Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

I made a comment with a lot of the features of this thread on another thread awhile back, but I wanted to give it it's own argument to hear people's opinion on it, and how they define fairness one way in most situations, but exactly the opposite when it comes to taxes (even when assuming fallaciously that taxes should be paid at all).


One thing that always bothers me is people who complain about how much the top earning American citizens pay in taxes (particularly the top 1%). They compare the amount they make to the amount they need to live off of to the amount they pay in taxes.

^ Everyone would agree that everyone paid their fair share of the pizza. They each had an equal amount and paid an equal price.

Most would say this is slightly less fair. You did not consume as much, but are paying for others. Relate this to all of the benefits and breaks that the poor get: Welfare, education grants, etc, that the rich pay for with their taxes and never benefit from.

This is the way the tax system is currently set up. The rich pay the lion's share of taxes, yet they don't receive many of the benefits that the poor receive, such as welfare, grants, etc.

 

On top of the benifts you listed, the rich also create hundreds to thousands of new jobs for the poor.

IMO I think the rich do pay their share, it's easy to degrade someone who is better off than you.

And on sythes point, you could argue that being a citizen of a country is a contract within itself, and that to share in the benifts of that county you have to contribute to the OP's metaphorical pizza.

 

Xier0, you're missing several points in the example. You pay $7, but only eat once slice. However, when you get home, you have a nice fillet, or whatever you like to eat, waiting for you. (State healthcare vs private healthcare, state education vs private education, etc.). Furthermore, your friends are broke -- they could not afford to pay for the pizza on their own. If you hadn't bought it for them, they would have starved to death. Your parents, on the other hand, give you $200 every week. Is it so unreasonable now to help your friends out?

 

How does being a citizen in a country constitute a legal contract? The last time I checked I didn't voluntarily sign up for any service or willingly enter any kind of agreement.

edit:

There is quite a difference between willingly helping your "friends" out and having them extort the money from you at gunpoint.

 

You were born there. You used their school system. But at the same time, you're free to renounce your citizenship if you wish...

Well, you willingly helped your friends in the example, so I used the same type of thing.

Furthermore, nobody in the example is telling you that you can't use state-healthcare. You just have a better alternative. You could perfectly well quit your job and give away your money to receive welfare. But do you want to do so? Of course not.

 

I was born here, therefore I'm bound into an enforceable contract? Does a person born into slavery agree to the conditions because he ate the food his masters gave him? because he lived under their shelter? because they made sure he didn't get sick and die so he could continue working?

Saying that I can renounce my citizenship is weak considering I've never agreed that I wanted to be a citizen and I've never consented to it. Also knowing how the government works they would probably throw me off of my own land because I stopped paying them the money they have been extorting from me.

I don't even...

Send me $500 to my paypal that I'll be using it to provide people with cell phones that can't afford them. If you don't like it give away all your money and then you can get a free cell phone too. If you don't "donate" within the next two weeks I will forcibly hack into your account and take that money from you. Its for something I've decided is a good enough cause that you should donate to, why should you object? That's the kind of argument that you're presenting here.

 

Citizenship is supposedly a good thing for most people, so by giving it to you when you're born they are doing most people a favor. If you disagree, you can just renounce your citizenship and you'll be exempt from things such as the draft. And even if you're not a citizen, you'll be living on (US?) soil. You'll be using roads, schools, and hospitals. So of course you'll still be paying taxes. But that's only fair.

That is not at all the argument I'm presenting here. First of all, there's no guarantee that you won't just steal the money. But anyways, if I was living in a community where cell phones were necessary to maintain an adequate standard of living, and I was making far more money than average, and there were people who lived without cell phones (and no government etc etc), I would have no problem donating some money for people to have cell phones. But at the same time, I'd expect others in the same position I am to do the same.

I wrote this in another thread, but I'll copy it here because it reflects how I view taxes:

I believe that we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Maybe we just have a different set of morals. I don't know.

 

If only contracts worked like that. "Cell service is a good thing for most people, so when you were born we signed you up with Sprint for a life long contract, we did you a huge favor!"

"If you disagree you can fill out our paperwork and jump through our hoops to cancel. But then again because we have a monopoly on cell service with physical force to back it up you're shit out of options."

As opposed to the governments guarantee that they will steal the money?

And what if I don't agree that cell phones are necessary for people to maintain a high standard of living. What if I don't support cell phone companies at all because of their unethical policy? What gives you the right to demand that I pay for it with threats of force or just physically taking it out of my account?

I know I proposed the hypothetical situation but my point still stands

Again, charitable giving is one thing. Its great that you support those less fortunate/feel free to give as much of your money towards that as you please. Demanding that I accept your set of morals and forcefully ordering me at gunpoint to give money is a different thing entirely.

 

If signing up with Sprint required taking tests, having a job, and just generally getting service with Sprint was much more difficult than canceling the contract, then yes, they did most people a favor.

Renouncing your citizenship is not jumping through hoops. The total hours saved by making everybody a citizen is far far greater than the total hours that would be saved by making nobody a citizen.

Using 'my' money for social welfare, research, education, and everything else isn't stealing it.

This is very similar to the kids that would be unhappy with the pizza and lemonade in my story. So what if you don't want to spend money on some of the things the government spends money on? I think that the fact that the Church gets tax breaks is bullshit. I think that the fact that that the United States spends 6 times as much on our military as China does is bullshit. We don't need 10 new 500-billion dollar fighter jets. But so what. Why does it matter if I don't agree with EVERYTHING the government spends money on? I can just think of it like this: The money I pay goes towards what I deem to be necessary. The money my neighbor pays may go to something else. It doesn't matter. There are people who are also paying money who view enormous military spending as a necessity. Should we just ignore them?

See above paragraph. I don't demand you accept my set of morals. I demand that you pay your fair share of taxes that I, your parents, your neighbors, and everybody else is paying to make your life easier.

 

It doesn't matter. Since Person X gets $200 dollars every week, it is HIS DECISION whether or not he wants to pay to feed his friends, or burn the money right in front of his friends, because it is his property that he earned.

__________________________________

Imagine, for example, you are at McDonalds. The two people in line in front of you buy a cheeseburger, they each pay $1. You get to the front of the line and order a cheeseburger, the cashier says your total is $100, and if you don't pay it, you will be sent to jail. You ask why your cheeseburger costs more than theirs if you are receiving the same product, the cashier says it is because you can afford it.

As you can see, in the real market world, we don't make the distinction just because you can afford to pay more that you have to. It simply doesn't make sense/

 

That is a bullshit example. First of all, a corporation is getting the extra money, so the 'tax' I'm paying is going straight into somebody else's pocket. Second, my example was meant to show that you didn't get your share of the pizza because you didn't want it. What you had for yourself at home was far more valuable.

 

I didn't mention a corporation at all.

As for the whole pizza thing, regardless of what else some person has/doesn't have at home that is more valuable, it doesn't mean they shouldn't get pizza, or have to pay for everyone elses.

 

Bump.

 

This post made me throw up in my mouth. Why do you include the $200 per week statement? The rich don't get handouts like the poor do. You couldn't be much more wrong than you currently are if you're trying to relate that to real life.

 

Yes it does. As I said before - everybody is free to take from the pizza. But if somebody hasn't eaten all day, then they're going to be getting more pizza than you are, simply because they need it more than you.

The rich get handouts from screwing over the poor. That's where they make their money. VERY few corporations have been able to make it to the top without exploiting their workers. Furthermore, the poor get handouts because they need them. Do you want the street to be riddled with homeless everywhere you go?

Also, they do get just plain handouts. You see, while everybody else is paying their taxes, the rich are, well, rich enough to hire somebody to find tax loopholes and hide money in offshore accounts. That's basically a handout right there. The Lehman brothers got a bailout. Where did that go? Oh that's right. Bonuses. So don't tell me that the rich don't get handouts. Because they do.

 

Just because they need it doesn't mean they get more pizza, people get pizza if they pay for it. "Needing" something doesn't mean you get it for free, the world doesn't work like that.

If you knew about economics, you would know that free markets naturally give the best price to the consumer, as long as there is competition. The rich make money from being best suited to their environment, redistributing the wealth doesn't change the base fact that the rich earn more because they are better suited for earning, giving someone who is poor money doesn't make him earn more.

 

There is far more to this than what you think is "fair" for the upper-class Americans. So many other factors come into play.

Of course, the upper-class paying a higher tax rate DOES help out the people who benefit from it on the lower end of the scale, but that's not all it does.

One of the most pernicious economic falsehoods anyone will hear is that taxing the rich does not help the economy grow. In the past, during WWII and even in the Bill Clinton era, taxes were higher for the rich than they'd ever been, and in those times, our economy was stronger than it has ever been.

Lately, the tax rate for the rich hasn't been nearly as high compared to those times, effectively forcing the middle class to pay more in taxes. Because of this, the middle class, the heart of the American economy, does not have enough money to keep the economy running.

A common misconception is that what keeps America running is trickle-down economics. That is a complete fallacy. What keeps America's economy strong is not trickle-down from the rich, but rather upward percolation from working-class Americans and who need a fair chance to make it by not paying more than they afford in taxes.

 

Uh, first world countries do work like that. There are laws forcing emergency rooms to treat you if you are in a life threatening condition. You can get food at shelters. etc etc.

That's bullshit. Are you going to tell me now that it really is costing cell companies $30/month to pay for your data? That's ridiculous. They're making an incredible amount of money on that. (And there is competition... verizon, sprint, at&t, etc). Furthermore, there isn't competition everywhere you go. There are plenty of monopolies. (Textbooks, practical monopoly). Also, your argument that the rich make more money because they are better suited is just not true. Some of the rich have money because of their parents. Some of the rich got lucky. Some of the rich are paid exorbitant amounts to do lie. Breaking bad reference (First two seasons): Is Gus more suited for earning money than Walter is? It doesn't seem to me that Gus really brings anything to the table... except 'protection'.

Also, you conveniently left out the part of my post where I showed that the rich did get handouts.

Thank you. Someone who is finally seeing some sense.

 

Its laughable to call what we have now a "free market"

You realize how huge of a role corporate protectionism serves in supporting these monopolies? Every major phone company receives massive government subsidies, without them they would cease to exist or be forced to develop more efficient business strategies.