A Note On Taxes And The Rich Paying Their "Fair" Share

[IsaacGage860]

When it comes to determining what is "fair," the discussion has nothing to do with objective, empirical standards and is instead arbitrary, subjective, and normative in nature. One thing Socialists and other statists can never define is what is fair. Their definition remains nebulous and largely open to interpretation. At what tax rate are the rich finally contributing enough to the pot? 60%? 80%? 90% of their income? Well the problem with attempting to Robin-hood the rich out of their money is then you don't have the money needed for long-term capital investment, which is the accumulation of wealth and other factors of production needed to make new products. The reason you have an IPhone/smartphone to tweet, blog, live-stream and whatever else from is because entrepreneurs took a big financial risk in starting a company to innovate new products. You don't get capital investment from the poor. This is simply a reality of life. If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say other than you shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy.

 

There is also this ridiculous idea that we are living in a vacuum and that if we write on a piece of paper that "the rich will now pay 80% of their income in taxes" that people will pay that tax and not adjust their behavior. This is a basic intelligence and empathy mental exercise when we talk about raising taxes. Just imagine if you knew the government was going to levy an 80% tax on your income. Would you be jumping for joy and eager to fill out that 1040? Or would you be looking for every conceivable way to reduce or avoid that tax burden? Also this idea that taxes are the "cost" we pay in order to live in a civilized society. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything more immoral or uncivilized than taking money from hard working, successful people and redistributing it to those who made less than stellar financial decisions in their lives. This idea is nonsense. For example, I'm sure most remember high school and group projects. There was always that one person who would not contribute anything of value to the effort and yet could still single-handedly determine the grade that the group got as a whole. So all the people who cared and were studious had to carry the lazy bums on their shoulders every single time. Another example in regards to taxes is a simile. Its like sending a letter to a rich person saying: "I notice you like to leave your car outside of the garage, so my gang and I are going to come over tomorrow and steal it." What do you imagine that rich person is going to do? He/she is going to lock the car in the garage and buy every piece of home security technology possible, they're going to give it to a trusted friend for safekeeping until the parasitical leeches leave, or they're going to send it to a location nobody knows about. You simply aren't going to get the assets or the money which they could also just spend on other stuff in tax revenue. You're going to show up to their house the next day and because you told them you were coming the stuff won't be there. It baffles me how many people still believe that this strategy will work given the Laffer Curve and all the work done on public choice theory:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html

http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-ce…/the-laffer-curve/

[aviet]

One other thing that the tax the rich excessive amounts set don't understand is just how little the most wealthy earn in one year. In 2013 the Forbes 400 (US) was $2 trillion combined. If you give them a 5% annual increase in net worth and did what the catastrophic French Socialists did and taxed the rich 110%, you'd still only get about $110 billion, or around about 2% of government spending in the US.

Most of the net worth of the top 400 is in appreciating assets like real estate or stocks. The actual cash they receive between them per year is probably a few billion. Thus, even if you did tax them at 110% it would be peanuts.

I find that the tax the rich set do not know this and on finding this out they go on to suggest that they think the rich should be subject to a wealth tax, when previously suggesting just higher income taxes.

Since most of their wealth is not in cash, this wealth tax would require real estate, stocks, bonds, metals etc to be liquidated. So potentially you would have 100s of billions taken out of the stock, bond markets etc. Liquidating real estate would be even more of a problem. But the biggest problem would be for people like Donald Trump, who own very large, privately owned companies. The wealth such assets gives them would mean they'd have to make their companies public and sell them off. But the reality, of course, would be that people wouldn't even bother starting or growing companies.

These practices would be so destructive that tax receipts would plummet instantly, asset prices would go off a cliff and investors and business owners would go elsewhere.

These people do not know what they are talking about. Flaccid ideologues like Michael Moore have spent their lives running round saying 'there is a ton of money, if only we taxed it'. As noted above, there are a ton of assets, which have a large monetary valuation. Then there is a much smaller amount of cash going round and round in exchange for assets and services. The money is taxed during many of these exchanges. If you want to increase tax revenues, you do that by more people producing goods and services, particularly those which then allow other people to produce other goods and services; and not economic dead-ends like arts, social justice theory almanacs and all the rest of it.

