Support NeoGAF

[Frank the Great]

Ummm, disproportionate taxation? The capital gains tax is 15% while the average worker is taxed 36-39%. The truly wealthy don't make their money from earned income, they make them from investments that use the capital gains tax.

But if the wealthy pay less taxes, they will produce more jobs for the poor.

DUH

 

[Diablos]

People shouldn't ever bring up the ideal of "hard work" while defending the disparity in taxation between earned and unearned income.

 

[Gaborn]

It has to do with the hopelessly naive idea that people who make more money work harder.

Gaborn probably thinks inheritance tax/estate taxes are 'death taxes' in any case.

They are, just because someone dies what gives the government a right to that money, it did nothing to earn it except outlive the person who did.

 

[scorcho]

ah, trickle down economics. whoever created that should be in an especially hot section of hell.

 

[Azih]

Howso? Just because the person benefiting isn't the one that earned it directly

So you admit then that individuals can have an income that they did not earn.

 

[Azih]

it did nothing to earn it except outlive the person who did

Once again you are repeating the statement already proven false that a person who has a lot of money necessarily earned it. You already know that isn't true and yet you keep repeating it time and again

 

[avatar299]

That's exactly why I said that there needs to be an amendment to limit the President's war-making powers.

In the Roman principate, they had a senate that simply did whatever the "First Citizen" told them to. Sometimes, that's how it feels today.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?

FDR sold weapons to Britain secretly at the start of WW2. Without those war-making powers he could have been jailed as a traitor and impeached.

You don't know the future.

 

[Stinkles]

They are, just because someone dies what gives the government a right to that money, it did nothing to earn it except outlive the person who did.

I agree with Gaborn to the tune of about 75%. I don't think the govt should simply snatch it all up - but Estate taxes do in theory help prevent what is already being created in the US: A defacto aristocracy - the same thing the US declared independence from and something most of the founding fathers bitched about.

If there were some way to compel the ridiculously wealthy inheritors to do good for the country, it would be less of an issue. Although I would like to live Billy Madison's life. So I am torn.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Right, money pops out of the air. At some point, whether it's from a product, a service, or whatever, somebody earned that money.



So the solution is to tax income MORE? How does that even begin to make sense?

Because the wealthier you are, the more ways you have to circumvent the tax system to pay lower rates or not pay a tax on some of your income at all.

There are so many ways to avoid paying taxes, or to lower your taxes, and the vast majority of them are exclusive to the super-rich.

Someone who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars per year is going to probably be investing the vast majority of their income, while someone who makes, say, 25-30k per year isn't going to be investing too much. The rich person ends up paying a lower tax rate because they have the financial flexibility to take advantage of any and every 'loophole', so to speak.

 

[Gaborn]

So you admit then that individuals can have an income that they did not earn.

I don't consider an inheritance income in the way you do, that seems a little bit cold. But yes, I suppose so. Still, that money WAS ultimately earned by someone, no?

Gaime Guy - The answer then is to close loopholes, none of that justifies raising the income tax rate on someone simply because they earn more.

Stinkles - a de facto aristocracy isn't by itself a problem, nor is it clear why it should be avoided.

 

[deadbeef]

That's exactly why I said that there needs to be an amendment to limit the President's war-making powers.

In the Roman principate, they had a senate that simply did whatever the "First Citizen" told them to. Sometimes, that's how it feels today.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?

But constitutionally, the President has no war-making powers, right?. What war-making powers he may be wielding are powers that the Executive branch has just sort of claimed as their own based on earlier weak-willed sessions of Congress who don't want to be held responsible for a war, so they don't declare one - they call it a "police action", or a "conflict", or a "use of force".

 

[avatar299]

It has to do with the hopelessly naive idea that people who make more money work harder.

They do.

When you are talking about taxes, you shouldn't focus solely on the super rich and the extreme poor.

 

[Gaborn]

Once again you are repeating the statement already proven false that a person who has a lot of money necessarily earned it. You already know that isn't true and yet you keep repeating it time and again

Well, ok, name one person who has money today that was not at some point earned? Hell, the Vanderbilts, were shipping barons, the Morgans were steel barons, etc. They didn't always just have money at some point one of their ancestors got into their business and were successful at it.

