Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Actually she said that she was requesting that they pay higher taxes.
Maybe she does have the odd idea that the tax system is or should be voluntary. I think she should answer this directly so we can proceed accurately.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
73% support the "Buffett Rule"
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Actually she said that she was requesting that they pay higher taxes.
Maybe she does have the odd idea that the tax system is or should be voluntary. I think she should answer this directly so we can proceed accurately.
Werbung:
The post was actually a little snarky, and I didn't mean it to be. It can be frustrating when individuals don't distinguish between an idea or philosophy and the actions made by individuals purporting to represent those ideals. People do it with communists/socialists/marxists. People do it with Muslims. And people do it with Christians. All of these groups have been responsible for heinous acts, but we have to be discerning enough to separate the different manifestations and conceptions of a philosophy from the philosophy itself.
You are doing that exact thing when you say that it is the 'use of force' that you disagree with. Nothing about that quote, or the concept of social responsibility implies the use of force. Supporting the sentiment behind that particular quote in no way suggests I support the other writings of Marx, or Marxists inspired regimes. You're making a false association. I am not and never have been a Marxists. Social responsibility is a concept as old as the Ancient Greeks, the Confucian texts, and the Bible.
You are right, it isn't necessarily an insult, but it isn't a positive association that you're trying to make. Otherwise it'd be redundant. If I noted that something you said was derived from a philosophy that has been utterly rejected and disparaged in this nation, it would clearly be an attempt to dismiss, undermine, and discredit your position.
It works both ways. If I said that you're position was espoused by Benjamin Franklin, in this country that would very clearly be a reinforcing statement of approval.
Ultimately though, it is always dismissive because it is grouping one individuals beliefs into a category which (you believe) you have already assessed and made up your mind about (such as Marxism)- thus you have less reason to have to take the time to seriously entertain the opposing argument, save to refute it. And you have already set up a cognitive bias that wouldn't otherwise have been there, inadvertently making it near impossible (as studies have shown) that you'll ever be receptive to the points he or I make. And of course, once that cognitive bias is set it is very hard to override even when we want to.
In regards to this last statement, again you are grouping me in with a set of beliefs that deviate far from my own.
Yes, I believe government must legislate. There must be laws to ensure justice. There is nothing immoral about this. We always use 'force' (though keep in mind we're often talking about fines and community service - not 'guns to the head') to ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, as per the Constitution. Part of providing for the general welfare is taxation.
The Constitution was created to tax, because the under the Articles of Confederation the federal government couldn't and the country was falling apart. So no, taxation isn't immoral. It is the duty of people who live in a house to keep it up, or to leave. They are acting immorally when they don't, because others suffer.
Nobody is advocating gross redistribution. We're advocating letting tax cuts expire (and return just a couple percentage points up), on people who have over 1 million dollars. I mean, please, we need to drop the hyperbole. The US government adjusts the tax rate all the time.
Thanks for the welcome GenSeneca. I was hoping to avoid getting too immersed in statistical arguments, because ultimately I've seen statistics that correspond with your argument and statistics that refute it. So engaging in the argument at this level is going to require more research and will most likely end unresolved because of conflicting data, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth engaging in for the sake of better understanding the issue.
Another complications is that both proponents and detractors of the Buffet Rule tend to respond to argument on a number of different levels, and so it is often the case that a statistical reference is made to refute a moral objection and vice versa. What you end up getting, then, is "it doesn't matter if that would benefit x% because it's immoral", "but it's more immoral to adhere to x sort of policies", "well, no - because statistics show...", etc.
My primary argument is philosophical. I don't take issue with people keeping what they earn. I take issue with the notion that any one of us earns what we "earn", for a number of reasons. It would spawn a novel if we were to debate on this abstract a level. For example, if reality is socially constructed, decision making inherently flawed, market decisions constrained by cognitive bias and incomplete information etc, than free will is inherently restrained by social and neurological forces beyond our control. That is a gross simplification of one tiny aspect of the foundation of my belief system.
But it alone seriously impacts this debate, at least insofar as conceptions of value and ownership and the morality of taxation is concerned.
And it becomes hard to debate because people tend to associate some of the conclusions I draw with social philosophies inconsistent with my own. Once they have done that, everything I argue is understood in a different and inaccurate context and I am constantly having to correct for these assumptions. That said, my personal philosophies are by no means sacred. I love hearing arguments against them, but it's hard because my philosophy derives more from social/neuro/behavioral science than it does from political or economic philosophy, and people aren't nearly as familiar with the relevant research in those fields.
But the bottom line is, we're unlikely to agree on the morality of the argument, and it would be exhaustive to pursue that line of argument at this point.
So these are the complications in this style of debate. At some point I'll get into some of the material I mentioned above in a different thread. But for now, you're absolutely correct in noticing that I used 'if' to qualify my statement. So if you want to put all 'moral' issues aside (for now) and just discuss the economics of this buffet rule then I'm game. Let's get to it. If this rule will do nothing to benefit the nation's economy and the people it is intended to help (we'll have to qualify who, exactly, that is) than I will absolutely change my position.
But if we establish that the Buffet Rule will likely benefit the economy, and provide relief (or at least, not burden) for lower-income Americans (which we'll have to quantify), then we can move on to discuss whether we ought to be supporting the poor or taxing the rich and so on. But first lets stick to whether or not the Buffet Rule will function like Obama claims it will.
How about it?
I will add that you make good points, and I don't mean to dismiss them by not addressing. I did want to say a few things, but if we don't approach this systematically, then we probably aren't going to accomplish very much. Who knows if we'll be able to maintain this, but I'm willing to try.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
The same way they are collecting the tax that are in effect at this point. And, I don't have to remind you that those taxes have been MUCH higher in the past, without being considered "unconstitutional!"
So. . . what makes you think that, if a majority of people vote to increase the marginal tax rate on the upper 1%, this would be unconstitutional?
I do not remember the IRS having to use guns under Bill clinton's tax rates, or Reagan's, not even when, between 1960 and 1980, the top tax rate remained above 70% (for income above $400,000 first, than for income as low as $200,000, which, adjusted for inflation, would probably correspond to today's $1 million mark).
Why always being so over dramatic?
In the spirit of my last post, and because we keep talking about the top %1 percent, we need to clarify that the "Buffett Rule" is not asking to tax the top %1, commonly defined as those making $250k annually. Rather it is asking to prevent those with incomes exceeding 1 million dollars annually from paying less in taxes than those in lower tax brackets.
Keep in mind, 99% of small business owners "the job creators", have incomes less than 1 million dollars, and so will not see any increase in taxation per the Buffett Rule.
Ultimately, the rule stipulates that individuals who have incomes exceeding 1 million dollars will no longer be allowed to pay less in taxes than those in lower tax brackets. That is all.
The implications are more involved. And we need to get into those, clearly, to have a meaningful discussion.
But at face value, this (above) is all the Buffett Rule is. It only affects millionaires, and only millionaires who manage to beat the tax system to pay lower effective rates than those in lower tax brackets (like Buffett's secretary), which analyses done by the CRS have found is only about 1/4 of those with incomes exceeding 1 million.
Keep in mind, 99% of small business owners "the job creators", have incomes less than 1 million dollars, and so will not see any increase in taxation per the Buffett Rule.
Ultimately, the rule stipulates that individuals who have incomes exceeding 1 million dollars will no longer be allowed to pay less in taxes than those in lower tax brackets. That is all.
The implications are more involved. And we need to get into those, clearly, to have a meaningful discussion.
But at face value, this (above) is all the Buffett Rule is. It only affects millionaires, and only millionaires who manage to beat the tax system to pay lower effective rates than those in lower tax brackets (like Buffett's secretary), which analyses done by the CRS have found is only about 1/4 of those with incomes exceeding 1 million.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Unless you're going to argue that taxation should be voluntary, my assessment of your position (that you seek to subjugate the will of the individual to the will of the collective through use of government's monopoly on the legal use of force) would appear to be entirely accurate.
Government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. True or False
An individuals failure to comply with the law results in a potential loss of life, liberty, and/or property for that individual. True or False
I never claimed all taxation was immoral.
My only "duty" to my fellow man is that of respecting, by not violating, their individual rights.
There is no moral justification for policies of discrimination.
Historical data from the CBO doesn't support your position, so I can see why you would hope to avoid such arguments.
That's a shame, I would have liked to hear you argue for the morality of slavery.
Lets hear it.
Since you wish to avoid discussing the mountain of actual historical data that says it will not function as claimed, and since you hope to avoid a discussion on the morality of forced labor, you should probably specify the grounds on which you do hope to make your case.
You're intentionally conflating the Progressive Income Tax (PIT) with the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) by ignoring the source of their income:
As Mr. Buffett explained last month, “What I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office.” His income comes mostly from his investments, which are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. His secretary is most likely paid a salary and bonus, which would be taxed as ordinary income, at a rate that goes as high as 35 percent. - NYT
More bad news...
