Unfair Taxes Burden the Working Class

[Scott]

If you haven't already, check out my recent blog post about unfair taxes: Unfair Taxes and Poverty

Basically, I contend that taxing property ownership and usury instead of income paid for labor would help alleviate the unfair economic burden put on the working class, which in turn would help alleviate poverty.

What do you think? Would you prefer that the government tax property ownership and usury instead of income paid for labor? Why or why not?
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Bloefeld2002]

The Working Class? Mr. Marx is good and dead Scott.

The reality in the USA is that more people do not pay income tax than do. The working class as you so eloquently put it, do not pay taxes anyway. So where it the harm to them.

Corporations do not pay taxes, they collect taxes. Rich people do not eat money, they spend it. Spending it creates jobs for the 'working class.'

Taxing everyone is economically bad, but there is no difference at which point you tax someone.

Your proposition is absurd, usury is an idiotic term reserved for those who either don't understand the market or don't like it. I think you don't like it.

You seem to believe that only 'smart' people like you or the Clinton's et al should decide how the rest of us dummies should live.

You would want us to give you power over our lives in exchange for us not having to bother with thinking for ourselves.

The government has a really necessary role in our existence, but every ounce of power we give to the government is power we take from ourselves.

Tax consumption and nothing else if you really crave fairness. Then all taxes are more or less voluntary.

People not capable of generating income excess to their needs will pay proportionately more tax. But it will also be proportional to what they can produce.

Nothing can cure stupidity. Poverty is factually more often than not caused by stupidity and ignorance than by any other thing. Ignorance because even given the opportunity at education, stupid people cannot make use of it.

So poverty is always going to be with us, just as it always has been.

[Scott]

Bloefeld2002,

Thanks for your reply!

I am not a Marxist, but there are still many around today.

The working class does pay taxes. In fact, many working-class people have to pay a higher percentage than the rich. Consider the example I gave in the blog post to which I linked in the first post: Warren Buffett pays a smaller percentage than his secretary (a working-class woman).

I do not think 'usury' is an idiotic term; why do you say that it is? It refers to people who make an income by lending money at an interest, which are generally unproductive people whose money makes money for them.

I adamantly support freedom and am not proposing that me or anyone else dominate others. Generally speaking, I am a supporter of free-trade and free-market economics.

I agree with you that every ounce of power we give to the government is power we take from ourselves. As such, I like as much power to be taken away from government as possible. For one, I want the government to stop taxing working-class people--or at least tax them less.

What do you mean by taxing consumption? If you mean taxing the ownership of natural resources, then I agree that that is preferable to an income tax on money paid for labor. If you mean a sales tax, then I would worry that would disable poorer people from buying even the most basic products.

What do you mean when you say, "People not capable of generating income excess to their needs will pay proportionately more tax. But it will also be proportional to what they can produce."

I think you are clearly mistaken when you say that poverty is caused by stupidity and ignorance. The main factor in whether or not a person is poor is the socioeconomic status of the family in which the are born. People born into poverty will most likely end up in poverty or close to it if they have average abilities. People born rich will most likely remain rich without much effort if they have average abilities. Exceptional people often are exceptions to general trends.

Finally, in the original post, I forgot to point out that, in theory, I oppose all forms of taxation. My overall point is simply that I prefer excessive property ownership to be taxed rather than income paid for labor. I believe that would help laborers retain the fruits of their labor while hinder those who get money simply by having "ownership" of natural resources.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Bloefeld2002]

Hi Scott,

Who decides what is too much property?

If Warren Buffet received all of his income in salary he would pay half of it to the government. He gets most of his compensation in stock options.

There is one Warren Buffet, he can buy his secretary by the pound. He is rare and she pretty much isn't.

I ask you why if you have a savings account your getting paid interest is any different than Warren investing in an insurance company and making the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway goes up because he makes a wise investment? They are identical in every way but scale.

The facts do not support your assertion with regard to wealth creation. The evidence is that within three generations all wealth in a family is normally completely undissipated.

On the other hand, going to school, working hard at it, and getting a high-school diploma is all that is needed to get out of poverty in this country. The problem is that stupid people can't get a high-school diploma and lowering the bar just gets a labor force that is too stupid to do the real work that needs to get done.

Average people are not in poverty, so I stand by my statement that stupid people (not their fault, no blame, but reality) are also more likely to be poor people. You can parse this out quite easily by checking recent census data and IQ data over the past 50 or so years.

A good job isn't a right. It requires a good tool kit. A generation ago it didn't, it required a strong back and good work habits. Those jobs can still be had for a couple of bucks a day in China and elsewhere. They no longer exist here or anywhere else in the western world. The industries that made those jobs are bankrupted by their labour cost and their union obligations. That is the reality at play. No amount of wishing it weren't so won't make it so.

However in a just society, the wealthy make certain that the poor are not abject. There is no reason in America to in abject poverty without trying to be.

That is a result of taxing everyone who can be taxed. Remember in your calculus that although Warren Buffett may pay less tax proportionate, he and other rich guys pay most if not all of the tax that is paid.

The middle class has disappeared in an effort on the part of the Government to define poverty at what is really in the past a middle class real income.

When I say that most of the people in America do not pay taxes I mean in a net way. Most people get more goods and services out of the government than they put in. Except of course poor old Warren who pays much more in a week than he will ever get out in a lifetime.

[Bloefeld2002]

Sorry one last thing, taxing consumption is a Value Added tax, the GST in Canada, the VAT in the EU and your state sales tax.

If you don't buy a bunch of stuff you don't need, you don't get taxed at all.

[Scott]

[Daniel Owen]

[Daniel Owen]

Usury is a crime and in a just society would be punishable by death. It is parasitism -- just like capitalist exploitation of surplus value.
_________________
"What does not kill me, makes me stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche

[Daniel Owen]

Nobody should decide if a person has too much property. It is obvious if they do. If, as Locke said, property is based on "mixing one's labour with nature" than all property unused by the owner does not rightfully belong to them. The products of labour belong to the labourer who creates them, land and other natural resources belong to communities generally if someone is not using them personally.
_________________
"What does not kill me, makes me stronger." Friedrich Nietzsche

[Scott]

I do want to make it clear that I am only proposing imposing and/or increasing property taxes on those people who use more natural resources than they need.

For people just barely getting by and for the poor, I want property taxes to be lowered or eliminated.

In other words, I think there is a line below which is poverty and above which is luxury. That is the line where I would suggest starting to charge taxes.

What do you all think?
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Belinda]

[innocentbystander]

Property is taxed, though tax abatements are often given to commercial enterprises to get them to set up shop in ones district.

As far as I know, accrued interest is also taxed.

[Scott]

[Toronto]

They should at least stop taxing tobacco/cigarettes so ridiculously. That is seriously just a way of taxing/**** over the poor (since it is predominately poor people that smoke cigarettes).

[Belinda]

I cannot make myself any clearer, Scott because I know little of political philsosophy. Thanks for your answer.

As for how taxation should be assessed I think that there should be a minimum income for each person, based on need as compared with national or global average. After that basic need is allowed, I think that due rewards are allocated as incentives, but not rewards that the man in the street thinks is excessive. If excessive, rewards should be taxed at least 50%.Taxation can be based on earnings or estate or both.

Some will slip through the net, but criminals are always with us.