Do The Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

Is it wrong to prevent people from getting their hands on your property? Where do you keep your money? Locked away where only you can get to it, I presume.

As opposed to what, paying as much as possible for keeping a prisoner?

I own a business. The government does not improve it for me. The government does not give me money to let me improve it myself. What gave you the idea that government expands businesses, or gives money to businesses to let them expand themselves?

 

You seem set in the ways that the government is incompetent, I'm not saying that's what your post is, that's how I've interpreted it. For example, look at GEO Group, they have proven time and time again they are incompetent in regards to running prisons, they budget cut so much inmates either die or escape and it's crammed to the brim with inmates because they just want more and more money, I can't support that level of cruelty, and obviously that leaves me relatively hostile to privatization. However at the same time inmates in some prisons living like kings is hardly right either.

I fucking hate private healthcare, to go so many years without so much as a cut finger and then go through leaps and bounds when I break my arm because apparently I have slightly porous bones, which I didn't even know about until I broke my arm from getting it caught in a car door - and obviously, it wasn't mentioned on my policy; but they saw a way to save money and went for it.

Prison isn't meant to be a nice place, but that's a different topic. I don't think -all- private individuals/corps are bad, I just prefer it to be government run as a matter of interests. Or maybe CA is just a really, really nice state. I don't feel government workers do a poor job, at least not in CA.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand this. I'm fairly sure the poor government return is because they put money into the economy, and people decide to play lawyer tag instead of giving something back. My feeling of taxes is payment of them benefits both parties. Private entrepreneurs entering the market wouldn't be bad, if they gave as much of a shit about the people who rely on them as they did the money they make from the public. - maybe that is bias which I submit, is a little unfair in the discussion.

But I do see what you mean in terms of privatization actually benefitting the government, no more chasing taxes. Unfortunately I don't feel so good about the alternative.

But why would you be taking any money from me, unless I have gotten something from you first? It's a tax, not a service charge.

The former. Also if you mow my lawn I ask you for the price first, if I don't like the price you don't mow my lawn. I work, I knew what my taxes were going to be before I worked, I know why I pay those taxes, I think they're actually extortionate, but I wouldn't support them disappearing (however I'm not rich, which somewhat makes that example irrelevant to topic).

(A) Private enterprising is about as inconsistent at times as the government, sometimes and in some areas it's better than the other, other times not really.
(B) Some say that, but they never know when they might need welfare. Or a road that isn't falling to pieces so they can drive to the hospital whilst hemorrhaging.

 

Technically the bank gets to it, repeatedly. I don't see where you're getting at with that - again why would I give money when I haven't taken anything? That's addressed above anyway.

No, as opposed to using a prison for it's actual purpose so the same guy doesn't sit on his butt until parole and steals my car because he hasn't learned shit. Apologies that I still believe in rehabilitation in prisons and feel privatization sets that further back.

Does anyone drive to your place of work or use government funded transport to get to your place of work? Do any of your clients do so? Does your business have an internet connection? The people who day-to-day maintain your internet service don't live in a basement under a large office to have an excuse to avoid paying tax.

 

What? Does the bank stop you on the street and take money out of your wallet? Does the bank enter your home and open your safe?

Exactly. Why would I give money to the government?

If someone is put in prison for stealing a car, do they not learn that they will be put in prison for stealing a car through experience? If they steal another car, they do it knowing that they will be put in prison.

No one uses government funded transport to get to my place of work. The government does not give me internet, the government does not give me servers. I purchase internet services, I purchase servers, I purchase a domain, and my clients purchase internet services.

 

A) I have my money stored in the bank like others who use banks, it's no secret banks make money by playing with the money they have stored. As I will still be able to take out what I want bar a crash whenever I want, it doesn't bother me though, so this actually isn't a great example

B) So you use no public services whatsoever?

C) They shouldn't be stealing another car, and if that thought is still in their mind then they're not ready to for parole.

D) The internet might have been a bad example, I have an explanation for it but it'd be beating a dead horse, I'll probably think up another one when I'm more sober.

 

If I didn't, would I still be taxed?

A bad example? The Internet is a perfect example of how people create their own businesses without the interference of the government, and go on to make extraordinary amounts of money.

 

Prison is a broken system. Private entrepreneurs enter into the marketplace that governments have created. Prison is an initiation of force on the inmates, government allows this so naturally businesses will operate under the principle that the initiation of force on inmates (resulting in unpleasant circumstances) is acceptable.

You have to remember that in the present environment there is a huge crowding out factor by the government. There is an absence of decent competition in the private sphere, so there isn't as high a quality healthcare, diversity, nor cheapness in price. You are essentially judging private systems within the realm of a government system. You can't do that. It's like running a business in Dubai and thinking it will work in Greenland. The whole foundation of which you operate is different. Private enterprise operates differently without government intervention than with government intervention. So to take an example of private enterprise operating with government intervention and then extrapolating it onto a non-government intervention state is just biased.

For the record public healthcare is also abysmal. The wait times are horrendous. Some people die on the waiting list.

The thing is again you've missed the opportunity cost. You may think they don't do a bad job, but relative to a job that would have been done under a non-interventional state of affairs, they are doing a poor job. It's all about the opportunity cost, you can't analyze what is, you also have to analyze what isn't as a result of what is.

Your problem seems to be with massive companies, as opposed to the sole entrepreneur. You have to realize however that massive companies can more readily form in a place where government intervenes in the market. Simply but, it's harder for a small player to enter the market with a lot of regulation, fees etc. So once someone is established, as a result of economies of scale, greater political power, they begin to 'care less' about the consumer if you will. You have to realize every problem you have raised is a byproduct of the existence of intervention. Intervention is causing all the problems you are bringing up, yet you demand more of it, and wonder why the situation gets worse.

Also as for people playing the lawyer tag, people are trying to keep what they earn. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. You can say all you want about government having a moral right to that monies, but you have to establish that first.

That's because you still believe government does it better. But if you accept the premise that not only does government does it worse, it prevents other private people from doing it better, you will realize how bad a situation we are actually in.

Fine I'll take your wallet and buy you a toothbrush.

A lot of the rich's income isn't subject to income tax (it's not considered income). Also, you actually have no choice in the matter of being taxed, imagine if two people say you know what, how about we forget about the tax (lots of tradies waive the GST and leave if off the books). This however is both illegal and immoral on the supposition that the government has a moral right to that monies. Even if you agree to a wage that isn't taxed, you are still obligated to pay tax anyway. Saying you have a choice is really just deception. If somone said you can choose between drinking piss or eating shit, the fact that you chose one doesn't make the choice voluntary. Coercion is involved.

Those private entrepreneurs that supply services that get demand tend to go bankrupt. So naturally only the best will remain. As above, you can't compare present private enterprise in a interventionist system with private enterprise in a non-interventionist system.

The government has reduced the purchasing power of money (see quantitative easing) so it makes it harder for the lower-middle class, to earn a decent wage. Subsequently they may have a 'need' for welfare, however this need was the result of government actions. Furthermore, governments interventions in the market, taxation, regulation etc increase the prices of goods and services, making it harder for the average person to have a decent life. The government also reduces incentive to work (taxation is a disincentive), and promotes inter-generational poverty by subsiding poverty.

Again, the problems you present have a root-cause, government intervention. You cannot justify the governments interventions as solutions to the problem that the intervention itself has caused!


Every problem you have raised has been made worse by government intervention. So before you say what about this problem, ask yourself, what the government has done to negatively affect that scenario.

 

No. Some things other rich people do such as BP,Exxonmobil,Halliburton,etc no amount of money will pay for.

People like Bill Gates are amazing people and more of them need to exist, however, for them to even matter in the long run companies like those above would need to change their ways. And I do not see these companies turning down money.

Just my thoughts

 

BP has paid out tens of billions of dollars to people who were effected by their spill and paid for it to be cleaned up. They are also being hit with massive fines by the government. However none of that is really relevant since the rich are people not corporations.

 

In an ideal world the rich would not pay any heftier a tax than the poor. Everyone is entitled to their earnings and it doesn't seem right that some people's entitlements should be more significantly cut than others, even if they do have a larger portion.
Now the problem is our world is not an ideal world. With higher income comes higher power, and with higher power comes greater opportunities. This is not (necessarily) a problem in itself. The problem arises because the next generation suffers from the circumstances of the past one. Children of more successful families are given exponentially more opportunities; monopolies are developed; industry becomes harder and harder to find a place in. You may say that this is just the way things go, but the question is what is fair, not just what has happened.
It's not fair that in a democratic society people should be disadvantaged from the start due to circumstances out of their control (or at least this should be minimized). This basically gets us to Rawls' difference principle - that inequalities in society should exist only insofar as they benefit the lowest denominations.

 

People will always be born advantaged or disadvantaged as a result of genetics, and genetics can result if some social differences as well. Should we tax good-looking people more? What about taxing the healthy more? Surely the smart should also be penalized. Don't forget the hard working.

People are different, it's not fair, life isn't fair. The argument that this natural unfairness ought to be mitigated by artificial unfairness is absurd. O look, there's inequality of outcome, so let's treat people differently based on things they can't control, that'll make it more fair. O but wait, we can't treat people differently based on things they can't control because that in itself is unfair. People are always the first to blame others for their circumstances in life. These people deserve nothing, because they don't attempt to improve themselves.

Also on these points "monopolies are developed; industry becomes harder and harder to find a place in", monopolies don't develop so much because of the rich, they develop because government makes it difficult for entrepreneurs to enter the market, and due to economies of scales and the present political system. As a business gets larger they enjoy economic benefits as well as political benefits which makes it even more difficult for entrepreneurs to enter the market. Barriers to entry are the problem with the formation of monopolies, and barriers to entries exist insofar as the government creates such barriers. As for industry becoming harder to find a place in, government is also the cause of this, see minimum wage, for example. What good is it to demand at least $10 an hour compensation from a teenager, who won't get the job precisely because the monetary demand is too great. I wonder who suffers the most from youth unemployment, teens of the rich, or teens of the poor. Wasn't Obamas argument something like you try living off minimum wage? You try living off no wage, because some people can't get a job because of minimum wage.

