Do The Rich Owe the Poor?

Todd,

Thanks for putting the cat among the flying rats.

First, I want definitions. Before Anyone bags the rich, define Who these Rich are. Define these poor.

By using such a generic term as Rich and Poor, pollies Know people will think anyone who earns more than them are the Rich and they themselves are either poor or just above it in middle class. And it hides the true nature of the argument - taking the unearned in the first place. It stops being about Take / Not take to about being How Much To Take.

"What the rich DO owe, is taxes. "

According to Whom? And by what right? Pete.

Income Tax is nothing but Income Theft. To say, after I work my bunns off all day, that part of the fruits of my labor are Owed to someone else for no other reason than They Said, is akin to advocating Slavery. And to Take that money from me is Theft. Plain and simple. I doesn't matter what fancy term you use for it, nor your Reason for it.

E.g. Is it right or wrong for me to come into your house and under threat of violence, take money from your wallet?

I hope you said "wrong".

What if I ask someone on my behalf to do it?

Again, I hope you said "wrong".

So if *I* as an individual cannot do it, by what right does a group of individuals who call themselves Govt have to do the same thing in essence?

Side Note: All this talk about Bailout Money for the economy is BS. You want an economy to flourish? Don't give back the money you stole on a selective basis. Instead, let people Keep the fruits of their labor. Do not tax their income. Plain and simple. THAT will get the economy going.

Onward.

"You have to take the good with the bad"

Why Steve? Why do I Have to? Saying so is admitting that you think the govt can manage your money better than you and make better decisions with it. But you already say you disagree with how they spend Some of this money of yours they stole.

"Sure, he has a little nicer place to live, drives a little nicer car, but when it comes right down to it, both of us like to spend our time fishing and hunting. I told him... I don't want to make any more money. I'm happy where I'm at, and it gives me plenty of free time to enjoy things that I want to do."

This nicer car and place of your friends... nicer according to ?

"I don't want to make any more money"

So you're saying, if there was a way for you to make 50% more than you do now, without doing anything extra and by still doing exactly what you're doing now, you'd knock that back?

What happens in ten years when everyone else is earning more and prices are higher. You'll still be happy with your current income, seeing as you don't want to earn more?

Maybe you actually Mean something different. I don't know. I only have what you said to go by.

Money isn't everything?

No, it's not, Steve. But it's only ever said - given forth - by people who have resigned themselves to never having a Lot (however much a Lot is). No different resignation than those who say they'd rather be healthy than wealthy (why not both?). Or said by those with money who are trying to garner some kind of empathy with those they are telling it to.

E.g. Bill Myers saying when you have money you quickly discover how unimportant money is. If that's so, why doesn't he give his products away? Why does he still do stuff to make money? Because money IS important (his actions negate his words). And if you think it is so unimportant, give all yours away and go live in a tent in the middle of the bush (oh, he tried that already before he had money, decided it was better to have money after all).

Tallman's mistake is saying the money is an IOU back. It ain't. The moment those who buy movie tickets have handed the money over for the ticket, they are considering the transaction complete. They have exchanged one value (money) for another value (entertainment). They owe nothing to the movie producer and nor does the producer owe anything back. They have exchanged equal value in Their own eyes.

"Frankly, if the rich paid their way, in the way that middle class folks do, folks wouldn't have to cope with so much corruption and greed,"

Whoa up there Sandi. Paid their way? How so? Please explain how the Rich do not pay their way but the middle class do?

Greed and corruption come when it involves Taking from others without voluntary mutual consent free of coercion. When someone can grant or remove Permission for you to do something, it leads to corruption. That Power leads to greed. Because nothing is earned in a rightful way.

"the wealthys' 'fair share' would pay for a lot of it."

Fair Share? According to whom? And by what logic does someone who has already worked their way into a position of Having, suddenly owe anything to those below who are still coming up - or trying to come up - and to those who choose not to go anywhere?

"That's where the tax breaks should be, folks...for those who need the income the most to provide for life and health."

Who determines this Need of yours? Who is the arbiter of what someone Needs to provide for their life and health?

There should be no income tax, period. Otherwise, you are Punishing effort and rewarding laziness. And believe it is right to take that which you did not earn.

A person who earns $20k will pay, let's say for Example Sake Only, $4k tax. A person on $100k, if they pay the same Percentage, will pay $20k in tax - as much as the other person earned. So Already, they are paying More Money in tax.

To then turn around and say, well, you made $100k so can Afford to pay more in tax and so will, is now making people not equal. I don't care if they can Afford more tax. More money, higher percentage. They DID have more income to Spend which is what makes an economy flourish.

Look. It's simple. NOTHING happens until someone spends money.

Imagine a kingdom where the King has money and the plebs have nothing. The economy is still. The only way the economy will move and the plebs will get money is if they exchange some of their labor for the king's money. The only way that will happen is if the king wants something done - new garden, new building, whatever. Until the person with money is willing to spend it, nothing happens. And anyone with money, become the king in miniature - able to have stuff done (haircut for example).

If you Take the money away, they have nothing to spend, do they? So nothing then happens.

ALL the problems stem from the belief there is some Magic Right to the unearned.

If you are having problems grasping the concept, that there is no right to other people's labor fruits, trying watching this youtube on The Philosophy of Liberty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I (8 minutes)

Michael Ross

[Ankesh]

While I agree with a lot of the things you say Michael - I think the notion of no government and no taxation is not practical.

Because history shows us that in absence of a stable government or power, there is total chaos. And warlords emerge. Anarchy is bad for the people.

And it requires just one person to be power-hungry to disrupt the way of living of people in absence of a government.

Say there is no government. And no taxes. Your more powerful neighbour comes and tells you that he owns your land. What do you do?

In absence of a government, there will always be more violence.

A government is needed for delivering justice. And to run the government - taxes are needed.

When there is a government, there is always the risk of the government coming and saying that the land you stay on is theirs. But thats the risk I think people have to take to prevent against anarchy. Who will govern the government will always be a problem. But having a government democratically elected as opposed to having anarchy - thats the lesser of 2 evils.

Ankesh,

Thanks for your thoughts.

In my post I did not say to Not have a govt nor did I say to Abolish all tax. I was specifically talking about Income Tax. A tax on your effort. Taxing that which you have earned from the sweat of your brow.

There are other ways a govt can generate revenue without needing to Tax effort - to steal the fruits of our labor. With the most simple one being a single 10% flat tax on Goods and Non Essential Foods (chocolate, for example). This way, tax is voluntary - if you don't want to pay tax you don't buy the item you don't Need. Don't want to pay $100 tax, don't by the $1,100 LCD/plasma big screen TV. Simple.

Also, a government can operate just like a company does in the private sector - user pays, in other words. And there is no reason it cannot be that way.

And, having money to Run a govt and having money to give away to anyone with a handout are two different things. That later is, as I said, where all the problems stem from.

Michael Ross

"With the most simple one being a single 10% flat tax on Goods and Non Essential Foods (chocolate, for example). This way, tax is voluntary - if you don't want to pay tax you don't buy the item you don't Need. Don't want to pay $100 tax, don't by the $1,100 LCD/plasma big screen TV. Simple."

I already pay that tax, Michael.

Here in the U.S. it's called "sales tax". While it may be higher or lower state to state, I'm paying 10% where I live. And it doesn't matter if I'm buying a gallon of milk, or a pound of candy. It's STILL the same.

Pete

Pete,

Thanks for adding.

We pay it too. We used to have Sales Tax and Wholesale Tax. The wholesaler pays wholesale tax and the retailer pays retail tax on top of the wholesale tax already paid - sometimes, sales tax was around 30% but usually it was 22%.

BUT, what people didn't know was, the Sales Tax was calculated on the Wholesale Price after the wholesaler had paid his wholesale tax for bringing it into the country, and Not the selling price. And this Sales Tax was paid To the wholesaler.

So the wholesaler might buy an item for $5 and pay 11% tax taking the item to a wholesale price of $5.55. This had the sales tax added on - let's use 22% for example - for a total wholesale price of $6.77 ($1.77 in total tax). This could then be sold in the shop at whatever price. Let's say it was a T shirt with print and has a retail price of $30.

Under our New system a 10% flat tax based on Sales Price. So a $30 item would then sell for $33 ($30 + 10% tax). Thus the $30 shirt would now bring tax revenue of $2.72 ($1 more than previous) - $30 divided by 11.

This tax was applied at each stage and credited at each stage of purchase...

Wholesaler sells $5 shirt for $5.50 to retailer. And thus owes $.50 to tax man.

Retailer sells shirt for $30 and has $2.72 tax owing. but as .50 has already been paid when the shirt was bought, only owes tax man $2.22. Either way, tax man then gets 10% of Sales Prices as tax. And has turned each and every business in the country into tax collectors.

Result = coffers become flooded with tax dollars.

Essential Food items are exempt. No separate state taxes. Just one tax. Simple.

Of course, a flat 10% on all goods and foods would be far simpler as well.

Michael Ross

OK, taxes aside, I agree with Michael:
No one owes anyone else.

I think the whole idea behind the article is that Americans have a notion of "the wealthy owe me".

I remember an Obama speech during his campaign where he wanted to give another round of "stimulus checks" out, and to pay for it he would simply tax the "excessive income" of oil companies. The whole premise was 'they make way more money than they need, so we'll take it and give it to the masses'. This speech garnered a thunderous applause from his supporters.

Michael also brought up a good point - who defines "rich" and "poor"?
Today the oil companies are too rich while anyone who Obama defines as 'middle class' is poor enough to get a handout from the government - paid for by oil company income! Who is rich tomorrow - anyone making $250k/year, $100k/year, 50k/year? How much extra should the government take from them to give to those who make below said amount?

I think the whole concept of "redistribution of wealth" is flat out stealing and based on flawed thinking. Sure, the more you make the more you can afford to pay in taxes, but the fact that you have wealth or that you make a certain income per year doesn't entitle the government to come in and take more so that it can be given away to others who didn't work as hard, or take as many risks, or spend a lifetime building a business, or whatever the case may be. The attitude of the masses seems to be "Whoa, that company made how much? That's just wrong, we should take some of it back!"

If oil companies make a 3% profit margin, but that 3% ends up being billions of dollars a quarter, it just seems like more than any company should make, so let's steal some back. What about Nike, they pay some Indonesian kid $10 a day to make shoes and sell them for $150 each. That's way too much markup, we should take money from them too. And diamond companies, they sell rocks for what 1,000% more than they cost to mine. Let's raid their bank accounts too. If we keep digging, we could probably scrape up a pretty sweet stimulus check for all the middle class families from all the companies that make 'too much' profit!

I'm surprised at how many disagreed with that article. I'm far from rich right now (actually struggling more than I'm willing to say), but I don't feel that anyone who has made themselves rich owes me anything. If I'm in debt, I owe - if I accumulate wealth, I don't owe. Hopefully someday I can be rich - and not have to be punished for it.

Wow. I read this thread before I went to go read the article. I finally read the article and I also can't believe how many people here disagreed with that article. Unbelievable. Especially on a small business forum. I had to stop reading the comments under the article because the lack of logical thinking was making me ill.

Originally Posted by Todd

OK, taxes aside, I agree with Michael:
No one owes anyone else.

I think the whole idea behind the article is that Americans have a notion of "the wealthy owe me".

I remember an Obama speech during his campaign where he wanted to give another round of "stimulus checks" out, and to pay for it he would simply tax the "excessive income" of oil companies. The whole premise was 'they make way more money than they need, so we'll take it and give it to the masses'. This speech garnered a thunderous applause from his supporters.

Michael also brought up a good point - who defines "rich" and "poor"?
Today the oil companies are too rich while anyone who Obama defines as 'middle class' is poor enough to get a handout from the government - paid for by oil company income! Who is rich tomorrow - anyone making $250k/year, $100k/year, 50k/year? How much extra should the government take from them to give to those who make below said amount?

I think the whole concept of "redistribution of wealth" is flat out stealing and based on flawed thinking. Sure, the more you make the more you can afford to pay in taxes, but the fact that you have wealth or that you make a certain income per year doesn't entitle the government to come in and take more so that it can be given away to others who didn't work as hard, or take as many risks, or spend a lifetime building a business, or whatever the case may be. The attitude of the masses seems to be "Whoa, that company made how much? That's just wrong, we should take some of it back!"

If oil companies make a 3% profit margin, but that 3% ends up being billions of dollars a quarter, it just seems like more than any company should make, so let's steal some back. What about Nike, they pay some Indonesian kid $10 a day to make shoes and sell them for $150 each. That's way too much markup, we should take money from them too. And diamond companies, they sell rocks for what 1,000% more than they cost to mine. Let's raid their bank accounts too. If we keep digging, we could probably scrape up a pretty sweet stimulus check for all the middle class families from all the companies that make 'too much' profit!

I'm surprised at how many disagreed with that article. I'm far from rich right now (actually struggling more than I'm willing to say), but I don't feel that anyone who has made themselves rich owes me anything. If I'm in debt, I owe - if I accumulate wealth, I don't owe. Hopefully someday I can be rich - and not have to be punished for it.