Is the concept of fairness irrelevant in taxation?

[Njorl]

I contend that there is no fairness in taxation. I'm not saying that taxes are unfair. On the contrary, I am saying fairness does not enter into the matter.

There is a theory that all wealth is fortuitous, or "lucky". There is the extreme case of the people who win the lottery, or inherit wealth, but that is a small fraction. There are also gifted people, luck in one's genetics is also luck.

However, most wealthy people became rich through a lifetime of hard work. Then you must ask why people work hard. Is it their character, their psyche, their upbringing? All of these are determined by circumstance. Nobody filled out a form before they were born and checked the "hard-working" box instead of the "lazy" box. So, even wealth earned through a lifetime of hard work is "lucky" wealth.

This, I believe, eliminates any premise that the tax system should be fair.

This is not to say that anything goes. There is a moral imperitive for the tax system. It should benefit the society as much as possible, as far as that benefit can be perceived. At first glance, this may look like a justification for Marxism. It isn't, unless you can make the case that Marxism is best for society. I don't think that is so. Clearly, society benefits from hard work and from talents used well. If society wants those benefits, it should monetarily reward those who practice them.

In a fictional, purely capitalist society, those rewards would only be handed out through the marketplace. You would wind up with a small number of extremely wealthy individuals, and a large mass of extremely unhappy people. The result would likely be the violent destruction of society, or enormous resources devoted to preventing it.

Graduated taxation serves an amelioritive function in our society. Those who benefit most from a free and ordered society pay most for the maintenance of it. Those who have the least "lucky" wealth are actually reimbursed to give them more of a stake in society. The majority of us pay for the maintenance of our society, but not as much as the wealthiest do.

Sorry if this seems pedantic. I have found that debates about taxes usually devolve into "the wealthy can afford it" or "it is unfair to be taxed so harshly". Neither argument has merit. Tax the wealthy too harshly, and they willl stop creating wealth. Tax them too leniently, and either society will be unable to govern itself, or the rest of society will be so harshly taxed that it will rebel. It is entirely a matter of practicality. Fairness never enters into it. A 99% tax rate is not unfair. Stupid, it is, but not unfair.

Njorl

 

[loseyourname]

What's wrong with user fees?

 

[JohnDubYa]

However, most wealthy people became rich through a lifetime of hard work. Then you must ask why people work hard. Is it their character, their psyche, their upbringing? All of these are determined by circumstance. Nobody filled out a form before they were born and checked the "hard-working" box instead of the "lazy" box. So, even wealth earned through a lifetime of hard work is "lucky" wealth.

So Lance Armstrong was just lucky to win six Tours de France. And Martin Luther King, Jr. was just lucky when he established the civil rights movement. Audie Murphy was just lucky when he won the Medal of Honor. Saddam Hussein was just unlucky when he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. Adolf Hitler was just unlucky when he deported the Jews to concentration camps. There is no achievement. There is no barbarity. We are all just pawns being played by the hand of fortune.

You cannot deny achievement on one hand, and then assign blame and responsibility on the other.

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds like your opinion - philosophically anyway - matches mine reasonably well (though I'm a bit less pessimistic abou hard work being luck).

The question, however, is: graduated how much? Not an easy question.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I can think of no better excuse to fail than Njorl's argument. Care to contradict?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think this "most wealthy people get that way through a lifetime of hard work" is phoney. Many more people work hard for a lifetime and don't get rich. What's the difference? Well you already pointed out that genes are a matter of luck, and with it an unknowable but probably large proportion of cleverness and drive. And for the rest it's strictly luck, one entrepreneur succeeds while six others fail.

The people who have large amounts of money all want to believe that they deserve it and that any taxes that take part of it away are unjust. But I deny their premise.

 

[aeroegnr]

The problem with taxes is the incredible waste that goes along with it.

I did my own tax research and found that the average US taxpayer paid 37% of their income in taxes, based on data from the CIA World Factbook.

