The “Fairness” of Progressive Taxation

Indeed.

Damn the consequences - I cannot support a “progressive” tax system that taxes some more than others because those with more money “need it less than others.” If I work double the hours of most Americans for 20 years of my life, forgoing vacations and excessive beer/cigarettes/sex that consume most people’s lives, and if as a result I am able to earn an income that is above average - say $500k to $1mm - I would like to know… by what right do my elected officials have to tell me that I should be willing to spend a greater percentage of my income to compensate for the failings of the bastard-makers and society-looters that cannot provide for themselves?

Remember those losers in high school that laughed at intelligent thought, refused to do their work, and cheated constantly? Or how about the smart ones that did their work, but that consistently showed preference for the “theoretical” as opposed to the “actual?” Tell me… please… how justice is served when I am forced to pay their way through life, and their children’s way through life?

1. “Ordinary people just drive on the highways; corporations send fleets of trucks. Ordinary people may get a bank loan for their mortgage; corporations borrow money to buy whole companies. Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes. Corporations and their investors — those who have accumulated enough money beyond basic needs so they can invest — make much more use, compound use, of the empowering infrastructure provided by everybody’s tax money.

   The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

   This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.”

   -Warren Buffet

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 0841 hrs




2. Amen. 

   Plus, there’s something very creepy about the tone of this piece.  It almost seems to imply that one’s morality is reliably reflected in one’s financial net worth; that the wealthy are wealthy because they are more ethical and more hard-working than the poor.  And, by extension, the poor are poor because they are immoral and lazy (not to mention obsessed with “beer/cigarettes/sex”!)

   And to think you guys frequently accuse my side of “class warfare”!

   Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 0857 hrs




3. Although, why the hell *should* anyone have to pay for the welfare queens?

   Seriously?

   Got news for you, the *gas* that corporations buy to fill those fleets of trucks...they pay the same tax per gallon on that as I do, but they USE more of it.  That means, they’re PAYING more to use the roads more.  That is unless the tax on gasoline *isn’t* going to fund transportation like it’s supposed to.

   The legal system.  Yeah, maybe they use it more.  I’m HAPPY to not use it personally.  If I’m in court, it’s because I have no choice.

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 0913 hrs




4. ”...the wealthy have made grater use of the common good...”

   It’s good to see that Scott and 3rd Way have come around to the idea that government primarily benefits the wealthy.  It should now be easy to convince them it should be cut.

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 0925 hrs




5. The post and comment #1 encapsulate the reason for the eventual failure of all socialist and communist societies throughout history.

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 0942 hrs




6. 3rd Way,

   Buffett’s words there appear to apply to corporations.  Individuals that earn between $500,000 and $1million dusually on’t have fleets of trucks on the roads and don’t usually use the courts more than people on welfare.

   Scott,

   Basically every study that has ever been done on the topic has shown that rich people work WAY harder than poor people.  People in the $100k to $500k range do too.  And I don’t think that it’s saying that rich people are more ethical than poor people.  It’s saying thay are not less ethical. And therefore, maybe they should be taxed accordingly.

   Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on May 28, 2008 at 0958 hrs




7. Just an anecdote 3rd way.  A very selective one at that.

   Ever been to ciruit court?  Yeah… that’s just full of societies upper classes.  Please… Anyone can spin a tale around a few situations.

   Your quote does very well make the case for fee based apportioning based upon use.  I’m all for it.

   Those who use the courts can pay for them.  That includes the drunks, the crooks, the thieves, etc. Just as it would the corporate attorneys etc.  I’m fine with that.

   let us now forget that the LIONSHARE of government spending is on social programs.

   I would love to hear 3rd Way or Scott make th ecase that the “rich” use the most social services?

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1026 hrs




8. So, 3rd way and scott.  I’m going to quit my job today, stay home and do nothing.  You have to continue working, but send me a portion of your salary commensurate to what is “just”.

   That’s the same thing.

   You want communism, go to Cuba.  Otherwise, stop pretending that the weathly in this nation are such because they fell in a sewer and came up clutching gold bricks.

   Wealth is the product of hard work and financial prudence.  With a few exceptions, many who are “poor” today will not be poor in the next year.  The notion that the wealthy should be punished is laughable.

