Would a "luxury" tax work? - Page 4 - Political Fever

GeneCosta · #31 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 11:56 AM

The problem with the rich is not that they have enormous amounts of greenbacks flowing around in their purse, but rather how they came to become so fabulous. The main source of wealth for the upper-echelons of society derives from private property - namely, corporations. We have the large problem of subsidizing corporations, which many rightly attack as being state involvement, but corporations are also allowed to take the blunt force of law suits instead of the leadership. These protections, which are merely institutionalized by the government (technically, they could exist in a free market under the so-called contracting right, which I think is bullocks) make corporations the main source of wealth in the country. However, there is a contradictory nature to their operation. They enjoy public benefits as a private entity. Billionaires don't make their money through salaries. It comes from investments. Corporations push to benefit the stockholders and the executive leadership, leaving the true source of wealth (the laborers) behind. Everything that benefits the CAPITALists should be stripped away, seeing as how it's just authoritarianism wrapped up in private property rights. If people want to lend their money with promise of a return, so be it. That doesn't mean I have to recognize their contract.

If shareholders were held responsible to the company like a sole proprietor, corporate America would fall apart and cooperatives (which tend to be more productive than other firms, yet don't get any investment opportunities from banks since they refuse to incorporate) would lead as the number one organizer. The only firms which should enjoy public protection rights are workers' councils - democratic firms, where membership is extended to all parties agreeing to the public policies.

Luxury taxes don't get anywhere. Target the source of wealth - capital. Only labor and the earth create wealth, and for some reason we've decided to privatize the latter despite it being the product of no person's toil.

Enormous wealth is befitted by an authoritarian organization with no demonstrable proof of freedom or fairness.

nerv14 · #32 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

The problem with the rich is not that they have enormous amounts of greenbacks flowing around in their purse, but rather how they came to become so fabulous. The main source of wealth for the upper-echelons of society derives from private property - namely, corporations. We have the large problem of subsidizing corporations, which many rightly attack as being state involvement, but corporations are also allowed to take the blunt force of law suits instead of the leadership. These protections, which are merely institutionalized by the government (technically, they could exist in a free market under the so-called contracting right, which I think is bullocks) make corporations the main source of wealth in the country. However, there is a contradictory nature to their operation. They enjoy public benefits as a private entity. Billionaires don't make their money through salaries. It comes from investments. Corporations push to benefit the stockholders and the executive leadership, leaving the true source of wealth (the laborers) behind. Everything that benefits the CAPITALists should be stripped away, seeing as how it's just authoritarianism wrapped up in private property rights. If people want to lend their money with promise of a return, so be it. That doesn't mean I have to recognize their contract.

If shareholders were held responsible to the company like a sole proprietor, corporate America would fall apart and cooperatives (which tend to be more productive than other firms, yet don't get any investment opportunities from banks since they refuse to incorporate) would lead as the number one organizer. The only firms which should enjoy public protection rights are workers' councils - democratic firms, where membership is extended to all parties agreeing to the public policies.

Luxury taxes don't get anywhere. Target the source of wealth - capital. Only labor and the earth create wealth, and for some reason we've decided to privatize the latter despite it being the product of no person's toil.

Enormous wealth is befitted by an authoritarian organization with no demonstrable proof of freedom or fairness.

what does quoting Karal Marx have to do with a luxury tax?

Anyway, a luxury tax may be helpful because it would tax the rich on what they buy, because as you said, their actualy income isn't where they get most of their money.

Why would I want to "target" the source of wealth? If I was actualy trying to harm companies I would target the incomes of wealthy individuals. However, that isn't beneficial for the economy because when rich individuals re-invest their wealth, it helps the entire economy. A luxury tax however would just tax them when they buy goods that don't directly heplp the economy.

nerv14 · #33 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan

But that doesn't keep businesses from failing or employers from laying off workers.

So, it doesn't matter if the makers of luxury yachts are put out of businesses as long as people in other industries benefit?

So, how the hell is a luxury tax "fair"? How is it fair to punish people just for being able to afford to buy things they don't really need?

lol A luxury tax would be fair because it would increase taxes on what people don't need, but the increased tax revenue would allow taxes to be decreased on what is needed (lower normal sales tax for instance).

GeneCosta · #34 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

what does quoting Karal Marx have to do with a luxury tax?

I didn't quote Karl Marx. His words would be much more concise than my own.

Quote:

Why would I want to "target" the source of wealth?

Because band-aids to the problem oftentimes create more problems in its wake, and because the rich people you're targeting these luxury taxes at make their money through authoritarian private property rights: corporations, limited liability, copyrights, patents. These are all capitalist elements which restrict human freedom.

Quote:

rich individuals re-invest their wealth, it helps the entire economy.