The average taxpayer could work until sometime around may 7th (starting in january) and never keep a penny if they had to pay their taxes before keeping it. Not only is 1/3 of their working life taken from their hands, but the average person has no control over what's done with it. Politicians have become experts at squandering tax dollars on whatever will get them votes, whether that's free prescription medicine or building an indoor rainforest somewhere I'll never care to visit. I for one think the US government has overstepped its constitutional powers and its time to fall back some.

 

[Njorl]

I can think of no better excuse to fail than Njorl's argument. Care to contradict?

Failure is not to society's benefit, and so will not be rewarded. Blame is irrelevant.

Njorl

 

[amp]

Graduated taxation serves an amelioritive function in our society. Those who benefit most from a free and ordered society pay most for the maintenance of it. Those who have the least "lucky" wealth are actually reimbursed to give them more of a stake in society. The majority of us pay for the maintenance of our society, but not as much as the wealthiest do.

Njorl, that's an insightful summary of a spiritual concept of civil-societal administration and it is a wise policy because many times those with the least 'luck' turn out to be the ones with the most to give.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Njorl and Amp - I agree with what you said!

 

[JohnDubYa]

Many more people work hard for a lifetime and don't get rich.

Not only do you have to work hard, you also have to work smart.

However you slice it, this is the No Free Will philosophy.

Failure is not to society's benefit, and so will not be rewarded. Blame is irrelevant.

As long as people are driven by their own self-esteem, "blame" (as you call it) will always be relevant. People don't work hard just to get ahead, but also to establish their own self-worth. You are taking self-worth away from them when you declare their accomplishments a matter of luck.

Pride comes not only from possessing something, but being involved in obtaining the possession, whether it be athletic skill, education, or material objects (such as custom hot rods). You cannot take away that pride without adversely affecting productivity.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Those who benefit most from a free and ordered society pay most for the maintenance of it.

Consider a 25% flat tax. A man who makes $1 million per year pays $250,000 to the government. A man who makes $100,000 per year pays $25,000 to the government, $225,000 less than the richer man. Sounds like a fair system that satisfies your criteria.

 

[russ_watters]

I can think of no better excuse to fail than Njorl's argument.

I agree with that too, but I'm not sure its pertinent.

However:

Failure is not to society's benefit, and so will not be rewarded.

How can you say that? Failure (big failures) in the U.S. is rewarded with cash: welfare, unemployment, bankrupcy.

The people who have large amounts of money all want to believe that they deserve it...

The counter-argument though, is that no one else deserves it either.

 

[BobG]

As long as people are driven by their own self-esteem, "blame" (as you call it) will always be relevant. People don't work hard just to get ahead, but also to establish their own self-worth. You are taking self-worth away from them when you declare their accomplishments a matter of luck.

Pride comes not only from possessing something, but being involved in obtaining the possession, whether it be athletic skill, education, or material objects (such as custom hot rods). You cannot take away that pride without adversely affecting productivity.

I'd have to go with John on this one. Money is important when it's the difference between having necessities and not having them, being able to weather misfortune or having every misfortune turn into a major disaster. Once a person makes somewhere around $50,000 a year, they have enough money to buy as much happiness as money can buy. After that, money becomes more of a validation that you've done well than a real difference maker in your life.

Which is precisely why Njorl's basic premise, that fairness has little relevance to how much you can tax a person, is still correct. It's easier to trade civil stability for money with someone who can cough it up than with someone who's more concerned about HOW to pay a hospital bill than whether the hospital's actually any good.

 

[Njorl]

However: How can you say that? Failure (big failures) in the U.S. is rewarded with cash: welfare, unemployment, bankrupcy.

Welfare and unemployment are at best consolation prizes. Bankruptcy is certainly no reward. Can you seriously contend that any of these are remotely as satisfying as living a secure, middle-class life?

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

I'd have to go with John on this one. Money is important when it's the difference between having necessities and not having them, being able to weather misfortune or having every misfortune turn into a major disaster. Once a person makes somewhere around $50,000 a year, they have enough money to buy as much happiness as money can buy. After that, money becomes more of a validation that you've done well than a real difference maker in your life.

