Taxation and the middle class

[ijmorlan]

I could say a lot about this, but the thing that comes to mind is this: the property of a wealthy person or organization is, in practice, only property because it is defensible, specifically in our society by the existence of an organized government. So in fact a wealthy person actually uses the government more than a poor person, just by the simple act of owning, for example, multiple properties.

[Acitta]

I could say a lot about this, but the thing that comes to mind is this: the property of a wealthy person or organization is, in practice, only property because it is defensible, specifically in our society by the existence of an organized government. So in fact a wealthy person actually uses the government more than a poor person, just by the simple act of owning, for example, multiple properties.

They use it against us.

[danbrotherston]

I could say a lot about this, but the thing that comes to mind is this: the property of a wealthy person or organization is, in practice, only property because it is defensible, specifically in our society by the existence of an organized government. So in fact a wealthy person actually uses the government more than a poor person, just by the simple act of owning, for example, multiple properties.

Indeed. Our concept of ownership is not an inherent natural law, it is a feature of our particular society. Other people, and indeed, other societies have had different concepts of ownership. And you can really see this when you start to examine the edge cases, e.g., parking spaces on the street in front of your house, which must be cleared of snow. (Also, in novels...the Dispossessed is particularly interesting).

[danbrotherston]

Paying taxes != "beating up on".  Nobody is suggesting we literally eat the 500 thousandairs.

You’re focussing on my exact wording and ignoring the main point, which is that the income inequality problem isn’t primarily that there are lots of people who make 2-3 times the average. The main problem is that a tiny, almost invisible, fraction of people are thousands of times wealthier than typical people.

Yes, I completely agree this change to taxation doesn't solve billionaires or wealth inequality generally. And while that is one of the "main" problems in our society, I do think that the lack of progressive taxation on capital gains for high (but not extremely high) net worth individuals is ALSO a problem. And I disagree that progressive taxation is unfair in any way that the phrase "beating up" implies. It is simply paying your fair share.

I also don't think taxation would "solve" billionaires, but I don't think I can say anything else here without getting downvoted.

[dtkvictim]

Imagine thinking you’re entitled to pay less than others do for public services because your income is acquired a different way

I can't agree with that. Why should people who have earned more through their own volition be obligated to give a government a significantly larger sum of those earnings than others do? How is that fair?

You don't seem to have comprehended what they wrote. They didn't say more or less, they said differently. You're betraying an emotional response.

If I chose to guide my life in a way that has resulted in an abundance of wealth, that all belongs to me minus what at least should be fairly taxed.

And what is fair? Is it what you specifically decide, and not what the people who elect the government want? Sounds authoritarian.

If the government can't afford to do its job, then it should be making cuts where necessary and finding ways to earn more, rather than expecting those with more of it to give it to them.

If the people want more services or to maintain services that have become more expensive, the way to government "earns more" is by raising taxes. You can have your opinion on what is correct and worthwhile, but you don't seem to understand how the government is already funded. Not to mention the long term financial ramifications of cutting services or selling off assets.

I also find it absurd that many of the general population has also somehow got the idea into their head the whole "eat the rich" rhetoric, where there is almost some sort of psychological envy that makes them resent and hate wealthier people than them, to the point they have deluded themselves into thinking they should be entitled to some of that (through however the state would use it, if it were more heavily taxed).

I certainly agree that a frightening number of progressives view pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality as "progress", which seems to be the mentality you're describing. But to use that to discard their motivation entirely leads you to a path equally as dogmatic and inflexible that the results will be no better. We live in a system where wealth begets wealth and political power. It's an unfair system that needs to be balanced with "unfair" taxation, or something similar, lest it spiral out of control.

[ac3r]

...

You don't seem to have comprehended what they wrote. They didn't say more or less, they said differently. You're betraying an emotional response.

...

And what is fair? Is it what you specifically decide, and not what the people who elect the government want? Sounds authoritarian.

...

If the people want more services or to maintain services that have become more expensive, the way to government "earns more" is by raising taxes. You can have your opinion on what is correct and worthwhile, but you don't seem to understand how the government is already funded. Not to mention the long term financial ramifications of cutting services or selling off assets.

...

I certainly agree that a frightening number of progressives view pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality as "progress", which seems to be the mentality you're describing. But to use that to discard their motivation entirely leads you to a path equally as dogmatic and inflexible that the results will be no better. We live in a system where wealth begets wealth and political power. It's an unfair system that needs to be balanced with "unfair" taxation, or something similar, lest it spiral out of control.

I understood. They want my money. It doesn't matter if you make your money hourly or you sit on your arse in the sun day trading. It's still yours and ethically nobody should be entitled to any of that, although obviously as a modern civilization we do need taxes because we've forced ourselves into a situation where we need them.

Fair is taxing each citizen more or less equally with the exception of those who already live in poverty or exist on the precipice of it. Otherwise, we should all roughly pay an equal share. If the government can't figure out how to fairly tax 40,769,890 people (yeah I know they don't all pay tax, that's not the point though) in a way that provides enough money to fund what 40,769,890 people need then we have a bigger issue to deal with.

The government can "earn more" by not wasting what it is already given. Whether it's at the municipal, provincial or federal level we can spend less on bullshit like foreign aid, the military, diversity/equity/inclusion programs, useless infrastructure, debt that we shouldn't even have...blah blah. There's no reason we need to be spending close to 30 billion dollars each year on military defence, for example. In regards to DEI, I don't believe there is any real reason why us people who are legitimate minorities (I am Status Indian) should be entitled to a crutch...yeah YT colonized and tried to genocide us, but we've been our own people for thousands of years. We can make it on our own. Those are just random examples. We can also reform our economic system in a way to allow for people to have greater freedom to earn and - most importantly - keep their own money.

The issue really isn't wealth per se that's the issue. We make money out of thin air, after all. That's kinda why we're so fucked now. It's more that our governments don't know what the hell they're doing and yet somehow tens of millions of you out there defend their behaviour. There's a reason I'm politically an anarchist: I don't trust the government to do anything correctly and I sure as heck don't trust the average brain dead civilian to either.

It seems you would say that taxation is a burden. If so, having everyone pay the same amount in tax is an unfair burden on those who make less, because a larger portion of their available income is taken for that purpose.

Society is not equal; one way to try to remedy that is progressive taxation. Many people, whether laymen like myself, or economists or sociologists or philosophers, would call that a good thing.

Nah...I'm not against taxes. I'm against them being poorly spent. Obviously I don't think people who make 25'000 a year or less should be heavily taxed, because then you're just robbing them. But you can't simply take more from others to make up for shortfalls of how governments spend things unless maybe we're talking about billionaires with extreme wealth. But even then, things in Canada are a mess not because we're not taxing Changpeng Zhao or Arthur Irving - but because those we elect utter fools to govern us (which for me is an insane sentence to even type lmao).

[tomh009]

We should pay fair taxes as a population, but nobody should be forced to pay more because they have more. The wealthy and the less wealthy all use said public services on more or less equal terms, therefore we should be paying an equal share for it. And if the government needs more money to run the country they were entrusted to correctly run, then they should figure it out. If it can't do that, dissolve it because they are clearly a bad government.

OK, so you are opposed to progressive taxation. Technically, if everyone should pay the same amount, then the federal flat "headcount tax" should be about $9000 per person (man, woman, child etc) regardless of income. And maybe $3-4000 more for provincial tax. Do you think this would be a better solution than progressive taxation?