No; it helps the rich elements of the economy become even more wealthy. Investments can come from the bottom of the tier as well. They just don't because limited liability and corporate subsidies, as well as a state involved in promoting capitalism, create an upper class of wealth.

Curmudgeon · #35 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 10:29 PM

I wonder whether you guys that want to tax the "rich" more would change your tune if you became "rich"?

mwillman · #36 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I wonder whether you guys that want to tax the "rich" more would change your tune if you became "rich"?

Nope, I would be more then willing to pay taxes if I was rich.

All the rich people I know still get to live in big houses and own boats and multiple cars.

I don't see the rich suffering under our tax system even before Bushes tax cuts for the rich.

nerv14 · #37 (**permalink**) 07-03-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I wonder whether you guys that want to tax the "rich" more would change your tune if you became "rich"?

you can wonder but I can tell you that I wouldn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

I didn't quote Karl Marx. His words would be much more concise than my own.

Because band-aids to the problem oftentimes create more problems in its wake, and because the rich people you're targeting these luxury taxes at make their money through authoritarian private property rights: corporations, limited liability, copyrights, patents. These are all capitalist elements which restrict human freedom.

No; it helps the rich elements of the economy become even more wealthy. Investments can come from the bottom of the tier as well. They just don't because limited liability and corporate subsidies, as well as a state involved in promoting capitalism, create an upper class of wealth.

No they can't. There is no incentive for companies to invest in themselves if they must relay on the lower classes. If property rights and copyrights are authoritarian then I am not sure what your definition of "freedom" or "slavery" is, so it is hard for me to respond. However, those things exist for economic necessities to provide the most amount of wealth to everyone, including the lower classes.

Do you want to know what single event in the world brought the most people out of abject poverty? The creation of property rights in China.

Even though this isn't about a "luxury tax" I can't resist myself to break up socialist ideology ;)

GeneCosta · #38 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I wonder whether you guys that want to tax the "rich" more would change your tune if you became "rich"?

Depends on the person. Warren Buffet wants to get rid of million-dollar inheritance.

GeneCosta · #39 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Even though this isn't about a "luxury tax" I can't resist myself to break up socialist ideology ;)

That's humorous. There is no clear and concise way to defend private property beyond bickering about supposed practicalities. Theorists like Rothbard and Friedman agree in complete silence that property is simply a matter of who has the biggest guns. And theorists like Locke and Smith, who had more in common with socialism than capitalism, are ignored whenever it's brought up classical liberals sought to have a community of common producers, where there is enough land of the same worth for everyone wanting it.

Quote:

However, those things exist for economic necessities

Nice bit of logic you have going there. Since you declared copyrights and corporate protectionism necessities for capitalism, I have to accept them. It's quite ironic that we're talking about a luxury tax being acceptable, yet you're not willing to attack a source of wealth that comes about through authoritarianism. Pray tell why I have to accept a contract between two people when I didn't agree to it? Once you start questioning that line of logic, you realize corporations, patents, copyrights, and everything else that centralizes wealth is [insert your negative profanity of choice].

Social liberals have tried to remedy the problems associated with capitalism by implementing burdensome measures like taxation. That is why I am bringing up "Karl Marx." It is better to just wipe aside the source of wealth for these billionaires and multi-millionaires, since they acquire it through legal protection anyhow. I believe in freedom even if it runs contradictory to the market (gift economy - see piracy). Oh darn.

Quote:

Do you want to know what single event in the world brought the most people out of abject poverty? The creation of property rights in China.

Property, when understood to be land and capital (both having existed long before capitalist relations took over, negating your argument), is just an act of theft that was legitimized at a certain point along the way. Evidently you don't know much about the progression of land acquisition. In China, common land which had existed for thousands of years was made private property just so it could be bought off and the people turned into wage workers. Capitalism doesn't come about voluntarily. People lose everything where they are, so they move into the cities and work wherever there is an available job. Industrialization is actually a process worse for most people than agrarian living. Whereas peasants toil for about 10 hours a day, many workers in China toil for up to 18. When looking at the United States, there was no noticeable difference between the Southern farmer and Northern workman until the later part of the 1800s

Furthermore, I don't remember attacking people for owning their own house, personal items, or even business.

Point me to one civilization that hasn't stolen its land from a previous civilization, and I'll point you to a civilization that doesn't believe in private property rights.

Technocratic_Utilitarian · #40 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 12:41 PM

I don't need to be rich not to want to pay taxes. I already don't want to. Law keeps selfishness in check. It's a reality of the human animal. Not perfect, but it works well enough. People often won't do unless you make them do or trick them into it.

Did you hear about the crazy rich bat who left millions to HER DOGS? When people are suffering in the world, such expenditures are ridiculous.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

User Name		Remember Me?
Password