Believe me, $50,000 a year is not all of the happiness money can buy. In many parts of the country, it is not even buying much in the way of a house, let alone happiness.

In my county, a family of 4 can expect to pay about $1700 for mortgage that is purchased through low-income housing, property taxes and property insurance, $600/mo for food, $300/mo car payment, insurance and gas, $200 electric and heat, $30 water, $20 phone. That's about $2850 per month. That's about all the take home pay there is for $50k/yr.

And that's just Montgomery county Maryland. New York and San Francisco have much higher costs of living.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Consider a 25% flat tax. A man who makes $1 million per year pays $250,000 to the government. A man who makes $100,000 per year pays $25,000 to the government, $225,000 less than the richer man. Sounds like a fair system that satisfies your criteria.

I wouldn't call it unfair. My point is fairness is moot. The only question is how well does it work? Does it cause the economy to grow? Does it keep the people happy?

I would argue that even a regressive tax (everyone pays their first $15,000 as tax) was acceptable if it worked. Of course, no regressive tax is going to work any time in the near future. For such to be true, we would all need to be wealthy.

Njorl

 

[BobG]

Believe me, $50,000 a year is not all of the happiness money can buy. In many parts of the country, it is not even buying much in the way of a house, let alone happiness.

In my county, a family of 4 can expect to pay about $1700 for mortgage that is purchased through low-income housing, property taxes and property insurance, $600/mo for food, $300/mo car payment, insurance and gas, $200 electric and heat, $30 water, $20 phone. That's about $2850 per month. That's about all the take home pay there is for $50k/yr.

And that's just Montgomery county Maryland. New York and San Francisco have much higher costs of living.

Njorl

Uh, yeah. Putting dollar amounts out there probably doesn't tell much since cost of living can vary so much. Maryland's a lot more expensive than Colorado (although I'd sure love the thought of a $30 water bill).

But it does bring up a problem with federal tax rates. People are effectively pushed to a higher tax bracket in some areas than others with the same equivalent income. I.e. - a person in Omaha making 30 or 35K is being taxed at lower rate than someone making 50K in the DC area, in spite of the two incomes being roughly equivalent in buying power.

 

[russ_watters]

Welfare and unemployment are at best consolation prizes. Bankruptcy is certainly no reward. Can you seriously contend that any of these are remotely as satisfying as living a secure, middle-class life?

Njorl

Certainly living a secure middle class life is a better "prize" but a "consolation prize" is still a "prize." And those consolation prizes have alternatives too: the alternative to bankrupcy, for example, is having the bank take your house.

 

[Dissident Dan]

What's wrong with user fees?

So, if poor people can't afford the user fees, they get no police protection?

How would user fees work for an issue such as clean air? "Step right up, fill your air tanks".

 

[loseyourname]

So, if poor people can't afford the user fees, they get no police protection?

How would user fees work for an issue such as clean air? "Step right up, fill your air tanks".

Relax, Dan. I didn't say to implement user fees for everything. It works very well in terms of developing city infrastructure, in particular roads, parks, and bridges. Look into the history of New York City and what Robert Moses was able to achieve, almost entirely through the use of tolls. Further, I greatly support the creation of public authorities, as was also done beautifully by Moses. Their funding is not automatic, and as such, they are far more accountable. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is even able to maintain a decent police force, one that was integral in the rescue and cleanup efforts after 9/11, while depending on funding from sources largely other than tax money.

It would be foolish to get rid of all taxes, but prudent to get rid of them everywhere that we can.

 

[ray b]

Consider a 25% flat tax. A man who makes $1 million per year pays $250,000 to the government. A man who makes $100,000 per year pays $25,000 to the government, $225,000 less than the richer man. Sounds like a fair system that satisfies your criteria.

we have a unflat federal tax rate of about 25% NOW! on the poor workers!
remember SS tax but you only pay 1/2 the real rate if you work for someone
so real SS is allmost 15% plus minimum income tax rate that starts at 10%
together that's 25%
note SS drops to ZERO over 88K so that never troubles the real rich at all
BUT INCOME TAX was only to be a RICHMANs's TAX when it started

now let's take billionair BILL GATES most of his wealth is from STOCKS
"W" wants to have NO TAX on DIVIDENDS at all
and DROP the CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES on STOCKS allready below 20% and FALLING.
but that's only part of the story, as the real wealth in stocks is ONLY taxed at sale.
AND "W" wants to cut the death TAX
SO MOST OF Bill's BILLIONS will NEVER EVER BE TAXED
and his REAL tax rate vs his wealth[total income] is less than 1% NOW
unlike the worker who pays 25% total on his very small wealth

AND REPUBLICAN's CLAIM the RICH are over TAXED
thats just another BIG LIE

NOTE please DONOT believe MY #s pick any BIG CEO/CORP owner
and try to figure his tax rate vs his REAL WEALTH INCREASE thru
STOCKS and OPTIONS, perks[ free stuff he gets that workers DONOT] like
golden parachutes, free life insurance, retirement pay, travel, meals, and sports boxes ect all untaxed to him but a tax write off
on the CORPs taxes

 

[JohnDubYa]

My ears are ringing.

 

[ray b]

My ears are ringing.

they should for beliveing neo-con lies
and parroting them WITHOUT CHECKING THE FACTS

 

[plover]

So Lance Armstrong was just lucky to win six Tours de France.

He was lucky to have the genetic predisposition for a physique that facilitated this goal. Presumably also lucky that his passion turned out to be cycling -- suppose he had preferred swimming, he would probably still be considered a gifted athlete, but there's no reason to believe he would necessarily be world class.

And Martin Luther King, Jr. was just lucky when he established the civil rights movement.

Suppose his parents had moved to Milwaukee when he was 8. He would probably still be a gifted orator, but probably would not have been as central to a movement centered in Southern states.

Audie Murphy was just lucky when he won the Medal of Honor.

If you go out on patrol every night but never encounter the enemy, nobody knows whether or not you could be a hero.

Saddam Hussein was just unlucky when he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. Adolf Hitler was just unlucky when he deported the Jews to concentration camps.

This is pretty silly. Those Kurds/Iraqis/Jews/Rom/gays who lived under these guys were unlucky (to put it mildly). The world was unlucky (to put it mildly) that no one in a position to affect the outcome saw through them as they rose to power, (or if they did, took them seriously enough to act against them when it was possible). I suppose one can argue that they were "unlucky" to be severely mentally imbalanced. But if success is being able to reach your goals, they both enjoyed pretty long runs of success. If one's goals (or means) include genocide, you don't get to be surprised if the world takes against you...

There is no achievement. There is no barbarity.

Who was saying this?

We are all just pawns being played by the hand of fortune.

I don't think that people are 'just' anything. But, one contributing factor to the fabric of human life is that we are all pawns of fortune. No?

You cannot deny achievement on one hand, and then assign blame and responsibility on the other.

What in Njorl's statement could be considered an overall denial of achievement, or prescription for assigning blame?

The statement obviously accords a greater place than you would like to factors other than 'free will' (however you're defining it, which might not accord with how other people here define it). But so far nothing you've said supports taking Njorl's statement as some kind of categorical denial of 'free will' (even--to the degree I can guess it--under your definition of the term, let alone anyone else's).

 

[JohnDubYa]

This is pretty silly. Those Kurds/Iraqis/Jews/Rom/gays who lived under these guys were unlucky (to put it mildly).

There is nothing silly about it, according to your logic. After all, if Hitler had been born with "nice" genes, he wouldn't have committed any atrocities, right? Or are we now going to backtrack off the premise?

What in Njorl's statement could be considered an overall denial of achievement, or prescription for assigning blame?

The very notion of assigning luck to achievement denies personal achievement. No matter what factors contributed to success is offered, they are systematically assigned to luck. (Hard work = luck in having hard-work genes.)

But so far nothing you've said supports taking Njorl's statement as some kind of categorical denial of 'free will' (even--to the degree I can guess it--under your definition of the term, let alone anyone else's).

As I just stated, if every factor of achievement is written off as due to luck, then all achievements are a matter of chance. At this time you cannot take any action that cannot be assigned to luck. If you take a gun out and blow out your brains, that is not a sign of free will at all --- you were simply unlucky to have possessed the type of genes that leads to hasty, suicidal acts.

However, if you acknowledge that achievement is due to factors other than luck, then you have no choice but to consider whether punishing someone more for achieving more is fair, negating the original premise.

Frankly, I think the philosophy stated in the original post sounds good to underachievers. After all, if you have little money, what could be better than to find a logical basis for taking more from those that have more? Simply negating their achievements as due to luck works perfectly, until you think it through logically and consider the consequences.

 

[plover]

There is nothing silly about it, according to your logic. After all, if Hitler had been born with "nice" genes, he wouldn't have committed any atrocities, right?

Who said anything about Hitler's genes? The only person whose genes that I mentioned is Lance Armstrong, and only because his success depends in part on overt physical characteristics which are fairly easy to tie to genes. The interactions of genetic heredity, the physical, cultural, and family environments, and random happenstance are complex, and in the vast majority of cases difficult to use predictively, even in hindsight, and even when all the factors are considered together (let alone when only one is used).

While I would be reasonably confident that an examination of Hitler with modern techniques, were such a thing possible, would reveal some kind of organic impairment, I have no reason to believe this problem necessarily to be tied to genetics, rather than being the result of, say, eating lead paint off the walls as a child, being hit over the head one too many times, or just being in the path of one too many cosmic rays.

If I must be explicit, the point of my argument above is that applying the terms "fortunate" or "unfortunate" to figures such as Saddam and Hitler is very difficult. What I find silly is that there could be any meaningful analogy between the statements "Lance Armstrong was just lucky to win six Tours de France" and "Saddam Hussein was just unlucky when he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people". How was it unlucky, for Saddam, (as opposed to the Iraqi people) that he had power of life and death over a large populace?

In other words, the statement about Lance Armstrong is logically consistent but untrue. The statement about Saddam Hussein, unless you have an interpretation that I've missed, is nonsense.

Or are we now going to backtrack off the premise?

Not if we talk about my actual premise...

The very notion of assigning luck to achievement denies personal achievement.

Only if we're positing an all-or-nothing binary system -- such as everything is either just luck or just will.

And if you are suggesting that dichotomy, why do you object to the actions of Saddam Hussein? After all, he was just exercising his will, a practice at which he was quite accomplished!

No matter what factors contributed to success is offered, they are systematically assigned to luck. (Hard work = luck in having hard-work genes.)

I don't think Njorl is -- and I know I'm not -- arguing for any such simplistic equation. I see Njorl as saying (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken), that the extent to which chance does play a part in people's lives is not taken into account in the conventional frame of debates about taxation. He seems to derive this opinion from some of the ideas about the interaction of genetic heredity, neurobiology, and human behavior that have acquired a large amount of scientific support in recent years -- support that could not have been gained using the techniques available in earlier eras.

While I find what he says suggestive and interesting, I have not entirely decided whether I agree with it; and while I think that the wording of Njorl's statement, as it stands, treats some of the underlying ideas of your response somewhat cavalierly, I find your dismissal of it unconvincing.

As I just stated, if every factor of achievement is written off as due to luck,

Here's a premise...

then all achievements are a matter of chance. At this time you cannot take any action that cannot be assigned to luck. If you take a gun out and blow out your brains, that is not a sign of free will at all --- you were simply unlucky to have possessed the type of genes that leads to hasty, suicidal acts.

Okay, if I take your premise to be as categorical as it sounds, rather than as hyperbole, your conclusion follows. However, no one was arguing in support of your premise...

However, if you acknowledge that achievement is due to factors other than luck,

No one's denied that there are factors in addition to luck.

then you have no choice but to consider whether punishing someone more for achieving more is fair, negating the original premise.

As far as I can tell, you're equating taxation and punishment. In order to say this, you would probably have to convince people to wholly abandon the ideas of the social contract and of the necessity of contributing to society. So, as it stands, this is a rhetorical bludgeon not an argument.

Frankly, I think the philosophy stated in the original post sounds good to underachievers.

Who likes or dislikes a statement is not relevant to the statement's truth or falsity.

After all, if you have little money, what could be better than to find a logical basis for taking more from those that have more?

Many people with little money would find both this statement, and your earlier assertion that taxation is punishment to be violently immoral.

Simply negating their achievements as due to luck works perfectly, until you think it through logically and consider the consequences.

Apparently, "negating ... achievements as due to luck" doesn't work perfectly as no one here seems to be doing it...

 

[loseyourname]

Think we can talk about taxes? There is a biology forum here if you really want to discuss the genetic basis of bicycling prowess and tyranny.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Who said anything about Hitler's genes? The only person whose genes that I mentioned is Lance Armstrong, and only because his success depends in part on overt physical characteristics which are fairly easy to tie to genes.

Take a look at the following quote, which was posted at the beginning of this thread:

However, most wealthy people became rich through a lifetime of hard work. Then you must ask why people work hard. Is it their character, their psyche, their upbringing? All of these are determined by circumstance. Nobody filled out a form before they were born and checked the "hard-working" box instead of the "lazy" box. So, even wealth earned through a lifetime of hard work is "lucky" wealth.

Circumstance or genetic, it makes no difference. Hitler's behavior could always be explained away by saying he grew up in unfortunate circumstances or possessed an unfortunate genetic makeup.

And if you can relegate people's positive acheivements to good luck, then by the same token you can relegate people's negative achievements to bad luck.

If I must be explicit, the point of my argument above is that applying the terms "fortunate" or "unfortunate" to figures such as Saddam and Hitler is very difficult. What I find silly is that there could be any meaningful analogy between the statements "Lance Armstrong was just lucky to win six Tours de France" and "Saddam Hussein was just unlucky when he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people". How was it unlucky, for Saddam, (as opposed to the Iraqi people) that he had power of life and death over a large populace?

Again, how was it lucky that Bill Gates came to become CEO of a powerful corporation. In the original post, this is explained away as luck. So why shouldn't the same logic apply to Saddam Hussein?

The luck argument is only being applied here in one direction -- to negate achievement so that people will be more comfortable stripping the rich of what they have rightfully earned. (Take a look at the original post -- the notion of being fair is completely disregarded based on this philosophy.)

The very notion of assigning luck to achievement denies personal achievement.
Only if we're positing an all-or-nothing binary system -- such as everything is either just luck or just will.

Without the luck, the achievement does not occur. If you disagree, conjure up a hypothetical situation where a person achieves, and I will use the logic in the opening post to show that the achievement would not have occurred if luck wasn't present.

I have been through these arguments before in football forums. Fans of certain teams will always try to dismiss another team's championships by pointing out the luck that the other team received during the season. And the "they were lucky" argument is used precisely because it does deny achievement.

And if you are suggesting that dichotomy, why do you object to the actions of Saddam Hussein? After all, he was just exercising his will, a practice at which he was quite accomplished!

You really think that I buy this philosophy? I am pointing out why the argument is nonsense by using Saddam Hussein as an example.

 

[plover]

Take a look at [quote by Njorl from] the beginning of this thread:

As I said, I find Njorl's wording dubious in places. I think his later reponses imply that this quote is not his central point. Perhaps this is because, as also stated before, I find that his point about taxation is adequately framed by a less categorical statement than the one you draw from this quote. To be clear: "adequately framed" is not the same as "persuasively argued".

If Njorl does not clarify this point, I can't see there being much more to say on this aspect.

Circumstance or genetic, it makes no difference. Hitler's behavior could always be explained away by saying he grew up in unfortunate circumstances or possessed an unfortunate genetic makeup.

And if you can relegate people's positive acheivements to good luck, then by the same token you can relegate people's negative achievements to bad luck.

This seems to be the same all-or-nothing binary setup I mentioned earlier, i.e. either fortune must either play absolutely no part in human events, or fortune denies human agency altogether. This is not a logically inconsistent position, but I don't see it at as having much (if any) empirical support.

If you are taking this binary position, I'm not sure there's much point to this discussion (i.e. our premises are too far apart); if you are not taking this position, kindly stop arguing from it...

Again, how was it lucky that Bill Gates came to become CEO of a powerful corporation. In the original post, this is explained away as luck. So why shouldn't the same logic apply to Saddam Hussein?

The luck argument is only being applied here in one direction -- to negate achievement so that people will be more comfortable stripping the rich of what they have rightfully earned. (Take a look at the original post -- the notion of being fair is completely disregarded based on this philosophy.)

• "Lance Armstrong was just lucky to win six Tours de France"
• "Saddam Hussein was just unlucky when he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people"
• "Bill Gates was just lucky to become a powerful CEO"
• "Saddam Hussein was just lucky to become dictator of Iraq"

Statement C is logically equivalent to statement A, i.e. it is logically consistent, but almost certainly incorrect. Statement D is the same. However, you said statement B, which is not equivalent.

If the word "just" is removed statement A, C, or D. I would say they become "arguable depending on the situation". In other words, some people succeed in spite of misfortune, others fail in spite of good luck.

Without the luck, the achievement does not occur. If you disagree, conjure up a hypothetical situation where a person achieves, and I will use the logic in the opening post to show that the achievement would not have occurred if luck wasn't present.

Yes, there is an interpretation of the opening post which can be used to make this argument. As stated before, I don't think Njorl's point depends on this interpretation.

I have been through these arguments before in football forums.

I never discuss sports. It gets people too excited...

You really think that I buy this philosophy? I am pointing out why the argument is nonsense by using Saddam Hussein as an example.

No, I don't expect that you find the point appealing. It just seems to be the logical consequence of the position that everything must come down to either "luck" or "will", so if that is your position, it is a statement to think about. No?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yes, there is an interpretation of the opening post which can be used to make this argument. As stated before, I don't think Njorl's point depends on this interpretation.

On the contrary, it is crucial to his interpretation. If he cannot disregard achievement as due to luck, then he cannot make the point that we can forego fairness when taxing the rich.

 

[plover]

On the contrary, it is crucial to his interpretation. If he cannot disregard achievement as due to luck, then he cannot make the point that we can forego fairness when taxing the rich.

I know you think this. You are not addressing why any other interpretation might or might not be valid, just re-establishing the same all-or-nothing framework described above. In addition, you still have not addressed the point of whether you explicitly support a binary framework.

As I said earlier, I think that the statement "the extent to which chance does play a part in people's lives is not taken into account in the conventional frame of debates about taxation" is a sufficient ground to propose Njorl's point for consideration.

If you choose not to make your frame explicit, I have no reason not to assume from the form of your argument that you accept some kind of binary interpretation of this issue. My conclusion from that, as stated, would be that there is no agreement on the premises necessary for continuing this discussion.

 

[BobG]

I contend that there is no fairness in taxation. I'm not saying that taxes are unfair. On the contrary, I am saying fairness does not enter into the matter.

There is a theory that all wealth is fortuitous, or "lucky". There is the extreme case of the people who win the lottery, or inherit wealth, but that is a small fraction. There are also gifted people, luck in one's genetics is also luck.

However, most wealthy people became rich through a lifetime of hard work. Then you must ask why people work hard. Is it their character, their psyche, their upbringing? All of these are determined by circumstance. Nobody filled out a form before they were born and checked the "hard-working" box instead of the "lazy" box. So, even wealth earned through a lifetime of hard work is "lucky" wealth.

This, I believe, eliminates any premise that the tax system should be fair.

I agree Njorl's second, third, and fourth paragraph read as an argument that 'unfair' is really 'fair'. His arguments are wrong.

But, more than that, they are unnecessary. His first paragraph accurately states that 'fairness' should figure into the equation no more than 'fairness' figures into how much a company charges for its products.

You charge what the market will bear, whether in retail sales or taxation.

This is not to say that anything goes. There is a moral imperitive for the tax system. It should benefit the society as much as possible, as far as that benefit can be perceived. At first glance, this may look like a justification for Marxism. It isn't, unless you can make the case that Marxism is best for society. I don't think that is so. Clearly, society benefits from hard work and from talents used well. If society wants those benefits, it should monetarily reward those who practice them.

In a fictional, purely capitalist society, those rewards would only be handed out through the marketplace. You would wind up with a small number of extremely wealthy individuals, and a large mass of extremely unhappy people. The result would likely be the violent destruction of society, or enormous resources devoted to preventing it.

Graduated taxation serves an amelioritive function in our society. Those who benefit most from a free and ordered society pay most for the maintenance of it. Those who have the least "lucky" wealth are actually reimbursed to give them more of a stake in society. The majority of us pay for the maintenance of our society, but not as much as the wealthiest do.

The rest of his post accurately states why the market will bear higher rates for higher incomes - particularly the last paragraph.

The maintenance of an orderly society is certainly a 'cheaper' option than exists in many poorer nations - if cheap is defined as the difference between the standard of living (monetary, security, etc.) and the cost maintaining an orderly society. 'Paying off' those most susceptible to be lured by folks hoping to instigate radical change is an effective way to give them a stake in the status quo. Paying to maintain an orderly society also parallels the goals of those who feel some redistribution of wealth should be done out of compassion, further bringing the overall whole into harmony.

There's no doubt of the principal. The only negotiable point is how much should be paid for directly (i.e. - let's buy the health care today; let's give the poor our money today) vs. how much should be invested in society to increase its productivity, resulting in a long term rise in standard of living instead of a short term rise.

Or, as Njorl states, 99% taxation shouldn't be rejected because its unfair. It should be rejected because it would be stupid.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I know you think this. You are not addressing why any other interpretation might or might not be valid, just re-establishing the same all-or-nothing framework described above. In addition, you still have not addressed the point of whether you explicitly support a binary framework.

The binary framework is not my concoction. It exists inherently in Njorl's philosophy because he applies luck to any factor that produces achievement. The overall effect is to negate the entire achievement as a matter of luck.

And no, I do not support this notion at all. People have free will and most should be credited for their achievements. (Those that achieve due to nefarious activity or pure luck --- the lottery, for example --- should not be credited.)

 

[BobG]

If fairness were important in taxation, which would be fairer:

A graduated income tax, a flat tax, a sales tax, or corporate taxes?

If a graduated income tax is fairer than a flat tax, wouldn't sales taxes and corporate taxes be even more unfair?

Sales taxes charge everyone a flat tax on the purchases that sales taxes apply to. Relative to income, lower income families are paying a higher percentage of their income into sales taxes than higher income families. This is mitigated to a certain extent by most states exempting certain products from sales tax (food products from grocery stores, for example). Sales taxes are at least fair to businesses. Sales taxes apply to all purchases, whether the product was made in the US or by a foreign company.

Corporate taxes are also a flat tax on purchases. They don't affect profits as much as they do prices. In other words, it's an additional hidden sales tax. Except, there are no product exemptions to mitigate things for lower income families. The price increases resulting from higher corporate taxes apply to all purchases of American products. Additionally, corporate taxes disadvantage US manufacturers. The only way for consumers to protect themselves from the higher prices resulting from corporate taxes are to buy foreign products. The 'unfairness' hits those working in manufacturing on two fronts. There are less jobs, less job security, and eventually less money in income to spend plus higher prices to pay the taxes of American manufacturers.

A 'fair' solution made solely in the interests of fairness would be a graduated income tax with no sales or corporate taxes. A smart solution would increase the chance of American companies to compete globally and increase the availability of jobs. But, increasing personal income taxes to replace corporate and sales taxes would be more than the market could bear - i.e. whoever tried to to make this transition would be out of office next election.

The result is driven entirely by what people will accept. It's easier to raise corporate taxes because there's a feel that the taxes are being raised on someone else besides the voter, regardless of the underlying flaws in logic or fairness.