Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The difference is that despite having a large amount of wealth, their proportion of income is small compared to the rest of the economy. However, because they have a lot of wealth, their economic activities have a substantial effect on the economy.

That's a sensible sounding answer but try applying the same spin ... er, logic to the middle class. If, as a group, the taxable income of the middle class is significant against the context of the larger economy then surely their investment decisions (which will also be affected by their tax burden) will also be significant to the health of the economy. And, since they are a much larger and more significant pool according to your analysis, then they ought to be less fettered by tax burdens. The middle class should be taxed less and the richest should make up for the slack, seeing as how their ability to contribute in either sense is less than that of the middle class. By constraining them with taxes we shouldn't really lose anything that couldn't be gained by lowering taxes on the middle class, right?

biccat wrote:
The difference is that despite having a large amount of wealth, their proportion of income is small compared to the rest of the economy. However, because they have a lot of wealth, their economic activities have a substantial effect on the economy.

Yes, when income is defined by law and not colloquium.

biccat wrote:
For example, if an investor has a million dollars and can get a 4% gain by investing in a small business or a 3% gain by purchasing municipal bonds, he will generally try to invest in the small business since it has a higher yield (assume that 4% gain accounts for the investment risk as well). But if you tax his income at more than 25%, it becomes better for him to invest in municipal bonds (which are exempt from federal income taxes) to gain a higher return.

Yes, and?

biccat wrote:
The economic consequences of investing in government versus a private business should at least be reasonably apparent.

Yeah, the Yuan.

Melissia wrote:No, I meant the people who control the majority of wealth in this country. The top one percent in terms of wealth in this country has, in your own words, a substantial effect on the economy.

That would be politicians. The US government controls a great amount of wealth, roughly 45% of California alone is held by the Federal Government. 69% of Alaska is owned by the feds, a lot of it containing valuable oil and mineral reserves.

Melissia wrote:And they fethed up. Does not great responsibility come with great power, or is that only for poor people?

I'm not sure what you think "the rich" fethed up. People will act in their own self interest when given the opportunity. Wealthy Americans may have invested in toxic funds, but it's the Feds who enabled and supported those funds, and then propped up the richers at the expense of the rest of us.

Manchu wrote:That's a sensible sounding answer but try applying the same spin ... er, logic to the middle class. If, as a group, the taxable income of the middle class is significant against the context of the larger economy then surely their investment decisions (which will also be affected by their tax burden) will also be significant to the health of the economy.

Not necessarily, there's a vast difference between wealth and income. Wealth is what enables capitalists to invest in companies. Most middle class people don't control a lot of wealth. Further, when multiple people act in their own independent interests they have a more diffuse effect than a single person acting in his own interest.

Manchu wrote:And, since they are a much larger and more significant pool according to your analysis, then they ought to be less fettered by tax burdens. The middle class should be taxed less and the richest should make up for the slack, seeing as how their ability to contribute in either sense is less than that of the middle class. By constraining them with taxes we shouldn't really lose anything that could be gained by lowering taxes on the middle class, right?

Are you suggesting a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax?

As I pointed out upthread, taxing all of the income of the top 1% will only cover the deficit, not any tax breaks for the middle class. If you want to cover the deficit without cutting spending (which, I'll point out again, none of the plans, even those pushed by Republicans, actually do) you need to raise taxes across the board.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:No, I meant the people who control the majority of wealth in this country. The top one percent in terms of wealth in this country has, in your own words, a substantial effect on the economy.

That would be politicians.

So in your eyes, the top 1% of are all politicians?

You keep shifting your position and opinions every time anyone says anything.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you think "the rich" fethed up. People will act in their own self interest when given the opportunity. Wealthy Americans may have invested in toxic funds, but it's the Feds who enabled and supported those funds, and then propped up the richers at the expense of the rest of us.

As though "wealthy Americans" and the "Feds" were distinct.

biccat wrote:
Not necessarily, there's a vast difference between wealth and income. Wealth is what enables capitalists to invest in companies.

