Um no, I've pretty much been against progressive taxation systems for as long as I can remember. Just as I have been against any form of taxation which targets a particular group; in this case, people who are successful.

For some people to have to pay close to 50% in taxes while others who pay no taxes are given money is not only wealth redistribution, it's robbery on a large scale.

This is a bit of a mess. I don't know why people interject ideology into so many things, all it ever does is take focus from where it should be.

The market can do some things right, and the government can do some things right. The market is where you see wealth reward success (basically). The government is where you see taxes distributed via services to those that need it (again, basically). Morality takes a back seat to pragmatism in both cases. We need certain things to work before we can start figuring out how morality fits in. Are either the market or the government moral entities? No. Morality (or ethics) in either are done either out of necessity as a part of a reasonable contract or are the result of individual altruism. Equality being a part of taxes happens long after we've built highways, paid police and firefighters, and such. Even Social Security came into existence out of necessity, not morality.

The rich people usually know how to avoid taxes. Like Steve Jobs only gets a $1 income each year, so does that make him poor? He might get all of his compensation in the form of stock options that he holds on to for one year then can pay 15% on that income for long-term capital gains. It is one loophole they need to fix. But I'm not sure you can tax based on net worth.

But I don't have a problem with him making as much money as he does since he runs a successful company that treats the workers well.

Its great that you have opposed a progressive tax system for as long as you can remember. I'm sure you're not alone.

But the fact remains, there has never been a western style democracy that hasnt had such a system of taxation.

And since its inception in the US, it hasnt adversely impacted the economic growth of the country or the top income earners.

Evidently there are some people who want the best for society, while others only want the best for themselves.

I'd sooner call low wages immoral than I would taxation.

The assumption I see too often here is that poor people aren't hardworking and don't deserve what they cannot afford.

If one busts one's ass to make a living but, well, can't make a living out of it, while another does the same but makes several livings out of it, don't you think the system is a little broken?

I think anyone who's wealthy and knows better wouldn't want to eliminate all rebalancing methods to help the poor. What do you think would happen if you eliminated progressive taxation and social programs that help the poor? Would the country be better off?

This is where you're assuming welfare and forced wealth equality is "what's best for society".

Do I get any say in how many children someone can have while they're dirt poor? Do I get any say in what they spend food stamps on, or how they maintain their health before getting on Medicaid? Throwing my hard-earned money at people without having any say in what happens to it isn't what I call "only wanting what's best for myself." It's called wanting to keep my hard-earned money until I find a worthy cause to which I'd like to donate it.

But why we're on that subject, I don't completely believe in altruism for its own sake. I don't believe in pulling someone else down in order to raise someone else up. I believe in the occasional well-earned hand up, but I don't believe giving someone money qualifies as a hand up; that's a hand-out. College scholarship programs, employment security and job centers - those I can get behind. (Although those could easily be privatized and not completely cocked up with government intervention; once again, I don't assume that rich people are all just greedy assbags who never donate to charity or put their money towards good causes). Programs that force banks to lend to unqualified borrowers, pay for an endless stream of babies for as long as any one woman wants to keep popping them out, putting her even FURTHER into poverty? No. That kind of inefficient crap I do NOT support.

If you have a skill that sixty million other people can do? No, it's not immoral to pay a lower wage. That's why people have incentive to develop more advanced skills, continue the learning process through life - you know, better themselves. When a monkey could do your job, be prepared to accept a monkey's pay.

Taxation - in what way is that NOT theft? You're taking someone else's money and giving it back out to people without giving the payer a choice in the matter. Theft.

I've been poor before. I worked hard. I don't make that assumption. But "don't deserve what they can't afford"? Where does that end? Everyone has an obligation to pay the rent. Living quarters are not a right, they're not an entitlement, they're a responsibility. In the adult world, people are obligated to secure lodgings for themselves. If you have less than what you want, that's incentive to do more, to innovate, to learn and to improve. A literal federal invitation to women to just HAVE babies they can't afford isn't incentive to improve. It's incentive to stay at a level to where they can still qualify for the free lunch.

No. This assumes everyone has an obligation to be altruistic. They don't. There are ways to get out and get your hands on more money if one is so inclined. Provided people don't make stupid life decisions - the foremost being, having kids they can't afford - and then whine and cry about how their wage "can't support their family." Of course it can't, you dolt.

Immediately? No. People would flap around, freaking out that their safety net has disappeared. They'll then figure out ways to adjust. Maybe they'll have more incentive to plan their families. Private charities will still exist, giving people a voluntary option to donate.

People who can't? . . . sorry.
-----Added 2/11/2008 at 11 : 37 : 50-----
Well, according to this FICA and Medicare line I'm looking at on my paystub, yes, they are.
-----Added 2/11/2008 at 11 : 39 : 04-----
No, it's actually being called what it is. You can call a duck a dog for a hundred years, doesn't make it any less a duck.

if private donations to charity were enough, why does the government spend billions per year in social programs? because it isn't enough.

I think you should go research a) what the average person on welfare gets from the government and b) what the average number of kids a mother on welfare has. I expect both numbers are considerably lower than you think

and taxes aren't theft, they're the cost of citizenship. all of your tax money doesn't go to someone else; the vast majority benefits you directly

Dex (and Dark Passenger), do you think that welfare is in place to be nice to poor people or to try and ensure that our economy doesn't collapse because of vast income differences? And are you familiar with welfare in all of the other industrialized countries?

Do you think that perhaps people aren't as inclined to give as much because the richer they are, the higher the tax bracket and the more they have to pay in taxes? They're basically being FORCED to charitably donate - and yet, they donate charitably on top of that. So obviously, the drive is there. If they got to keep more of their money, they'd probably donate more, and spend more, invest more, stimulating the economy, creating more jobs, etc.

I work at a CPA firm with a LOT of big-money clients, and if anything would make you feel sorry for them, my job would. It's agonizing how much of their money I watch being pissed away on a yearly basis. And I have just as much sympathy for the middle-class, or even the lower class who are still being strangled out of part of their checks because every person in America is required to contribute to FICA. (Most of whom wouldn't even qualify for it if THEY got into a tight spot).

Seen 'em. And you know? One is too much. If you know you have no education, no prospects, no decent job experience, you have no business breeding. That's called a stupid life decision and I have absolutely no sympathy for you. I do not relish the idea of rewarding people for being morons. The concept of "babies cost money" isn't a hard one to grasp.

Source?

I'm not against taxation for things like infrastructure and military defense. Like I said before, I'm all for a small government that exists to secure and protect our liberty. I'm not blind to the fact that that requires money.
-----Added 2/11/2008 at 11 : 55 : 53-----
How exactly would our economy collapse? Poor people are less inclined to spend and thus stimulate the economy. Look at the economic stimulus checks we got not too long ago - didn't exactly have the effect the government thought they would (though I was appreciative to get my money back). Most people either saved them or paid down debt. So if someone was having to put their money towards medical bills (say, in the absence of Medicaid), the economy's not really missing it anyway.

ETA: And on the topic of low wages, someone very correctly stated before that the more expense you force on a company, the more they're going to compensate - by raising prices, or by laying off workers. So you don't think that not having to pay huge chunks of money on their 1065's is going to free up a LOT more capital to create more jobs and perhaps encourage them to pay their hardworking employees a better wage?

Dexter....your libertarian model of taxation only for defense and "essential services" for the public as a whole rather than devoting a portion to helping those most in need has never existed in any western style democracy anywhere in the world since the industrial revolution.

Why do you think that is?

It seems simple to me....most citizens, and even most economists, just dont share that view.

I'll ask again....has it adversely impacted the economic growth of the country or the top income earners?

It goes beyond a moral imperative....its good public policy.

The 16th Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it?

And i'm pretty sure that lowering taxes on the wealthy wouldn't result in more charitable donations. It would end up in more luxury automobile sales. Half the wealthy only donate to charity as a tax loophole as it is. Take away the taxes and now what incentive do they have?

I know that it's not something people like to think about, but without the poor (or more specifically when there is massive wealth inequality) there's no economy. Oligarchy is a bit of a mess.

That's the sixteenth amendment. I don't see anything in there about "the price of citizenship". I didn't realize there was a price set forth for the accident of being born in any specific country.

It's an absolutely well-deserved tax loophole, because they're essentially taking over for the government in giving back to society. Were I rich, I'd absolutely rather give a portion of my money on my own terms rather than have it extorted from me by the government.

As far as incentive? I don't know - maybe not all rich people are, as mentioned before, greedy assbags. There are various other tax shelters and deductions one can use to avoid taxes. This is precisely the kind of liberal mindset that I hate: if you have money, you're an asshole. It's nothing but blatant wealth envy spurred by an entitlement complex that the government has only helped foster.

And to answer a prior question - I don't think the government uses welfare to "be nice to poor people" OR to prevent some economic disaster. They do it to create need for themselves, to make themselves bigger and fatter and more malignantly embedded in the lives of Americans.

And yet you still havent identified any country anywhere in the world in the last 100+ years where you can find your libertarian model of government that exists solely to "secure and protect liberty."

Perhaps because it looks great on paper (to some) but doesnt work when applied in practice.

Funny, I hate the conservative mindset of: fuck the poor, it's their own damn fault.

Uh no, maybe perhaps because it hasn't been applied, because people are too afraid to actually have to look out for and provide for themselves.

I believe what you're speaking of is communism.

No....I am speaking of every western style democratic capitallist based system in the world.

I know, conservatives are pretty whacked out. Like the ones who don't want women to have abortions, OR pay for the babies they have. Pretty messed up.

Good thing I'm not one.
-----Added 3/11/2008 at 12 : 26 : 38-----
But I thought you were talking about a Libertarian model, which you just said has never been applied.

Im still waiting for you, or anyone, to identify one country that has prospered, or even has been attempted, with your system of taxation only for defense and the protection of essential liberties.

I want to see the working model and maybe I'll rethink my position.

Are you suggesting communist countries?

I believe a working form of libertarianism already existed for centuries. It was called feudalism.

I think most libertarians would be shocked to find on which side of the spectrum they'd find themselves were it to ever be enacted as a form of government.

Dexter, I'm with dc_dux: I want to see some kind of model. Rather than respond to you point by point (which would be a challenge in itself for all the misconceptions I see), I think it would be more constructive for you to put forth your idea of how society should handle things. What would happen to the most destitute? You cannot assume people will be charitable to help them out, especially not at the level at which they are helped presently.

Do you support fiefdom?

I cannot see how your perception of society would work. Can you paint me a picture?

I have always been fascinated by the Libertarian postion. It is the ultimate in me, me, me.

I like to think that our civiliation in better than that. I like to beleive that we can work to achieve individual greatness. I also believe that we can work together as democracies to raise the standard of living for all (better roads, schools, utilites, etc.) through fair taxation.

I am not talking absolutes. This is not economic equality. This is not ballet dancers being forced to wear lead shoes.

But there will always be those who want to take care of themselves only and there are those that will strive to get as much for as little. There will always be extremes at either end of any spectrum.

Thankfully, the majority of people live somewhere in the middle.

What scares me (about some of the espoused Libertarianism above) is the idea that poor folks will stop having kids
as soon as they realize they cannot afford them. Anyone care to visit the other 3/4's of the planet? If we, as rich
nations, do not support our poorest children (to a minimum degree, I'm not talking BMW's in the driveway), what
kind of human misery will we be living amongst while we enjoy the "fruits" of our labours?

There are taxes on payroll, personal property, pensions, severance, Social Security, corporation, stock transfer, tobacco, tonnage, transportation, utilities, accumulated earnings, ad - valorem, alcoholic beverages, amusements, apparel, business, capital gains, consumption, corporate income, dividends, employment, estate, excise, franchises, fuel, furnishings, sales, gift, gross receipts, health care, holding company, inheritance, land, license, life insurance, luxuries, occupation, operators license, motor oil, motor vehicle, did I miss any? Lets pick something from that list- motor vehicle: There's tire taxes (per tire, times 5), the battery taxes, there's air conditioning taxes, there's PST, GST, HST, QST, there's luxury taxes, and there's fuel consumption taxes. Oh yes, and there's filing fees. Income . . . . Equality is the goal? It seems graduated is hypocritical to its intended outcome. Why does the debt attached to federal notes get a pass in all this?

