• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Millionaires who want to pay higher taxes

Jason Harvestdancer said:
Nothing is stopping them from just cutting a check to the government.
Right, but they aren't asking that only they pay the higher taxes. It only makes a difference if everybody has to do it.

You see a burning building across the street, and you know you and all your neighbors on this side of the street have a lot of water to spare. But it won't make any difference if you just dump your water on the fire. It would only make sense if the rest of your neighbors also dumped theirs at the same time as you. Everybody's extra water is needed to make it worth anybody individually contributing theirs.

(also you stole the water from poor and middle class workers and they are the ones in the burning house across the street)

And the winner of "Worst Analogy this Forum has Ever Seen" goes to that post.


Nothing is stopping them from just cutting a check to the government.

Should all taxes be voluntary then? You only pay based on your perception of the value of the services that you receive?

There is a reason that contributions that benefit everybody generally have to be mandatory for all concerned. Free rider. There are plenty of examples of taxes and regulations that are generally agreed upon by a majority as necessary but for which there has to be a mandatory component.

In the discussion at hand, there is already a mandatory involuntary level of taxes ... and these people want to pay even more.

Actually, what everyone can see but nobody can say is that they are actually saying "I want you to raise his taxes, even if it hurts me." But they're making such a big show of the "virtue" of saying "raise my taxes" that nobody will say that out loud.
 
Imagine sniffing so much paint thinner as a child that that you believe it's possible to "earn" hundreds or even tens of millions of dollars as an individual person
 
Well, no, if everyone who thought taxes should go up paid what they thought they should pay the government would get a crapton more money.

How would that not make a difference?

Are you claiming the government would just piss it away?

Nope, I'm claiming that it only works if everyone has to do it, regardless of whether or not they want to. Kind of like how laws apply to everybody, even those who want to break them.

The law that allows you to send as much money as you want in to the government *is* there for everyone. It seems to me if these guys sincerely believe the government can use their money better than they can there's no reason for them not to send it in.
 
Well, no, if everyone who thought taxes should go up paid what they thought they should pay the government would get a crapton more money.

How would that not make a difference?

Are you claiming the government would just piss it away?

Nope, I'm claiming that it only works if everyone has to do it, regardless of whether or not they want to. Kind of like how laws apply to everybody, even those who want to break them.

The law that allows you to send as much money as you want in to the government *is* there for everyone. It seems to me if these guys sincerely believe the government can use their money better than they can there's no reason for them not to send it in.

Yes, but as everybody knows but nobody will say, the problem isn't that Jim Millionaire wants Jim Millionaire to pay more taxes, the problem is that Jim Millionaire wants Joe Millionaire to pay more taxes. All of this "raise my taxes" virtue signaling is meant to hide the actual base motive.
 
Nothing is stopping them from just cutting a check to the government.

"Hey I love this new iphone so much I'm going to pay $4500 for it instead of the $1000 sticker price" is just as stupid of an argument as the one you're putting forward.

It's almost as bad as the "Hey I love this new iPhone so much that I going to insist they raise the price form $1000 to $4500 so everyone will have to pay the higher price."
 
I've seen a claim that the top 10% wealthiest people pay 60% of the taxes. But the disparity is that they control >90% of the wealth. As their proportion of national wealth increases and their tax burden relative to that wealth decreases, the common pie to pay for the military, roads, air traffic control, weather surveillance and forecasting, hydrometeorological predictions, waterway maintenance, shrinks. We see it now where taxes and fees are pushed down the economic heap in the form of higher SaLT, tolls, higher fees for use of common park space, etc... The roads are falling apart and they want the $10/hr house keeper that has to live 60 miles outside the city because the pay doesn't support living near the job to pay to fix the pot holes that are busting up the shitty car.

Except taxes are on income, not on wealth. Thus this mismatch means nothing.
 
Imagine sniffing so much paint thinner as a child that that you believe it's possible to "earn" hundreds or even tens of millions of dollars as an individual person

The problem here is that you don't understand the difference between working hard and working smart.

You earn those vast sums by doing something better and extracting a portion of the value you thus create.

When your company grows faster than GDP it's normally because you're doing something better than those who came before.
 
All of this "raise my taxes" virtue signaling is meant to hide the actual base motive.

What is the "actual base motive"?

Well, there are some posts in the thread that discuss it.

Actually, what everyone can see but nobody can say is that they are actually saying "I want you to raise his taxes, even if it hurts me." But they're making such a big show of the "virtue" of saying "raise my taxes" that nobody will say that out loud.

Yes, but as everybody knows but nobody will say, the problem isn't that Jim Millionaire wants Jim Millionaire to pay more taxes, the problem is that Jim Millionaire wants Joe Millionaire to pay more taxes. All of this "raise my taxes" virtue signaling is meant to hide the actual base motive.

Hey, wait, the second one of those quotes includes text that you snipped that answer your question before you even asked it. Now, did you overlook it, or did you snip the answer so that you could as the answered question?
 
Well, it's quite obvious that if a small number of ultra wealthy people volunteer to give more money to the government, very little will be solved. So, this group of wealthy Americans is trying to influence their peers to join them in taking more responsibility to improve things like our schools, our infrastructure, etc. Isn't that what movements are about? Don't humans form groups to help influence change?

And, sure these people might have worked hard, sometimes just been very lucky, or have been born with special talents that allowed them to succeed etc. but these people also greatly benefitted from the system, the infrastructure, the laws that made it possible for them to accumulate vast sums of money and income. They apparently realize that. They have claimed that paying higher taxes won't impact their ability to continue to live very lavish lives. Why would anyone be against this? It makes no sense. Greed really isn't a good quality to have, nor does it add to anyone's happiness.

I remember listening to Warren Buffet once, when he said that he was just very lucky to have the skills to be able to pick the right stocks and investments, but if he had been in a different environment, he may not have even been able to survive, because he might not have the innate talents to survive in that situation. At least he realized his privilege and special talent, which included being born in a place that allowed him to use this special talent in a way that made him very successful.
 
I've seen a claim that the top 10% wealthiest people pay 60% of the taxes. But the disparity is that they control >90% of the wealth. As their proportion of national wealth increases and their tax burden relative to that wealth decreases, the common pie to pay for the military, roads, air traffic control, weather surveillance and forecasting, hydrometeorological predictions, waterway maintenance, shrinks. We see it now where taxes and fees are pushed down the economic heap in the form of higher SaLT, tolls, higher fees for use of common park space, etc... The roads are falling apart and they want the $10/hr house keeper that has to live 60 miles outside the city because the pay doesn't support living near the job to pay to fix the pot holes that are busting up the shitty car.

Except taxes are on income, not on wealth. Thus this mismatch means nothing.

All taxes are income taxes and all forms of income are treated the same? News to me.

The mismatch is highly meaningful, especially when considering how taxes are assessed.
 
In the discussion at hand, there is already a mandatory involuntary level of taxes ... and these people want to pay even more.

They want everybody on their level to pay more.

It would be folly to voluntarily pay more if nobody else in your peer group is required to join in.

You sacrifice by putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage to benefit everybody then others are just going to capitalize. It is like a big company leveraging its power to get huge tax gifts from local and state governments. You can voluntarily open a factory without tax breaks, but your competitor is highly likely to be going somewhere to get tax breaks. Eventually you have Harris Corporation operating in your county without paying any taxes to the county and the burden to pay for the infrastructure that your company uses falls on sales tax and property tax paid by everybody else in the county.


Suppose we as dual income no kids with a 200k household income decide to voluntarily pay more taxes (even though we already get pretty well hosed because we can only claim the standard deduction because of our spending habits and lack of kids). That hurts us relative to everybody else on our income level because other people on our level have more money to buy things like real estate so the prices stay the same or go up while our budget goes down. Our lone sacrifice doesn't provide a real boost in revenues so the roads don't get any better so we sacrifice and get nothing in return. A few do-gooders might make the sacrifice for the warm fuzzy but on average, even if everybody agrees that the voluntary 'good' act is right, people will act in their own rational short term self interest and keep the money for their own immediate use. This applies to everything from recycling to fuel consumption to managing exploited fish stocks.
 
Well, there are some posts in the thread that discuss it.