[dsayers]

Glad to see you changed your name back Might I recommend curtailing the editorialization while making arguments? When you say for example "If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say other than you shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy," you're attempting to manage a response that hasn't yet come. This suggests closed-mindedness and projection, if not flat out manipulation. It doesn't enhance any objective claims you make either way and is therefore expletive.

I cannot tell what exactly you're trying to accomplish here. It seems unnecessarily specific. For starters, "fair" is a myth, so there's no use in bringing it up. Secondly, since taxation is theft, the only tax rate that is "fair" is 0%. Which makes this look more like making the case for using a condom when engaging in rape. It would be more productive to advocate against rape with that effort. Does that make sense?

[IsaacGage860]

Glad to see you changed your name back Might I recommend curtailing the editorialization while making arguments? When you say for example "If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say other than you shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy," you're attempting to manage a response that hasn't yet come. This suggests closed-mindedness and projection, if not flat out manipulation. It doesn't enhance any objective claims you make either way and is therefore expletive.

 

I cannot tell what exactly you're trying to accomplish here. It seems unnecessarily specific. For starters, "fair" is a myth, so there's no use in bringing it up. Secondly, since taxation is theft, the only tax rate that is "fair" is 0%. Which makes this look more like making the case for using a condom when engaging in rape. It would be more productive to advocate against rape with that effort. Does that make sense?

I understand and have tried that approach before, but have largely been met with incomprehension. When I try to tie taxation to any other immoral act, I get accused of bringing up topics that are not relevant to the discussion. I've found that people have a difficult time connecting concepts, which is why I chose to drive the point home. The condescension is meant to make a statement. The time for peaceful discussion has long passed. Sometimes you just have to give it to people straight. Evoking something of a visceral emotional response was my goal with this.  

[dsayers]

I understand and have tried that approach before, but have largely been met with incomprehension.

But why? If you can't answer that question, then what follows is just trying SOMETHING. You cannot solve a problem you don't understand.

 

When I try to tie taxation to any other immoral act, I get accused of bringing up topics that are not relevant to the discussion.

This explains your motivation to try a different tactic. It doesn't serve to prove that the tactic you chose is wise or effective.

 

I've found that people have a difficult time connecting concepts, which is why I chose to drive the point home.

This kind or reads like, "I had difficulty tuning in the station on my radio/TV, so I whacked it." All that does is leave you with a broken appliance. Resorting to brute force demonstrates that you don't understand the problem and are only exacerbating it by guaranteeing that your message will not be received because it's not inviting in the slightest.

 

The condescension is meant to make a statement.

Is there any message that can only be expressed with condescension? I can only think of one: I know/am better than you. If that's not what you're trying to communicate, I would again encourage you to not communicate with provocation. 

 

The time for peaceful discussion has long passed.

Discussion with whom? Nobody else had the opportunity to be in the discussion when you tried to manipulate them! This only serves to reveal that you're carrying unprocessed trauma and that your hostility is aimed at other people who aren't in the conversation.

 

I seem to remember you finding great value in the assistance I had tried to offer you before. You made it a point to specifically address the ways in which I did NOT get emotionally invested or escalate. If you found that to be helpful, why not emulate that?

 

Sometimes you just have to give it to people straight.

What I am doing is giving it to you straight. Hopefully, it is apparent that my goal is to help you and that I'm doing so in a way that I anticipate will be received by you. What you're describing as giving it to people straight is trying to manage them before they even have a chance to respond. It's manipulative. That's the opposite of giving it to people "straight."

 

Evoking something of a visceral emotional response was my goal with this.  

Your passion has been evident from the moment you spoke up on the forums. This in and of itself is not problematic. However, what would a firearm be without a barrel? Just an explosion in your hand. With a barrel in place and proper operation, you can aim that magnificent energy to achieve the desired result. You seem to have a great deal of passion, but a disproportionately low understanding of how to harness and apply it. You're doing so from without, but I'd wager you could benefit from doing more from within. Again, I remember you specifically praising that it seemed as if I was well-practiced in the ideas that I was sharing. This was very deliberate. The certainty with which I speak is directly proportionate to the amount of time I've spent honing and testing those ideas. You seem to lack the practice, which is why your delivery seems flawed.

