by Luke De Boer on Friday, December 11, 2009 at 6:50pm
I was listening to Jason Lewis the other day and he said, "We have become a nation of thieves." What Jason was alluding to was a recent poll that posits that approximately 60% of Americans believe we should increase spending to increase jobs and pay for it by taxing the rich.
Is this right morally?
How have we come to this point? We currently have approximately 35% of our population either not paying any taxes at all OR they are ending with a net gain at year end*. Think about this question for a second, "What is the purpose of a tax?" Aren't taxes essentially an exchange of goods? We pay in $X in order to get a return, such as protection against illegitimate force, roads, etc. Knowing this about taxes, that a tax is a transaction (an exchange of goods), how is it that we feel that it is morally just to allow 35% of our country to objectively gain from the system? They benefit equally as those who do actually pay taxes and yet their cost is literally nothing. We are seeing the proverbial robbing of Peter to pay Paul happen right before our eyes.
If this wasn't enough we apparently have an entire segment who believes that those who actually are shouldering the load should take on more responsibility, even if it is against their will. If we used this moral philosophy in our personal lives we would all be mugging every other person we meet so long as we gave most of it to our favorite charity.
That being said, there is a theoretical way to ensure true justice in taxation. After all, a truly equal system would be one in which no one would benefit to a greater degree than another. In a truly just (just as in blind justice, not social justice) and fair world a tax would be equal. For example, if a road cost $10,000 to build and there were 10,000 people in that particular community, then the literal "fair" way to tax those who benefit from that good would be tax each individual $1.
I know, I know, it isn't practical to tax that way. However, I bring it up to point out the flaw in those on the left calling those on the right selfish and greedy for wanting to keep what is rightfully theirs. Somehow those on the left believe themselves to be in a position of moral supremacy because they would like to force one neighbor to give to another neighbor against their will. This is preferential treatment if I've ever heard of it. It is telling one person that they are less important than another person.
Short Story
An event happened at work about a year ago that I love to think about when I think about equality in taxation. I was bartending/serving at Bella Sera at the time. We had a huge event (I don't remember what it was off the top of my head). The staff came together and we all decided that we would voluntarily pool our tips, everyone seemed to like this idea in order to limit their risk (bonus points for anyone who can tell me what this act is called in the private sector). The problem arose at the end of the shift when everyone realized that there was one person who didn't do anything. This particular person knew he would get about 15-20% in tips of the total sales for the night regardless of how much of a team player he was. A few people were ticked off and justifiably so. However, what happened next is the shocking part, most of those who were in on the tip pool decided that this person who didn't do as much work should be left out of the tip pool^. The majority ruled. So in the end those who produced stayed in the pool and he who did not was left out. The ironic part is that a few of those who complained about the particular person not carrying his weight were die hard liberals. The very people who I had had discussions with regarding the duty of the people to help those who couldn't help themselves. (Jessica and Kelli, I know you were there. Caroline and Molly, I can't remember but I think you were there as well, correct me if I'm wrong). The point of this story is the humor in that everyone will always be ok with pooling the risk as long as they are not the ones on the short end of the stick.
Is it practical or even possible to just tax the rich to pay for all of our spending?
Let's pretend for a moment that we were all in agreement that it is ok and fair to just make the rich pay for everything. Problem solved, right? Well, not so**. We could apparently tax everyone making over $500,000 a year at a 100% tax rate and still only gain an additional $1.3 trillion in tax revenues. This doesn't even cover our current years deficit, much less any additional spending (i.e. healthcare reform). What does this mean? Well, be careful what you ask for when it comes to more spending.
All of this is probably a moot point anyway. We are living under the tyranny of the majority. I have for a long time contended that if we give people an incentive to stay unemployed (or perhaps more properly labeled as a disincentive to move up) then they will stay unemployed, or even poor altogether. The following study by Clifford Theis*** shows that there is a real disincentive to get out of poverty when you consider government programs and subsidies (I've attached the graph of the benefit of an extra dollar earned at the bottom of this note). I don't blame those who are in the situation but I do think it's fair to blame those who provide the incentive to stay in those situations.
*http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
**http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
***http://mises.org/daily/3822
^Disclaimer for those are thinking, "Luke, how could do that to that guy?" Well, I actually went and gave him a portion of my part of the tip pool so that me and him would have an equal amount. Even though it was still less than what everyone else made.
Is this right morally?
How have we come to this point? We currently have approximately 35% of our population either not paying any taxes at all OR they are ending with a net gain at year end*. Think about this question for a second, "What is the purpose of a tax?" Aren't taxes essentially an exchange of goods? We pay in $X in order to get a return, such as protection against illegitimate force, roads, etc. Knowing this about taxes, that a tax is a transaction (an exchange of goods), how is it that we feel that it is morally just to allow 35% of our country to objectively gain from the system? They benefit equally as those who do actually pay taxes and yet their cost is literally nothing. We are seeing the proverbial robbing of Peter to pay Paul happen right before our eyes.
If this wasn't enough we apparently have an entire segment who believes that those who actually are shouldering the load should take on more responsibility, even if it is against their will. If we used this moral philosophy in our personal lives we would all be mugging every other person we meet so long as we gave most of it to our favorite charity.
That being said, there is a theoretical way to ensure true justice in taxation. After all, a truly equal system would be one in which no one would benefit to a greater degree than another. In a truly just (just as in blind justice, not social justice) and fair world a tax would be equal. For example, if a road cost $10,000 to build and there were 10,000 people in that particular community, then the literal "fair" way to tax those who benefit from that good would be tax each individual $1.
I know, I know, it isn't practical to tax that way. However, I bring it up to point out the flaw in those on the left calling those on the right selfish and greedy for wanting to keep what is rightfully theirs. Somehow those on the left believe themselves to be in a position of moral supremacy because they would like to force one neighbor to give to another neighbor against their will. This is preferential treatment if I've ever heard of it. It is telling one person that they are less important than another person.
Short Story
An event happened at work about a year ago that I love to think about when I think about equality in taxation. I was bartending/serving at Bella Sera at the time. We had a huge event (I don't remember what it was off the top of my head). The staff came together and we all decided that we would voluntarily pool our tips, everyone seemed to like this idea in order to limit their risk (bonus points for anyone who can tell me what this act is called in the private sector). The problem arose at the end of the shift when everyone realized that there was one person who didn't do anything. This particular person knew he would get about 15-20% in tips of the total sales for the night regardless of how much of a team player he was. A few people were ticked off and justifiably so. However, what happened next is the shocking part, most of those who were in on the tip pool decided that this person who didn't do as much work should be left out of the tip pool^. The majority ruled. So in the end those who produced stayed in the pool and he who did not was left out. The ironic part is that a few of those who complained about the particular person not carrying his weight were die hard liberals. The very people who I had had discussions with regarding the duty of the people to help those who couldn't help themselves. (Jessica and Kelli, I know you were there. Caroline and Molly, I can't remember but I think you were there as well, correct me if I'm wrong). The point of this story is the humor in that everyone will always be ok with pooling the risk as long as they are not the ones on the short end of the stick.
Is it practical or even possible to just tax the rich to pay for all of our spending?
Let's pretend for a moment that we were all in agreement that it is ok and fair to just make the rich pay for everything. Problem solved, right? Well, not so**. We could apparently tax everyone making over $500,000 a year at a 100% tax rate and still only gain an additional $1.3 trillion in tax revenues. This doesn't even cover our current years deficit, much less any additional spending (i.e. healthcare reform). What does this mean? Well, be careful what you ask for when it comes to more spending.
All of this is probably a moot point anyway. We are living under the tyranny of the majority. I have for a long time contended that if we give people an incentive to stay unemployed (or perhaps more properly labeled as a disincentive to move up) then they will stay unemployed, or even poor altogether. The following study by Clifford Theis*** shows that there is a real disincentive to get out of poverty when you consider government programs and subsidies (I've attached the graph of the benefit of an extra dollar earned at the bottom of this note). I don't blame those who are in the situation but I do think it's fair to blame those who provide the incentive to stay in those situations.
*http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
**http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
***http://mises.org/daily/3822
^Disclaimer for those are thinking, "Luke, how could do that to that guy?" Well, I actually went and gave him a portion of my part of the tip pool so that me and him would have an equal amount. Even though it was still less than what everyone else made.
- Dan Hiebert likes this.