Dice-Man - look up what Teddy Roosevelt did with the US Navy when he wanted to send them around the world to show them off essentially and congress at the time appropriated half the money only.

 

[Stinkles]

Stinkles - a de facto aristocracy isn't by itself a problem, nor is it clear why it should be avoided.

I suppose, as a Libertarian, you would embrace the idea of a group of manor-born lords automatically having the right to legislate and even displace you from your land? That's the House of Lords. An eventual possible outcome of a defacto aristocracy. All true aristocracies begin with defacto ones. Either by force or money.

Last time we had this it was called the Gilded Age and it ended in the Great Depression.

 

[Gaborn]

I suppose, as a Libertarian, you would embrace the idea of a group of manor-born lords automatically having the right to legislate and even displace you from your land? That's the House of Lords. An eventual possible outcome of a defacto aristocracy. All true aristocracies begin with defacto ones. Either by force or money.

Last time we had this it was called the Gilded Age and it ended in the Great Depression.

No, there's a difference between a de facto aristocracy and an aristocracy. The problem with an aristocracy is they have legislative power taking away from the people. A de facto aristocracy just means they're a bit more isolated from society with enough money that they don't need to be concerned with most petty annoyances the rest of us have.

I oppose aristocracies, de facto aristocracy isn't BY ITSELF a problem. (though I'd blame the federal reserve moreso for the great depression in addition to the smoot-hawley tariff)

 

[Stinkles]

No, there's a difference between a de facto aristocracy and an aristocracy. The problem with an aristocracy is they have legislative power taking away from the people. A de facto aristocracy just means they're a bit more isolated from society with enough money that they don't need to be concerned with most petty annoyances the rest of us have.

I know what it is, I am suggesting a possible outcome. We've had about 4000 years of civilization and revolution, with constant repetitions of patterns.

 

[theBishop]

ah, trickle down economics. whoever created that should be in an especially hot section of hell.

it works great for the people who designed it.

 

[Gaborn]

I know what it is, I am suggesting a possible outcome. We've had about 4000 years of civilization and revolution, with constant repetitions of patterns.

Yes, and one pattern is a de facto aristocracy doesn't stir unless there is a perceived need to because their interests are threatened. Why bother with seizing power when you already have what you want?

 

[Stinkles]

Why bother with seizing power when you already have what you want?

Why does a billionaire fight for bigger tax breaks?

 

[Gaborn]

Why does a billionaire fight for bigger tax breaks?

Well, for the same reason a middle class person or even lower income would, because more money ultimately gives you a better ability to do things you need or want to do. A billionaire though probably doesn't have a whole lot of income in the first place that is taxed.

 

[avatar299]

Last time we had this it was called the Gilded Age and it ended in the Great Depression.

The Gilded age ended long before the Great Depression

 

[kkaabboomm]

it works great for the people who designed it.

quote of the day, good sir. quote of the day.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The Gilded age ended long before the Great Depression

I think he means to say that the events of the Gilded Age contributed to the eventual appearance of the Great Depression, not that one necessarily lead into the other.

 

[Stinkles]

The Gilded age ended long before the Great Depression

I was talking about the baronies it created, but you're right, that was shitty wording.

 

[soul creator]

Well, ok, name one person who has money today that was not at some point earned? Hell, the Vanderbilts, were shipping barons, the Morgans were steel barons, etc. They didn't always just have money at some point one of their ancestors got into their business and were successful at it.

descendants of slave owners

Spoiler

can of worms?

 

[Gaborn]

descendants of slave owners

Spoiler

can of worms?

Yeah... I'm not going to touch that one much, although I will say that since most slaves were PURCHASED in fact they still had to get the money to acquire them from somewhere.

 

[KRS7]

Yeah... I'm not going to touch that one much, although I will say that since most slaves were PURCHASED in fact they still had to get the money to acquire them from somewhere.

You have got to be shitting me. They earned that income because they had to come up with the money to purchase slaves?

Would you say if I come at you with a gun and rob you blind I earned it? After all I had to pay for the gun, learn how to use it, and had to make the effort and take the risk to steal from you. Seems fair to me.

 

[Gaborn]

You have got to be shitting me. They earned that income because they had to come up with the money to purchase slaves?

Would you say if I come at you with a gun and rob you blind I earned it? After all I had to pay for the gun, learn how to use it, and had to make the effort and take the risk to steal from you. Seems fair to me.

No, what I meant was, if you look especially at the American south during the civil war and pre-civil war days a relatively small percentage of land owners owned slaves, and they usually owned multiple slaves when they purchased them. The morality of owning slavery is absolutely atrocious, but since he was addressing my question of people who got money they didn't earn, my point I was TRYING to make is that they didn't become rich because they owned slaves, they owned slaves because they were rich.

To your gun example, of course not, but if Bill Gates decided to rob you at gun point would you say that all of his money was stolen just because some of it was?

 

[User 10639]

ah, trickle down economics. whoever created that should be in an especially hot section of hell.

But it works!

 

[avatar299]

No, what I meant was, if you look especially at the American south during the civil war and pre-civil war days a relatively small percentage of land owners owned slaves, and they usually owned multiple slaves when they purchased them. The morality of owning slavery is absolutely atrocious, but since he was addressing my question of people who got money they didn't earn, my point I was TRYING to make is that they didn't become rich because they owned slaves, they owned slaves because they were rich.

To your gun example, of course not, but if Bill Gates decided to rob you at gun point would you say that all of his money was stolen just because some of it was?

history sure does upset people.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Michelle Obama Speaking at Women's Luncheon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8XK0XIGxC8

The National Partnership for Women & Families 2008 Annual Luncheon June 20, 2008.

 

[Hitokage]

history sure does upset people.

That's why libertarians ignore the 19th century.

 

[Acid08]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_lcl_4dpvHw

Shit like this gives you Republicans a bad name. Republican politics are nothing but slander and trying to combine church and state.

 

[avatar299]

That's why libertarians ignore the 19th century.

We learn from our mistakes.

 

[Gaborn]

That's why libertarians ignore the 19th century.

and liberals ignore the great depression which started 20 years after the fed started artificially inflating the money supply and was exacerbated by the smoot-hawley tariff act.

 

[thekad]

and liberals ignore the great depression which started 20 years after the fed started artificially inflating the money supply and was exacerbated by the smoot-hawley tariff act.

You're the first person I've seen blame a tariff for the Great Depression. But you always surprise me.

 

[avatar299]

You're the first person I've seen blame a tariff for the Great Depression. But you always surprise me.

Wow...just wow.

Are you laying down?

 

[Slurpy]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_lcl_4dpvHw

Shit like this gives you Republicans a bad name. Republican politics are nothing but slander and trying to combine church and state.

Thats Michelle fucking Malkin. She's the very definition of a piece of shit.

 

[Gaborn]

You're the first person I've seen blame a tariff for the Great Depression. But you always surprise me.

Not that I'm alone in believing it was a contributing factor. Again though, most of the blame is on the artificial inflation of the money supply the fed caused between 1913 and 1929. It's just that the smoot-hawley tariff essentially destroyed the incentive of our farmers shipping overseas and thus destroyed the farm industry by overinflating the market here with crops that people couldn't consume.

For that matter. Seriously, didn't you study this at all back in highschool or college?

 

[Acid08]

Thats Michelle fucking Malkin. She's the very definition of a piece of shit.

It's a Daily Show segment. Fox News is the definition of propaganda.

 

[Mandark]

Well, ok, name one person who has money today that was not at some point earned? Hell, the Vanderbilts, were shipping barons, the Morgans were steel barons, etc. They didn't always just have money at some point one of their ancestors got into their business and were successful at it.

If you describe inherited wealth as "at some point earned" because an ancestor worked for it in the distant past, then it must also be called "at some point stolen" if it was taken by threat of force in the distant past.

Which describes all the real estate in the entire world when you get right down to it.

 

[Gaborn]

If you describe inherited wealth as "at some point earned" because an ancestor worked for it in the distant past, then it must also be called "at some point stolen" if it was taken by threat of force in the distant past.

Which describes all the real estate in the entire world when you get right down to it.

oh come on. Seriously? If you want to get technical going even further back at some point there was 1 human, and then more, and then more, and then more... and there wasn't any theft that was practically possible. Real estate is a different matter entirely though and gets into an entirely different can of worms. we're talking about income taxes not property taxes, and while the later can complicate the former that's a layer of complexity that is needless.

 

[Zaptruder]

Yes and no. A high income person and a low income person can both work hard at different jobs. The problem isn't hard work vs less hard work, the problem is that despite working hard (which isn't to say someone at a lower income level isn't doing so) a person at a higher income is often disproportionately taxed so that their harder work results in a greater percentage of their labor going to the government and less of an ability to benefit from their job.

The premise of using flat percentages is only acceptable if you believe that every dollar earned has the same utility to a person, be it his 100th dollar, or his billionth.

Otherwise that person is simply utilizing his position granted by society maintained by the government, to produce an earning disproportionate of the effort he has put into it. In that sense, that man is lucky that he isn't taxed in such away that his final earnings fairly represents his hardwork or lack thereof.

But also this;

Ummm, disproportionate taxation? The capital gains tax is 15% while the average worker is taxed 36-39%. The truly wealthy don't make their money from earned income, they make them from investments that use the capital gains tax.

Bubububu.

Yeah, no responses. Go on ahead ignoring whatever is convenient to your cognitive dissonance then; just so long as you realise you form points and arguments without taking into account important factors and variables, ultimately resulting in an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Mandark]

Gaborn: I haven't been following the discussion, so I'm not sure exactly what's being argued about.

But it's hard for me to think of a context where referring to inherited wealth as "at some point earned" isn't being way disingenuous.

 

[Gaborn]

The premise of using flat percentages is only acceptable if you believe that every dollar earned has the same utility to a person, be it his 100th dollar, or his billionth.

Otherwise that person is simply utilizing his position granted by society maintained by the government, to produce an earning disproportionate of the effort he has put into it. In that sense, that man is lucky that he isn't taxed in such away that his final earnings fairly represents his hardwork or lack thereof.

Well, yes, absolutely. People that make more money have more spending power and can get more use out of it. I don't actually see that as a problem.

Mandark - It has to do with the income tax and people that are upset that the some people inherit money. I'm saying that the people that inherit it didn't earn it themselves, but their family did and they have a basic reasonable right to it, I'm not going to go back 50 generations or something though, but very few people keep their wealth THAT long in that regard. At the same time it's ridiculous in my view to punish, say, a father that worked all his life to give his children a big inheritance by taking a significant portion of that money. or even say a grandfather, or a great grandmother or something. At some point even if the inhetitors didn't do much to earn it the government did NOTHING to lay claim to it.

 

[thekad]

Gaborn: The Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed mid-1930. The bubble burst in 1929.

If you want to argue that the tariff did nothing, but worsen the effects of the depression then that is all fine and dandy. But to blame the depression on a tariff when unemployment was already running toward record highs is silly.

 

[KRS7]

Gaborn is correct about the Smoot-Hawley act really fucking things up. It likely lengthened the effects of the stock market crash. I don't exactly get how "liberals ignore" such things. You also cannot ignore what was happening with our trading partners in Europe and Asia at the time. There was a lot of shit going on in the thirties.

 

[Gaborn]

Gaborn: The Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed mid-1930. The bubble burst in 1929.

If you want to argue that the tariff did nothing, but worsen the effects of the depression then that is all fine and dandy. But to blame the depression on a tariff when unemployment was already running toward record highs is silly.

Read what I said. The tariff did NOT cause the great depression, it worsened it. You've also completely and totally ignored what I said was responsible for 90% of the great depression (which was small hyperbole, I'd say more accurately 70ish percent)

 

[User 10639]

Read what I said. The tariff did NOT cause the great depression, it worsened it. You've also completely and totally ignored what I said was responsible for 90% of the great depression (which was small hyperbole, I'd say more accurately 70ish percent)

You searched for "smoot hawley caused stock market crash" on google.

 

[thekad]

Actually, I did read your original statement wrong. Whoops :lol Apologies.