Income has a similar effect in most cases.

Also, you have used both terms interchangeably.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:No, I meant the people who control the majority of wealth in this country. The top one percent in terms of wealth in this country has, in your own words, a substantial effect on the economy.

That would be politicians.

So in your eyes, the top 1% of are all politicians?

The majority of privately held wealth is owned (which includes control) by very few people.

However, if you include publicly held wealth, the United States (as an owner) dwarfs that. This wealth is controlled by politicians.

biccat wrote:The majority of privately held wealth is owned (which includes control) by very few people.

Precisely. Why shouldn't they carry the burden of their feth-ups?

They aren't investing, that's for sure. They're sitting their arses on the money doing pretty much nothing, and the country is suffering for it.

Wealth is what enables capitalists to invest in companies. Most middle class people don't control a lot of wealth.

I'm glad you mentioned the distinction. Of course, the real distinction is that wealth is whatever remains after liabilities are subtracted from income. In this case, we see that almost no one in the middle class owns any wealth and yet they are still taxed more heavily, even without regard to proportion, than the richest. There are already taxes on wealth but they are only infrequently collected (at inheritance) and even then they constitute a pittance. Furthermore, whether we talk about wealth or income as a source of revenue, this discussion doesn't seem to account for fictional persons (corporations).

If you want to cover the deficit without cutting spending (which, I'll point out again, none of the plans, even those pushed by Republicans, actually do) you need to raise taxes across the board.

I'm okay with that, when it is actually "across the board."

biccat wrote:
The majority of privately held wealth is owned (which includes control) by very few people.

However, if you include publicly held wealth, the United States (as an owner) dwarfs that. This wealth is controlled by politicians.

Oh no, politicians control things.

Please don't flamebait other users.

Thanks,

Manchu

Manchu wrote:

Wealth is what enables capitalists to invest in companies. Most middle class people don't control a lot of wealth.

I'm glad you mentioned the distinction. Of course, the real distinction is that wealth is whatever remains after liabilities are subtracted from income. In this case, we see that almost no one in the middle class owns any wealth and yet they are still taxed more heavily, even without regard to proportion, than the richest.

There are a myriad of problems with a wealth-based tax system. We currently have an income-based tax system, and it works reasonably well.

Manchu wrote:Furthermore, whether we talk about wealth or income as a source of revenue, this discussion doesn't seem to account for fictional persons (corporations).

Of course it doesn't account for corpoate taxes, otherwise Warren Buffett would have admitted that in addition to his $6 million personal tax bill, he also paid a large share of $3 billion in corporate taxes.

Manchu wrote:

If you want to cover the deficit without cutting spending (which, I'll point out again, none of the plans, even those pushed by Republicans, actually do) you need to raise taxes across the board.

I'm okay with that, when it is actually "across the board."

So am I, glad we can agree on that.

There are a myriad of problems with a wealth-based tax system. We currently have an income-based tax system, and it works reasonably well.

Not if you believe that most of our government spending is necessary to fostering a society in which wealth can actually be produced.

Manchu wrote:

There are a myriad of problems with a wealth-based tax system. We currently have an income-based tax system, and it works reasonably well.

Not if you believe that most of our government spending is necessary to fostering a society in which wealth can actually be produced.

Fortunately, I don't believe any such thing.

Er, Biccat, do you mind if I print and frame that last post of yours, and show it to friends ?

It's not often one sees something so... pure.

HudsonD wrote:Er, Biccat, do you mind if I print and frame that last post of yours, and show it to friends ?

It's not often one sees something so... pure.

You are more than welcome to, however I would note that I charge a reasonably high royalty rate. Please PM me for prices.

Note that I do happen to know more than a few attorneys who specialize in copyright infringement.

biccat wrote:For example, if an investor has a million dollars and can get a 4% gain by investing in a small business or a 3% gain by purchasing municipal bonds, he will generally try to invest in the small business since it has a higher yield (assume that 4% gain accounts for the investment risk as well). But if you tax his income at more than 25%, it becomes better for him to invest in municipal bonds (which are exempt from federal income taxes) to gain a higher return.

The economic consequences of investing in government versus a private business should at least be reasonably apparent.

If you are considering investing in a small business that expects returns of 4% pa you are basically the worst businessman ever. Venture capital typically requires in the realm of 30-40% for start up businesses. Established business are typically valued with a return on capital of 8 to 15%, dependant on the level of risk. The long term return on stocks, from the 1920s to 2000, was over 10%.

On of two things is possible here. You either have no idea about returns the market demands and just picked out a random number. Or you invented whatever numbers were needed to fit your example, and didn't actually care that real returns are nothing like that, and so your example of direct trade-off couldn't actually work in the real world.

Whichever is true, I think all of us, yourself included, really need to be asking how much insight into tax policy you could possibly have.


Also, you didn't answer my earlier post. Did you run out of strawmen, and weren't willing to accept that people don't create wealth without the input of greater society?

biccat wrote:Exactly.

Assuming that by "rich people" you mean politicians.

Collateralised debt obligations were invented by politicians, were they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:

There are a myriad of problems with a wealth-based tax system. We currently have an income-based tax system, and it works reasonably well.

Not if you believe that most of our government spending is necessary to fostering a society in which wealth can actually be produced.

Fortunately, I don't believe any such thing.

Oh, absolutely. It's undeniable. All you have to do is look at the weak governments of Africa, then note how wealthy their people are. Then consider the strong governments of Europe and America, and note how poor their people are.

Melchiour wrote:I don't think you can point your finger at any one person/group/party for this. It didn't happen overnight. Course I am sure people will point anyways.

Oh yes you can point. Same is happening in Europe.

We "outsource" everything because it is the fraction of a cent cheaper. Where do our harvest helpers from Ukraine and Poland spend their pay? Not whwere they work.

Keep reducing peoples income (working class) and voila, your domestic market breaks down. THATS whats happening, nothing else.

The answer however is NOT to tax the rich, no it is to take away their opportunities to screw the public.

Who should pay for redundancies? - Not the taxpayer but the companies that outsource, net the profits and evade taxes.
It can be simple as that but governments are too busy in helping their own wallets and have no time to do their jobs properly.

sebster wrote:Oh, absolutely. It's undeniable. All you have to do is look at the weak governments of Africa, then note how wealthy their people are. Then consider the strong governments of Europe and America, and note how poor their people are.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I'm not clear what your meaning is.

sebster wrote:On of two things is possible here. You either have no idea about returns the market demands and just picked out a random number. Or you invented whatever numbers were needed to fit your example, and didn't actually care that real returns are nothing like that, and so your example of direct trade-off couldn't actually work in the real world.

How about option 3: I was using different rates as an illustrative example to show how changing tax policy causes large investors to change their investment strategies?

sebster wrote:Whichever is true, I think all of us, yourself included, really need to be asking how much insight into tax policy you could possibly have.

Ah, I know the answer to this one. This is essentially an argument from authority. I'm quite frankly surprised no one has pointed it out yet, as quick as some are to jump up and shout "FALLCY!"

sebster wrote:Also, you didn't answer my earlier post. Did you run out of strawmen, and weren't willing to accept that people don't create wealth without the input of greater society?

Quite possible that I ran out of strawmen. An alternative is that I simply didn't respond to your post, or that the question was buried in some of your standard unpleasantries and I missed it.

I agree that people don't generally create wealth without the input of other members of society, but what I dispute is that their individual contributions are not indicative of the money they earn. Bill Gates and I live in the same "greater society," yet he makes substantially more money than I do. The only explanation for this is that he offers (or offered) a service or product that people value more than the service I offer. His wealth is not earned by society, it's earned by his individual talent and contribution.

sebster wrote:Collateralised debt obligations were invented by politicians, were they?

