How to Tax Our Way Back to Justice

[DBT]

Huh? How is that what the stats tell us? The stats are only stats of who owns how much!

Huh??!! Really? Gosh? Who would have thought?

That is the point. Your various rationales and fretting over wording such as 'accumulation' or 'concentration' or the 'Poor Rich' doesn't justify the situation of the level of wealth accumulation at the top while there are workers who struggle with the basics of life.

Apart from other things it's an issue of social justice, something that's apparently not recognized when it comes to greed.

Quote:
‘Reward Work, Not Wealth’ reveals how the global economy enables a wealthy elite to accumulate vast fortunes while hundreds of millions of people are struggling to survive on poverty pay.

Billionaire wealth has risen by an annual average of 13 percent since 2010 – six times faster than the wages of ordinary workers, which have risen by a yearly average of just 2 percent. The number of billionaires rose at an unprecedented rate of one every two days between March 2016 and March 2017.
It takes just four days for a CEO from one of the top five global fashion brands to earn what a Bangladeshi garment worker will earn in her lifetime. In the US, it takes slightly over one working day for a CEO to earn what an ordinary worker makes in a year.
It would cost $2.2 billion a year to increase the wages of all 2.5 million Vietnamese garment workers to a living wage. This is about a third of the amount paid out to wealthy shareholders by the top 5 companies in the garment sector in 2016.

Oxfam’s report outlines the key factors driving up rewards for shareholders and corporate bosses at the expense of workers’ pay and conditions. These include the erosion of workers’ rights; the excessive influence of big business over government policy-making; and the relentless corporate drive to minimize costs in order to maximize returns to shareholders.''

 

[Bomb#20]

I seem to be the only one that thinks that if I own 90% of a society's wealth I am obligated to pay 90% of the cost of government within that society. Why? Because it's my wealth that literally constitutes that society and that government. Where else is it supposed to equitably come from?

It's odd to me that that logic seems so repugnant.

But that isn't logic. That's tribalism dressed up with sophistry. No, your wealth literally does not constitute that society and that government. That society and that government are people. You don't own people. Your wealth is things. It and the society are not one and the same. Moreover, you don't own 90% of a society's wealth. Nobody owns that much. You are evidently using an extreme counterfactual scenario as a bait-and-switch model for whatever you're actually arguing for -- most likely for a system where a person who owns 1% of the wealth is obligated to pay 1% of the cost of government and a person who owns none of the wealth is obligated to pay none of the cost. If that's what you're advocating and that's what you think logic dictates, then why don't you argue for it directly, without fairy-tales about make-believe societies where one person owns 90%? What, is there some law of logic that says what should be done in reality is determined by what should be done in fantasyland?

As to the merits of a system where obligation to pay the cost of government is proportioned to property, how the heck is that "logical"? What, if your house is four times bigger than the lady next door's house, when you call 911 because a would-be-rapist breaks into your home do the police come to save you four times faster than they'd save her? Does the city water come out of your shower at four times higher pressure than hers? Do you cause four times more wear and tear to the street than she does? Would the fascist armies being kept off your nation's shores only by the Navy's vigilance murder you four times more painfully than her? What, if the tenant across the street with the same salary as you chooses to immediately consume every dime he earns partying and drinking, and consequently has no property at all, let alone enough savings for a down-payment, does "logic" imply he's entitled to government services for free, his way paid for by everybody with better judgment than his? Does "logic" dictate that the fellow has no share of the responsibility to help provide for the support of actually needy people, people who have no property because they're unable to work rather than because they prefer to blow it all right away like he does?

If that's "logic", please share the inference rule you derived it from.

I can only assume that people are greedier and less logically minded than I give them credit for.

No, that's not true. Assuming made-up negative traits about the people who disagree with you is a choice. Instead of assuming their reasons are whatever will make you feel superior to them, you could assume their stated arguments are their real reasons for disagreeing with you. You could assume their arguments seem as logical to them as yours do to you. You could assume you aren't magically immune from error, and therefore that if you were to examine your own arguments critically there's always the possibility that you'd find the explanation for the disagreement is your own poor logic rather than theirs.

You seem a little confused. I'm more on the side of allowing the states to tax wealth for schools and other local programs (police, libraries, and etc.) Many states already taxes on property. But yea, some people, in particular retired older people are real estate heavy and have a harder time paying their taxes. Retired people are generally asset rich, cash poor, all things being equal. I have sympathy, but local government programs needs to be paid for.

So you are saying that there is some kind of special difference between how taxes are paid at the state level and at the federal level. That's just more self-serving, special pleading to not have to pay your share of taxes.

So you are saying that Harry's share of taxes is whatever the hell share you say it is -- reason, fairness, the law, and the will of the people be damned.

I'm no different than you when it comes to not wanting to pay taxes, but I'm willing to pay my share based on what is equitable. Having special privileges just because I'm rich is not part of that equation. It doesn't matter the level of government. By your reasoning if all my money is tied up in my investments I should be able to walk into the food store and tell the cashier I'm taking this food but can't pay for it because I don't have the cash.

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of Harry's reasoning. He straight-up said not having the cash wasn't grounds for getting out of paying one's share!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But that isn't logic.

It's certainly logical to me, unless you can point out how our society is without wealth. I think the simple logic of my earlier statement has you so upset because it is so simple and so true that you started talking nonsense about water pressure and 911 calls. Are you okay? Feel free to address the statement on it's merits without bringing in silliness like extra water pressure and faster 911 call drivers.