[IsaacGage860]

 

I understand and have tried that approach before, but have largely been met with incomprehension.

But why? If you can't answer that question, then what follows is just trying SOMETHING. You cannot solve a problem you don't understand.

 

When I try to tie taxation to any other immoral act, I get accused of bringing up topics that are not relevant to the discussion.

This explains your motivation to try a different tactic. It doesn't serve to prove that the tactic you chose is wise or effective.

 

I've found that people have a difficult time connecting concepts, which is why I chose to drive the point home.

This kind or reads like, "I had difficulty tuning in the station on my radio/TV, so I whacked it." All that does is leave you with a broken appliance. Resorting to brute force demonstrates that you don't understand the problem and are only exacerbating it by guaranteeing that your message will not be received because it's not inviting in the slightest.

 

The condescension is meant to make a statement.

Is there any message that can only be expressed with condescension? I can only think of one: I know/am better than you. If that's not what you're trying to communicate, I would again encourage you to not communicate with provocation. 

 

The time for peaceful discussion has long passed.

Discussion with whom? Nobody else had the opportunity to be in the discussion when you tried to manipulate them! This only serves to reveal that you're carrying unprocessed trauma and that your hostility is aimed at other people who aren't in the conversation.

 

I seem to remember you finding great value in the assistance I had tried to offer you before. You made it a point to specifically address the ways in which I did NOT get emotionally invested or escalate. If you found that to be helpful, why not emulate that?

 

Sometimes you just have to give it to people straight.

What I am doing is giving it to you straight. Hopefully, it is apparent that my goal is to help you and that I'm doing so in a way that I anticipate will be received by you. What you're describing as giving it to people straight is trying to manage them before they even have a chance to respond. It's manipulative. That's the opposite of giving it to people "straight."

 

Evoking something of a visceral emotional response was my goal with this.  

Your passion has been evident from the moment you spoke up on the forums. This in and of itself is not problematic. However, what would a firearm be without a barrel? Just an explosion in your hand. With a barrel in place and proper operation, you can aim that magnificent energy to achieve the desired result. You seem to have a great deal of passion, but a disproportionately low understanding of how to harness and apply it. You're doing so from without, but I'd wager you could benefit from doing more from within. Again, I remember you specifically praising that it seemed as if I was well-practiced in the ideas that I was sharing. This was very deliberate. The certainty with which I speak is directly proportionate to the amount of time I've spent honing and testing those ideas. You seem to lack the practice, which is why your delivery seems flawed.

 

I'll admit my approach is largely informed by the approach that Stefan uses in most of his podcasts when discussing philosophy. I know this is hero worshiping, but it connected with me on such a fundamental level that I guess I assumed it would work with others. This is clearly not the case, but at the same time I can see the disaster that is coming down the pike and if I am not persistent and visceral then who will listen? I've been informed multiple times on this message board that people are not rational. Given Stefan's success with influencing Brexit, and to whatever extent influencing the election in the U.S. evoking visceral emotions has to be successful to a certain degree. I realize it is evoking emotions to service evil, but nonetheless it worked. Just imagine if people's emotions were evoked to serve the right purposes. Peaceful parenting, the NAP, a stateless society. Perhaps you are correct and my energies are being misdirected through ignorance of their flaws, but I would have to ask then, if not through evoking emotion, how do I ultimately proselytize people? That is the goal underpinning all of this correct? After all, this is not proselytizing in the sense that it is for a dogmatic biblical text, but instead to be more of a Socratic gadfly as Stef has put it in the past.     

[dsayers]

Just imagine if people's emotions were evoked to serve the right purposes.

In what way do you imagine that telling somebody they shouldn't be discussing philosophy when they haven't even had the opportunity to react in the way you imagine they might evoking somebody's emotions in a way that will be receptive to what you're saying? "Oh, he's willing to pick on people, so I'm going to listen to what he has to say"? I don't think so.

 

If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You keep referencing a problem, but showing no understanding as to how/why it is. I would re-assert my encouragement to pursue self-knowledge. It will help you find the peace to communicate more effectively, as well as the ability to see others, that you might understand how/why they're not listening.