Monaco avoid 75% super tax

[scaramanga]

Are you saying that the tax system should change so that everyone just gives however much they want to?

I'm saying that the tax system should take the very minimum possible for a functioning society (Street lighting, military, roads, etc) any more than that should be optional.

 

[braineclipse]

Spot on. Hence, why there is absolutely no "moral basis" for the argument that "the rich should be taxed more".



I also agree with this to an extent. Because, if one is not happy with the "tax-rates", he is allowed to leave the country, and join another country who offers a more amiable taxation system.

However, your point here is again not a "moral" argument for higher taxes.

And it is those who seem to think that it is somehow "moral" to tax the rich more that baffles me.

Even if I agreed with Scara on the "What does how the money became theirs have to do with it?" point of view for the sake of argument that wasn't a counter to all of the points I raised in the post where I answered your question. If you want to ignore what I say that's fine, but if you want to dismiss what I say and re-state your question then I think it's on you to actually answer the points I raised.

The post you actually quoted me on wasn't an attempt to show the moral basis you asked for.

 

[scaramanga]

It is a war we are losing at the moment though.

It's a war you've always lost, are losing and always will lose.

Don't fight it, just join the winning side.

 

[the dza]

"Upholding a Society" and "functioning society"

Aren't these just synonyms for "the poor will rob/steal/loot from the rich, unless the rich give the poor (the masses) what they want (through higher taxes)"?

It's like the London Riots - the "have nots" are envious of those who "have", and somehow think that they too should enjoy the luxuries that the rich enjoy.

Pretty much. The rich would see the rest of us living in slums earning 20p an hour if they could get away with it. In this scenario, they'd be dragged into the streets and killed by people with nothing to lose. But the aim of rich, selfish bastards is to have as much as possible at the expense of everyone else.

The only thing we in the working class have is numbers and that threat you alluded to. Which is why the only time we have really had a say in recent history was after the end of World War 2, when tooled up soldiers came home after a few years of killing people. It was somewhat of a tipping point, but make no mistake, the rich are seeing to it that we are sliding back to what went before.

 

[braineclipse]

Does this mean we can stop paying road tax then what if you have a child in private education and private health care can we get rebates for this?

I don't know how it works you the UK, does your road tax pay for all costs involved in road construction and maintenance?

Can people who have no children stop paying the portion of their taxes that go towards education?

I know in some countries private educational institutions get at least some state funding to compensate for the fact that the students attending there no longer need to receive funding towards a public education. To me that makes some sense, although with public funding there should be at least some public oversight.

In general I don't think a "pay only for what you yourself use" is a fair system overall. If you're a pacifist should you be able to stop paying the portion of your taxes that go towards the military? If you don't have kids... If you yourself or your kids didn't attend higher education... To me in a fair system what should be provided by the state for everyone is decided upon and how that money is then collected is based primarily on income.

"Upholding a Society" and "functioning society"

Aren't these just synonyms for "the poor will rob/steal/loot from the rich, unless the rich give the poor (the masses) what they want (through higher taxes)"?

It's like the London Riots - the "have nots" are envious of those who "have", and somehow think that they too should enjoy the luxuries that the rich enjoy.

No it's really not and I think you're being hyperbolic at best. I disagree with Scara here, but he obviously accepts that a functioning society needs money to function. If you don't go ahead and proclaim yourself an anarchist or something.

I'm saying that the tax system should take the very minimum possible for a functioning society (Street lighting, military, roads, etc) any more than that should be optional.

I can see this point of view to some extent and at least in theory I think it can be defended, although I disagree with the application.

I really struggle to see how you can argue that this system will produce a better society than a system that also includes education and health care in the operating budget though. Particularly education by the way, I could see the American right style "no/little public health care" argument to some extent, but no public education?

 

[DHSF]

I'm with you guys too. I find the attitude that "higher earners should owe more to society through higher taxes" very weird.

I think the situation with Monaco (the football team) and the French League shows a good resemblance with how taxes rates are set in the real world.

Basically, i don't think tax rates have anything to do with whats "fair" or not. The other teams in the french league have seen that Monaco have a lot of money, and therefore they can coerce Monaco into paying a lump fee every year.
That is basically whats happening in the real world i think with taxes. There are a lot less elite income earners than people who earn a more "standard" rate, and therefore when the time comes for the electorate to appoint a pm, they inevitably select one who's taxation policies benefit them (the majority).

Can anyone really give a morally justifiable argument as to why "higher income earners should pay more in taxes"? yet people seem to bleat this line every time.

I totally agree. Im not going to pretend that I know too much about tax but what I do know is that high earners use the same roads, same NHS system (im presuming they have private) and all sorts of other things - SO WHY should they pay more? Its not like all of a sudden they have private police on stand by or fire engines in their garage.

To Cochise - yes £1m is a lot but im sure they have worked for it and it doesnt matter what others earn per se, its about fairness and parity. Like I say, they get the same public services as anyone else.

 

[Neymar]

I really struggle to see how you can argue that this system will produce a better society than a system that also includes education and health care in the operating budget though. Particularly education by the way, I could see the American right style "no/little public health care" argument to some extent, but no public education?

Yeah but so is your argument that we should make the rich pay for the poor's education fees?
Surely that should be optional, no? we should create channels through which the rich can donate to specific areas in which they have an interest if they so wish to do so.

 

[the dza]

Rich people can pay more because they can afford to.

Someone working in a warehouse who earns £14k per year doesn't have much money to contribute to the tax pot. But that person still does a job that needs doing. If every worker in all of the warehouses, factories, office/call centre bottom rung jobs, cleaners etc. etc. stopped doing their job, then society wouldn't function properly.

So the social contract is that people who can afford it (those who earn more) subsidise those who can't afford it by paying more into the pot. That way, the guy in the warehouse doesn't die in the street coz he can't afford to go to hospital. And the better off get to live in a world that spins around because they have helped enable the poorer people to keep going.

The reality is that the very rich avoid as much as possible, contribute as little as possible and do whatever they want. The "squeezed middle" wring their hands a little bit, but not too much, coz they envisage themselves eating at the top table with the very rich. And those at the bottom get f**k in the **** and get told that they are lazy ponces, that it's all the fault of immigrants and all the rest of it.

So I can't help but come back to thinking "f**k the rich" because that is what they think about the likes of me.

 

[braineclipse]

It's a war you've always lost, are losing and always will lose.

Don't fight it, just join the winning side.

(Setting aside just how much I dislike the use of the word "war" for something like this, not because I'm so ****ing PC, but because as a descriptive word it's poor, bordering on useless)

Arguably it's a war the poor have always lost in the end.

Historically it's not always been a war the rich have always won though, at least in my opinion. In addition to making sure that there's enough financial stability to keep making money and to stay rich (avoiding a major depression) there are two ways to keep winning this war for the rich, seems to be either:

A. Keep the floor of the society high enough to where the poor won't rebel. This seems to be the sustainable model,

B. Have a police state/militaristic control over the population. This doesn't really seem sustainable.

Ignoring concerns about human compassion completely I think it should be in the interest of the rich class to both keep the financial situation relatively stable and to keep the poorer classes relatively happy.

 

[jts1882]

They don't just use the same roads. They tend to live on roads in wealthy areas where the neighbourhood is safe and the police respond quickly to trouble rather than in rundown neighbourhoods where noone cares. They tend to own (directly or indirectly) companies that rely on the national infrastructure: roads and railways for transport, legal framework protecting property, access to healthy and educated workforce, etc.

Ask who has the most to lose if the state and all its protections and infrastructure breaks down, the rich company owner living in fancy suburbs or the poor guy living in the ghetto? The former has a lot to lose if the things taxes pay for disappear, while latter might be better off. So the rich have a higher stake in the things taxes pay for and should pay more taxes relatively.

 

[the dza]

Arguably it's a war the poor have always lost in the end.

It's a war that never ends, but there are plenty of battles that have been won by working people.

We don't have little kids working in factories or down mines, we have the right to vote, we can create unions. Even having a f**king weekend off was something that working people had to fight for.