Exactly.

Poor people always tend to have more children... In 3rd world countries now and under other more 'traditional' systems without govt social security or pensions, the children a poor family has will be expected to look after their older, incapacitated and unemployed relatives over time. Of course, this usually includes child labour, lack of education, social stratification, etc...

Birth control, with the massive expansion in personal choice that goes with it, _requires_ a different sort of support system for the older, unable and unemployed in society.

Ignoring the comparison to feudalism (people were actually more tied to each other in that system than they are currently, and I don't propose paltry land "gifts" in return for military service), I'd be happy to:

Things would be about how they are now (minus bans on drugs, guns, gay marriage/adoption, and other civil liberties that have no business in the hands of anyone other than the American people). Only . . . you know that chunk that goes missing out of your paycheck every month? It'll be there. People would not be taxed when they save, spend, buy a house, on capital gains, on interest, over and over again. All money would be taxed once (say, a sales tax - no, I don't mean FairTax), and negligibly - so as to cover a scaled-back military meant for home defense only and infrastructure costs for things such as roads, a police force, etc. Everything else - home ownership, business start-up, health insurance - is privatized.

Libertarianism certainly isn't all "me, me, me": it's also "you, you, you." The same things that would benefit me would benefit you, and your neighbours, and your family. If you'd feel a tug at the old heartstrings enough to go feed a family of eight that should rightfully never have gotten up to eight people, you go right on ahead; no one is stopping you, and in fact, that's encouraged. What you're proposing in supporting the current system isn't people helping other people - it's channeling money through an intermediary and expecting them to do it for you (while skimming quite a hefty amount off the top themselves, or for "special projects" - such as the war on drugs, brilliantly directing cops towards the real dangerous element in society: the petty pot smokers carrying a dimebag of weed, the self-abusing methheads who buy hookers. Child molesters? Rapists? Murderers? What are they?). If you care so goddamn much, go give your time to helping the needy. Donate directly out of your pocket and decide how much you want to give and where you want it to go. Just stop expecting me and others to happily do the same with absolutely no say in our money's use.

I don't not care about the needy, nor do most Libertarians; we simply don't usher all the needy under such a broad umbrella, and we observe a very striking difference between truly helping people and keeping them dependent by never requiring them to learn anything. Sometimes, the kind of "help" others think is so important is exactly what keeps people weak, dependent and entitled.

Why not talk about the BMW in the driveway? Why not talk about the TV, anything fun that costs money, or the computer you are reading this on? None of these "material" things are essential to our survival. Sell the computer you are about to type on and donate the funds to the starving children in Africa. Is that not the essence of this entire conversation?

I ask these questions in complete sincerity as I am truly trying to understand: Where do you draw the line? In other words is there a particular figure you have reached and from that point the rest goes to the collective? Do you agree with the government because you feel it has the best in mind for you? If there a a monetary standard you have where do you budget anything that is not essential to your survival should be given to those with less than you?

Is there a process of justification in not contributing everything you can?

Picking and choosing which poor people "deserve" help the most....USA! USA! USA!

so i take it that libertarian=types believe so strongly in the assumption that there is a correlation between being poor and being morally defective that they see no problem whatsoever with condemning the poor to a life of abject misery, kinda like being in jail all the time for having the bad form to be poor and not Righteous as they are--libertarians are always the Righteous it seems, and in that lay the ideology's appeal, a form of eternal self-congratulations. while living this richly deserved life of abject misery, the Poor should try to Edify themselves by thinking about how much less they are, as human beings, than those Righteous Libertarians. maybe after a long enough sentence, this Less-Thans will see the Error of their Ways and become just like you, narcissistic and patronizing armed with a surreal and ultimately infantile ideology that enables you to justify market barbarism as providing a Hard Lesson in the Righteous Life--which of course you monopolize.



the worst possible argument for libertarian ideology is actually seeing that ideology argued for, seeing what the Righteous write about their Righteousness.

