The Glade 4.0

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

God he's an idiot.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I keep hearing this "pay the same rate as" stuff thrown around...

And yet used, at the same time, to justify taxes that scale based on income.

How can you put the two of those together?

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Have you guys even looked at the Warren Buffet rule? It's a tax on wealth: the President literally wants the wealthy to pay taxes on money they've already been taxed through the ringer on and saved.

_________________

I'm painfully aware.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

For those of you who have only heard the media snippets, the Buffett rule includes, as income, uncapitalized investment games. They're calling it the Buffett rule to make people feel good about it, but guess what will be hammered by this new tax the most?

_________________

Guess I'm not investing any money in the market.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

401k's, 403b's, IRA's, Roth IRA's, Pension Funds, brokerage accounts earmarked for future home and education purposes, Cash Value Life Insurance, cities and towns who depend on Municipal Bond investment, 529 Plans, UTMA accounts, SEP IRA's, Keogh Plans, ect...

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Out of curiosity, why should the government tax capital gains and savings at lower rates than wages and consumption? Isn't favoring one kind of economic activity over another paternalistic and distortionary?

For the sake of argument, I'll play your game and assume we should be commoditizing human labor.

With that said... there are several reasons:

a) Because it's uncapitalized, and as such, it isn't earned income or an actual gain.

b) Because it discourages savings and investment.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Well, human labor is a commodity, whether or not one disapproves of that fact. People always have and probably always will be willing to trade their time and effort for money and goods (or for the time and effort of others).

In any event, as for the other points:

(a) Sure, but the holders could just cash out. Otherwise, you are, again, distorting economic activity by favoring long-term holdings over short-term holdings.

(b) That just begs the question. The issue is whether (and why) the government should be in the business of encouraging/discouraging a particular type of economic activity. Why are savings and investment good? Why is it ok for the government to favor those who do it over those who don't?

*ETA: To be clear, I know savings and investment lead to greater economic growth over the long-term, and I, as a self-identified moderate liberal, think it's ok for the government to try to manage and improve the economy to some extent. It just seems inconsistent with the more laissez-faire view folks on the right generally take, so I'm curious why you make an exception for government interference that favor savings and investment.

Commodities are fungible, RangerDave; last I checked, human beings truly aren't, even if we treat them that way in payroll.

_________________

Savings and investment are essential to economic growth and stability, and therefor are essential to prosperity. For the sake of this argument, I shall assume the position that government should exist. With that said, do you believe that government should do things that foster growth, stability, and prosperity; or things that hamper and even depress it?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I think my edit crossed with your post, Rynar. I do believe the government should do those things, but I'm a moderate liberal, so I think government interference in the economy is ok. I find it interesting, though, that so many libertarians abhor government interference in the economy generally, but make an exception for policies that favor savings and investment. It makes me think at least some "libertarian" critiques of government are rooted in moral views of work and thrift rather than truly individualistic, anti-interventionist beliefs.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to use the technical definition of commodities, though; I was just saying that human labor has economic value and can be traded for other things that have economic value.

Seeing as most of the people you're talking to oppose taxes on income in the first place, complaining that they oppose taxes on savings and investment even more as somehow "making an exception" is extremely weak at best and a strawman at worst.

Most people here that you're addressing, to my understanding at least, favor sales and consumptions taxes and have explained why already. You seem to be starting from the assumption that all economic activity should be taxed equally and that deviation from this requires justification, when in fact, not all economic activity is the same and therefore the positon that it should all be taxed equally requires at least as much justification as the idea that it should be taxed differently.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You are mis-stating the position, RD. You are assuming a basic position that the government is essential to the economy, and are projecting that onto my position. That is false. By not taxing savings and investment, it is not the government taking a position to modify the natural economy in some way. It is the government taking the position to not modify the economy. But not modifying the economy, they are fostering growth.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

What if they got their money through selling a successful startup, hypothetically?

The libertarian arguments you are thinking of are based in the reality of the now, rather than the ideal. Rather than m,ake things go further from the ideal, certain concessions to what [b]is/[b] need to be made.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

If the government imposes a 30% tax on X, but only a 15% tax on Y, how is that not modifying the economy? All else being equal, more of Y and less of X will get produced than if they were treated equally.

This is what government non-intervention looks like:


(Hong Kong)

Where does "not taxing savings and investment" somehow become conflated with "government imposes a 30% tax on X, but only a 15% tax on Y"?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Again, you are imposing a flawed approach to economies on the discussion.

The default position of a natural economy is zero intervention, where as you are beginning with the inverse, and working outwards.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the position advocated by many here that we should eliminate (or at least sharply reduce) taxes on income and capital gains and instead raise revenue primarily through consumption taxes and service fees?

But why should I be taxed 30% on my income, and then when I save or invest be taxed another 15%? That is double taxation.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut