How tax breaks work

Remove all ads!

Bah.

There is nothing smug or patronizing about it. It is reality. For a man who pays nothing to complain about a man who pays a lot getting a discount (or a tax refund) is morally wrong.

Note, the post and I have never said that the rich man doesn't have a responsibility to pay more as I believe he does. He has benefited more from society and has an obligation to pay it forward.

However, all the whining by people who don't pay anything is very annoying. Such attitudes as "screw him.. let him pay" have doomed many a person into thinking the "man" owes him. Despising the rich for being rich is very petty.

As to not being able to play old games in XP, for Christ's sake man, give up the past or just keep some old 386 laying around somewhere.

 

It's a funny thing that people do, Snook. If someone holds an apposing philosophical point of view from their own then they automatically assume the detractors just don't understand the problem fully. You've been a member of this forum for more than three years and I assume you have read more than a few threads...was it not obvious to you that most of the people who post here did not need your anecdote to understand tax breaks? Considering the audience you were addressing, your post was exceedingly patronizing. The fact that it is accurate (except for the richest man not coming to the table, bah indeed) does not mean it is not condescending. No rational person hates the rich for being rich, that is a ridiculous statement which was laughable at first; but after hearing the hollow jab echoed hundreds of times it is just tedious. Just so that we are clear on something, the "man" owes me nothing -- I've never felt differently about this. I concede that "screw him, let him pay" was too strong a sentiment. My point was that Gates could pay nearly any percentage of his income in taxes with impunity...the bottom 90% of us cannot, why not let him pay.

 

Because if he pays everything, then we are basically his servants/slaves.

 

Servitude/slavery is determined by exercising control, not being a benefactor.

 

I don't see what's morally wrong about it to be honest. In fact, I can't even make the connection to how taxation or tax breaks can be considered a moral topic. First of all, there is no such thing as a person paying nothing, unless said person doesn't have an income, in which case he has nothing to pay, and is actually receiving welfare and food stamps and the like.

Secondly, the rich man is paying taxes on his excess. If he loses an additional few percent from his gross income, it doesn't nearly effective him as much as it does the poor man. Similarly, the poor man who is paying very little, could use additional money much more than the rich man whose tax break simply translates into additional disposable income and play money.

 

Aldeth, did you actually read the post? The point is people who do not pay any taxes (otherwise known as a 0) do not benefit from a tax cut. Nor should they. By definition in order to receive a tax cut you must have paid some taxes. Whenever a nation approves we hear a gnashing of the teeth from the "advocates for the poor" that they didn't get anything. Well of course they didn't get anything, they didn't pay anything.

That is what the anecdote is trying to prove. People who eat for free don't have a right to complain that the meal they are meeting doesn't cost someone else as much anymore.

The thread had nothing to do with if the rich have an obligation to pay taxes. There is also nothing wrong with the rich keeping more of their money. After all it is theirs.

Maybe I'm just getting cranky, but isn't this bloody obvious?

 

The Earned Income Credit makes that statement false, and proves that you CAN get soemthing for nothing.

 

Every analogy limps.

The tax system is not like ten men at a restaurant---that is childishly simplistic---the tax system is like the tax system.

Capital is the exchangable currency of work done, whether that work is the collection of natural resources, the refinement and manipulation of those resources, or the management of the people working upon those resources. This allows a very large group of people, which we call society, to coordinate work and complete tasks that would otherwise be too unwieldly given the large system of communication which would be required.

The highest authority of society is the government: the government manages the people who manage the people, as well as manages other tasks which are deemed (by the government) too vital as to be separated from its mantle of authority. The government also completes tasks which do not fit within the framework of capitalism. The classic example is the construction and management of a lighthouse: how do you charge people for using a lighthouse? How do you charge people for being fed when they have done no work and have no capital? The government completes these tasks.

The government requires work in order to exist---the government requires capital. Every person devotes a fraction of their work towards the existence of the government.

So why should those whom devote the most valued work towards the existence of the government also be charged a premium on top of their allotted share?

The role of the government is ultimately to manage society in such a way as to complete tasks which would otherwise be too difficult to complete had the government not existed---the government multiplies the effectiveness of the top echelon of society.

CEO's exist because the government provides the stability which allows corporations to exist. Owners of businesses exist because the government provides the stability which allows the businesses to exist. And so they pay a premium on top of their allotted share.

And who decides what the government does? While in a democracy a populist movement does hold the ultimate veto, it is the upper echelon of society whom stand closest to the mantle of authority---and they pay a premium for their proximity.

The gradient tax system is nothing more than payment upon services rendered, and it is the richest of society whom are rendered the most service---the fairness of the system is plain.

So what happens when the government gives a tax break that alters the gradient? The government has then not just altered the fraction that all must contribute, but it has also then lowered the premium upon which it is charging for premier services. The debt amassing will eventually render the government incapable of giving such effective premier service; and when that happens, all of society is hurt as the top echelon---the managers of people---become less effective.

The debt of the American government is going to hurt many, many people, not all of whom are American. It is not just the fault of a diminishing gradient that it exists; but a diminishing gradient does not help the problem, rather it exacerbates it.

I am going to vote for candidates whom are going to cut social programs as well as raise taxes. I don't think that leaves me with a political party, but that is a problem that is out of my control.

[ July 23, 2006, 10:38: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Fascinating perspectives, LNT.

 

Agreed. I apologize for a poorly worded point. What I was trying to say was that most households have a least one working member, and thus, pay taxes. Therefore, when you lower taxes by 2%, the poorest receive the least benefit, as 2% more of virtually no disposable income, is still virtually no disposable income.