ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: brendan on December 29, 2007, 11:15:44 am
-
If there were some government policy that would make the rich poorer without affecting the income of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch? Why? Why not?
-
why would it be fair for the govt to take away wealth from the rich? just because they have money doesnt mean they didnt work hard for it, nor does it mean they dont deserve it...
-
So I understand the question:
Does this just mean taking money away from rich people, and it disappearing into thin air?
Edit: please acknowledge this post, even if it is just a 'lol' and refusing to answer it like has happened when I have tried to understand you before. *angry*
-
.. I think he's trying to tell us that taxes do just this?
Am I right? Or is this genuinely a "hypothetical" question haha.
-
Haha, taxes do this to some degree. It is a necessary cost if you believe that taxes should fund social welfare.
This question is sort of silly. The answer is obviously no. Under a social welfare regime, dead-weight loss is not the only thing happening: some of the dollars will survive to eventually reach the poor. For collectivists, they will be thinking: is this "dead-weight loss" worth the equality it produces?
I am not a collectivist, however. I don't believe that the government has authority over our income (our property!)
-
So I understand the question:
Does this just mean taking money away from rich people, and it disappearing into thin air?
if it is going to do that i would say no. depends what happens with the money. if they get donated to people who actually need it... go for it! XD income equality ftw
-
income equality ftw
That is communist. What about those who have not worked very hard for their money? If lazy people are guaranteed an equal income to the passionate skilled labourer down the road, then why would anyone want to work?
In fact, it is precisely this disincentive that is the cause of the dead-weight loss (the dollars that the government takes out of you actually results in some money being 'burnt'). Taxes take a portion of your income. This reduces the benefit of your labour, and makes you more averse from working. This is how taxes lower economic output. Whether this overall decrease in economic output is worth the effects of equality is another question.
-
So I understand the question:
Does this just mean taking money away from rich people, and it disappearing into thin air?
if it is going to do that i would say no. depends what happens with the money. if they get donated to people who actually need it... go for it! XD income equality ftw
but is that fair? if entrepreneurs like some hopefuls amongst us had their money taken away, their hardwork dispelled, and they are set-back to little more than those people who did so little in comparison to them, what kind of motivation is that? its like an ideal communist state...
EDIT: LOL @ coblin and his communism... ;D
-
That is communist. What about those who have not worked very hard for their money? If lazy people are guaranteed an equal income to the passionate skilled labourer down the road, then why would anyone want to work?
In fact, it is precisely this disincentive that is the cause of the dead-weight loss (the dollars that the government takes out of you actually results in some money being 'burnt'). Taxes take a portion of your income. This reduces the benefit of your labour, and makes you more averse from working. This is how taxes lower economic output. Whether this overall decrease in economic output is worth the effects of equality is another question.
I didn't say equal income. Just a small percentage of the richer people's income. I suppose taxes already does that.
-
I didn't say equal income.
ahem..
XD income equality ftw
-
ohh oops! i meant as in let the poorer people have a bit more income n the richer people a bit less income so that the difference won't be that big. not everyone have the same income. my bad!
-
ohh oops! i meant as in let the poorer people have a bit more income n the richer people a bit less income so that the difference won't be that big. not everyone have the same income. my bad!
how exactly are you gonna make that happen?
-
ohh oops! i meant as in let the poorer people have a bit more income n the richer people a bit less income so that the difference won't be that big. not everyone have the same income. my bad!
This will still make the lazy person lazier, and the passionate worker less passionate.
-
I can't possibly understand why anyone would have voted Yes, but there is one vote for it!
They must have the delusion that their success is achieved by bringing others down. This is a flawed concept: it fundamentally assumes the world is a zero-sum game (i.e.: there is a winner and a loser for everything - unless it is neutral). This is not true because when you go to your local milk bar, you buy bread for whatever price they charge, and you do this because you value the bread more than the money spent on it, otherwise you would not have purchased it. Similarly, the seller values your cash more than the bread he or she just gave up, or it would not have been for sale at that price. In this way, voluntary transactions have created winners for both parties.
-
how exactly are you gonna make that happen?
lol u tell me. in your first post you said if there were some government policy. >.< too lazy to think now
-
There already such a switch...and I believe its on:
Income-based sliding scale tax rates.
-
There already such a switch...and I believe its on:
Income-based sliding scale tax rates.
ahhh, but is that substantial enough to reach the "assumed disposition" we're talking about??
nope, dont see it happening...
but when it does get substantial enough............
-
how exactly are you gonna make that happen?
lol u tell me. in your first post you said if there were some government policy. >.< too lazy to think now
yeah i just posited if there were ever such a government policy. But how exactly would you go about it sheepz?
-
what do you mean how would I go about it? o.0 i would say taxes is the easiest way to do that if thats what you're after...
-
what do you mean how would I go about it? o.0 i would say taxes is the easiest way to do that if thats what you're after...
But with taxes, you are coercing people, and taking their money against their will. What right does a man have to take from another against his will? Does the bible not say 'thou shall not steal'? If you must not steal, then you must not use government to steal for you.
-
I voted no :)
-
what do you mean how would I go about it? o.0 i would say taxes is the easiest way to do that if thats what you're after...
But with taxes, you are coercing people, and taking their money against their will. What right does a man have to take from another against his will? Does the bible not say 'thou shall not steal'? If you must not steal, then you must not use government to steal for you.
brendan thats a little unfair as the original question was:
If there were some government policy that would make the rich poorer without affecting the income of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch? Why? Why not?
you asked for people's opinions, why/not would they flip the switch, not for those people whom you disagree with to show that a policy could be implemented to achieve their view-point...
you have set up the scenario WITH the system in place, should it not be us who are questioning you how such a switch is put in place?? (no that is not for me to prove, you asked the question, you set up the scenario, you prove it)
-
what do you mean how would I go about it? o.0 i would say taxes is the easiest way to do that if thats what you're after...
But with taxes, you are coercing people, and taking their money against their will. What right does a man have to take from another against his will? Does the bible not say 'thou shall not steal'? If you must not steal, then you must not use government to steal for you.
brendan thats a little unfair as the original question was:
Why is that unfair? Is it not fact? Is it not truth that taxes are by definition involuntary?
you have set up the scenario WITH the system in place, should it not be us who are questioning you how such a switch is put in place?? (no that is not for me to prove, you asked the question, you set up the scenario, you prove it)
I merely asked if there was a government policy, any government policy that would make the rich poorer without affecting the income of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch i.e. enact such a policy.
So the response to your post is: prove what? I have not made any claims in my original post and so your post makes no sense.
-
what do you mean how would I go about it? o.0 i would say taxes is the easiest way to do that if thats what you're after...
But with taxes, you are coercing people, and taking their money against their will. What right does a man have to take from another against his will? Does the bible not say 'thou shall not steal'? If you must not steal, then you must not use government to steal for you.
taxes is not really stealing? if you don't want to pay taxes don't work or move to another country. then you won't be robbed. and besides, if u want to quote the bible, the more relevant part would be when Jesus said 'pay to Caesar what is Caesar's' when the pharisees tried to trip him up by asking whether they should pay taxes.
-
what do you mean how would I go about it? o.0 i would say taxes is the easiest way to do that if thats what you're after...
But with taxes, you are coercing people, and taking their money against their will. What right does a man have to take from another against his will? Does the bible not say 'thou shall not steal'? If you must not steal, then you must not use government to steal for you.
taxes is not really stealing? if you don't want to pay taxes don't work or move to another country. then you won't be robbed. and besides, if u want to quote the bible, the more relevant part would be when Jesus said 'pay to Caesar what is Caesar's' when the pharisees tried to trip him up by asking whether they should pay taxes.
Can a person simply refuse to not pay his taxes? Can he? Is it not stealing to take from a man his property against using coercion?
Secondly, then they asked Jesus whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar not whether it is right or moral for Caesar to demand such payment using the coercive powers of the State.
-
I think that it is fair when higher income earners recieve tax cuts. For example, doctors and lawyers who have gone to University for 6 years - and finally their hard work has paid off through high wages. They shouldn't be poorer, if we could "flip the switch". We need skilled workers, so tax cuts for higher paid workers (whilst keeping it a progressive tax system) wouldn't cause much harm.
-
I think taxes should also take in account the number of people depending on the person being taxed.
There's 7 people in my family all living of my Dad's income alone. He earns just enough to support us all,
after taxes, even though he could be considered 'rich' if one looked at his income alone.
I wouldn't 'flip the switch'. I think people who have worked had to earn a lot deserve to keep it. Who would decide where the cut off for rich was anyway?
-
Someone voted yes :O
-
I know. This was my response to it a while back:
I can't possibly understand why anyone would have voted Yes, but there is one vote for it!
They must have the delusion that their success is achieved by bringing others down. This is a flawed concept: it fundamentally assumes the world is a zero-sum game (i.e.: there is a winner and a loser for everything - unless it is neutral). This is not true because when you go to your local milk bar, you buy bread for whatever price they charge, and you do this because you value the bread more than the money spent on it, otherwise you would not have purchased it. Similarly, the seller values your cash more than the bread he or she just gave up, or it would not have been for sale at that price. In this way, voluntary transactions have created winners for both parties.
-
OMG 2 people voted yes. For what possible reason would you want government to flip that switch?
-
It is the irrational envy of others.
To them, I give you the words of the great Marcus Tullius Cicero: “Do not hold the delusion that your advancement is accomplished by crushing others.”
In fact, it can even be self-defeating. Chances are the rich are investing their surplus into growing companies that would require the use of labour.
-
lol just in case you guys were thinking that i voted no... i didn't vote at all =.= even though i did seem to side with no, i also don't like the 'bringing people down' idea...
-
On what other basis than pure envy and jealousy could you vote yes?
-
Obama would flip it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121910303529751345.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
-
On what other basis than pure envy and jealousy could you vote yes?
somebody might want to flip it if they didn't like what "the rich" were doing with their money, [and thought it would be better in the hands of the government
-
I can't see how anyone would think that way. It is of no-one elses business what I do with my money (not saying I am rich). If I want to splurge 3 million dollars in collectable Sydney 2000 Olmypics merchandise, who are you (not you personally, just using to illustrate) to tell me that I can't do that.
-
I was just reading this thread and I don't understand.
Why do people always gang up on communism? Why never capitalism?
What's so great about capitalism? Why is it better than communism?
-
Straw man argument.
I'm not saying Obama's plan isn't going to strip money off the rich, but it's not so he can rub his hands together with glee that he 'picked off the tall poppies'.
It's going to poorer people in the form of TAX CREDITS. I.E. the government WILL increase the income of the lower earners.
Fail straw-man argument fails.
-
Why do people always gang up on communism?
I don't think communism was mentioned but if you must ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
Also compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany
-
The Obama tax plan as analyzed by Alex Brill and Alan Viard
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan
(http://www.american.com/graphics/2008/august-2008/FS_Obama_Tax.jpg)
-
What does the vertical axis represent?
-
What does the vertical axis represent?
effective marginal tax rates
-
Why do people always gang up on communism?
I don't think communism was mentioned but if you must ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
Also compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany
But that's just in practice.
See how magnificent it looks in THEORY.
-
Theory is no use if it can't be practically implemented, considering that the theory is devised for practical implementation.
-
Why do people always gang up on communism?
I don't think communism was mentioned but if you must ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
Also compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany
But that's just in practice.
See how magnificent it looks in THEORY.
LOL are u joking or was that serious?
-
LOL are u joking or was that serious?
I LOL'ed at the reaction
-
Why do people always gang up on communism?
I don't think communism was mentioned but if you must ask: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
Also compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Germany
But that's just in practice.
See how magnificent it looks in THEORY.
LOL are u joking or was that serious?
Joking.
...
Somewhat.
:'(
-
A good theory is practical. What I (thought) experimented with in year 10 and 11 showed me that it wasn't so much that "communism worked in theory, but not in practice" but instead, "communism doesn't even work in theory, let alone in practice."
-
Collin, practicable*. But otherwise yes. Communism doesn't take into account the need for checks and balances and therefore fails rather miserably. Checks and balances are one of the main reasons why democracy works the best out of all the theories of gov't postulated.
-
Collin, practicable*. But otherwise yes. Communism doesn't take into account the need for checks and balances and therefore fails rather miserably. Checks and balances are one of the main reasons why democracy works the best out of all the theories of gov't postulated.
I think you will find that most of the time the checks and balances are basically just individualist principles - democracy is kept in check when the individual has his or her own rights.
-
I think that without checks and balances like the governor general, you can get an irreponsible nitwit like old goughy to plunder the Australian economy. HOORAY DOUBLE DISSOLUTION BILL
(Yes, I'm saying I would rather not have had the Whitlam gov't. I still support the current labor government though)
-
I think that without checks and balances like the governor general, you can get an irreponsible nitwit like old goughy to plunder the Australian economy. HOORAY DOUBLE DISSOLUTION BILL
(Yes, I'm saying I would rather not have had the Whitlam gov't. I still support the current labor government though)
My Politics teacher idealizes Gough and Hawkey.
-
There are sets of checks and balances within our whole legal system. I think they are pretty pivotal.
-
I think that without checks and balances like the governor general, you can get an irreponsible nitwit like old goughy to plunder the Australian economy. HOORAY DOUBLE DISSOLUTION BILL
(Yes, I'm saying I would rather not have had the Whitlam gov't. I still support the current labor government though)
My Politics teacher idealizes Gough and Hawkey.
His ideas were good, except his fiscal responsibility was non-existent and he was so reckless that he could have ruined Australia for decades to come. Thank god for checks and balances.
-
I like checks and balances too and the dismissal was right. However, I like the enormous contribution Gough made to education in Australia. Perhaps 'free uni' in itself isn't the wisest thing ever, but making it accessible is. We now have an older generation of educated people which we otherwise probably wouldn't have (which would be to all our detriment - as in on a world-wide scale).