The problem with collateralized debt obligations isn't inherent in their form, the problem arose due to the underlying assets that the CDOs guaranteed. And these 'toxic assets' were strengthened by government action.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:Not if you believe that most of our government spending is necessary to fostering a society in which wealth can actually be produced.

Fortunately, I don't believe any such thing.

Oh, absolutely. It's undeniable. All you have to do is look at the weak governments of Africa, then note how wealthy their people are. Then consider the strong governments of Europe and America, and note how poor their people are.

I'm pretty sure that Manchu would agree, if pressed, that most of our government spending is not necessary to fostering a society for producing wealth. The experience of previous decades and lower budgets should be sufficient to dissuade anyone of this notion.

biccat wrote:

HudsonD wrote:Er, Biccat, do you mind if I print and frame that last post of yours, and show it to friends ?

It's not often one sees something so... pure.

You are more than welcome to, however I would note that I charge a reasonably high royalty rate. Please PM me for prices.

Note that I do happen to know more than a few attorneys who specialize in copyright infringement.

I think they would possibly tell you that a third party displaying your post in order to offer criticism of it falls under 'fair use' as long as you are credited as the author.

biccat wrote:Ah, I know the answer to this one. This is essentially an argument from authority. I'm quite frankly surprised no one has pointed it out yet, as quick as some are to jump up and shout "FALLCY!"

I give people a pass the first dozen or so times they do it in a given thread, what can I say?

Should, or is, the main point of government be to produce (or allowed to be produced) vast amounts of wealth?

I'm pretty sure that Manchu would agree, if pressed, that most of our government spending is not necessary to fostering a society for producing wealth. The experience of previous decades and lower budgets should be sufficient to dissuade anyone of this notion.

Well, you have me there to the extent that I forgot to qualify my position with words like "responsibly" and "sustainable." Government spending on social programs is certainly unnecessary if you want to create wealth at any cost in the short term. And I think that pretty much squares your second sentence there.

Ouze wrote:Could you explain what you mean by this? I'm not clear what your meaning is.

Biccat claimed most of our government spending isn't necessary for producing a wealthy society. I thought this was funny, when you compare a society like ours, to the much weaker governments of developing countries. We are, fairly obviously, much richer, and the ones with the society to aspire to. To just ignore the role of government in building a stable, prosperous nation is kind of ridiculous.

biccat wrote:How about option 3: I was using different rates as an illustrative example to show how changing tax policy causes large investors to change their investment strategies?

But the example only worked when you have nonsense rates of return. Had you chosen a more sensible rate of return for the small business, even assuming it was an established business, then you'd be looking at a return somewhere closer to 10%. At which point your 25% discount would still leave the small business generating 7.5% after tax, more than twice the return of the municipal bond.

When your example only works because you've got nonsense numbers in there, we have to question your ability to illustrate the impact of tax on investment decisions.

Ah, I know the answer to this one. This is essentially an argument from authority. I'm quite frankly surprised no one has pointed it out yet, as quick as some are to jump up and shout "FALLCY!"

No, it really isn't.

Look, it'd be like if we were arguing about baseball, and you claimed that hitting a homerun was all about speed around the bases, and not how far the batter hit the ball. To prove this, you stated that the fastest an object can move is at the speed of light, which is about 300 million metres per second, so if a player could go just half that speed, he could get around the bases in 0.00000073 of a second, and he wouldn't have to hit it very far at all to give himself that much time. The argument only works because the figures are ridiculous, so ridiculous we would have to question if the person in involved had ever seen a game of baseball in their life.

In other words, any example that requires a business commitment based on a an expected return of 4% is also ridiculous, and really needs us to question whether the person involved had any idea about the business investment at all.

Quite possible that I ran out of strawmen. An alternative is that I simply didn't respond to your post, or that the question was buried in some of your standard unpleasantries and I missed it.

True, I understand you're getting dogpiled a bit in this thread, and so it becomes possible to miss one of the people arguing against you. Still, you're welcome to retrace your steps and go see my response to you now.

I agree that people don't generally create wealth without the input of other members of society, but what I dispute is that their individual contributions are not indicative of the money they earn. Bill Gates and I live in the same "greater society," yet he makes substantially more money than I do. The only explanation for this is that he offers (or offered) a service or product that people value more than the service I offer. His wealth is not earned by society, it's earned by his individual talent and contribution.

He certainly did offer a service that lots of people wanted, and he made loads of money out of it and good luck to him for it. This is the great strength of capitalism, to innovate new products and create new markets, and we should reward the people who create those goods handsomely.

But we shouldn't pretend that invention happened in a vacuum. There's a reason that innovation came out of the US and not out of Zimbabwe. Because the US has a powerful, effective system in place for developing new tech, putting that tech into marketable products, then manufacturing and distributing that product.

A guy in Zimbabwe, no matter how smart and hard working he is, just isn't going to start the next Microsoft. A guy in the US who does manage to make the next Microsoft deserves plenty of financial reward for his effort, but it simply doesn't follow that he can declare whatever he earns as his profit by absolute rights, and that the tax system is the first time greater society has played any role in his success.

The problem with collateralized debt obligations isn't inherent in their form, the problem arose due to the underlying assets that the CDOs guaranteed. And these 'toxic assets' were strengthened by government action.

Except that isn't true at all. They were toxic because a new model of profit came to dominate banking, loan to whoever, roll it up in a CDO and push it out into the bond market, and return to the first step. There was little regard for safe stewardship of the shareholder's funding, it was all motivated by reaching incentive targets set for various managers.

In the wake of financial crisis Alan Greenspan, the great stalwart of the free market, admitted he'd made a terrible error in assuming that left to their own devices firms would properly consider their shareholders just through basic self interest. Alan fething Greenspan realised the mistake, so why do you think you're in a better place to properly assess it was actually all about bad old government?

I'm pretty sure that Manchu would agree, if pressed, that most of our government spending is not necessary to fostering a society for producing wealth.

Oh, definitely. But ultimately, who are you, who is anyone, to pick one part like income taxes and declare that one part alien and seperate to all the rest? Can a communist just as freely pick out property laws as part of that system that is alien and immoral?

Or do you have to accept that every part of that system, the parts that advantage the wealthy, and the parts that advantage the poor, as all part of a one big system? Which doesn't mean the system as a whole, or any individual part, is immune to criticism, but it does limit the types of criticism that are reasonable, and the types that make no sense.

In this case, the method of criticism you've attempted, where you pick out one part of the system and pretend all other parts are inherent and indisputable, is the kind of criticism that makes no sense.

sebster wrote:True, I understand you're getting dogpiled a bit in this thread, and so it becomes possible to miss one of the people arguing against you. Still, you're welcome to retrace your steps and go see my response to you now.

Welcome to, but not interested in doing so. Look, I'm sure you think differently, but you're not entitled to a response to some offhand question, especially when you're fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I've said in this thread.

I'm really not sure on what basis you're attacking my "ability to illustrate the impact of tax on investment decisions." You appear to be taking the position that tax policy has no bearing on financial decisions. That kind of thinking is absurd to even high-school level economics. If you make something more expensive, you get less of it. It's a simple and fundamental concept of economic thought.

Either you're unable or unwilling to concede such a simple point, or you're arguing from such an outlying starting position that your arguments are nonsensical given the standards of basic economics. Perhaps you should endeavor to explain yourself better, rather than attacking those who disagree with you.

Sebster, it's getting on shaky and potentially rude ground to question another poster's ability to do a given thing. Kindly be careful.

Biccat, you appear to be making an argument on a false pretence in your last post. I don't see anything in Sebster's post which says or implies that tax policy has "no bearing" on financial decisions.

biccat wrote:Welcome to, but not interested in doing so. Look, I'm sure you think differently, but you're not entitled to a response to some offhand question, especially when you're fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I've said in this thread.

You had been responding, then stopped, while continuing to respond to others, and you then responded to other posts I'd made afterwards. While I certainly can't demand you respond, you also can't demand people don't draw conclusions from you suddenly giving up on an issue.

I figured it was likely given the number of people arguing with you that you simply missed that one post, but given you've once again failed to respond to my point on the individual's success being due to him being part of society, in order to focus in on return on investment side debate, it appears more likely that you're just prone to giving up on the issue when it becomes clear that you're wrong.

I'm really not sure on what basis you're attacking my "ability to illustrate the impact of tax on investment decisions." You appear to be taking the position that tax policy has no bearing on financial decisions. That kind of thinking is absurd to even high-school level economics. If you make something more expensive, you get less of it. It's a simple and fundamental concept of economic thought.

Uh, actually discounted future expected cashflow to price business is first year university. While a highschool economics class might tell you that 'tax affects decision making' that's a horribly simplistic point, and of itself gives us no insight into the level of the effect, or it's type. If you did this in highschool then stopped, it goes a long way to explaining why you simply don't get how much of this issue is beyond your present knowledge base.

As a guy who's worked on determining expected returns on investment, I can tell you I know more than enough about accounting for the effects of tax on future cash flows. But more than that, I can tell you that if I ever walked into a senior's office and said 'well this investment would have got us 4% ROI, but with the tax we'd have to pay we'd only get 3% and so it isn't worthwhile' I'd be met with stunned silence, followed by a request to clear out my desk. Christ, government demands 6% or higher.

If we go back and look at your figures again, we have to compare 3% against 10% at an absolute minimum, if it's a start up business we're looking at three times that number.

Once we start looking at rates of return in the ranges we actually see them in the real world, we realise how much things like opportunity, economic growth and risk matter a whole lot more than tax policy. Once you accept that the real return on investment is at least 10%, the company tax rate simply cannot drive a decision to invest in a 3% municipal bond. What would drive that decision would be the existance of projects with the required level of return, the level of risk, and the necessary liquidity of the funds.

The impact of tax policy is more in the distortions between different types of investment. As you increase tax rates you begin to skew investments towards those with beneficial tax structures and towards investments where most of the return is in the appreciation of assets, as capital gains is always taxed less (so towards land based investments, and away from factories and the like). This is a problem because the more tax effective businesses typically tend to be asset heavy, employment low.

Those are the kinds of arguments you could have made, if you knew what you were talking about. God, I don't even like corporate tax, because it represents double taxation, and believe people should just be taxed on dividends when they're received, not taxed on corporate profits then taxed again when it's received as income.

But you didn't go for those arguments. You went for one where a guy was going to invest in a business expected to make 4%, but didn't because the tax was too high.

Either you're unable or unwilling to concede such a simple point, or you're arguing from such an outlying starting position that your arguments are nonsensical given the standards of basic economics. Perhaps you should endeavor to explain yourself better, rather than attacking those who disagree with you.

I've explained myself just fine. As has happened a few times in this thread, let alone elsewhere, you didn't want to hear it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, it's getting on shaky and potentially rude ground to question another poster's ability to do a given thing. Kindly be careful.

I don't really get this complaint. I mean, if someone is making an argument that shows they really don't understand the field in question, what are we supposed to do? What step is available other than 'you don't understand this, here is how it actually works, please accept this and we can get on with discussing how this thing actually works'?

There's a difference between saying someone doesn't understand a concept, and saying they're incapable of understanding that concept/lack the ability to do so. The latter is often going to be rude.

sebster wrote:While a highschool economics class might tell you that 'tax affects decision making' that's a horribly simplistic point, and of itself gives us no insight into the level of the effect, or it's type.

So now you're willing to discuss the level and type of effect taxation has on someone? Previously you were arguing that society can demand what it wants from high income earners because they allowed the person to obtain that income. When I asked how to differentiate personal contribution to wealth from societal contribution to wealth, you dismissed the point. If you take the position that income is due to societal input, then you need to have some metric for measuring the extent of that contribution in order to determine a fair (or effective) tax rate. So which is it, does taxation have an effect on someone's decision making or not?

Then again, now that I think about it, such a requirement is only necessary if you start from a position of private ownership and personal freedom. I suppose if you think that all of a person's labor (and the proceeds therefrom) is owned by the State and it's the State's job to decide how much you can keep it, your position makes sense. Fortunately we have historical evidence that this type of system doesn't work.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Whichever is true, I think all of us, yourself included, really need to be asking how much insight into tax policy you could possibly have.

Ah, I know the answer to this one. This is essentially an argument from authority. I'm quite frankly surprised no one has pointed it out yet, as quick as some are to jump up and shout "FALLCY!"

Two things:

1: Not all appeals to authority are fallacious, hence the distinction made in the second sentence of your source.

2: You can only appeal to your own authority by explicit reference, otherwise all statements would be appeals to authority.

Sebster did not reference himself as an authority, and even if he had it would not have been fallacious if we accept his educational claims. Your criticism is off base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Previously you were arguing that society can demand what it wants from high income earners because they allowed the person to obtain that income.

That's a strawman, no such thing was implied.

Though, in reality, society can do exactly what you describe, because society has more people (and therefore guns/knives/fists/feet) than the individual; by definition.

biccat wrote:
If you take the position that income is due to societal input, then you need to have some metric for measuring the extent of that contribution in order to determine a fair (or effective) tax rate.

No you don't. A tax can be fair and effective while also being unequal. In fact, history is filled with examples of this.

biccat wrote:
So which is it, does taxation have an effect on someone's decision making or not?

Did you not read the part where he said that it does?

biccat wrote:
Then again, now that I think about it, such a requirement is only necessary if you start from a position of private ownership and personal freedom. I suppose if you think that all of a person's labor (and the proceeds therefrom) is owned by the State and it's the State's job to decide how much you can keep it, your position makes sense. Fortunately we have historical evidence that this type of system doesn't work.

Hyperbole doesn't suit you.

biccat wrote:So now you're willing to discuss the level and type of effect taxation has on someone? Previously you were arguing that society can demand what it wants from high income earners because they allowed the person to obtain that income. When I asked how to differentiate personal contribution to wealth from societal contribution to wealth, you dismissed the point. If you take the position that income is due to societal input, then you need to have some metric for measuring the extent of that contribution in order to determine a fair (or effective) tax rate. So which is it, does taxation have an effect on someone's decision making or not?

Of course tax impacts decision making. Of course society can build a tax system that taxes the rich more than the poor, it can even build a system that taxes the rich 99% of every dollar they earn over the minimum wage. These are both plain and obvious points, as long as you don't assume that just because society is within it's rights to tax, it necessarily should. Obviously, society needs to consider the negative consequences of tax policy, and ensure that there remains sufficient personal incentive for individuals to continue to strive to increase their income.

The point is to move past the silliness of 'tax is theft' and into the productive and useful grounds of 'what tax policy is the best tax policy'. Once we accept that, we can have a conversation about what level of spending is needed, and how we might raise that money while balancing the considerations of fairness and personal incentive.

Then again, now that I think about it, such a requirement is only necessary if you start from a position of private ownership and personal freedom. I suppose if you think that all of a person's labor (and the proceeds therefrom) is owned by the State and it's the State's job to decide how much you can keep it, your position makes sense. Fortunately we have historical evidence that this type of system doesn't work.

I don't start from the position that it's owned by anyone. It simply is a product of personal endeavours, in the context of a system built everybody else's personal endeavours and the system put in place by the state. As such, it is a complete nonsense to pick out one single part of the system put in place by government and declare that part alone uniquely alien to the rest of the system. You are continuing to pretend that person walks into a job, signs up for $60k before tax, knowing full well that as part of the system that sees the corporation he is to work for exist in the first place, his after tax income will be $48,000, he is able to yell 'theft' as though that tax element came out of something totally alien to all the rest.