 

even though your post makes absolutely 0 sense and doesn't conclude any sort of point i think that you are basically saying since one does not grow up with some type of advantage that it's too bad so sad and move on?

there are good rich, but most of the rich are scums, evade taxes, treat consumers like shit and generally practice bad business. Why is it that all the HUGE business' pay 0% tax meanwhile the general poor person pays the most!?! It was created like this! The whole US government is scum and takes advantage of the system for their own benefits.

Fuck the 1%

 

I'm saying that inequality is unavoidable. Are you saying we can avoid inequality?

By evade I assume you mean minimize? As for the treating consumers like shit etc, this is due to the government, which is what you yourself seem to suggest. The present system makes it easy for the rich to succeed and thrive in, and harder for the poor. So therefore I'm assuming you support the abolition of government, or serious structural reform, which is it?

Also, be careful when you say fuck the 1%. Chances are your parents are in the 1%, and I almost guarantee they are in the top 10%. Don't be so arrogant and forget that the average child in america has more money than a large part of the rest of the world.

 

I agree that people will be more and less talented and as a result have more and less advantages. This is entirely arbitrary, however. If a political system cares not only about what is arbitrary, and tries to incorporate what is fair, then the advantages coming from pure luck have to be addressed.

It is not fair that a more intelligent person will be given more opportunities than a less intelligent person. Likewise it is not fair that a person born into an affluent family should be given more opportunities than a person born into poverty. These are results of chance.

The most prominent example of this idea is public schooling. We want to give everyone access to similar levels of opportunities. It wouldn't be fair if impoverished children had no access to education (if schooling was all private this would be the case). The rich certainly suffer from this institution (perhaps they never utilize the public school system, yet are still required to pay for it); but this is not unfair given that their wealth is significantly enabled by arbitrary factors.

As to your good looks example, I look at it less as taxing the talents and more as taxing the institutions enabled by the talents. If good looks unfairly empower someone to acquire wealth and advantage, then yes, this should be equalized somehow. However I should point out that this does not necessarily have to take the form of a tax. For instance, doctors make much more money than construction workers. A narrower range of people will manage to acquire a position as a doctor given the talent requirements. Why should a doctor be paid more than a construction worker? I would argue that it is because of the benefit to society (and the lower denominations) of being able to treat illnesses etc. Indeed, the higher income also provides motivation to undertake the strenuous education required for the position. If the construction worker and the doctor were paid an equal amount, everyone (nearly everyone) would decide to be a construction worker, and society will suffer.
I am basically endorsing a more holistic view which holds preserving what is fair as a necessary function of the government, rather than simply what is.

 

It's not fair that a person born with legs will be given more opportunities than a person born without legs.

You don't break the legs of the former just because he is better off "by chance" to "equalize" the two.

 

Who said that what is required is breaking the legs of the healthy person? Perhaps my word choice is deceptive, I should have used reduce instead of equalize. (Although, strictly speaking, you could equalize positively rather than negatively - invest thousands of dollars into reconstructing the disadvantaged's legs, or something of that nature).

I would say that the person without legs should be compensated for his handicaps, maybe in resources or welfare payments. He has less access to advantage than the healthy person and this is in no way under his control.

 

If the person who has no legs wants to invest thousands into reconstructing his legs, he can. No one is stopping him. He can buy prosthetic limbs or build them himself.

Why should he be compensated?

 

He should be compensated because a liberal society recognizes the unfairness of someone's advantages in life being determined by total chance. We care about control in all fields of society, whether economical, legal etc. Is it not enough that our handicapped person will suffer terribly in his personal life? Why should we insist upon him suffering even more (in his station in society) from something brought on by luck of birth?

Clearly governments care about fairness. I suspect you will have difficulty proving that public schooling, police services, public roads, health services, etc. are not an essential part of government to which every person has access. Unless you want to abandon government altogether (in which case there is no cause for discussion, as I feel like we are discussing forms of government) then you must acknowledge that the government tries to do what is fair, in some sense - and in fact I might argue this is its primary mission.

If the government cares about fairness, I think you will have met your match trying to justify why compensating people for arbitrary handicaps is not fair.

 

Let's see who has met their match. Where does the compensation come from? Is it not stolen from the people with legs? How is this any different than breaking the legs of the able to make it "FAIR" to the people who don't have legs?

 

Because the disadvantages imposed on others are not as severe as the disadvantages of literally breaking their legs. The government wants to ensure fairness for its citizens, and levying taxes to provide welfare is a minimal injustice compared to the greater injustice of allowing lives to be ruined due to uncontrolled handicaps. Similarly the suffering prevented from ambulance services outweighs the suffering conferred by its costs. It's always a trade-off, in my view. You have to figure out how far compensation is justified.

Your criticism does not make sense. Imposing greater suffering and hardships is not a good thing. I am not claiming it is. It becomes a necessary thing if it can prevent more sizeable suffering (the exact nature of this arrangement has to be drawn out). Breaking the legs of everyone else will just bring more suffering, and will not even help the disadvantaged person. We want to help the disadvantaged person at a minimal drain on others.