I understand the math.  But why do you think that taxes will go down for a specific group?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I understand the math.  But why do you think that taxes will go down for a specific group?

We're arguing what should happen, not what will happen.

I think that we should make the tax system more progressive. That means taking more money from the top and less from the bottom (in this case the "bottom " equals roughly 95% of the population).

I suppose they won't necessarily go down for the other group.  So if you don't want taxes raised overall, then I understand the hesitation.  But I think it certainly makes sense to redistribute where the tax money is coming from.

If you think taxes SHOULD be raised overall (for whatever reason, there are good ones and bad ones) then the top 1% does seem like the proper place to start, since we're talking about a minority of people affected. I'm not in this group of people.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Isn't the reason (and punished is the wrong word, IMO) that by taxing the 1% more, you get to tax 99% of the population less, which is better for society as a whole? Also by taxing the 1% at a high rate, it affects the super-rich less, as they likely value the money they're paying at their rate less than the bottom 50% if they were taxed at that rate? Felt like this was an obvious reason, but tec said there was no reason given.  So tec, you can respond to this reason.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who knows less when it comes to these things as he thinks he is when it comes to sports, etc.  

Find these conversations fascinating, btw.

That still comes down to "you have a lot of money, and we think you'll miss it less".  Which is a poor justification for taxing the rich more.

A flat tax rate (lets focus on income tax, for the sake of argument) would be the fairest way to tax the population.  If you're Richie Rich, the n% of income taxes that you're paying on your income is still a hell of a lot higher than the n% of income tax that's being payed by Joe Poorman.

BL loves the progressive tax, and wants to make it even more progressive by targeting the super rich.  And in other threads in the past, he very specifically came right out and defended it with the reason "they have a lot of money, they can afford it".  Which to me, is not a valid justification.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I understand the math.  But why do you think that taxes will go down for a specific group?

We're arguing what should happen, not what will happen.

I think that we should make the tax system more progressive. That means taking more money from the top and less from the bottom (in this case the "bottom " equals roughly 95% of the population).

Why?

Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:59:00 AM (view original):
I suppose they won't necessarily go down for the other group.  So if you don't want taxes raised overall, then I understand the hesitation.  But I think it certainly makes sense to redistribute where the tax money is coming from.

If you think taxes SHOULD be raised overall (for whatever reason, there are good ones and bad ones) then the top 1% does seem like the proper place to start, since we're talking about a minority of people affected. I'm not in this group of people.

I guess I'm just not as comfortable in saying "Take more from them" as you are.

To simplify, you're making 5 and saying "Take more from the guy making 10".    Why won't the guy making 3 say "Take more from the guy making 5"?

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/9/2014 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 11:35:00 AM (view original):
I understand the math.  But why do you think that taxes will go down for a specific group?

We're arguing what should happen, not what will happen.

I think that we should make the tax system more progressive. That means taking more money from the top and less from the bottom (in this case the "bottom " equals roughly 95% of the population).

Why?

Because it makes sense.

No one benefits from a continued concentration of wealth at the top. We can either set policy that strengthens labor and increases real wages of the middle and lower classes (union laws, higher minimum wage, etc.) or we can make the tax system more progressive. Or some combination of the two.

The goal is to take a chunk of the wealth from the top and move it to the middle and bottom.

"Because it makes sense."

How does that make sense?  Please provide an argument.

"No one benefits from a continued concentration of wealth at the top."

How is anybody hurt by that?  Are you "hurt" by the fact that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, etc. are billionaires and (assumingly) you are not?

"The goal is to take a chunk of the wealth from the top and move it to the middle and bottom."

Wealth distribution.  Robin Hood economics.  "You have too much money.  Give some of it to me."  Sounds fair, right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:59:00 AM (view original):
I suppose they won't necessarily go down for the other group.  So if you don't want taxes raised overall, then I understand the hesitation.  But I think it certainly makes sense to redistribute where the tax money is coming from.