But the president’s plan also has several unintended consequences for people who make far less than $1 million a year. Interest on municipal bonds, for instance, is now tax-free. Under the president’s proposal, only taxpayers who pay an income tax rate of 28 percent or less would continue to get the tax exemption.
Limiting the deduction would surely raise the cost of borrowing for municipalities, a cost that would presumably be passed on to city and state taxpayers. It might also limit the number of people interested in municipal bonds. - NYT
Limiting the deduction would surely raise the cost of borrowing for municipalities, a cost that would presumably be passed on to city and state taxpayers. It might also limit the number of people interested in municipal bonds. - NYT
That is a false statement, this legislation would impact anyone who derives income from investments.
That too is a false statement. They are not 'beating' the tax system, investment income is taxed at the CGT rates while salary and hourly wage incomes are taxed at the PIT rates.
Had Buffet's income been derived from a salary, instead of investments subject to CGT rates, he would have reached the top bracket in the PIT rates and payed a higher % of his income in taxes. Conversely, had his secretary's income been derived from investments, rather than a salary subject to PIT rates, she would have paid a much lower % of her income in taxes.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
By force... That is how laws are enforced.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. - James Madison
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. - James Madison
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - James Madison
There is no Constitutional authority to provide monetary benefits to any specific individual or portion of the population.If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. - James Madison
Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. - James Madison
Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to discriminate against any minority group?
Feel free to argue that people are not forced to pay taxes. Seriously, argue that a failure to comply with the tax code doesn't result in men with guns showing up at your door to deprive your of your life, liberty, and/or property. I'd really like to hear that argument.
Beneath the velvet glove of a soft tyranny is the iron fist of a totalitarian government.
clarkatticus
Well-Known Member
You seem to believe that the Constitution is the extent of what we call government, and that the wording and meaning are carved in stone. Each generation adds to what is our government and defines it in it's own image. The forefathers knew as much and predicted this result. You are welcome to disagree on any point you want, but when it is passed into law, it is what it is. I still believe in the idea of passive resistance and if what the 99%ers do result in arrest I am all for it, especially if it leads to what I believe is a better future. You are welcome to the same outlet of expression.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Taxation is the cost of living and doing business in the US. In fact, it is the cost of living and doing business in ALL developed countries.
If you don't like. . .you are free to leave. But until you manage (which I'm sure you would love to do as a Liberterian and . . .if my suspicion is correct, an Infowar follower) to live off YOUR land, and not use any road, any water, any electricity, and means of production. . .you are reaping rewards from the taxes you pay.
And it seems quite obvious that the rewards reaped by the top 1% (and especially by the top 0.5%) are not only much greater proportionally than the 99%ers, but that their "foot print" on our country is much greater.
I said that you could not determine my ideology simply from an endorsement of the sentiment of the quote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". There is no implication here that I think the government ought to do this rather than the Church or an NGO, and there is no indication that I believe this should be doctrine rather than an admirable suggestion.
So yes, you jumped the gun entirely by assuming "that seek to subjugate the will of the individual to the will of the collective through use of government's monopoly on the legal use of force".
And about that; the individual will is and always has been subjugated to the will of the collective through "use of the government's monopoly on the legal use of force" (that last bit is redundant). It's only a matter of extent and purpose. And every ideology accepts this (except anarchism) to some extent. So even if I had suggested that we enforce the sentiment of the quote through government action you can't possibly have grouped me in with a particular ideology just from that fact alone. There are virtually infinite variations on this theme.
Yes, government depends upon a monopoly on the legal use of force. Failure to comply could result in any manner of consequence. You seem to be repeating me. I said already that government always uses force, and my example was taxation. Let's revisit the context.
You were saying that a use of force to 'coerce' people to act in accordance with 'my will' is immoral. First of all, we were talking about the collective will, not mine, but I'll let that slide.
I was pointing out that government does this all the time, and using taxation as an example. I then said the obvious, that taxation is not immoral (just talking general taxation as per the Constitution now). So if taxation is not immoral in-and-of-itself, then using government force to 'coerce' people to act in accordance with the collective will (e.g. to have infrastructure and defense paid for), can't be immoral in-and-of-itself. It is clearly more complex.
Again, you said that the government using force at the expense of the individual for the sake of the collective was immoral. That's taxation. You clearly had in mind redistributive taxation, but that isn't what you said. Again, if not all forms of taxation are immoral, than not all forms of coercion by the government for the good of the collective are immoral. That was the only point.
That's one conception of 'duty'. But regardless, the argument can be made that you violate others' rights when consequences of your 'free' actions adversely affect them, which happens all the time in a free market. That's not necessarily a problem, but it's a valid position to say it is.
There are plenty of moral justifications, and libraries full of them. Whether or not you agree with them is another matter.
That's rather snide of you. I explained myself and said afterwards that I am willing to go there if you'd like to. I was disparaging the easiness with which statistics can be manipulated by both sides.
You lack appreciation for degree. A tax increase has very little in common with slavery. I'm sure your argument can stand on its own without the use of so much provocative hyperbole.
We've got enough on our plate, clearly, just trying to communicate the most simple points to each other.
Actually that quote of mine was an invitation to discuss the 'mountain of historical data'.
I read that article, and I realize that most of Buffett's taxable income came from capital gains.
His gross income was about 62.9 million.
But, of course, he donates a lot to charity and takes advantage of various deductions, etc. so he only paid taxes on about 39 million of that 62.9 million. Of that taxable income, he would up paying 17.4%. Unfortunately I haven't found any good breakdown telling me what proportion of that income consisted of capital gains. So there's not much more we can do unless Buffett releases his full tax return.
Regardless, the point Buffett is making is that he earns 63 million dollars a year and pays less in taxes than his secretary, and the CRS reports that this is true of about a quarter of millionaires. I'm not sure people care all that much the source of the income. People still find it inherently unfair.
Again, I read that article, and that point concerns me, although I haven't spent enough time looking in to it. But you're lumping in other aspects of the jobs bill. This goes beyond the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule is the rule concerning tax rates for millionaires, not interest on municipal bonds.
Actually, the impression I get is that it will not raise taxes on capital gains for anyone making under 1 million dollars. But I'm open to hearing your thoughts; elaborate.
You're right, I shouldn't have used the word 'beating'. While that may be the case as well, it isn't relevant to the Buffett Rule. I concede that point.
And I understand and appreciate the distinction you are making.
But again, people are reacting to a sense of injustice - they aren't particularly concerned about the source of the income. At the end of the day, Buffett has a lower tax burden proportionally than those in a lower tax bracket and that seems unjust to a large proportion of the American public.
But again, my primary concern is whether or not the Buffett rule will be effective in raising revenue without having a comparable adverse impact on the economy.
So let's clarify how the Buffett rule aims to adjust for the difference in expected tax contribution and actual tax contribution for those making over 1 million dollars and then we can check out your data on whether or not similar policies have succeeded in the past and why/why not.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The end of our Republic certainly was predicted at the beginning...
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money." - Alexis de Tocqueville
Half the country is exempt from, and/or a beneficiary of, the Progressive Income Tax system and the numbers are growing. A majority of Americans receive some form of government assistance and those numbers are also on the rise.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Progressive taxation was always unconstitutional whether people you know considered them to be or not.
The higher rates of the past to the extent that they were progressive were unconstitutional then and are now.
If a majority of people vote to make Islam illegal but do not amend the constitution that would not make their laws constitutional. The amount of support is irrelevant. One only need ask if there is a constitutional article authorizing such a law. (there is not) or if it follows the rule of law (it does not). Ask yourself if it is "uniform and equitable" as required by the const. Or ask if there is "equal protection under the law" (there is not).
Doc you are obviously neglecting to reference the Social Contract which accounts for all this as its the REAL supreme law of the land (as muttered under the breath at oaths of office). Its at the National Archives but we the proletariat are not permitted to see it.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Openmind;17 [QUOTE said:
Yes we all reap rewards. They are supposed to be given to the population at large and available for everyone to access. Like a road - everyone can access it equally. Not like a bail out or a different tax rate.
If the rich are in fact being given rewards available to no one else then the correct solution is to stop giving them those rewards. It would not be correct to simply make a deal with them that since they get such and such they should give such and such - that will always lead to collusions between the rich and congress which is the exact opposite of what we want.
Bu I am not so sure your premise is even right to begin with. The poor are given a whole lot that I do not have, like welfare. The middle class is given a whole lot that the poor do not have, like mortgage deductions, The middle class and the poor are given a lot that the rich don't have, like a lower rate of taxation. Until we list all the examples who really gets more? I think it is high time congress stopped giving so many people special treatment and started treating everyone as equals under the law which is what our country is actually based on.
Werbung:
Openmind
Well-Known Member
It taxing is unconstitutional, the constitution is not as "smart" as our founders wanted it to be.
And, personally I prefer to be in peace with my conscience than with any constitution. If laws are wrong, they should be changed. And some of them have been.
Similar threads