Most libertarians I know are dirt poor. Perhaps it's self-loathing?

no, they think they're poor because the government is "stealing their money". most libertarians I run into are under the delusion that if you took away income tax, they would stop being poor and would soon be driving Bentley's. almost all of them having an extremely elitist attitude towards the poor.

They only pay maybe 1/6 their income in taxes, though. If a libertarian makes $20k a year, that means without taxes this hypothetical person would make about $24k. Of course they'd have to walk to work on dirt roads and they'd have to watch out for thieves, as the roads and police are both paid by taxes.

no no no, all the untaxed corporations would be handing out $250,000/year jobs like Halloween candy

Taxed negligibly? What does that mean? So does this mean the poor can get away with paying an even lower proportion of overall taxes?

Do you also mean libraries, support services (such as abuse and addiction services), K-12 education, unemployment insurance, career support services, etc.? This would all be privatized? That sounds like a recipe for plutocracy to me (i.e. the poor would not have access to much, if any, of these things).

There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with that. I'd prefer the government do these things for us. It's a good role for it to play. That's why many of us vote certain groups into power. (And that's where you and I differ, apparently.)

I cannot afford to do that on the scale I think it should be done. That's why I support the current system.

I don't expect you to be happy about it, or anyone. It's not so much about you as it is about the greater benefit to society--you know, other people.

It's too bad you don't care about the needy, because many of them are directly responsible for the generation of the wealth that you likely enjoy. I don't quite know what you mean by "keeping dependent." I cannot think of a widespread program that aims to keep people dependent on anything. Several programs (some of which I've mentioned above) aim to do the opposite. No one wants people to be dependent; we want them to be empowered and successful. This is why I support many social programs you want dismantled.

I don't understand your reasoning. Can you clarify this a bit further please?

Oooh oooooh and I could finally exercise my constitutional rights to have a lead toy manufacturing sweatshop and to staff it with the children of the poor.

Several years ago, the Brookings Institution published a report on the "government's greatest achievement of the second half of the 20th century as identified by history and political science academicians:

Government's Greatest Achievements of the Past Half Century - Brookings Institution

While it doesnt speak to the issue of wealth redistribution for the most part...I can only say that I am thankful that we didnt have a libertarian government!

I am wondering if anyone has taken note of what words roachboy
CAPITALIZED, and why he did so.

His post here needs to be repeated and shouted over the roof tops.
This libertarian nonsense reminds me of a line from Charles Dickens-
A Christmas Carol.
This might not be verbatim, but as close as I can remember it went thus:
Scrooge declares....

"well, the poor aught to go ahead and die then,
and decrease the surplus population."

I though he was just keeping it real, A.A. Milne style.


I agree with him wholeheartedly that the most effective argument against libertarianism consists of nothing more than a few detailed explanations of what a libertarian world would be like.

My landlords are libertarians, and the way that libertarianism seems to manifest in their capacity as landlords amounts to a very effective argument against libertarianism.

Over the weekend I was in a restaraunt and had the experience of sitting within earshot of a father explaining politics to his young children, who were listening with rapt attention. He explained that if he worked and earned 2 pumpkins, and was forced to give up one of his pumpkins to someone poor and unemployed, that would be wrong, and its unfair that people like Obama and Democrats take pumpkins from those who worked for them and give them to people who haven't worked for them. The children were mesmerized by their father's speech.

Don't you mean propaganda?

I don't believe they will simply stop having kids. Rather, I believe Malthus was right, and if you provide support to people who are struggling, they will just have more struggling children for you to support, and those children will grow up and continue to contribute ad-nauseum to the welfare state you have just created.

The world isn't a nice place, and bad things happen. I want to be left alone to put MY MONEY towards keeping bad things from happening to me, not to help someone who won't help themselves, or their crotch fruit.