If you think taxes SHOULD be raised overall (for whatever reason, there are good ones and bad ones) then the top 1% does seem like the proper place to start, since we're talking about a minority of people affected. I'm not in this group of people.

I guess I'm just not as comfortable in saying "Take more from them" as you are.

To simplify, you're making 5 and saying "Take more from the guy making 10".    Why won't the guy making 3 say "Take more from the guy making 5"?

That's fair. But I think it's more that by taxing the 1% (did some quick research...looks like its those making $400,000 or more) more than they are now, it would hurt them less than if you raised the tax rate on the guy who's making $40,000 a year (which appears to be around the 50% mark).  More people with more money in their pockets than they have now sounds like a good thing to me.  

That said, if I made $400,000 a year, I wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of paying more in taxes. But I'd understand it. I'd be in a solid financial state most likely, I'm living comfortably regardless. The guy making $40,000 a year may not be living "comfortably," he might be even be living something close to paycheck to paycheck, depending on various circumstances. Taxing that guy more doesn't seem like it's good for society.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

I'm certainly not anywhere close to an expert on economics, but I'll disagree that what you're saying is a good thing for society.

I get the counterargument.  "I worked my *** off to make my money.  Yea, I make $500K a year, it's because I earned it.  Now I have to pay more in taxes because Joey Lazynuts sits on his *** picking up a phone all day doesn't want to work hard and doesn't want to pay taxes?"  It may not seem fair, but there are others who aren't Joey Lazynuts, who do work hard, and make $50k a year.  Joey WorksHardAndMakes$50K is benefited by a tax code that taxes the very rich more than he does, and there are many many many more people like Joey WHAM$50K than the rich guy. Help all the guys who works hard, and for whatever reason, can't make $500k.

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/9/2014 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 11:59:00 AM (view original):
I suppose they won't necessarily go down for the other group.  So if you don't want taxes raised overall, then I understand the hesitation.  But I think it certainly makes sense to redistribute where the tax money is coming from.

If you think taxes SHOULD be raised overall (for whatever reason, there are good ones and bad ones) then the top 1% does seem like the proper place to start, since we're talking about a minority of people affected. I'm not in this group of people.

I guess I'm just not as comfortable in saying "Take more from them" as you are.

To simplify, you're making 5 and saying "Take more from the guy making 10".    Why won't the guy making 3 say "Take more from the guy making 5"?

That's fair. But I think it's more that by taxing the 1% (did some quick research...looks like its those making $400,000 or more) more than they are now, it would hurt them less than if you raised the tax rate on the guy who's making $40,000 a year (which appears to be around the 50% mark).  More people with more money in their pockets than they have now sounds like a good thing to me.  

That said, if I made $400,000 a year, I wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of paying more in taxes. But I'd understand it. I'd be in a solid financial state most likely, I'm living comfortably regardless. The guy making $40,000 a year may not be living "comfortably," he might be even be living something close to paycheck to paycheck, depending on various circumstances. Taxing that guy more doesn't seem like it's good for society.

Therein lies the problem.  

The guy making 400k, the guy making 40k and the guy making 20k can all say "The guy making more than me should pay more."     400k certainly isn't 2 billion.   Fair to say the guy making 2B is "more comfortable" than the guy making 400k?

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/9/2014 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/9/2014 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Well here's the question, then.  Do you think that society is better off if 90-something% of the population are paying lower taxes then they are now, and the top 1-5% are paying more, or if 90-something% of the population pays more than they're paying now, and the top 1-5% pay less (flax tax rate you're suggesting).  

I think society is better off when everybody is treated equally and fairly.  Discrimination based on financial success and/or social status doesn't feel like it fits that model.

I'm certainly not anywhere close to an expert on economics, but I'll disagree that what you're saying is a good thing for society.

Treating people equally and fairly is not good for society?

Explain.