who only works 40 hours, but not by as much as most of us would consider fair, right?

[Aaron]

How is it penalizing productivity to require people to pay a fair share?

It isn't and it wasn't when the US had these laws back when the Earth was green. It seems somwhere in the last couple decades people went batshit crazy and Americans in particular have this really bizarre problem with taxes and taxing the rich. Which I suppose explains the poor social services in the country. Hell my folks pay about 50% in income tax (they make alomst 200K a year) but I haven't met to many Canadians that would give up their services if the tax rate dropped.

Honestly, I have no idea how people in the US expect the government to pay for anything besides printing T-bills enmass. Look what happened to California.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

Suppose you worked for a factory. Your boss offers you and your friend Jim a schedule of either 40 hours or 60 hours, if you work 40 hours he'll pay you $400 if you work 60 he'll pay you $700.

Would you work 60 hours if somebody decided that the fair share of somebody who makes $400 is $50 tax, and for $700 the fair share is $300? I mean, why should somebody make almost twice as much as somebody else! That isn't fair!

Sure you still come out ahead of the guy who only works 40 hours, but not by as much as most of us would consider fair, right?

It's a little different when we're talking about pre-tax incomes of a quarter mil or more. OMFG, how am I EVER going to eek out a living on only $350k per year after tax? As Tsuki said, some of these people who literally own cars more expensive than some homes pay next to nothing in tax! Yes, production is fine and dandy, but do they need the extra yacht and jet when they can support the good of everyone via tax?

[Tsukiyumi]

Exactly. I'm not referring to Joe Factory Worker, here. CEOs, celebrities, sports stars, etc. should pay a fair share. "Fair" being a larger percentage, considering that, as I said, 75% of $50 million is $12.5 million.

"I can throw a ball in a hoop, therefore, I deserve $30 million a year" doesn't really fly for me, unless a large percentage of that money goes to help other people.

[SteveK]

uExactly. I'm not referring to Joe Factory Worker, here. CEOs, celebrities, sports stars, etc. should pay a fair share. "Fair" being a larger percentage, considering that, as I said, 75% of $50 million is $12.5 million.

The example is illustrative, if it penalizes productivity at the low end, why doesn't it at the high end?

"I can throw a ball in a hoop, therefore, I deserve $30 million a year" doesn't really fly for me, unless a large percentage of that money goes to help other people.

What difference does it make to you what they make? Besides jealousy. If somebody is willing to pay a person 30 mil/year to throw a ball, then what makes you think you're entitled to a portion?

Honestly, I have no idea how people in the US expect the government to pay for anything besides printing T-bills enmass.

Easy, smaller government. Although, with "hopeandchange!!!!" Obama's spend now pay later scheme (he puts even Bush to shame when it comes to deficit spending) it seems that higher taxes will be required by all. Shame really.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

The example is illustrative, if it penalizes productivity at the low end, why doesn't it at the high end?

How does a CEO giving himself a $5 million bonus and buying a sixth house help him be more "productive?" U.S. CEOs make many times their overseas counterparts, for what? Why should these people who have more money than anyone ever needs pay some of the lowest tax rates even before the loopholes and tax shelters? Here we're talking about people who would be more than fairly paid for their services at a tenth of their paycheck and who make way, way more money than anyone needs. I'm not saying people shouldn't be paid more for doing more, but 1) enough is enough, when there are millions who can't put bread on the table and 2) why should these people not be required to pay their dues too?

Honestly, I have no idea how people in the US expect the government to pay for anything besides printing T-bills enmass.

Easy, smaller government. Although, with "hopeandchange!!!!" Obama's spend now pay later scheme (he puts even Bush to shame when it comes to deficit spending) it seems that higher taxes will be required by all. Shame really.

OK, propose another way to get out of this depression. At least Obama is projecting to balance the budget after the economy recovers (even if his projections about the recovery may be rosy).

[Captain Picard's Hair]

What Tsuki sees is that the people who have the most [money] to give put the least back into the [tax] pot They are already fairly paid for their services, in fact they have an excess of money to give well above what they need to make even a very, very comfortable living. How is taking from excess to pay for the basic needs of others a penalty? These guys are still going to live 50x more comfortably than the folks who are defendant on services their taxes may pay for.

Hell, for many of these CEOs their money would be more "productive" if they put it back into their company rather than using it to buy a private resort island. The money would be productive if they gave up four fifths of their salary (they'd still be making tens of times more than the rank and file of their companies...) to their companies so that they could, well, produce, more and better of whatever it is their company does.

[Aaron]

Easy, smaller government.

WTF does that mean, exactly?

Although, with "hopeandchange!!!!" Obama's spend now pay later scheme (he puts even Bush to shame when it comes to deficit spending) it seems that higher taxes will be required by all. Shame really.

Haha, lets blame Obama for the mess he got saddled with! A mess created by deregulation, fraud and a couple generations worth of idiotic purchasing habits. I would like to hear your proposal to get out of this mess though. By all means lets hear some alternatives that don't involve "burning the village to save it".

[Tsukiyumi]

uExactly. I'm not referring to Joe Factory Worker, here. CEOs, celebrities, sports stars, etc. should pay a fair share. "Fair" being a larger percentage, considering that, as I said, 75% of $50 million is $12.5 million.