   The wealthy are free to take their money and leave.  Which turns the middle class into the “wealthy” and forces the tax burden on them.

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1035 hrs




9. Buffet is talking specifically about tax progressivity among individuals and the income earned from corporate investment.  Corporate tax rates are an issue seperate from tax progressivity on individual income.

   Here are some more thoughts on tax progressivity from another really smart dude (George Lakoff).

   “America’s government has at least two fundamental functions, protection and empowerment. Protection includes the police, firefighters, emergency services, public health, the military, and so on. Empowerment includes the infrastructure needed for business and everyday life: roads, communications systems, water supplies, public education, the banking system for loans and economic stability, the SEC for the stock market, the courts for enforcing contracts, air traffic control, support for basic science, our national parks and public buildings, and more. We are usually aware of protection. But the empowerment infrastructure, provided by taxes, is usually taken for granted, hidden, or ignored. Yet it is absolutely crucial, a fundamental truth about America and why America provides opportunity.

   This is a basic truth. That is what framing should be about: revealing truths and allowing us to reason using them.

   Taxes are part of our common wealth, what we all share. Protection and empowerment serve the common good. Because of our common wealth, we are all protected and America’s empowering infrastructure is available to all. That is a fundamental America value: the common wealth should serve the common good. It benefits everyone.

   Citizens are financially responsible to maintain this common wealth. If we shirked this responsibility, we could not maintain our roads, fund our schools, protect ourselves from military threats, enforce our laws, and so on. Equally importantly, we could not create prosperity for ourselves, because we would have no protection of our intellectual property, no oversight of our markets, no means to enforce our contracts, no way to educate most of our children.

   Several main progressive values support the idea of progressive taxation. One is the belief that the common wealth should be used for the common good. Another is responsibility, the responsibility that citizens have to pay for the benefits we receive from our common wealth. And still another is fairness. These values intertwine on the question of progressive taxation.

   Few people dispute this responsibility at some level. Disagreements generally arise over the amount and the relative apportionment of the responsibility. Differing concepts of fairness drive this debate. While many progressives say it is only fair that those who earn more pay a higher percentage of their earnings as taxes compared to those who have difficulty making ends meet, conservatives respond by asserting that it is unfair to “punish” the financially successful by making them pay more.

   An important point often lost in this debate is an appreciation that the common wealth, which our taxes create and sustain, empowers the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth. We call this compound empowerment — the compounded use of the common wealth by corporations, their investors, and other wealthy individuals.

   As Warren Buffet famously observed, he likely couldn’t have achieved his financial success had he been born in Bangladesh instead of the United States, because Bangladesh had no banking system and no stock market.

   The wealthy have made greater use of the common good—they have been empowered by it in creating their wealth—and thus they have a greater moral obligation to sustain it. They are merely paying their debt to society in arrears and investing in future empowerment.

   This is the fundamental truth that motivates progressive taxation.

   It is a truth that undercuts conservative arguments about taxation. Taxes provide and maintain the protecting and empowering infrastructure that makes our income possible.

   Our tax forms hide this truth. They make it look like the empowering infrastructure was just put there by magic and that the government is taking money out of your pocket. The most likely truth is that, through the common wealth, America put more money in your pocket than it took out — by far.

   ...We need to return to a fair tax policy that recognizes financial responsibility incurred by the compound use of America’s empowering infrastructure.”

   Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1047 hrs




10. So 3rd Way, are you now going to make the case that social spending counts as “infrastructure” again, given that most government spending is social spending NOT roads, police, fire, etc. ?

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1053 hrs




11. Amy, most poor people don’t just “stay home and do nothing.” I don’t think it furthers the discussion to try to pretend that the poor in America are basically just lazy.  Which was my original point: Conservatives often say that the poor are poor because they are lazy, and the wealthy are wealthy because they are virtuous.  The “therefore” is the thing, though: Therefore, we are not obligated to help the poor.

    I’m not even remotely interested in “punishing” the wealthy.  And if our policies had this goal in mind, we likely wouldn’t see the wealthy doing so spectacularly well over these last 30 years.

    Look, if you guys want a straight up fee-for-service model for government services, just say so.  Good luck trying to sell that.

    It never ceases to amaze me that there are smart people living in my community who see no sense in, and want to abolish, the principle of progressive taxation; that there are those among us who equate it to some kind of Soviet-style communism.

    Progressive taxation is such a core foundation of industrialized democracy that I doubt whether you can find a single example in the entire world of a nation which doesn’t adhere to it--and most of them do it a lot more than we do.

    Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1057 hrs




12. 3rd way - you ignore my original premise that most of the wealthy didn’t get that way through birth or luck.

    Many obtained wealth by working hard, saving, and spending wisely - an opportunity that *EVERY* person in America has if they’re willing to take it.

    Why should those of us who make wise choices be penalized?

    I’m putting away money that - according to current reporting - should total well over $1million when I’m ready to retire.  I was not born into wealth, I am not working in a field where I pull down a six-figure salary.  I work hard and spend wisely.

    Why should my wealth be taken from me?

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1108 hrs




13. most of the wealthy didn’t get that way through birth or luck.

    Many obtained wealth by working hard, saving, and spending wisely - an opportunity that *EVERY* person in America has

    This makes sense on the surface, sure.  But if you think it through, what you’re really saying is that anyone who really tries can become wealthy; that poor folks literally choose to be so.  This is a remarkably self-serving fallacy, because as I said before, it precludes any responsibility to help the poor.

    And anyway, birth and luck do have something to do with being wealthy.  Did George Bush, for example, become wealthy because he just worked harder (or was smarter?!) than other people in his age cohort? 

    I don’t have any desire to knock the wealthy down to middle-class.  Really.  I feel like I should repeat that because invariably I get called a communist in these discussions.  But I think there’s still room to become even more progressive in our taxes without making the wealthy an endangered species.  The way you guys make out, it’s like they’re dropping like flies, just barely managing to keep hold of their trust funds.  The fact is, the wealthy have gotten wealthier and are doing so at an increasing rate.

    Whatever you think of our arguments as to the fairness of progressive taxation, a democracy can only take so much wealth inequality before it encounters some serious problems.

    Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1119 hrs




14. Amy, most poor people don’t just “stay home and do nothing.” I don’t think it furthers the discussion to try to pretend that the poor in America are basically just lazy. 

    First, we should really define the use of the word “poor”.

    Poor in America seems to mean that you turn on the tv and see people with things you don’t have.  So you must be “poor”.

    I drive thru parts of town where people call themselves “poor” and they have Dish Network, a car, a cell phone, a dry roof over their head and a 6 pack in the fridge.

    This is not poor.  Yet surely this is what people refer to when they say “poor” in America.

    So Scott, if the “poor” don’t stay home and do nothing, I’ve seen statistics that over 50% of black males between 18 and 53 (or something like that) in Milwaukee are unemployed.  They may not “stay home and do nothing” but they are SURELY being supported by the government.  I don’t bring up this statistic because they are black but because its a staggering number of people that are unemployed and vastly greater than the overall rate of unemployment.

    So when you demogogue the issue talking about “the poor”. and helping the poor… We really need to define who that is because I think it changes the reality of just what kind of ‘obligation’ we have to help people.

    When you offer this government help “en masse” you have a whole bunch of people running to hide behind the label of “the poor” who aren’t poor, who just have found a way to live off the fruits of other peoples labor. 

    We should help those who need help.  We should never put in place systems to encourage and enable people to not help themselves.  Government has demonstrated its incapacity to effectively or efficiently deliver this help.  Not withstanding the issue that in a free society, noone should be ‘forced’ to help others if they don’t want to, and its not up to government to decide who has money to help and who doesn’t.

    Progressive taxation exacerbates the problem because it creates a sense of validation that people who have acheived and earned “owe” more.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1129 hrs




15. XX - I am not trying to make any points about what our government spends its money on.  That is not the purpose of this discussion. 

    We are discussing how our government comes up with the funds to pay for the things our elected government has decided it wants to purchase.  Without progressive taxation we couldn’t pay for half of the obligations our government has committed to.  If the bulk of the tax revenue was cut off by implementing a flat tax I can guarantee this “social spending” you rail against isn’t going to be cut from the budget.  You may not like “social spending”, but the people that put our legislators in place do.  Lots of people depend on social security and medicare they aren’t going to vote against getting rid of it.

    Progressive taxation is such a core foundation of industrialized democracy that I doubt whether you can find a single example in the entire world of a nation which doesn’t adhere to it--and most of them do it a lot more than we do.

    This is a really good point.  Where in the world has a tax-structure less progressive than ours been implemented successfully?  Do you think it is a coincidence that we have the least progressive tax structure among industrialized nations, yet we have among the highest rates of infant mortality and illiteracy in the industrialized world?

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1133 hrs




16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_U nited_States#The_official_measure_of_poverty

    Sure.  You go ahead and read up.

    Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1138 hrs




17. But I think there’s still room to become even more progressive in our taxes without making the wealthy an endangered species.  The way you guys make out, it’s like they’re dropping like flies, just barely managing to keep hold of their trust funds.  The fact is, the wealthy have gotten wealthier and are doing so at an increasing rate.

    More progressive taxation would only make this worse.

    People who have money or have figured out how to adapt are not going to sit back and watch the fruits of their labor being taken from them.

    The richer people are, the more opportunity they have to allocate their resources to avoid taxes OR raise the prices they charge for their services and products to cover the increased burden of taxes.

    That’s what you socialists will never get.  You talk about taxes to re-distribute wealth.  You think companies are just going to sit back and take the hit?

    You think a tax on ‘record profits’ of oil companies is not going to turn around and get passed back on to consumers?  You’re living in a dream world.

    When you raise the tax burden you are not getting at the richest of the rich.  You’re just hitting the upper middle class/lower upper class.  The people who have been successful but don’t yet have the freedom to move and allocate large amounts of resources into places to avoid overburdensome tax rates.

    The rich rich re-allocate their resources, or raise the prices they charge the consumers of their products and services.  And they feel totally justified in doing so because they are sick of getting their money taken from them.

    So keep kidding yourself Scott.  Keep thinking that the government can re-distribute wealth.  Until it starts fixing prices and siezing assets, it can’t.  When it does, the rich will move their resources to other places.  We already see it happening.

    You want to help the middle class and the lower class create an economic environment that allows the acheivers and those with capital to operate and that commerce will provide opportunity.

    Try to put the squeeze on the top of the food chain and they’ll go play elsewhere, move their companies overseas, move their assets off-shore.  People with money are able to do this.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1141 hrs




18. XX - I am not trying to make any points about what our government spends its money on.  That is not the purpose of this discussion. 

    You’re trying to say that progressive taxation benefits “infrastructure” and that business and weathly benefit the most from infrastructure.

    And given that most government spending (which is where most of this progressive taxation goes to fund) is for social spending, don’t try to pass that off as infrastructure.

    You say business and the wealthy use more roads, use more government services, so they should pay for the lions share of them.  One might agree with that if not for the grossly ignored fact that most government spending is not for those things that the ‘wealthy’ use most, but for things that only benefit the selected ones who receive entitlements.

    You are trying to sell progressive taxation with a BIG LIE that its justified because those paying more use more.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1147 hrs




19. Yeah, progressive taxation can never work!  it surely doesn’t work anywhere else in the world.  Heh.

    Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1149 hrs




20. Actually social safety nets are like infrastructure, if you think about it.

    Posted by scott on May 28, 2008 at 1151 hrs




21. Actually social safety nets are like infrastructure, if you think about it.

    See post #10.

    I was waiting for you guys to try to spin that one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_U nited_States#The_official_measure_of_poverty

    Sure.  You go ahead and read up.

    Good post Scott, I’m glad you posted it. I’ll bite.

    By your source.  The poverty level for a single person is 10,400

    Working 40 hours a week, thats 5 bucks an hour.  There is NO way that anyone could be poor in this country if they chose to get a job because miniumum wage is higher than that.

    That seems pretty indicative that ANYONE who is poor is either incapacitated physically from working, OR has chosen not to get a job.

    Moving up the chart cited in the link, as you add people to the family unit, the poverty line moves UP.  So if you have 8 people in the family, THEN you must make 35,600 a year or more or you are considered “poor” admitedly that will be harder to make (income wise) for some people.  Minimum wage for a sole income earner won’t cut it.

    So I guess that means that the best way to avoid being “poor” is to avoid having a bunch of kids if you can’t support them.

    Further proving the point that being “poor” is very much the result of choices you make.

    Or are you now going to make the case that having kids isn’t a choice either?  Those things just pop outta nowhere don’t they!

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1206 hrs




22. Where in the world has a tax-structure less progressive than ours been implemented successfully?

    Russia has implemented a 13% flat tax and experienced a boom with surging government revenues.  Ireland doesn’t quite have a flat tax, but it’s close.  They have also experienced an economic boom.

    Posted by Owen on May 28, 2008 at 1206 hrs




23. A progressive tax system does nothing to tax the wealthy.  It taxes the highly compensated and yes there is a difference.  A progressive tax system protects the wealthy from those who choose to try and build wealth.

    It’s a competition and it doesn’t matter if you like it or not.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1226 hrs




24. C’mon Owen… You seriously want to emulate Russia?  I am sure their huge surge in government revenues has nothing to do with nationalized ownership of thier vast oil reserves.

    Ireland has two tax brackets; 20% for middle and lower classes, 40% for everyone else (they invest massively in education and subsidized health care for all).  If you want to switch to the Irish template I am whole-heartedly with you.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1228 hrs




25. 3rd way,

    You asked a specific question and I gave you a specific answer.  Clearly, a progressive tax system is not a prerequisite for economic success. 

    Does this mean that I want to emulate Russia or Ireland?  No.  But nice attempt at a deflection when your point fell flat.  What it does mean is that I support elements of their tax policies.

    Posted by Owen on May 28, 2008 at 1241 hrs




26. A progressive tax system IS a prerequisite for a successfull society. 

    My point did not fall flat.  I will repeat myself:  Where in the world has a tax-structure less progressive than ours been implemented successfully?  (a well functioning equitable society is a better measure of success than economic might).

    You once gave me Hong Kong as someone we should emulate, now you are saying Russia.  You might be more of a biconceptualist than I am.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1258 hrs




27. Where in the world has a tax-structure less progressive than ours been implemented successfully?  (a well functioning equitable society is a better measure of success than economic might).

    I wonder if the founding fathers sat around the table and said that our representative republic of states wouldn’t work because it hadn’t been done anywhere else in the world at the time?

    I see no logic in the dismissal of a less progressive tax system because it doesn’t exist anywhere else.  None.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1308 hrs




28. Do you think it is a coincidence that we have the least progressive tax structure among industrialized nations, yet we have among the highest rates of infant mortality and illiteracy in the industrialized world?

    I thought it was because we have a private health care system and school voucher programs.  There’s a different cause?

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1315 hrs




29. I see no logic in the dismissal of a less progressive tax system because it doesn’t exist anywhere else.

    Less progressive tax systems do exist elsewhere.  We can study the effects a regressive tax system has on a society.  Below is a list of countries with a flat tax.  What about these countries is virtuous?  Their fairness?

    Bulgaria [20]
    Albania [21] [22]
    Czech Republic[23]
    Estonia [24][25][26]
    Georgia [27][26]
    Guernsey [28]
    Kazakhstan [29]
    Iceland [30] [28]
    Iraq [33] [
    Jersey [36
    Kyrgyzstan [28]
    Latvia [26]
    Lithuania [36][26]
    Macedonia [37] [28]
    Mongolia [38]
    Montenegro [39]
    Mauritius [28]
    Romania [26]
    Russia [40][26]
    Serbia [41]
    Slovakia [26]
    Ukraine [42][26]

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1321 hrs




30. What about these countries is virtuous?

    Ummm, their lower infant mortality rates, and higher literacy rates?

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1330 hrs




31. You add just as much to the conversation in Russian as you do in English Jason.

    Хорошо говоривший мой друг!  Капитализм и милосердие являются злыми.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1336 hrs




32. Less progressive tax systems do exist elsewhere.  We can study the effects a regressive tax system has on a society.  Below is a list of countries with a flat tax.  What about these countries is virtuous?  Their fairness?

    3rd Way, have you ANY statistical education at all?

    There are perhaps thousands of variables that make a society what it is.

    To say that the tax system is the causal factor in the determination of what a society becomes… Insane.  Devoid of logic.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1408 hrs




33. To say that the tax system is not a major contributing factor in the determination of the success of a society… Insane.  Devoid of logic.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1430 hrs




34. You add just as much to the conversation in Russian as you do in English Jason.

    Thanks, but coming from you, it doesn’t mean much.  Insane.  Devoid of logic.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1444 hrs




35. It just occurred to me that people are advocating raising taxes on the highly compensated just because they make more money than someone else.  They are not making any attempt to justify the massive amounts of wasteful spending by the Federal Government.

    It is the ideal tax and spend situation.  Money grab and spend at will

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1653 hrs




36. Some of the former bloc countries listed above as being less than virtuous (Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic) are experiencing pretty good rates of economic growth - and therefore improving standards of living for their populations - due to their flatter tax rates.  Even Germany, whose economy is growing better than their Western EU counterparts, got this boost right after they CUT their highest tax rates.  Yet the yahoos on the left think that taxing the hell out of everyone with a higher than average wage earnings will make us “fair” just like Europe. 

    You know - I’ve been to Europe, several countries there in fact.  It was a nice place to visit, but I don’t want to live there.  I like the USA.  I don’t want the US to become like Europe. 

    I like the opportunities that have been available here for me to educate and work and earn my way even though I grew up poor.  Get an education, work hard, try to make wise(r) decisions, get an entry level job and earn your way up, or use your imagination and start your own business.  If you hit a rough patch, we’ll give you a short-term hand up - but not in perpetuity.  That is how you get out of being poor.  Not by expecting someone who has to fork over their money.  This isn’t the Borg Collective.  Stop trying to penalize the upper-middle-class and lower-upper-class because we don’t have quite enough to shelter it like the uber-rich.  I work hard - I’ve earned the right to take my family to Disney, thanks…

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1832 hrs




37. Right on rc!  Some people will never get it even if you place years of historical facts right under their noses.

    The biggest part of this discussion being overlooked is what are we going to do with millions of dropouts who were failed by the most expensive public school systems in the history of mankind?

    I’m afraid our taxes are not high enough yet for what is coming.

    Posted by on May 28, 2008 at 1857 hrs




38. I spend less than I earn. I do so by living very frugally, no cable tv, I carpool, I keep my house COLD in the winter and HOT in the summer, I don’t buy things I can’t afford just because my friends and neighbors have them, I rarely eat out, I buy things I need used instead of new when I can.

    Because of this I have a little extra money to put into savings and investments for the future, therefore I use more courts and roads and other infrastructure??

    I think not.

    Posted by Matt on May 29, 2008 at 0836 hrs




39. #26 3rd Way

    Yeah, because all that communist bullsh** worked so well for the soviet union, huh?

    I *work* for my money, why the *hell* should I give it to you, or anyone else?

    Posted by on May 29, 2008 at 0847 hrs




40. Scott, you seemd to have lost interest in the tread immediately after I took the time to respond to your definition of what “poor” is. (post #21)

    I’m genuinely interested in your reaction/perspective on my assertion that the “poor” in this country are poor by the choices they’ve made.

    Posted by on May 29, 2008 at 0954 hrs




41. Ireland has two tax brackets; 20% for middle and lower classes, 40% for everyone else (they invest massively in education and subsidized health care for all).  If you want to switch to the Irish template I am whole-heartedly with you.

    Posted by Toronto Lofts on May 30, 2008 at 0643 hrs




42. Plus, there’s something very creepy about the tone of this piece.  It almost seems to imply that one’s morality is reliably reflected in one’s financial net worth;

    No, poor people aren’t less ethical and aren’t even necessarily lacking in work ethic. However, in a capitalistic society money flows to those who have a desired talent, whether that talent is “god-given” or self-cultivated. The less people who have that talent, the more in demand that person’s skills are. Consider the athlete who possesses the skill to throw a 100mph fastball. I might be more ethical and be a harder worker then him, but he is more sought after than me (because it sells 500,000 tickets a year). If half of the population could pitch 100, that athlete wouldn’t be making $1M/year. Is this fair? Maybe not. But do you really want to live in a world that penalizes those with the most talent (the brain surgeons? the inventors? the best-selling authors?)? Doing so is why John Galt went AWOL…

    Posted by on June 12, 2008 at 1135 hrs