StreetScooby 5 #1 March 12, 2013 Very interesting article: Why Not Soak the Rich? It's not short, but I found it well worth the read. Here's the last paragraph for those interested in a summary: Quote Throughout history, soaking the rich has proven a quick fix to temporary emergencies and crises, like the one we are facing today. But it is inevitably a fix that comes with a high cost. By undermining the taboo against expropriating wealth, it makes all private property less secure, including the property of the middle class. Let liberal intellectuals poke holes in the myth of the sanctity of private property, but respect the power for good that this myth has conferred on those societies that are, for the most part, strongly under its spell. The superstitious awe and visceral reverence that ordinary people feel toward “a set of words upon parchment” has proven indispensable to securing economic prosperity and political stability over the course of centuries. The ordinary man’s reluctance to speculate philosophically about property, and its origins and rights, might make him appear dense or incurious to the sophisticated intellectual, who relishes such abstruse discussions, but this indefatigably hard-headed approach to such questions has had the altogether salubrious effect of steadying the boat and keeping it on an even keel, despite the winds of revolution that have tossed and wrecked those ships that lacked their ballast of common sense. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #2 March 12, 2013 My short answer is, it's dishonest and is the same thing as stealing. There is no honesty in stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. If you didn't work for it then you don't deserve it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 March 12, 2013 Did you get a chance to read the article? Well worth the read.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #4 March 12, 2013 We shouldn't be "soaking" anyone, rich or poor. Revenge/class warfare is a poor substitute for rational decisionmaking when it comes to raising money to run government. The criteria should be getting enough money to run the government without unduly damaging the economy. Fortunately, given how much we have reduced taxes on the rich over the past 100 years, we have mostly given up on "soaking the rich." The massive increase in taxes on the poor during the same period might be worrisome, but given that it is still only 10% (up from ~5%) and given that it's much lower than the top tax rate, not really an issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #5 March 12, 2013 Don't have time to right now. I will later on when I do have time. I suspect that I will agree with it, based on your quote. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #6 March 12, 2013 Quote Why Not Soak the Rich? I'd recommend a seasoned brine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 March 12, 2013 Quote We shouldn't be "soaking" anyone, rich or poor. Revenge/class warfare is a poor substitute for rational decisionmaking when it comes to raising money to run government. The criteria should be getting enough money to run the government without unduly damaging the economy. +1 Quote Fortunately, given how much we have reduced taxes on the rich over the past 100 years, we have given up on "soaking the rich." The massive increase in taxes on the poor during the same period is troublesome, but given that it is still only 10% (up from ~5%) it's not a huge deal. This begs the question - what is a reasonable tax rate on "the rich"? I know some here think Laffer curve optimizations showing 60% marginal rate is the "right answer". In looking at that, I did not see any discussion of the optimization's objective function used to derive that value of 60%. Personally, that seems high to me, but then again, I would really like to see the objective function used by those doing that optimization.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #8 March 12, 2013 How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 March 12, 2013 Quotegiven how much we have reduced taxes on the rich over the past 100 years, we have mostly given up on "soaking the rich." Considering that the 16th Amendment (which provided for income tax) is exactly 100 years and 37 days old, the "100 year" timeframe ain't exactly accurate. What the people don't know is that the more money you make, those deductions that everybody likes so much go away. Student loans? Nope. No deduction for interest. Mortgage interest deduction? SEE YA! Quotewhen it comes to raising money to run government That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #10 March 12, 2013 Quote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? His crocodile tears are the equivalent of a brine. Op cit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #11 March 12, 2013 Quote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #12 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. You're familiar with the idea of marginal rates, right? I think Kallend is referring to "how is taxing multimillionaire hedge fund manager at 15% top marginal rate - as opposed to the 39.6% on ordinary income that folks pay in the top marginal rate for wages, etc. - soaking the rich?"Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #13 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote Quotewhen it comes to raising money to run government That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the rest of the stuff that is so expensive. Like defense. SocSec is actually solvent, and Medicare has its own tax. Did you know that the average federal tax rate of the richest 400 people in the USA is below that of the average of the top 0.1%, which in turn is less than that of the top 1% So the super duper rich aren't being "soaked" at all compared with the merely rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #14 March 12, 2013 >That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the >rest of the stuff that is so expensive. So cut that stuff. That's a separate issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #15 March 12, 2013 QuoteLike defense. Yep. QuoteSocSec is actually solvent For now. But not for much longer. Quoteand Medicare has its own tax. Yep. Another one to add to the growing list. And it ISN'T solvent. And it's getting worse and everyone knows it but won't do anything about it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,611 #16 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. How is that worse than taking 21% of a hard working plumber's income?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #17 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. How is that worse than taking 21% of a hard working plumber's income? It isn't. It's soaking the plumber. You're advocating a policy of making the hedge fund manager as miserable as the plumber. How about making the plumber more comfortable by lowering his burden to the hedge fund manager? I'm seriously blown away by this. "It's not fair that plumber 21% of his hard earned income taken from him. Let's make the hedge fund manager do it, too. That'll take away the sting from the plumber." This is called "progressive government." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #18 March 12, 2013 >When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that > you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a >society. It means we're rational? Using emotional terms to describe taxation leads nowhere useful. It's like saying "sure, let's cut taxes, and rip food out of the mouths of hungry children." ooohh, no one wants to do that, right? Taxes should be apportioned to support the government that the people have voted they want. They should be apportioned to cause minimal economic impact, since the economy is what provides taxes to begin with. If you think that's "soaking" or "ripping food from children's mouths" then you're trying to substitute emotion for rational decision making. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #19 March 12, 2013 QuoteLike defense. I've always found that such a cute euphemism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #20 March 12, 2013 Quote So cut that stuff. That's a separate issue. You lost me, billvon. Howw is this a separate issue?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites StreetScooby 5 #21 March 12, 2013 Quote Taxes should be apportioned to support the government that the people have voted they want. They should be apportioned to cause minimal economic impact, since the economy is what provides taxes to begin with. If you think that's "soaking" or "ripping food from children's mouths" then you're trying to substitute emotion for rational decision making. In practice, the highlighted sentence is proving to be a less than stable principle. If the government keeps promising free stuff to "unproductive citizens", then the government takes more from productive citizens and eventually they're no longer any productive citizens. Where's the checks and balances here?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #22 March 12, 2013 QuoteUsing emotional terms to describe taxation leads nowhere useful. This is titled "soak the rich." I was responding to a comment about a "hard working" plumber. The emotion is injected. Therefore, an equal and opposite emotional response is warranted. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #23 March 12, 2013 > Howw is this a separate issue? How to apportion taxes is separate from how to reduce government expenditures. You can have an effective method of apportioning taxes whether total expenditures are very high or very low. Likewise, you can have a very ineffective method of apportioning taxes whether total expenditures are very high or very low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,354 #24 March 12, 2013 >I was responding to a comment about a "hard working" plumber. The emotion >is injected. Therefore, an equal and opposite emotional response is warranted. If you are saying that both are not that useful - I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #25 March 12, 2013 I concur My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 2,354 #14 March 12, 2013 >That's the problem - just running the government would be cheap. It's the 90% of the >rest of the stuff that is so expensive. So cut that stuff. That's a separate issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 March 12, 2013 QuoteLike defense. Yep. QuoteSocSec is actually solvent For now. But not for much longer. Quoteand Medicare has its own tax. Yep. Another one to add to the growing list. And it ISN'T solvent. And it's getting worse and everyone knows it but won't do anything about it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #16 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. How is that worse than taking 21% of a hard working plumber's income?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 March 12, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote How is taxing a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager at 15% "soaking"? When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a society. How is that worse than taking 21% of a hard working plumber's income? It isn't. It's soaking the plumber. You're advocating a policy of making the hedge fund manager as miserable as the plumber. How about making the plumber more comfortable by lowering his burden to the hedge fund manager? I'm seriously blown away by this. "It's not fair that plumber 21% of his hard earned income taken from him. Let's make the hedge fund manager do it, too. That'll take away the sting from the plumber." This is called "progressive government." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #18 March 12, 2013 >When taking 15% of a person's income for no other reason that "we need it more that > you do" is not considered "soaking" then it's an indication of where we stand as a >society. It means we're rational? Using emotional terms to describe taxation leads nowhere useful. It's like saying "sure, let's cut taxes, and rip food out of the mouths of hungry children." ooohh, no one wants to do that, right? Taxes should be apportioned to support the government that the people have voted they want. They should be apportioned to cause minimal economic impact, since the economy is what provides taxes to begin with. If you think that's "soaking" or "ripping food from children's mouths" then you're trying to substitute emotion for rational decision making. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #19 March 12, 2013 QuoteLike defense. I've always found that such a cute euphemism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #20 March 12, 2013 Quote So cut that stuff. That's a separate issue. You lost me, billvon. Howw is this a separate issue?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #21 March 12, 2013 Quote Taxes should be apportioned to support the government that the people have voted they want. They should be apportioned to cause minimal economic impact, since the economy is what provides taxes to begin with. If you think that's "soaking" or "ripping food from children's mouths" then you're trying to substitute emotion for rational decision making. In practice, the highlighted sentence is proving to be a less than stable principle. If the government keeps promising free stuff to "unproductive citizens", then the government takes more from productive citizens and eventually they're no longer any productive citizens. Where's the checks and balances here?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 March 12, 2013 QuoteUsing emotional terms to describe taxation leads nowhere useful. This is titled "soak the rich." I was responding to a comment about a "hard working" plumber. The emotion is injected. Therefore, an equal and opposite emotional response is warranted. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #23 March 12, 2013 > Howw is this a separate issue? How to apportion taxes is separate from how to reduce government expenditures. You can have an effective method of apportioning taxes whether total expenditures are very high or very low. Likewise, you can have a very ineffective method of apportioning taxes whether total expenditures are very high or very low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,354 #24 March 12, 2013 >I was responding to a comment about a "hard working" plumber. The emotion >is injected. Therefore, an equal and opposite emotional response is warranted. If you are saying that both are not that useful - I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #25 March 12, 2013 I concur My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites