Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

I heard most of this on the radio and it was very interesting, so I found a link to the article. Seems to make sense to me, but obviously the government doesn't get it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Andre...&comments=true

Here is what is surprising...
 

I noted in the author's biography that it said, he "...taught philosophy professionally as an intellectual mercenary at any college that would have him..."

The word "college" (as defined by Webster) can also be "British slang for prison".

I hope he didn't spend too much on his education...

Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

The guy makes a good argument for stupid!

What the rich DO owe, is taxes.

Like it or not, facts are facts.

The "rich" have a higher tax rate BUT with loopholes, deductions for everybody and Sam's cat, they actually pay LESS taxes.

And, I've been able to figure that out all by myself over the past 67-years.

Pete

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

The rich may pay less tax because of loopholes -- but they still pay tax. I'm not rich but I will pay more tax this year then a single mother I know with two kids, earns at her job. And what do you think she will pay for tax this year? It doesn't matter -- she will get everything she paid back, when she files.

But you make a good point here Pete:


The article is nothing more then verbal diahrehia, expounding upon a topic that anyone with better then a grade 8 eduction is aware of.

But as a business owner, I don't have any problem with the woman with two kids driving on better highways, having better medical coverage, improved schools, etc., etc., etc. Sure, I might complain at times how I resent paying so much in taxes, but I'd like to think some of it goes to projects and people that can use it, rather then being wasted on superficial government expenditures. You have to take the good with the bad....

The same tax breaks the wealthy get, will be available to you when you become wealthy. And becoming wealthy is a matter of choice, for some of us. If you become wealthy, you won't complain about these tax breaks because you will be using them to put extra dollars in your pocket too.

But money isn't everything....

A friend of mine; we are the same age -- he's makes twice what I make. In his free time (which he doesn't have compared to the free time I have) he likes to come down to my cottage (on the Bay of Fundy) and he likes to hunt and fish -- like I do.

We had a discussion this Summer about how I could make more money if I wanted to. 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.


Good! Then we won't have any argument over Andrew Tallman's article. It's a free country and even idiots can get degrees.

Regards,
Steve MacLellan

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

The original rationale for all those tax loopholes for the rich was the so-called 'trickle down effect' which was supposed to provide more jobs, better financial stability to businesses, and a better life for all. Unfortunately, for the most part, it hasn't worked out that way. The rich give only where it benefits them directly in some way or another, they invest where they can get more tax benefits or write-offs (which amount to the same thing for them), and make a big ballyhoo when they do something truly unselfish and provide some benefits to those less well off.

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, wouldn't have to crawl and beg for the basic essentials in life because the wealthys' 'fair share' would pay for a lot of it. There are some mighty good (and some bad) arguments for a flat tax rate as long as those on the lowest levels, not the highest levels of income, are accounted for with compassion. That's where the tax breaks should be, folks...for those who need the income the most to provide for life and health.

Sandi Bowman

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

Before I comment, I am not rich but I am one who reads and thinks and weighs out the issues.

When it comes to the whole argument about the rich not paying their fair share in taxes, I would like to know what you are measuring that by. Before you comment consider the following:

It is the rich that assume the greatest risk in business, not the poor or middle class. Would you want to assume their risks?

It is the rich that employ the poor and middle class and pay half or more of each employee's taxes. Would you want them to stop doing this and you be responsible for paying all of your employment taxes?

It is the rich that provide the most jobs, expand their businesses to create even more jobs. Would you want them to stop doing this?

It is the rich that everyone looks to for a hand out, not the poor or middle class. Would you prefer the poor or middle class look to you for a hand out?

It is the rich that everyone complains about, but depends on the most.

Since the rich are providing the most jobs, to the poor and middle class, why is it that the poor and middle class employees do not want to take responsibility for their actions and will not do their jobs with professionalism and continually provide poor customer service?

Why is it that the poor and middle class want to live like the rich, have what the rich have, but are not willing to become rich so they can become like the rich?

Getting back to the original poster's question. "Do The Rich Owe The Poor?"

Nobody owes anybody anything. Each individual owes it to himself, his family, his neighbors and his country to be diligent and be the very best they can. That is what makes for a prosperous union for all.

The moment you take your eyes off your goal and start looking around at what so & so isn't doing, or why that business isn't paying their fair share, then you have lost the race for success.

Those who succeed focus on the goal they're striving for. If more people spent more time pushing on and ignored the dogmas that drag us down, we wouldn't have near the complaining that idle people seem to thrive on.

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

According to the Grace Commission report:


That was in 1984. Probably still true.

No-One Owes Anyone Else - Rich or 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

Re: No Government is Impractical
 

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.

Government's Are Not Nannys
 

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

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

"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

We have that tax too - by a different name
 

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

Re: We have that tax too - by a different name
 

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.

Re: Do The Rich Owe the Poor?
 

I am not rich nor poor. But I think there are more tax loop holes made for rich that they can easily escape. They remain rich. On the other hand poor due to lake fund for social funds dont get any facilities. So, rich must under stand this and must pay tax for the benift of the poors. Because what they earn is with help of poors or working class. So, they owe to them.

Re: We have that tax too - by a different name
 

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.

You Advocate Slavery
 

Sudar,

Let me get this straight.... because someone has worked hard/smartly and saved their money and maybe invested some too - and - over the course of their life, they have become wealthy... just because they Now have more money, they somehow Owe some of this money to people who have not worked hard/smart nor invested over the course of their life.

Is that pretty well what you're saying?

Let's break it down another way...

I have a widget for sale. I offer this widget for $10. You buy it. I now have your $10 and you have a widget. Thus, my financial wealth has increased.

How do I then owe some of this $10 back to you?

I do NOT. The transaction was done. Completed.

But what you're saying is... just because I sell many of these widgets I must now give some of that money to people who bought my widget and those who didn't buy my widget but who you deem worthy of having some of my money.

Another way...

I work 60 hours a week while you work 40. We do this for many years. And now, years later, because I was willing to spend the time to work and have more money than you, I somehow Owe you some of this money?

How do I owe you money?

I do Not. I worked while you had leisure time. I owe you nothing.

But what you're saying is... just because I have more money I must now give some of that money to people who worked fewer hours than me and who worked for less money than me.

You advocate slavery.

Michael Ross