Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


Why do libs want to keep the corporate income tax?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives
Author Message
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Giancarlo wrote:

Disagreed. The more you make, the more you succeed... you deserve to keep more. It is your own work. If I succeed well, I'm not going to be giving more of MY OWN WORK TO OTHERS. If I want, I'll participate in charity.


I would agree with you on this if it were the case that people are paid by the degree to which their work benefits civilization.

They aren't. They're paid where supply meets demand.

And so the result is some of the most useless people in society (such as professional athletes) actually get paid the most money.

Not that i think we should stop that.

But i think that makes them fair game for heavy taxation.
If they have a problem with it, they might try doing something to actually earn their pay. Of course, the tax codes aren't constructed to account for that, but they should be.

Quote:

What? It isn't loaded terminology. It is actual fact. Some people in this very forum push income redistribution and don't really care about people who succeed.


I care about the people who need to be cared about.

Billionaires (for example) don't need my attention - they're doing just fine on their own.

I'm concerned about the survival and welfare of civilization as a whole; the independently wealthy don't figure into that in an overwhelmingly positive way.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The problem with relying on private donations for anything is that people can also choose NOT to contribute.

In civilization, everyone has to contribute, if civilization itself is to work out. If you benefit from civilization, you need contribute. Or leave.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:

I would agree with you on this if it were the case that people are paid by the degree to which their work benefits civilization.

They aren't. They're paid where supply meets demand.


I don't agree with you, and feel you are advocating more government control over the lives of individuals. I certainly don't think the government has a right to redistribute income.

Quote:
And so the result is some of the most useless people in society (such as professional athletes) actually get paid the most money.


I refer to Nozick's argument on this one. Athletes get paid more because of freedom of choice. They get paid because we pay to see them. That's our choice.

Quote:
But i think that makes them fair game for heavy taxation.
If they have a problem with it, they might try doing something to actually earn their pay. Of course, the tax codes aren't constructed to account for that, but they should be.


I have a big problem wtih it. They are earning their pay because they are offering a service to everyone who goes to see them (again referring to Nozick's argument). Heavy progressive taxation is simply wrong.

Quote:

I'm concerned about the survival and welfare of civilization as a whole; the independently wealthy don't figure into that in an overwhelmingly positive way.


I'm concerned about the success of the system, and am concerned about those who succeed. If they made it whether they are an athlete, or a big businessman like Trump, it isn't your money. And I don't think it is moral to redistribute income.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
The problem with relying on private donations for anything is that people can also choose NOT to contribute.

In civilization, everyone has to contribute, if civilization itself is to work out. If you benefit from civilization, you need contribute. Or leave.


You contribute through charity, but the government doesn't have a right to redistribute your income. That simple. Mad
Back to top
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Richmond, IN

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Giancarlo wrote:
exton wrote:
The problem with relying on private donations for anything is that people can also choose NOT to contribute.

In civilization, everyone has to contribute, if civilization itself is to work out. If you benefit from civilization, you need contribute. Or leave.


You contribute through charity, but the government doesn't have a right to redistribute your income. That simple. Mad
Okay, that's an opinion, and a very legitimate one. I happen to disagree, but it's come to the point where we'd just get into a "yes it does!" "no it doesn't!" fight for a full page like you and lester, so I'll accept that that idea isn't in line with my beliefs, but certainly isn't stupid.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
Giancarlo wrote:
exton wrote:
The problem with relying on private donations for anything is that people can also choose NOT to contribute.

In civilization, everyone has to contribute, if civilization itself is to work out. If you benefit from civilization, you need contribute. Or leave.


You contribute through charity, but the government doesn't have a right to redistribute your income. That simple. Mad
Okay, that's an opinion, and a very legitimate one. I happen to disagree, but it's come to the point where we'd just get into a "yes it does!" "no it doesn't!" fight for a full page like you and lester, so I'll accept that that idea isn't in line with my beliefs, but certainly isn't stupid.


Trust me, me and lester have fought over that point for something like 20-30 pages in a different forum. I didn't expect to find him here.

But alright, I'll agree to disagree.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Giancarlo wrote:
exton wrote:
The problem with relying on private donations for anything is that people can also choose NOT to contribute.

In civilization, everyone has to contribute, if civilization itself is to work out. If you benefit from civilization, you need contribute. Or leave.


You contribute through charity, but the government doesn't have a right to redistribute your income. That simple. Mad


That's not the point.

The point is that civilization doesn't work without contributions. It can and will fail if people fail to adequately contribute.

Not contributing is therefore not an option, if you want to live in civilization. That's why private donation is insufficient - it allows people to shirk their duties.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Giancarlo wrote:
exton wrote:
The problem with relying on private donations for anything is that people can also choose NOT to contribute.

In civilization, everyone has to contribute, if civilization itself is to work out. If you benefit from civilization, you need contribute. Or leave.


You contribute through charity, but the government doesn't have a right to redistribute your income. That simple. Mad


That's not the point.

The point is that civilization doesn't work without contributions. It can and will fail if people fail to adequately contribute.

Not contributing is therefore not an option, if you want to live in civilization. That's why private donation is insufficient - it allows people to shirk their duties.


You can't force contributions out of people who succeed. Society and civilization is based on private enterprise. If you rip apart private enterprise, you strangle civilization.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Giancarlo wrote:


I don't agree with you, and feel you are advocating more government control over the lives of individuals.


Sort of.
By living in civilization, you have certain duties.
Government enforces those obligations.

Quote:

I certainly don't think the government has a right to redistribute income.


Why not?

Quote:

Quote:
And so the result is some of the most useless people in society (such as professional athletes) actually get paid the most money.


I refer to Nozick's argument on this one. Athletes get paid more because of freedom of choice. They get paid because we pay to see them. That's our choice.


Like i said - they're paid where supply meets demand.

They're still useless.
The fact that people are stupid enough to give them money for it is irrelevent.

Quote:

I have a big problem wtih it. They are earning their pay because they are offering a service to everyone who goes to see them (again referring to Nozick's argument). Heavy progressive taxation is simply wrong.


They are being paid for their services.
They are not "earning" their pay, because they are paid disproportionately to the services that they reender.

Quote:

I'm concerned about the success of the system, and am concerned about those who succeed. If they made it whether they are an athlete, or a big businessman like Trump, it isn't your money. And I don't think it is moral to redistribute income.


If you live in civilization, you have certain obligations as a result. Merely receiving money from those who give it voluntarily does not entitle one to shed their duties.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Giancarlo wrote:

You can't force contributions out of people who succeed. Society and civilization is based on private enterprise. If you rip apart private enterprise, you strangle civilization.


Who said anything about ripping apart private enteprise?

As someone else has said, there's a big gray area between total capitalism and total socialism. Total capitalism leads to disaster as certainly as total socialism does.

Free enterprise is necessary because we are not yet able to effectively micromanage the economy.

Regulation of free enterprise is necessary because people can not be relied on to willingly contribute for the benefit of civilization, even as they reap its benefits and use its resources.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:

Sort of.
By living in civilization, you have certain duties.
Government enforces those obligations.


I'm not buying it. That is an infringement on personal liberties. The government has to remain small, and have only three priorities. Defense, justice, and basic infrastructure.

Quote:

Why not?


Because you don't have a right over what to do with other peoples money. I'm sorry I'm not going to buy into that socialist line of thought, but I'm not that kind of person.

Quote:

They're still useless.
The fact that people are stupid enough to give them money for it is irrelevent.


They provide entertainment value for the society, and they also provide jobs for others. How are they useless? If anything these athletes allow more jobs to be created around them, and their merchandise. If you think they are only benefiting themselves, you're quite clearly in the wrong.

Quote:

They are being paid for their services.
They are not "earning" their pay, because they are paid disproportionately to the services that they reender.


They are indeed earning it, and it is their right to do with what they want with their money. This is why I will continue to believe that progressive taxation is immoral.

Quote:

If you live in civilization, you have certain obligations as a result. Merely receiving money from those who give it voluntarily does not entitle one to shed their duties.


Yes, but you can't force arbitrary taxation on people and allow government to grow to fungus like levels.

So no, I'm not changing my opinion here.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:

Who said anything about ripping apart private enteprise?

As someone else has said, there's a big gray area between total capitalism and total socialism. Total capitalism leads to disaster as certainly as total socialism does.

Free enterprise is necessary because we are not yet able to effectively micromanage the economy.

Regulation of free enterprise is necessary because people can not be relied on to willingly contribute for the benefit of civilization, even as they reap its benefits and use its resources.


Progressive taxation kills private enterprise, and mostly harms smaller businesses.

I am for some taxation, but taxation must be keep in strict control. Total capitalism? There hasn't ever been a total capitalist state.

Free enterprise is necessary, and it involves micromanagement. What do you mean we are not able to effectively micromanage the economy? There are business owners, and workers. The workers can't manage the businesses (leave that to the skilled administrative personel), and shouldn't.

There needs to be a some minor regulation, but going excessively with that is wrong! And no I won't agree with you on the point that you think that businesses won't voluntarily contribute.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Giancarlo wrote:

Progressive taxation kills private enterprise, and mostly harms smaller businesses.


It obviously doesn't kill private enterprise, in that both progressive taxation and private enterprise exist.

Perhaps the word you're looking for is "hinders".

Quote:

I am for some taxation, but taxation must be keep in strict control. Total capitalism? There hasn't ever been a total capitalist state.


That's because "total capitalist state" is oxymoronic.

Quote:

Free enterprise is necessary, and it involves micromanagement. What do you mean we are not able to effectively micromanage the economy? There are business owners, and workers. The workers can't manage the businesses (leave that to the skilled administrative personel), and shouldn't.


A single buisness does not constitute "the economy".

"The economy" is THE economy - the whole thing. The entire dynamic system of resource exchanges in civilization. The big picture. Buisnesses aren't even necessary for an economy; they're just how we get some things done in this civilization.

"Skilled administrative personel" gave me a bit of a chuckle.
Dilbert comics are true, you know.

Quote:

There needs to be a some minor regulation, but going excessively with that is wrong! And no I won't agree with you on the point that you think that businesses won't voluntarily contribute.


Of course they won't voluntarily contribute. What, do you think they'll get sick of money, and decide to give some up?

Some of them would contribute some money.
But the entirety of contributions wouldn't be enough.
Back to top
Giancarlo
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 248
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:

It obviously doesn't kill private enterprise, in that both progressive taxation and private enterprise exist.

Perhaps the word you're looking for is "hinders".


Disagreed. I'm simply not going to argue about this any more. I feel your views are actually destructive.

Quote:

That's because "total capitalist state" is oxymoronic.


Then don't say it has been a failure because it hasn't existed.

Quote:

A single buisness does not constitute "the economy".

"The economy" is THE economy - the whole thing. The entire dynamic system of resource exchanges in civilization. The big picture. Buisnesses aren't even necessary for an economy; they're just how we get some things done in this civilization.

"Skilled administrative personel" gave me a bit of a chuckle.
Dilbert comics are true, you know.


Nor did I say it does. But the sports industry is quite big and employs a lot of people. Don't underestimate it. Especially here in LA with the Lakers and the Clippers.

I am talking about the whole thing. Don't try to treat me as a idiot, I study economics quite extensively. Businesses MOST CERTAINLY ARE NECESSARY FOR THE ECONOMY. They are quite important. Jeez, businesses aren't necessary for the economy? Please... where did you get that tidbit from? The economy is backed by the private sector. Do you know what the private sector is?

You can chuckle all you want, but I'll be laughing at the end of the day at your beliefs.

Quote:

Of course they won't voluntarily contribute. What, do you think they'll get sick of money, and decide to give some up?


Because you say so?

Bill Gates.

Quote:
Some of them would contribute some money.
But the entirety of contributions wouldn't be enough.


Says who? Says you?

Your entire argument is based on semantics, and emotion.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites