Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

The rich do pay their fair share. They worked to get rich, or inherited it from someone who willingly have it to them, possibly won the money. Either way as long as the rich don't owe everyone money, then yes they pay their fair share.

 

I do not think so. They are your friends and if you like, not $2, $7, it can be your treat. Maybe you can find another example to illustrate your opinion. Just my personal opinion. :0

 

The taxes people an individual pays doesn't go to their friends, the pizza is a metaphor for government "benefits" as a whole, everyone gets a piece of government "benefits", and pays a part of the "taxes". The thing is, the benefits and payments are skewed so that one group pays for almost the entire pizza, and the other group gets to eat almost the entire pizza. Why not do away with taxes and allow people to buy their own damn pizzas if they want to eat, or don't buy pizzas if they don't want to eat.

 

Exactly, why should they have to support the lazy?

 

I think a lot of people in this thread and society in general are ignorant of/systematically deny the fact that where there are cases of this extreme wealth they coexist with pretty extreme poverty. They, too, seem pretty willfully ignorant of the context behind wealth accumulation and its consequences on society at large.

In my country (UK) 5 of the richest families have more accumulated wealth than 20% of the population. In my country also, we have foodbanks; charitable organisations which donate food to those who can't afford to feed themselves. Such institutions account for the subsistence of over 1 million families now.

And whether people want to admit it or not, that abstract notion of "wealth" is real - that is money that could be put to much better societal benefit. That cumulative wealth offsets the poverty of millions. Monetarist/neoliberal economics argues that life is not a "zero-sum game"; that one person's success isn't correlated with another's failure. But the nature of capital is to bubble up. Any casual observance of capitalism at work reveals that surplus wealth is generated by the exploitation of labour; bosses pay the least for the most in a market-imposed race to the bottom.

And we don't even have a proper free market economy anyway - we, the US and many others have a kind of "state capitalism" where many industries receive huge subsidies. So any notion that the rich stay rich because of their efficiency in the market is categorically false. Social mobility is on the decline and indeed we've never really had a situation where overwhelmingly nepotism/class doesn't play a deciding role in determining your future success.

Yes there are arguments that the wealth gets reinvested - but what does it really do for the lower/middle class? It creates more lower/lower-middle income jobs, more minimum wage jobs - more people on in-work benefits. It does nothing to dismantle the paradigm of extremely rich and extremely poor.

I am of course not arguing for absolute equality - no one is. I don't have a problem with people earning more than others; the objection is to how wide we permit the disparity to be. Of course, regulation is a dirty word; especially in the states. Conflating market regulation with communism and failed states like the Soviet Union and North Korea is an age old deception propagated by the right. I, and a lot of others, want tougher regulations; a living wage, an income cap, tougher corporation taxes, higher taxes for the highest earners, a strong national health service, well funded state education etc. etc. And of course these things can't be achieved in one country in a global economy; I hold the trotskyist view that they must be secured on an international basis through cooperation and worldwide solidarity.

And finally let me just say that if you do have vast amounts of accumulated wealth/inordinately high income - you absolutely have an obligation to pay a large amount of that back in tax. Society gave you your success; it fed you, clothed you, educated you, looked after you when you were ill (atleast, it did in my country because we have a national health service), provided you with an educated labour force, police force, fire services, ambulance services and all sorts of other municipal benefits that you wouldn't have without societal cooperation on a grand scale. No civilisation without taxation. Most people agree with me on this; it's why we don't have a flat rate tax system. The disagreement is where the threshold lies and I say the rich should pay a lot more, not less.

 

I like your thoroughness in your argument, but you have reached framing bedrock, which is an equality fallacy for those who argue for the 99%. You say that society and the poor gives the wealthy their fortune, but in reality, the wealthy give the people society. If the top 1% dropped dead today, the world would crumble instantly. Think about how abysmal Apple has been doing since Jobs died, and that's just one man in a multi billion dollar company.

"Equality" is idiotic if you try to make it so everyone's result is equal, the world operates on ">" and "<" and in only very very very rare cases, "=". For example, if 200 people all run a 1 mile race, do you think it is fair to force them all to finish at the same time, or is it fair that they all start on the same starting line?

 

Well of course this is why I did say I'm not arguing for absolute equality. Many on the left are not. We are arguing for meaningful equal opportunity which is often stifled by huge disparities in income across the hierarchies that are endemic to unregulated markets.

I believe in markets, I believe in the price system - I think capitalism does a lot of good things. However, I also believe that capitalism, when left to its own devices, does nothing for social justice. The concept of free markets as the solution to everyone's prosperity and as the basis of personal liberty is nothing less than religion. Not only does it ignore the problems of an inherent unequal society, it embraces them.

In a completely unregulated world, you'd still have something resembling corporations. Yes, they wouldn't be propped up by the state, but there would still be monumental wealth disparities and, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you will agree that the bargaining power will always be in the favour of the employers. A world of free markets wouldn't be very different to the one we're living in - the only difference being the absence of trade unions and regulation to protect workers to which free market rationalists are devoutly opposed.

And to put it bluntly: the wealth that bubbles up and accumulates in the hands of the owners - in another time they would have been called the "bourgeois class" - is unjustified. It's too much for too little. You may not think so, you may think that it is completely justified given the context. Yes, they created the situation that created the jobs, but it is only ceremonial that we attribute the wealth creation solely to them. I could just as well argue that it is the perpetual endeavour of the workers, whose role is just as important, if not more so, as the bosses - who drive expansion and create jobs for others.

I am a strong believer in the old marxist maxim "from each according to their means to each according to their needs". What's wrong with that? It's fundamentally a good, and moral, idea.

And that's what it all comes down to, really; morals. All political questions are really moral questions. I think that the human species works better when it works as a collective, not as individuals all pursuing their own ends. Competition is fine, it creates incentive - but when the reward is at the profound detriment of everyone else, then in the name of nothing other than common decency, it should be stopped.

 

I didn't understood a thing..

 

How is "Take from the deserving, give to the undeserving" a good moral idea? Ridiculous.



The arguments over 6 pages have only gone to prove that there is no reason that the rich should pay anything more than the poor for anything - it is only excuses made by the poor to steal the wealth that the rich create. Ask yourself, what happens when you run out of rich people to steal from? The poor will starve to death, or make their own food. Why bother handicapping the rich in the first case when the outcome is already decided.

Also, bump.

 

As a whole, no. But there are rich people who give their fair share.

 

Here this man just got 54k fine for overspeeding. He didn't even overspeed that much but he made so much money so the fine went to 54k. To normal person it would have been a few hundred &#8364; probably
Wasn't too good example but anyways, here this rich man REALLY had to pay a "Fair" share

 

In the united states I think we should just have a flat tax. My Father pays almost 44 percent in taxes of what he makes... Mostly cause he gets taxed the highest amount because of owning a business. It's sad honestly the people that don't work get all that money because they are too lazy to work. The rich pay way more than they should cause they had to risk it all to get there usually or at one time in life someone did. So you people saying the rich don't can honestly fuck off. Lazy people that live through the government cause 90 percent of y'all are just fucks that do drugs need to get off y'alls asses. FLAT TAX all the way. then that way it would be completely fair we all pay the same. it would also make our eco better cause we would have more money to spend.

 

Some do (like Ricky Gervais). It's people that tax exile themselves to Switzerland because they care more about money that they don't even have time to spend mostly than helping to support the economy like industries are supposed to; they piss me off.

 

Taxes don't support the economy. Trade is what makes up an economy. If someone supports an economy, he does it by trading. He buys things he values and sells things others value.

 

Fed income tax goes to the government, one would think that goes towards some kind of overall public benefit. Furthermore, it costs money to chase those taxes when they aren't paid.

 

There are two problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that it actually doesn't generate much overall public benefit. Governments entering into markets typically crowd-out private entrepreneurs from entering into the market, since it's difficult to compete. A lack of competition reduces choice, quality and typically increases prices. The problem is people don't see the opportunity cost of this government service, they don't see that that same service would have been provided in a private sphere without the need for taxation that is also of a higher quality, variety, and lower price. Also, consumers having less money as a result of this inefficient allocation of resources results in in less money to spend on other stuff. Talk about making it tough on the middle class.

The second part is that even IF there was a net public benefit, this doesn't necessarily justify such taxes. What you're really saying is that taking stuff away from other people without their consent is ok If I use it in the name of helping other people. This argument does not hold up in court, it doesn't hold up in most conversations, not in philosophy, is never advanced in politics, but somehow when said in a way that taxes are good cause they help people, people forget the true nature of the act. Theft is theft, even if done with noble intentions, like how killing is killing even if it was in self-defense. Actions are constant throughout any context.

It also costs money to workout your taxable income. Have you read through even .01% of the applicable tax legislation? Anyone who thinks the progressive income tax is the only major tax regarding the rich is living in a dream world. Most rich people make their money through capital gains, and the rules that apply to that are incredibly esoteric. Regardless, it cost a robber money to purchase the gun pointed at your head. Your view seems to presuppose that the government has a moral right to that monies, but this is far from established. Start with why do I think the government has a moral right to my monies?

 

Maybe it's naive, but I would rather public services were government owned as opposed to privatized, mostly because one wants to improve the economy in the cities, the other wants to line their own pockets.

Note that my focus here is corporate & income tax (but mostly corporate). You see it as theft, I see it as that money being invested into, for example, the improvement of the very same tax those people use to drive their expensive cars around the city.

Yes, it does cost money for those taxes to be administrated and calculated. I do believe where the foundations are lain for those companies to enter the city, state or country - to make those millions in the first place, something should be put back into the pot. However at the same time, I know the flaw in that argument is we already have taxes that cover most of that shit.

Let me know if I've misunderstood your post Malakadang.

 

Oh? What of Bill Gates, who has contributed almost $30 billion to charity. It is a fact that people who earn more money choose to give more money away than people who earn less money.

Tax is invested into the improvement of tax?

Incorrect. When people moved west into undeveloped land, was it the government who developed the land, or the people?

 

1) It's not everyone, as I said I mean the people who evade and/or exile themselves to countries where they can store their money without anyone else getting their hands on it (For example, even though he's not US, Lewis Hamilton - who openly admits to it). I'm aware of BG's generosity but in any case you misunderstood me (I think). For example, we look at privatized prisons. Do they give a shit about rehabilitation? No. They get paid for each prisoner they have, their goal is to spend as little on keeping that prisoner as possible, that is not the actual purpose of prison's existence.

2) If you want to put it like that. Infrastructure and services get improved, people can use them more efficiently to work. Businesses will expand, more people will pay tax so yeah, if you want to put it so crudely.

3) Sorry, but I'm talking about the modern day. But so I'm not evading your question - the people.

 

So you would rather an incompetent man run something poorly and getting paid to do so while having good intentions, as opposed to a competent man run something smoothly and getting paid to do it? This is a very dangerous attitude to take, would you let a surgeon with no medical knowledge operate on you simply because they're a nice person? If not, why are you letting other peoples lives be severely affected. Are you somehow more worthy of individual autonomy than they are?

The only exemption for you is to simply deny the fact that private individuals do it better, but you haven't done so. You think the government doesn't line its pockets while running these public schemes? You think government workers are volunteers? Unlike business men who say that they work for profit, the government gets paid to do a poor job but says it does it for free!

I'm not precisely sure what you're saying here. As for income tax, income tax is pretty negligible when it comes to the wealthy. Actually alot of the wealthy now are just benefiting from asset bubbles as a result of quantitative easing. What strikes me as kind of amusing is that the very rich people you dislike are benefiting from the policies that you promote.
I also don't know what you're getting at with the expensive cars part. Are you saying that, but as for investments it can hardly be called that. With investments you expect rate of return, however not only does the government get a poor return (inefficient intervention into the marketplace), they would have gotten a better return had they done nothing (private entrepreneurs entering the market)!

Either way, the underlying issue is that if I take your wallet and invest the monies in an ice-selling business in Antarctica this is still not acceptable! Even If I invest it in a homeless shelter, this is still unacceptable, you do not take peoples things without their permission, it's a basic lesson all parents teach their children before they even start school!

Are you talking about corporations who receive lots of government help, but are terribly inefficient (Since they require said government help in order to operate)? Or are you talking about corporations who have to wade through the numerous laws, regulations, red-tape, fees etc in order to enter the market? You say that the government has laid such foundations, and if you benefit from those foundations you ought to compensate them. This is entirely unreasonable, since you are using abstract language. If I mow your lawns I can't charge you $50 for it unless we agreed upon that price initially. There is no agreement between the government and these corporations. In fact on the contrary, the corporations should tax the government for making it difficult to provide quality goods and services to consumers.


You haven't really misunderstood my post, but you've presupposed certain notions that I reject. So in essence your skipping past the most important parts. These 2 fundamental notions are something you haven't considered, (a) that private enterprise does it better than the government, and most people will be better off (b) that that the government doesn't have a right to our money in the first instance.