The example is illustrative, if it penalizes productivity at the low end, why doesn't it at the high end?

Mostly because of the massive disparity in the dollar amounts involved. If Joe the Factory Worker has 30% of his pay docked, he can't afford to send little Sally to college, or pay his rent. 30% of Mr. Moneybags' multi-million dollar income means he can't buy an island until next year.

"I can throw a ball in a hoop, therefore, I deserve $30 million a year" doesn't really fly for me, unless a large percentage of that money goes to help other people.

What difference does it make to you what they make? Besides jealousy. If somebody is willing to pay a person 30 mil/year to throw a ball, then what makes you think you're entitled to a portion?

I used that as an example because what those people do isn't a productive thing at all. It's frivolous entertainment for people who like to look at guys playing with balls. Surgeons, physicists, soldiers, firefighters, all of those people deserve more money because what they do actually matters, but hey, let's throw millions at semi-literate cavemen for playing a game. If they are to receive such exorbitant amounts for doing something that is mostly meaningless, some of their money should go toward something that matters.

BTW, my username is "Tsukiyumi".

[Sionnach Glic]

The example is illustrative, if it penalizes productivity at the low end, why doesn't it at the high end?

It doesn't work because the difference isn't between one guy earning $500 after tax and another guy earning $600 after tax, it's the difference between someone earning $500 after tax and someone earning $50,000 at tax. Even if you tax the higher earning guy at something ludicrously high like 80% he'll still have more than enough to get by in life far more comfortably than the lower earning guy.

What difference does it make to you what they make? Besides jealousy. If somebody is willing to pay a person 30 mil/year to throw a ball, then what makes you think you're entitled to a portion?

The sports guy owes his success to society. Do you think people would be willing to pay him 30 mil a year if no one cared? No, of course not. It's only because he's so popular to society that he earns that much.
As such, it is only fair that he gives something back to society. Given that he makes so much money, giving a nice chunk of it back so it can be used to help the sick and poor is an excellent way to repay society.

Easy, smaller government.

Oh, joy. A libertarian.

Although, with "hopeandchange!!!!" Obama's spend now pay later scheme (he puts even Bush to shame when it comes to deficit spending) it seems that higher taxes will be required by all. Shame really.

This may have gone over your head back in Economics Class, but governments need to spend to get out of such situations. It was Bush's refusal to ever raise taxes that partly got you lot into the mess you're in right now. So far I've seen nothing wrong with Obama's economic policy, and the only opposition to it has been the "ZOMG! Don't raise teh taxes!!!" idiots that have no idea how economies work.

WTF does that mean, exactly?

By my guess, he's a libertarian. They believe that if the government stopped regulating the economy, it would magicaly become prosperous for evermore.
Check SDN for that "Voluntaryist" guy. I think he was one of them.

[Aaron]

By my guess, he's a libertarian. They believe that if the government stopped regulating the economy, it would magicaly become prosperous for evermore.
Check SDN for that "Voluntaryist" guy. I think he was one of them.

Oh, one of those.

[SteveK]

For starters, I'm not a libertarian.

This may have gone over your head back in Economics Class, but governments need to spend to get out of such situations. It was Bush's refusal to ever raise taxes that partly got you lot into the mess you're in right now. So far I've seen nothing wrong with Obama's economic policy, and the only opposition to it has been the "ZOMG! Don't raise teh taxes!!!" idiots that have no idea how economies work.

I seriously doubt that you were told in any actual economics class that the only way for an economy to function is for the government to spend oodles of money it doesn't have. Bush was an idiot for spending some 500 billion dollars per year more than the government could afford, Obama is an even bigger idiot for spending 1.2 trillion dollars per year more than the government can afford.

The sports guy owes his success to society. Do you think people would be willing to pay him 30 mil a year if no one cared? No, of course not. It's only because he's so popular to society that he earns that much.
As such, it is only fair that he gives something back to society. Given that he makes so much money, giving a nice chunk of it back so it can be used to help the sick and poor is an excellent way to repay society.

He already repays society by entertaining us with his excellent ball-throwing, which is irrelevant anyway. What you have is an agreement between two parties. Party "A" wants somebody who can throw a ball, party "B" is willing to throw said ball for money. What difference does it make to you how much "A" is willing to pay to have his balls thrown?

By my guess, he's a libertarian. They believe that if the government stopped regulating the economy, it would magicaly become prosperous for evermore.

That may be their beliefs, but they're not mine. I think that the U.S government should be able to get by on around 2 trillion/year. Is that so unreasonable?

For the record, I do support "progressive" taxation, but not at the level proposed by those hear.

How does a CEO giving himself a $5 million bonus and buying a sixth house help him be more "productive?" U.S. CEOs make many times their overseas counterparts, for what?

High pay attracts the best talent.

OK, propose another way to get out of this depression. At least Obama is projecting to balance the budget after the economy recovers (even if his projections about the recovery may be rosy).

Is he now? Last I heard he was planning to half the deficit (meaning return it to slightly above what George Bush left it at) at the end of ten years (way after he's been out of office). Good job for him though, first he doubles the deficit, then he says that maybe he'll be able to half it. Everyone applauds the messiah.

Fixed quotes - Seafort