Can anybody explain 'fair share'?

[vegas giants]

We call that Democratic Socialism.

Yeah it's great

 

[vegas giants]

No, that would still have some people paying exponentially more for the same service. Thus not equal, and not fair.

Would it be fair to charge Obama and Joe the plumber different prices for a hamburger, based on their income?

That would be fair

 

[Mithrae]

That "hard cap" is an interesting idea.

Thankyou.

I invent a widget that everyone wants to have and use my own money to set up the original production facilities. I funnel all of the money that the sales bring in over the expenses of production back into expanding the production facilities. Soon I have production facilities that are worth $10,000,000 and I still own 100% of the widget company.

In five years time, since demand for my widget remains high, I have expanded the production facilities six fold (using nothing but the profits I have made on the sales of my widgets to finance the expansion) and I still own 100% of the widget company.

You legally own 100% of the company, but are you responsible for 100% of its success/current value? For example when you say you invent a widget, what you probably mean is that you added some final innovations to widget technologies and applications which had developed over thousands of years. I like to use Bill Gates as an example because unlike many billionaires he's an obviously talented and hardworking chap who has made a real and probably mostly positive contribution to the world: But Gates/Microsoft didn't invent metallurgy and magnetism, they didn't invent electricity or plastics, they didn't invent circuit boards or transistors, they didn't invent computer hardware or software, they didn't even invent DOS; it was simply by adapting and licensing DOS for IBM and IBM-compatible PCs they took off as an industry standard. And if Gates hadn't done it, someone else would have. So right from that first step of invention/innovation, what are the odds that you really 'deserve' 100% of the credit for your widget company?

Then, as you suggest, you use US currency (had you grown to adulthood in Somalia, you almost certainly wouldn't have that kind of start-up wealth no matter how hardworking or talented you were) to buy land (to whom did that land originally belong and was its passage to your ownership legitimate?) and set up production and distribution facilities (dependent on public infrastructure such as electricity, water, transportation and communication) in order to make and sell your widgets (in a wealthy economy somewhat shielded from outside invasion, market instability and so on by public institutions), obviously with the help of the various people you employ or contract.

Even in your rather extreme hypothetical, how much credit for this $60 million company do you personally actually 'deserve'? I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad for the ultra-rich to 'own' so much wealth that they don't deserve, simply highlighting that their claim on it is rather tenuous - based almost entirely on other people's efforts, their own accidental circumstances and the societal laws and institutions largely decided upon by other wealthy people - and that so much of the shrill rhetoric about 'stealing' that wealth can be dismissed as emotive rather than rational consideration: We can and should be asking what works best, because if we talk about what's 'fair' or what these people really 'deserve,' the answer would likely be capped out well below $1 million, or two or three times the median wealth if that!

I now have production facilities that are worth $60,000,000.

Under your "hard cap" regime, who gets to own the $50,000,000 worth of production facilities that I am not allowed to own?

Possibly the government would own that share (state socialism), possibly your employees or other stakeholders (market socialism); likely in either case with you remaining in operational control. I don't pretend to have all the answers; I'm not even committed to a hard cap on total wealth as definitely the best/utopian ideal, as opposed to say 90+% marginal tax rates on seven figure incomes, but it's something worth considering. It's good to ask these questions and think about the best answers, but also important to remember that the problems of wealth concentration are real (as outlined for example in post #264) and we obviously can't make them go away just by demanding finely-tuned detailed answers to every absurdly imaginable hypothetical scenario we can concoct. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's certainly a fallacious tactic which is frequently used by folk who prefer to uphold the status quo but find themselves unable to actually defend it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, that would still have some people paying exponentially more for the same service. Thus not equal, and not fair.

Nope it would have everyone paying the same percenatge of their ‘excess’ (discretionary?) income.

Would it be fair to charge Obama and Joe the plumber different prices for a hamburger, based on their income?

Nope, but since it’s “fair” to charge them at the same sales, excise or property tax rates, it’s also “fair” to charge them at the same (excess) income tax rate.

 

[Peacenik]

so....more.

Obviously. And it wouldn't hurt them. We are talking about people with so much money they often have multiple homes. And private aircraft to travel between them. They can afford to pay vastly more in taxes and it will not affect their lifestyle one bit. There is a certain threshold of wealth where it is not really possible to enjoy any more spending because there simply isn't enough time during a human life to enjoy more objects, surroundings or experiences. The rest of the wealth beyond that threshold is simply applied to the net worth.

Yes. Much more of that can be taxed and the owners won't even feel it. It simply means the vast fortune to be passed on to the heirs will be reduced. Not that it will matter much to the heirs, either because in that range of wealth, even the heirs will never have to work to earn a living if they don't choose to do so.

Also, there should be a transaction tax on stock trading. A speculation tax, if you will. Nobody needs to do that to pay the bills. and it's not very productive for the nation. It's just rich people trying to get richer. It is an area of our economy which is ripe for taxation.

Massive Capital Gains are not taxed enough either. That should be a progressive tax, beginning at nothing, up to a certain amount, above which the tax should increase as the level becomes greater and greater.

The big reason we don't really have 'fair' taxation is because of legal government corruption. Big money buys big favors in government. And it's totally legal. We need to shut that down, make corruption illegal.

 

[Mithrae]

No, that would still have some people paying exponentially more for the same service. Thus not equal, and not fair.

Would it be fair to charge Obama and Joe the plumber different prices for a hamburger, based on their income?

Bill Gates and Joe the Plumber get the same benefits out of a hamburger, whereas Gates gets far, far, far more benefit from the infrastructure, economic stability, physical security and so on provided by public services and institutions. His entire fortune depends on those public services both for its existence (no-one would be using Windows without electricity) and its preservation (he wouldn't be keeping his mansions and yachts for long without police and courts to protect them).

Should someone who gains hundreds of billions of dollars worth of material benefit from government services pay more for them than someone who gains perhaps a hundred thousand dollars of material benefit if they're lucky?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Obviously. And it wouldn't hurt them. We are talking about people with so much money they often have multiple homes. And private aircraft to travel between them. They can afford to pay vastly more in taxes and it will not affect their lifestyle one bit. There is a certain threshold of wealth where it is not really possible to enjoy any more spending because there simply isn't enough time during a human life to enjoy more objects, surroundings or experiences. The rest of the wealth beyond that threshold is simply applied to the net worth.

Yes. Much more of that can be taxed and the owners won't even feel it. It simply means the vast fortune to be passed on to the heirs will be reduced. Not that it will matter much to the heirs, either because in that range of wealth, even the heirs will never have to work to earn a living if they don't choose to do so.

Also, there should be a transaction tax on stock trading. A speculation tax, if you will. Nobody needs to do that to pay the bills. and it's not very productive for the nation. It's just rich people trying to get richer. It is an area of our economy which is ripe for taxation.

Massive Capital Gains are not taxed enough either. That should be a progressive tax, beginning at nothing, up to a certain amount, above which the tax should increase as the level becomes greater and greater.

The big reason we don't really have 'fair' taxation is because of legal government corruption. Big money buys big favors in government. And it's totally legal. We need to shut that down, make corruption illegal.

I disagree with most of your use taxation to ‘punish those evil rich folks’ nonsense, but agree with the last paragraph (bolded above). The second to the last paragraph could be easily accomplished by simply taxing capital gains income at the same income tax bracket rates as any other income source.

 

[Peacenik]

I was doing just fine until I got to number 5.

A government owned and operated universal healthcare system is a REALLY bad idea. A government owned and operated universal healthcare INSURANCE system combined with a privately owned, for profit, healthcare DELIVERY system combines the benefits of efficiency of operation and incentive to improve. If the government owns the whole thing, what you are going to be looking at in the US is a national healthcare system that combines the efficiencies of the current VA and the current post office with the kind and caring compassion of the current "Welfare" system.

That is a common perception but we won't know unless we actually try. (Naturally, that means we will probably never know because big money would never permit this, and the people would never rise up against big money because big money has the people so divided. That is by design. And so is the perception of government as unable to accomplish goals efficiently. It just doesn't have to be that way.

What if we had an American Medical Service comparable to the military? But instead of the military we have, which mostly trains but has no major wars to fight (unless chickenhawk politicians like W go bananas) this service has a clear cut mission: To keep America as healthy as possible. Professionals dedicated to the mission are highly motivated to fulfill it. The military has a mission to keep the USA secure, and be ready to fight if needed. Somehow, our military got very modern and efficient at fighting, and didn't do it for profit. And what has the mission of our military been? To be ready, essentially. A Medical Service would have a very well defined mission that success and efficiency can be measured by. If properly well-funded and led, this service could deliver a healthy nation - which would facilitate a thriving economy.

Workers would have less illness and be able to increase productivity. Education and training for work would be more efficient with fewer workers being forced out of work with health issues. It is a waste of money to train and educate a worker only to have them work a short period before being unable due to poor health. All that training and education is wasted in that case. A loss.

The VA does the best it can with what funding it has, but it is never enough. And since the best doctors can make far more money in the private sector, the VA doesn't always get them. It can't afford them. Not enough funding. The sad fact about having a for-profit medical system is that people go into it for the wrong reasons. To get rich. Doctors and medical professionals should certainly be well paid, but that should not be a profession to get super-rich. When the VA needs specialists, they have to pay the private sector for that.

We have a lot of people entering the medical field just to get rich. If they have to actually deal with patients along the way, that is an inconvenience. Medical schools are ridiculously over-priced. It has become far too much about prestige and far too little about actually helping patients. Many doctors have notoriously bad attitudes and huge egos. What is so special about being a doctor? Nothing. It's simply knowledge and skill. It can be taught in government funded schools for far less than the ivy league. There should be medical academies similar to West Point and Annapolis. Do well in school, get accepted for free. The government educates the essential workers and then provides them with a lifetime career with awesome benefits and the psychological reward of serving the United States well. That would be prestigious enough.

This whole for-profit approach is wrong wrong wrong for essential social services such as health care. Very dedicated mission-focused people can excel in a logically designed system meant to serve society with what is needed by all. And it is in the best interest of the nation to do so in an organized national system from the ground up.

 

[Peacenik]

Why? What do they get in return to justly compensate them?

They get to be part of a better United States. One with less crime, more success, more contentment, more widespread prosperity. Less trash, less litter, fewer bad attitudes. Happier people; with their needs met. Fewer people left wanting. A happier USA is a better USA to live in for everyone, including the super-rich.

When people have their needs met they are less likely to commit crime.

 

[NatMorton]

We call that Democratic Socialism.

I call it greed.

 

[NatMorton]

No, that would still have some people paying exponentially more for the same service. Thus not equal, and not fair.

Would it be fair to charge Obama and Joe the plumber different prices for a hamburger, based on their income?

Nope; everyone contributes the same number of pennies per dollar earned above the poverty level. Nothing could be more fair.

 

[ataraxia]

oh no- we're not happy people!!!! LAFFRIOT.

Well I for one,would be much happier if Oprah was taxed more.

So you are saying a government's ability to functionally govern has no bearing on a people's happiness? Talk about LAFFRIOT.

 

[ataraxia]

Nope; everyone contributes the same number of pennies per dollar earned above the poverty level. Nothing could be more fair.

So you're advocating for government stealing people's hard earned money by threat of force if they ever dare make more money than the poverty level? LOL. Boy, that's a change of heart!

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was doing just fine until I got to number 5.

A government owned and operated universal healthcare system is a REALLY bad idea. A government owned and operated universal healthcare INSURANCE system combined with a privately owned, for profit, healthcare DELIVERY system combines the benefits of efficiency of operation and incentive to improve. If the government owns the whole thing, what you are going to be looking at in the US is a national healthcare system that combines the efficiencies of the current VA and the current post office with the kind and caring compassion of the current "Welfare" system.

I had trouble with #2. If a student gets a failing grade are they fined or simply barred from continuing their eduction?

 

[Questerr]

Are you really this easily duped?

I notice you’re selective editing there. Is there an intellectually honest bone in your body?

What am I saying? You’re a conservative. Of course there isn’t. Truth and hypocrisy, they don’t matter. Just winning and power.

 

[NatMorton]

So you're advocating for government stealing people's hard earned money by threat of force if they ever dare make more money than the poverty level? LOL. Boy, that's a change of heart!

A level of government services is necessary, and those services must be funded. The question remains how much?

So no, your attempt to paint me into an extreme corner is ridiculous.

 

[NatMorton]

I notice you’re selective editing there. Is there an intellectually honest bone in your body?

What am I saying? You’re a conservative. Of course there isn’t. Truth and hypocrisy, they don’t matter. Just winning and power.

Stop the BS. You were arguing that NK is a republic because the word "republic" is in their name. Give me one good reason why I should consider that argument anything other than blithering nonsense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When comparing taxation rates between countries, it really helps if you also compare what those taxes return to the taxpayer.

If, as an example, an Australian pays $1,000/mo in taxes and also pays $0.00/mo for healthcare insurance (a total of $1,000/mo) while an American pays $500/mo in taxes and also pays $750/mo (average monthly payouts by the for profit insurance company = profit $50, administration $250, and healthcare services $450) for healthcare insurance (a total of $1,250/mo) does that American really pay less for the same benefits as the Australian does?

My main point was comparing the level of progression used in the income tax rate structure. The fact that they use different rate values (from each other) was not really important.

 

[ataraxia]

A level of government services is necessary, and those services must be funded. The question remains how much?

So no, your attempt to paint me into an extreme corner is ridiculous.

I am just quoting you. So going forward, I will just remind you that you are OK with the "a level" of government forcibly stealing money from people. It just has to be JUST the right amount that you personally want. Otherwise it's communism.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you're advocating for government stealing people's hard earned money by threat of force if they ever dare make more money than the poverty level? LOL. Boy, that's a change of heart!

That’s a hoot coming from someone who thinks having even more progressive tax rates (for those making “too much”) is a good idea.

 

[NatMorton]

I am just quoting you. So going forward, I will just remind you that you are OK with the "a level" of government forcibly stealing money from people. It just has to be JUST the right amount that you personally want. Otherwise it's communism.

No, you're misquoting me because you have no real argument to make.

 

[Peacenik]

I disagree with most of your use taxation to ‘punish those evil rich folks’ nonsense, but agree with the last paragraph (bolded above). The second to the last paragraph could be easily accomplished by simply taxing capital gains income at the same income tax bracket rates as any other income source.

I never said anything about punishing anybody. Taxation is not punishment. Particularly in the upper wealth brackets. It is nothing but a number to them. Their lifestyles are not impacted by taxation. There has never been a rich man taxed into poverty. The upper tax brackets only apply to income over what everyone else earns.

There is a threshold above which working is no longer required. When wealth becomes so great that a family can live well on the interest alone, working and earning are no longer required. Any earnings above that are simply added onto the net worth. It should be taxed heavily. The family will not even feel it.

If a fortune is worth $100 million, and earns a 5% ROI, that equates to an income of $5 million per year. For doing nothing but owning it. Obviously, anyone can live quite well on $5 million per year. Any work income simply adds onto that. Everything above that could be taxed heavily, even up to 100%, and the $5 million per year would still be uninterrupted. I'm not proposing to tax that bracket at 100%, but it is certainly justifiable to talk about 90%, which has been done before, and the people in that bracket stayed richer than everyone else, still lived in the lap of luxury. Also, that is an age when many MAGA people consider America 'was great.'

As to the other, ending legal corruption won't be easy, but it is doable. We need to pass local anti-corruption laws in cities and counties all over America. Make it a local issue. Then work on States; and finally it can pass at the federal level.

 

[ataraxia]

That’s a hoot coming from someone who thinks having even more progressive tax rates (for those making “too much”) are a good idea.

I am just trying to drive home the point that, unlike our conservative friends' often black-or-white thinking, there is no distinct line or fundamental difference in kind between what they want and "communism" or "government stealing from the people". So it would be nice if they cut the drama.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, you're misquoting me because you have no real argument to make.

Yep, having flat rate sales, property or excise tax rates is seen as “fair”, yet having a flat (excess) income tax rate (somehow) becomes “unfair”.

 

[The Mark]

Of course we all know the rich and corporations don't pay their ' fair share'.
But what is the exact percentage they should be paying and why is that 'fair'
?
Please ,no anecdotes about people or corp's that didn't pay this or that. What #should# they be paying and why?

If you try for exact numbers or percentages then people get upset.

But as a very general rule of thumb, I think it's something like: "Once you have enough to live comfortably, you don't need any more".

I think this is in part why the top marginal income tax bracket in the USA taxed income above that point at 80-90% for decades (1940-1963, to be exact, although it was 79% starting in 1936)

Edit: Got those numbers here: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates