@SavoirFaire
Government operates courtrooms, so why are they protesting Wall Street when they should be protesting in Washington only?
Government allows lobbying, not Wall Street. So protest Washington, not Wall Street.
Government creates policies, not Wall Street. So protest in Washington, not Wall Street.
I never said taxation is stealing, I said redistribution of wealth is stealing. If rich people legitimately obtained property through voluntary trading, then the government has no right to take anything away from them. They should be charged just as much taxes as anyone else for the simple role of the government (police, court rooms, military). There should be no public service, that’s the point I’m trying to make. I don’t want the government to have a monopoly on roads, transportation, etc…therefore; I don’t want to be taxed for it more, even though I may benefit from it more. Having the market takeover roads and transportation would lower the cost factor due to the competition, it would be more efficient and evolving, and I would pay for the service only when I need it. You don’t get that option with government; instead you get taxed more for using it more and you consistently pay for it whether you make use of it or not.
Now, here are a few additional points on why progressive taxation won’t work even if implemented.
1. Raising taxes on the rich lowers savings rates. High-earners have a lower average propensity to consume, so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate savings rate, which should increase steady state growth (if the savings rate is initially below the Golden Rule savings rate).
2. “The diminishing returns argument applies to the fraction of income used for present consumption. As income rises, diminishing returns implies that a smaller and smaller fraction of income will be spent on consumption goods. The remaining income will (of necessity) be used to purchase capital goods. This acts as a form of positive feedback that in turn yields more income for capital spending. Meanwhile (and because) these capital goods induce a decline in the costs of production which has the effect of raising real wages generally and implicitly raising the general standard of living. The income paid back on the capital helps create the disincentive to consume that creates capital spending. Thus, those capitalists who effectively manage their property are rewarded and given control of more (newly created) property, of which they are increasingly less inclined to consume and increasingly more inclined to purchase capital goods and thus further elevate the general standard of living by driving down the costs of production. As they acquire more capital goods, eventually their ownership outstrips their ability to manage and oversee what they own; however, they control only as many capital goods as can be attributed to the income of their prior capital——which previously did not exist. Therefore, their ownership does not negatively contribute to the general standard-of-living relative to counterfactual state of them not purchasing those goods. It would thus be misleading to argue that redistributing their capital may yield further increases in the standard-of-living. Doing so may well cause that effect, but doing so neglects that it was the assumption that redistribution would not happen that induced the accumulation of capital.” — Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of his System, 1896
3. Raising taxes on the rich shifts the total economic production of society away from capital investments (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present consumption goods. High-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. Spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the standard of living, and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future production possibilities.
4. Raising taxes on the rich creates work disincentive. Consider again someone who makes twice the minimum required to live on but pays all income above the minimum living threshold in taxes. Such a person had no monetary incentive at all to try to increase his or her income above the base level.
5. Then there is economy equity, which is representation being out-of-proportion to taxation. While the top 5% in income, in most countries pay over half the taxes, they have only 5% of the voting weight. Or reverse this into the plutocratic case, that if tax is to be progressive, it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most.
Keep the government at out of the market completely will allow everything to be in the same tax bracket despite the amount of wealth they accumulate.
Keeping the government at out of the market completely would allow everyone to stay in the same tax bracket despite the amount of wealth they accumulate, and that tax bracket would be 10% if not less.
You know that 48.5% of this country are on welfare? Most of that % are tax exempt.
I don’t see anyone in a uproar on that class. Or is the American dream that everyone live equally in poverty?
Composing members:
0
