I Shrugged wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:37 pm
Everything in an estate is subject to the applicable tax.
I'm back to thinking it's bad.
Ad Orientem wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:47 pm
My employer has already paid tax on all of his money. If he wants to give me some, why should I have to pay tax again? This argument is circuitous.
If you start from the assumption that income shouldn't be taxed, then it makes sense. It seems like it would be easier for everyone if the employer were taxed by the government for its product and that was it. Then they can figure out the value proposition for a worker more easily, and workers can have a clear picture of how much they're going to make. Income taxes are pretty strange when I stop to think about them.
The most common means for raising revenue in the modern world is taxing the movement of money from person or entity A to person or entity B. IMO it is also the most fair and reasonable. I dislike taxes as much as the next person, probably more. But anti-tax sentiment has reached the point where the legitimate functions of the state are not being funded except by assumption of massive public debt. This is not sustainable.
That really depends on what you're calling legitimate functions of the state.
A recent study showed that on average billionaires are now paying a lower effective tax rate than the bottom tax rate for working class Americans. That is immoral. As a monarchist who is keenly aware of the history of revolutions and where they can lead, I would caution those who applaud this modern tax code that is of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy.
Ok, but they also pay most of the federal taxes too. The people in the meritocracy thread were concerned about the top 5% having too much power or whatever:
The top 5% pays almost 60% of the federal income taxes (link
), and the top 10% pay about 70%. The top 10% own 84% of the stock in American corporations (link
), so it's mostly them paying the corporate income tax too. I'm guessing the top 10% pay pretty much all of the estate taxes too. They pay payroll taxes too, but payroll taxes, theoretically, should go towards social security and medicaid. So they aren't really funding the federal government. So if you take out the payroll taxes, then the top 10% are contributing 70% of the federal government's revenue. That doesn't seem immoral to me.
Looking at it a different way, if taxes on the elites were increased more, and maybe we get them to pay for, say, 90% of the federal government... It seems to me that they'd become even more powerful and elite, and less accountable to others. It seems to me that saying that elites aren't paying their fair share of taxes obscures the fact that they fund most of our government. And if they fund most of our government, it seems to me that they're going to find ways to control it or use it to serve their needs. A government that does less needs less tax revenue, and could have a more balanced tax base.
Come at me bros!
I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. Who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. . . Nothing is better for a man than to eat and drink and enjoy his work.