In this country, we are fortunate that our ancestors fought and won these battles for us, when the playing field was a little more level. In the 3rd world, you'll see that these battles are much harder (if not impossible) for the poorest to win, because desperate people are much easier to suppress than they were 100 years ago.

But there will always be battles to fight, because rich people want theirs at the expense of those less well off. that is how it is and it's not going to change. But it is always worth fighting against, if you happen to be on the poor side of the fence.

 

[braineclipse]

Yeah but so is your argument that we should make the rich pay for the poor's education fees?
Surely that should be optional, no? we should create channels through which the rich can donate to specific areas in which they have an interest if they so wish to do so.

Not exclusively, no.

Payment for public education obviously doesn't come exclusively from the rich. If you think I'm wrong about this, please point me towards the example country where what you're claiming that I'm arguing is the case.

In reality payment for public education from the poor comes in part from the poor themselves, in part from the middle classes and in part from the rich. The proportions of that will vary from country to country even though the rich generally contribute more than the poor per person.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the parents of a child cannot afford the cost of paying for that child's schooling then that child shouldn't get an education unless richer people chose to donate money towards that cause?
Could you give me an example of a society that has been stable and prosperous over time using your model? Preferably one in modern times. I struggle to think of an example, but perhaps you have some ideal society in mind.

 

[braineclipse]

It's a war that never ends, but there are plenty of battles that have been won by working people.

We don't have little kids working in factories or down mines, we have the right to vote, we can create unions. Even having a f**king weekend off was something that working people had to fight for.

In this country, we are fortunate that our ancestors fought and won these battles for us, when the playing field was a little more level. In the 3rd world, you'll see that these battles are much harder (if not impossible) for the poorest to win, because desperate people are much easier to suppress than they were 100 years ago.

But there will always be battles to fight, because rich people want theirs at the expense of those less well off. that is how it is and it's not going to change. But it is always worth fighting against, if you happen to be on the poor side of the fence.

I don't disagree with at all, I don't think this is incompatible with what Scara said that I agreed with.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

They don't just use the same roads. They tend to live on roads in wealthy areas where the neighbourhood is safe and the police respond quickly to trouble rather than in rundown neighbourhoods where noone cares. They tend to own (directly or indirectly) companies that rely on the national infrastructure: roads and railways for transport, legal framework protecting property, access to healthy and educated workforce, etc.

Ask who has the most to lose if the state and all its protections and infrastructure breaks down, the rich company owner living in fancy suburbs or the poor guy living in the ghetto? The former has a lot to lose if the things taxes pay for disappear, while latter might be better off. So the rich have a higher stake in the things taxes pay for and should pay more taxes relatively.

Where i used to live in Brighton up near the hospital was close to Sussex square the best address in the town but also at the end of the road was the turning up to Whitehawk (council estate) i could see both areas from my flat. I can tell you in the 3 and half years i lived there that i was for ever hearing police cars going up to the council estate and only once did i hear one go into the square.

Remember reading in the Guardian last year i know i know it is very left wing but i like to read all the papers. The was a story about a Nottingham police force that decided to have a different approach to problem families and crime. So they targeted families with a history of problems and got them social workers and extra help etc. It worked though because over a few years the families that had the extra help were less likely to have children go into crime.

Though the above was obviously a good thing it is just another example of how the poorest take so much from the state, i do not believe it is up to the richest who already pay so much tax in this country to keep bailing out the poorest for their poor decisions. Just like we were wrong to keep bailing out the banks without them changing their working practices.

 

[Neymar]

If you turn the question around to "can anyone give a morally justifiable argument as to why lower income earners should pay less in taxes" and obvious arguments spring to mind.

For example:

Those who make less have a significantly lower proportion of their income as disposable income. Most accept that in a modern society everyone should have access to food, housing, electricity etc. After all of those are paid for there's a massive difference between various economic classes in what is available to spend on what can be seen as "luxuries". To me it makes sense from a humanistic perspective that those with less of a disposable income available to them pay less. I'm not only talking about the outright poor here, but an extension of "a society is judged by how it treats it's weakest members" into a model where those who have very little pay less and those who have very much pay more and those in between pay along a continuum makes a lot of sense to me.