Actually, what everyone can see but nobody can say is that they are actually saying "I want you to raise his taxes, even if it hurts me." But they're making such a big show of the "virtue" of saying "raise my taxes" that nobody will say that out loud.

Yes, but as everybody knows but nobody will say, the problem isn't that Jim Millionaire wants Jim Millionaire to pay more taxes, the problem is that Jim Millionaire wants Joe Millionaire to pay more taxes. All of this "raise my taxes" virtue signaling is meant to hide the actual base motive.

Hey, wait, the second one of those quotes includes text that you snipped that answer your question before you even asked it. Now, did you overlook it, or did you snip the answer so that you could as the answered question?

Sorry, but that's your fevered brain take on their motivations. James Randi has proven mind reading is a scam. You're not trying to scam us, are you?
 
Well, it's quite obvious that if a small number of ultra wealthy people volunteer to give more money to the government, very little will be solved. So, this group of wealthy Americans is trying to influence their peers to join them in taking more responsibility to improve things like our schools, our infrastructure, etc. Isn't that what movements are about? Don't humans form groups to help influence change?

And, sure these people might have worked hard, sometimes just been very lucky, or have been born with special talents that allowed them to succeed etc. but these people also greatly benefitted from the system, the infrastructure, the laws that made it possible for them to accumulate vast sums of money and income. They apparently realize that. They have claimed that paying higher taxes won't impact their ability to continue to live very lavish lives. Why would anyone be against this? It makes no sense. Greed really isn't a good quality to have, nor does it add to anyone's happiness.

I remember listening to Warren Buffet once, when he said that he was just very lucky to have the skills to be able to pick the right stocks and investments, but if he had been in a different environment, he may not have even been able to survive, because he might not have the innate talents to survive in that situation. At least he realized his privilege and special talent, which included being born in a place that allowed him to use this special talent in a way that made him very successful.

How is it obvious? Are you arguing that since the government already spends 4 (or 5 if you count state and local) trillion and doesn't solve these problems a few hundred million more won't help?

It seems to me it's more of a continuum. The more money you have, the more you can do. More money, more problems. If anything the first money in ought to be put to the best use.

These guys are making the argument "the government has better uses of my money than I do". The logical next steps for someone who actually believes this are: a) send it in.
 
It would be folly to voluntarily pay more if nobody else in your peer group is required to join in.

Why? That seems like a complete non sequitur.

Why are you guys so vehement in arguing these millionaires should hang onto their money?

It does not seem consistent with past behavior here.

Why do you think they should keep this money they don't need instead of putting it in the wise and thoughtful government's hands?
 
These guys are making the argument "the government has better uses of my money than I do". The logical next steps for someone who actually believes this are: a) send it in.
As usual, you have distorted their argument. It is "the government only has better use of my extra money than I do if the government can collect enough, but they cannot collect enough from me."

I realize that such nuanced thinking is an anathema to the "gov't collects taxes at the point of a gun" hysterics and to the idolators of Ayn Rand crowd, and to the immature or delusional who think government action requires unanimous consent.
 
It would be folly to voluntarily pay more if nobody else in your peer group is required to join in.

You sacrifice by putting yourself at a competitive disadvantage to benefit everybody then others are just going to capitalize.

Not if they mean what they say. I consider it foolish to give to church, but there are true believers who think it is a good thing.
 
The law that allows you to send as much money as you want in to the government *is* there for everyone. It seems to me if these guys sincerely believe the government can use their money better than they can there's no reason for them not to send it in.

Yes, but as everybody knows but nobody will say, the problem isn't that Jim Millionaire wants Jim Millionaire to pay more taxes, the problem is that Jim Millionaire wants Joe Millionaire to pay more taxes. All of this "raise my taxes" virtue signaling is meant to hide the actual base motive.

Sure, I can accept that. I'm not holding these people up as paragons of virtue by any means; they want people to pay more taxes, including people other than them who don't want to, probably because they know that voluntarism on this issue would penalize whoever chooses to donate their income to the government relative to those who don't, and they don't want to be one of the suckers.

Loren Pechtel said:
The problem here is that you don't understand the difference between working hard and working smart.

You earn those vast sums by doing something better and extracting a portion of the value you thus create.

:words:

Loren Pechtel, a cliche for all seasons
 
Back
Top Bottom