- 50 of 63
Lisa 'Thompson' Steiger OMG my husband listens to Jason too... thus I listen when I want to spend time w/ Nick around that hour.December 12, 2009 at 12:22pm · ·
Luke De Boer Lisa-Isn't he great? He's so smart it's ridiculousDecember 12, 2009 at 12:26pm · ·
Ben Bickneseabout the work story....which leads to thoughts about wellfare...as a progressive, i wholly believe in giving to the less fortunate...concerning well-fare programs or work place situations there is nothing wrong with helping someone out......if they are willing to put forth an effort to contribute. You should be afforded all the money you need if your willing to work for/help out/contribute to the community. Luke, i don't know very many, if any liberals who believe in free handouts for those who CAN contribute but do not....will people abuse a system meant to help level the playing field, yes. People are people.See MoreDecember 12, 2009 at 12:29pm · ·- Luke De Boer You can justify killing if it's in self defense because then it's just choosing which life you would rather have ended. Yours or the person that is trying to end yours.December 12, 2009 at 12:30pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese of course you can justify it logically, but you still do not address the moral problem of taking a life. Without relativism taking a life is either A. Right, or B.Wrong.December 12, 2009 at 12:45pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese if you have studied philosophy at any depth, you will know the moral ambiguity that is required to justify taking a life in self defense....
of course this is assuming that we supremely value life.December 12, 2009 at 12:50pm · · - Ben Bicknese ....so do you want to throw out the moral compass, or only apply it when your ass is on the line.December 12, 2009 at 12:51pm · ·
- Ben BickneseHere is the rub for conservatives (and I know you don't support the death penalty)....but they tend to publicly support war(which involves taking life) and capital punishment(which also involves taking life)....but they are against taking t...he life of an unborn child...THIS REQUIRES A HUGE MORAL COMPASS TO JUSTIFY THIS THINKING, MORALLY.
And yet they bitch about liberals applying moral relativism to socio-economic concerns. See MoreDecember 12, 2009 at 1:15pm · · - Ben Bicknese there's your irony bud.December 12, 2009 at 1:17pm · ·
- Luke De Boer In self defense it ceases to be a moral problem and it becomes a question of reason and rational thought. It becomes a choice.December 13, 2009 at 8:22am · ·
- Luke De BoerAs far as equating abortion with taking a life in war (or capital punishment), it's a completely different ball game.
In abortion the third party (the baby, or fetus) is not infringing upon the rights the rights of the mother (of course I k...now your answer to this, you will say that the baby is infringing upon the rights of the mother. However, this would be a topic that would depend on contract theory) and thus it is not justifiable to end that life. In war and I suppose in a somewhat twisted argument for cap. punishment it could be said that the other party agreed to take on the risk of being killed when they posed the threat to use "illegitimate force."See MoreDecember 13, 2009 at 8:27am · · - Luke De Boer If you'd like we can continue to trade barbs about irony of the opposite political faction. Such as this, it's so convenient that the left seem to be ALL for the individual (as long as they get to choose which individual it is) when it comes to abortion but are completely fine with trampling on the individual in economic matters.December 13, 2009 at 8:30am · ·
- Luke De Boer"...concerning well-fare programs or work place situations there is nothing wrong with helping someone out"
You are right, there is nothing wrong with helping someone out. As long as you do it on your own dime. It will never cease to amaze ...me that leftists think it is altruistic to take from one to give to another. Why not just give of yourself? Here's a challenge for every leftist, next time you are thinking of a vacation, getting a beer, eating out, basically thinking about buying anything outside of bare necessities, instead give that money to charity. At that point I'll start to take you all seriously.See MoreDecember 13, 2009 at 8:44am · · - Ben Bicknese every choice/action has moral implications, you don't pick and choose when you apply morality...unless you adopt relativism...so it seems you have a moral compass.December 13, 2009 at 10:35am · ·
- Ben Bicknese btw, I am not arguing against self defense, i am simply pointing out that you need to use a moral compass to justify the taking of life whether in war, or capital punishment. You have to determine that infringement upon your rights allows for the taking of life...but even before that you have to put a value on what rights warrant such a severe action or punishment. (all of this is determined by your moral code, son)December 13, 2009 at 10:46am · ·
- Ben BickneseConcerning the morality of war: i agree that if someone attacks you(infringes upon your right to life) it is morally just to defend yourself, even if the other dies.
For some reason conservatives like to think that all our wars are all fough...t in self defense and everyone that is killed was infringing up our rights...
See MoreDecember 13, 2009 at 10:54am · · - Ben Bicknesethere is this thing that warmongers euphemistically call "collateral damage" ....a fact of every war(show me a war in which there was none)....you must use moral relativism if you are to justify collateral damage as acceptable casualties in... war....and if you need help with understanding collateral damage :
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/march2006/100 306iraq.jpg
http://www.uruknet.info/pic.php?f=87888iraq-child.jp g
http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/&/images4/2005_war_phot os_2/boy_killed.jpe
http://quakeragitator.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/na palm-vietnam.jpg
...but i spose these innocents were infringing on your rights.See MoreDecember 13, 2009 at 11:07am · · - Ben BickneseHere's a challenge for every leftist, next time you are thinking of a vacation, getting a beer, eating out, basically thinking about buying anything outside of bare necessities, instead give that money to charity.
I actually know plenty of p...eople who do this, and i have myself...leftists actually give something up/sacrifice.....republicunts just have tax right-offs. See MoreDecember 13, 2009 at 11:11am · · - Ben Bicknese And you keep talking about giving against your will, which you are referring to your tax dollars going towards some "charity case" in which you have no say....well i hate to break it to ya but we live in this thing called a representative democracy...the people we elect are supposed to reflect the will of the people..so it is your own dime.December 13, 2009 at 11:18am · ·
- Ben Bicknese i almost pissed my pants laughing when you mentioned leftists and the concern/worry for the individual..bwawhahahaha
The republican ideal is the individual, brother.
You truly are a master of irony.December 13, 2009 at 11:21am · · - Luke De BoerYou were doing well right up until the part where you reverted to writing like a junior higher...."republicunts"..
.."almost pissed my pants"...
So lets pretend that we agreed that legislating using our emotions was a proper and just way to d...o so. Even then, the social programs, spending initiatives, etc that you implicitly support do more to hurt the poor and keep them poor than they do to help them. Minimum Wage laws, tariffs (protectionism), cash for clunkers, easy money policy, stimulus, section 8 housing. I can almost hear Alanis playing in the background....See MoreDecember 14, 2009 at 9:05am · · - Luke De Boer ...and I'll agree with you, go Vikes!!! :)December 14, 2009 at 9:05am · ·
- Ben Bickneseoops...republicans, must have been a typo...:) jk,
Do you think they hurt the poor because they 'cripple' them with a free handout, giving them something for nothing?
I don't disagree that working for something/giving something in return wil...l instill pride and work ethic...
But there are plenty of poor and middle class(which is pretty much poor now) people who work their ass off, play by the rules, and still struggle to make it...why- because wages have not kept up with the cost if living. The fat cats at the top keep increasing their pay/bonuses while the workers are left with scraps. (insert joke about trickle down economics)
You want to help people out, start paying them for their work.
what Alanis song is playing...:)
See MoreDecember 14, 2009 at 10:39am · · - Ben Bicknese p.s. cash for clunkers was not meant to help the poor...it was a temporary band-aid for the auto-industry, specifically dealers. And the program wasn't perfect, but it stopped the bleeding and prolly kept some dealers above water.December 14, 2009 at 10:42am · ·
- Ben Bicknese check out Nate Silvers blog for a change : http://www.fivethirtyeight
.com/2009/12/greg-mankiw-s timulus-critic-so-wrong.ht ml December 14, 2009 at 12:04pm · · - Ben Bicknese this is a really long thread, i wonder when facebook will cut us off? :)December 14, 2009 at 12:06pm · ·
- Luke De BoerIf you back at my comment I never claimed that cash for clunkers was a program to help the poor. That doesn't mean it didn't hurt the poor though. It's almost laughable actually, the democrats subsidized the middle and upper middle classes... while at the same time hurting the poor.
I'll check out that blog, can't be any worse than thinkprogress.org.
See MoreDecember 14, 2009 at 5:41pm · · 
Dan Hiebert Thanks Luke ... I enjoyed the note and I pondered this over the weekend. Liberty and Opportunity is the single most valuable gift ever bestowed on the poor. The Free Market provides the greatest opportunity...and that really is the promise of the American Dream. Legalized stealing is still stealing...it l hurts liberty and limits opportunity.December 14, 2009 at 7:42pm · ·- Dan Hiebert Great Quote from Benjamin Franklin: "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." http://bit.ly/8kzhVqDecember 14, 2009 at 7:44pm · ·
- Ben BickneseWithout our free market there would be no poor. Education and worthwhile job opportunities are the key, something our free market has not equally offered everyone the last 200 years. Your conservative economic theory does little in real lif...e situations. Have you ever spent time in a poor inner city, on an Indian reservation...getting to know the people and their struggles...you would soon realize where your misguided economic "theories" and out-of-context founding father quotes will get you...
p.s. Shooting pig brains out on the 4th line for 10hrs a day at quality pork is an opportunity, alright.See MoreDecember 15, 2009 at 6:00am · · - Ben Bicknese i do not follow think progress....the best blog out there is huffingtonpost....it's so good, in fact conservatives are even trying to ape the 'liberal' Arianna's success. Although It might be a foreign concept for conservatives to criticize/call out "their own"though, the honesty that you get regularly on progressive blogs.December 15, 2009 at 6:08am · ·
- Ben Bicknese laughable, why? a large amount of democrats are corporate whores, like all republicans (expect maybe Ron Paul, and 2 others)....and also a large chunk of the "democrats"(contrary to the nonsense at foxnoize) are not liberal or progressive(bill-o would say far-left loons), but corporate pawns and moderate conservatives in disguise.December 15, 2009 at 6:15am · ·
- Ben Bicknese i am surprised Ron Paul is still "allowed" to call himself a republican.December 15, 2009 at 6:16am · ·
- Ben Bicknese ...and where are you getting this "hurt the poor theory" from? It would be easier for me to read it from the source than you explain it on face book.December 15, 2009 at 6:19am · ·
- Ben Bicknese oh, forgot to comment on this "tyranny of the majority"...this is so out of context in this day and age, we live in the age of the individual, never has the individual been so celebrated and encouraged.... would you prefer fascism Mr. Übermensch?December 15, 2009 at 12:39pm · ·
- Luke De Boer"Without our free market there would be no poor."
Poor is purely subjective, what you consider to be poor today would be upper class just 100 years ago. Also, the idea of poor is only applicable in the face of a contrary idea. One last thi...ng on the word poor, people are only poor (using your definition) due to their difference in priorities. For example, you might think that a missionary in Thailand is poor because he/she doesn't have much money. That same missionary might consider himself rich due to the financial/spiritual support he actually does receive.
Perhaps a more proper way for you to word your statement would be to say that without the free market there might not be such a gap in income (or perhaps income at all). See MoreDecember 15, 2009 at 3:06pm · · - Luke De Boer"Although It might be a foreign concept for conservatives to criticize/call out "their own"though..."
You should really avoid blanket statements Ben, it highlights your ignorance (not saying you are ignorant, despite our differences I would... not call you uninformed).
That being said, although you likely despise the man, Glenn Beck has for a long time criticized other conservatives. See MoreDecember 15, 2009 at 3:11pm · · - Luke De Boer "..and where are you getting this "hurt the poor theory" from?"
With regards to what? cash for clunkers? minimum wage? etc. All of the items I mentioned?December 15, 2009 at 3:20pm · · 
Carlos Garcia niceDecember 15, 2009 at 5:30pm · ·- Ben Bicknese that is all wonderful advice, for people who do not know what they are talking about :) Glenn is not a conservative, I am not quite sure what he is(of course he has no idea either).December 15, 2009 at 11:42pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese the minimum wageDecember 15, 2009 at 11:42pm · ·
- Luke De BoerHow exactly is Glenn Beck not a conservative?
So which way would you like me to answer you on how minimum wage laws hurt the poor? I could use economic theory (using basic econ that is accepted among pretty much all universities), I could us...e empirical evidence (many studies have been done on the subject), or I could simply point to personal experience. I'll let you choose.See MoreDecember 16, 2009 at 5:29pm · · - Ben Bicknese BickneseGlenn Beck will do or say anything for money...if he believes half the shit he says(which i doubt), then he is fucking delusional....if you take him seriously, then you need some fuckin help.December 16, 2009 at 7:41pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese the retardation speaks for itself:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200912150021 December 16, 2009 at 7:44pm · · - Luke De Boer surprise surprise, Glenn Beck taken out of context. Shocking, especially for such an unbiased source.December 16, 2009 at 8:05pm · ·
- Luke De Boer Now, am I allowed to believe anything he says without needing help or do I have to not believe everything he says? How about his referenced points?December 16, 2009 at 8:09pm · ·
- Ben BickneseIn what valid context is Beck ever in?
I can't understand why anyone with half a brain would want to sift through his mental detritus ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/02/glenn-beck- finds-communis_n_275915.ht ml
did you watch this epis...ode? in what alternate universe is this not a steaming pile of shit?
It seems that Fox does not want anyone reviewing this as they have yanked it...maybe Glenn should investigate that conspiracy.
See MoreDecember 16, 2009 at 11:21pm · · - Ben Bicknese Wikipedia is not a legitimate source to reference.December 16, 2009 at 11:26pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese...it is beyond me why the right wants to prop up such colossal cretins (Bachmann,Palin,Beck)...wh
y not encourage respectable intellects like Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Ron Paul, the John McCain of 2000?
Maybe it is because they do not blin...dly fall into lockstep with whatever corporate agenda the Neo-con party is pushing at any given time.See More
No comments:
Post a Comment