I accept “most” do accept that everyone should have access to basic human needs (although what these “needs” consist of, is obviously up for debate). However, I still do not understand why the richer should be forced to pay for other’s needs. Surely it makes better sense to give them the option to pay for other’s needs if they wish to do so.

You also say that “from a humanistic perspective those with less of a disposable income available to them (should) pay less”. I’ve got to disagree with this. Because to agree to it would mean that we are unfairly forcing higher earners to pay more whilst receiving the same benefits as those who contribute less. That to me strikes me as being very unfair and an imbalance of justice. Again my ideal solution to solving this conundrum would be to offer those who wish to pay (for others) with the appropriate channels to do so.

Particularly in countries where good education is expensive I think this kind of taxation is also very important to retain a level of social mobility. I think a level of social mobility is very important for a society both from a humane point of view and from a socio-economic one.

I’ve mentioned what I think terms such as “social mobility” is a euphemism for in a previous post.

Another important point in my opinion is that the wealthy aren't wealthy only as a result of their own efforts. Not saying they don't deserve their wealth, nor am I saying that the job-creation that societies get from entrepreneurs isn't important. But those with a lot of money do use public services such as roads in the process to get or stay rich. Significantly more than a "working Joe" does. They're also, at least to some significant degree, getting rich off the hard work of others.

The point that; those with a lot of money use public services more so than others; I can partially agree with.

However then, lets make them pay for those services that they are using. Not pay for services that they are not. I.e. Nhs, public education etc.

And an even more appropriate solution would be not to create differences in levels of income tax (based on levels of income), but to focus more on comsumption taxes (VAT) and service taxes. This way the rate will be the same for everyone, yet those who use the services/social structures provided by society more often would still contribute a larger absolute figure.

 

[braineclipse]

Where i used to live in Brighton up near the hospital was close to Sussex square the best address in the town but also at the end of the road was the turning up to Whitehawk (council estate) i could see both areas from my flat. I can tell you in the 3 and half years i lived there that i was for ever hearing police cars going up to the council estate and only once did i hear one go into the square.

Remember reading in the Guardian last year i know i know it is very left wing but i like to read all the papers. The was a story about a Nottingham police force that decided to have a different approach to problem families and crime. So they targeted families with a history of problems and got them social workers and extra help etc. It worked though because over a few years the families that had the extra help were less likely to have children go into crime.

Though the above was obviously a good thing it is just another example of how the poorest take so much from the state, i do not believe it is up to the richest who already pay so much tax in this country to keep bailing out the poorest for their poor decisions. Just like we were wrong to keep bailing out the banks without them changing their working practices.

So you're saying that there are efforts that make sense both long term socio-economically and from a human perspective, but we shouldn't do it because short term the rich would have slightly less money?

Long term you could have fewer criminals, more educated people in jobs paying taxes, more parents capable of taking care of their families and less human suffering. But this isn't what you want? Instead you want more money to the rich short term, and in the wake of that you'll get more criminals, fewer educated people in jobs paying taxes, fewer parents capable of taking care of their families and more human suffering. And long term that will of course lead to more social issues that will continue to spread.

It's an opinion I really struggle to understand. It's an opinion that historically you haven't been alone in holding though, so you've got that going for you...

 

[Neymar]

Not exclusively, no.

Payment for public education obviously doesn't come exclusively from the rich. If you think I'm wrong about this, please point me towards the example country where what you're claiming that I'm arguing is the case.

In reality payment for public education from the poor comes in part from the poor themselves, in part from the middle classes and in part from the rich. The proportions of that will vary from country to country even though the rich generally contribute more than the poor per person.

I agree that payment for public education doesn't come exclusively from the rich. I do not believe i have ever stated that tho. But my point was that ideally and morally those (rich or poor) that do not use a certain service (ie. public education), should not have to contribute to it. Wouldn't you agree that this is fair enough?

Are you seriously suggesting that if the parents of a child cannot afford the cost of paying for that child's schooling then that child shouldn't get an education unless richer people chose to donate money towards that cause?
Could you give me an example of a society that has been stable and prosperous over time using your model? Preferably one in modern times. I struggle to think of an example, but perhaps you have some ideal society in mind.

I am exactly saying that we should not coerce others into paying for things that we cannot afford to; that seems fair and just to me.
If you are right and "society" deems that services such as education are a basic human right, i'm sure that those who can help fund it, will. However, if they do not, we can only take this to mean that "society" does not value education as a basic human right.

No i cannot give you an example. I beleive this is because fundamentally, all people are just "in it for themselves". And therefore, there will be "social unrest" if the poor cannot coerce the richer to pay for things they cannot afford. Hence, my argument that it is not "moral" that the "rich supplement the poor".

 

[braineclipse]

I accept “most” do accept that everyone should have access to basic human needs (although what these “needs” consist of, is obviously up for debate). However, I still do not understand why the richer should be forced to pay for other’s needs. Surely it makes better sense to give them the option to pay for other’s needs if they wish to do so.

You also say that “from a humanistic perspective those with less of a disposable income available to them (should) pay less”. I’ve got to disagree with this. Because to agree to it would mean that we are unfairly forcing higher earners to pay more whilst receiving the same benefits as those who contribute less. That to me strikes me as being very unfair and an imbalance of justice. Again my ideal solution to solving this conundrum would be to offer those who wish to pay (for others) with the appropriate channels to do so.

I’ve mentioned what I think terms such as “social mobility” is a euphemism for in a previous post.

The point that; those with a lot of money use public services more so than others; I can partially agree with.

However then, lets make them pay for those services that they are using. Not pay for services that they are not. I.e. Nhs, public education etc.

And an even more appropriate solution would be not to create differences in levels of income tax (based on levels of income), but to focus more on comsumption taxes (VAT) and service taxes. This way the rate will be the same for everyone, yet those who use the services/social structures provided by society more often would still contribute a larger absolute figure.

You don't believe in social mobility as a good? I'm starting to regret joining in this discussion. Out of curiosity, is this a view shared by anyone arguing for "that side" of the argument?

You don't think rich business owners benefit from having a pool of educated workers available to fill various jobs in their companies? Are you serious?

 

[Neymar]

So you're saying that there are efforts that make sense both long term socio-economically and from a human perspective, but we shouldn't do it because short term the rich would have slightly less money?

We shouldn't coerce the rich into doing things they do not want, on the false argument of "morality". We should give them the option.

Long term you could have fewer criminals, more educated people in jobs paying taxes, more parents capable of taking care of their families and less human suffering. But this isn't what you want? Instead you want more money to the rich short term, and in the wake of that you'll get more criminals, fewer educated people in jobs paying taxes, fewer parents capable of taking care of their families and more human suffering. And long term that will of course lead to more social issues that will continue to spread.

It's an opinion I really struggle to understand. It's an opinion that historically you haven't been alone in holding though, so you've got that going for you...

I personally would like all the things that you mentioned above. But not through coercing others into giving in an unjust manner.

 

[braineclipse]

I agree that payment for public education doesn't come exclusively from the rich. I do not believe i have ever stated that tho. But my point was that ideally and morally those (rich or poor) that do not use a certain service (ie. public education), should not have to contribute to it. Wouldn't you agree that this is fair enough?

I am exactly saying that we should not coerce others into paying for things that we cannot afford to; that seems fair and just to me.
If you are right and "society" deems that services such as education are a basic human right, i'm sure that those who can help fund it, will. However, if they do not, we can only take this to mean that "society" does not value education as a basic human right.

No i cannot give you an example. I beleive this is because fundamentally, all people are just "in it for themselves". And therefore, there will be "social unrest" if the poor cannot coerce the richer to pay for things they cannot afford. Hence, my argument that it is not "moral" that the "rich supplement the poor".

Please see my last post for my question about public education.

Like I said above to jgl I don't think a "pay only for what you use" taxation system is the right way to go.

Can you see the dissonance between thinking that those who can help fund it if it's right will and thinking that everyone's in it for themselves?