Fair Share?

[SmartyPants]

Are you saying that that footage of Reagan is fraudulent? Clearly he was in favor of closing that particular tax loophole, whatever his broader philosophies were.

I said that your link "taking things out of context".  What Reagan considers a loophole is different from what Obama considers a loophole.  Obama misuses the term "loophole" to describe how wealthy people uses captial gains to have a lower tax rate then they normally would.  Obama prefers to use the "loopholes" rhetoric instead of explainig how he wants to increase the capital gains tax (which will cause detrimental harm to the stock market).  When Reagan was talking about eliminating "lookholes", he was talking about getting rid of tax break abuses and tax shelters.  Even if thier rhetoric is the same, the policies and laws that back up their rhetoric is opposite.

[ArtDrake]

Okay, you keep saying "detrimental harm," but that's superfluously redundant.

Either say, "detriment," or "harm," but all harm is detrimental.

[SmartyPants]

Instead of pretending to be the grammar guru, you should answer the question you have been avoiding:

It depends on what each is getting in return for those percentages of their income.

Do you think the bottom 50% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get more from the government then they pay into it?  Is it right for them to say that the rich aren't paying their fair share?

[ArtDrake]

First of all, my above objection was not one of grammar, but of usage of words.

Second, I have already stated that those who are unable to pay for the basic services the government must provide ought have their costs paid for them by those who are able to, while they have the duty to, as best they can, find a job with a high enough income where they can.

[Rob]

Two questions:
If it is fair to redistribute money people earned, is it fair to redistribute grades people earned?
What if the people the government is helping aren't looking for a job?

[CraigStern]

If it is fair to redistribute money people earned, is it fair to redistribute grades people earned?

These are separate issues. Unlike money, grades are not liquid. You cannot inherit grades from your parents or win grades in the lottery. You can't start a pyramid scheme or create fraudulent securities and steal peoples' grades. You can't invest grades or buy things with grades.

They also serve different purposes. A grade is intended to serve as a mark of merit. Money is not (as you can no doubt discern based on the fact that you can inherit it, spend it, steal it, and otherwise transfer it among different people).

Further, unlike grades, money is essential to survival. People need money to pay for shelter, to buy food, to pay health expenses, and to arrange for transportation. You will not get sick or die from lack of grades; but you suffer very real risks to your survival if you have no money.

Based on the above, we can see that it would undermine the whole purpose of grades if you could somehow redistribute them, but the same cannot be said for money. Further, the consequences of not redistributing money can be quite dire. So, to answer your question: no.

[SmartyPants]

Second, I have already stated that those who are unable to pay for the basic services the government must provide ought have their costs paid for them by those who are able to, while they have the duty to, as best they can, find a job with a high enough income where they can.

Plenty of people who don't pay taxes, can provide themselves with basic services and still have enough money to pay thier share to the government.  Do you think it is right that those people claim the rich aren't paying thier fair share?

They also serve different purposes. A grade is intended to serve as a mark of merit. Money is not.

I disagree with that statement, because I believe money should be earned by merit.  The hardest working and most talented are usually the highest earners.  The old American dream was to gain alot of money through accomplishments, while the new American dream seems to be to get money through entitlement.

Based on the above, we can see that it would undermine the whole purpose of grades if you could somehow redistribute them, but the same cannot be said for money. Further, the consequences of not redistributing money can be quite dire. So, to answer your question: no.

If the people who work hard for good grades get the same grades as people who don't work hard for their grades, then you demotivate the hard workers and therefore reduce the average grades.  It works the same way for money.  When you redistribute money, it makes people less willing to work harder.

Lets take my dermatologist neighbor as an example.  After the Bush tax cuts, he increased his weekly office hours by 8 hours.  Before the tax cut, he didn't find the extra work worth the small amount of money that the government let him keep.  He was willing to work harder and longer when he was allowed to keep more of his money.
On the other hand is octomom.  She doesn't see the need to work, because welfare will give her more money, then she would earn working.

[Rob]

I am very well aware that money is inheritable and can be transfered from one deserving person to another not so deserving person. However, transfered money will run out if one doesn't work to keep it or maintain it. Furthermore, inherited money is only inherited once, so it isn't taxed as an income tax with every paycheck. The rich people who are being taxed every paycheck are those with a high income who worked to earn their money. Money is typically shows that someone did some kind of work and was confenstated for it.
You argue that redistributing grades would undermine the purpose of grades, as grades are designed to show merit. However, some people cheat and earn good grades. Others are favored by their instructor. Like grades, money (or, more specifically, income) is meant to show work and merit. Just because some people earn their money in questionable ways does not mean that everyone with a high income should be forced to give up a relatively high percentage of their money for people who do not have money for whatever reason. That would be like a teacher deciding that because someone probably cheated on a test, everyone who got a high grade on the test would have points deducted, and those points would be given to those who failed the test.

[SmartyPants]

I am very well aware that money is inheritable and can be transfered from one deserving person to another not so deserving person. However, transfered money will run out if one doesn't work to keep it or maintain it. Furthermore, inherited money is only inherited once, so it isn't taxed as an income tax with every paycheck.

Thanks to the estate tax, the government can still tax you after you are dead.  That means the money is taxed when it is earned and then taxed again when it is given to relatives.

[CraigStern]

I agree that money should be tied to merit. But if you look at studies which check to see what is most actually most highly correlated with having large amounts of money in America, the number one factor is "Were you born to a family with lots of money?"

[SmartyPants]

If people were rich only through inheritance, then how are many of the rich becoming richer?  Inheritance drastically shrinks every generation, because it is split among siblings and heavy taxed by the government.  If the rich weren't sucessfully earning their own money, then the rich would get poorer and poorer until they weren't rich anymore.  Most wealthy people are able to through merit sucessfully increase their fortunes with hard work and higher education.  Plus, if you want to increase the income tax, then you obviously think that are sucessfully earning high amounts of their own income.

In America, the most important factor to how much money you will make is higher education.  Rich or poor, if you don't get into a good college and do well at that college, then you most likely won't make much money.  One of the reasons that America is the land of opportunity is because of subsidized student loans, subsidized public universities, and numerous scholarships allow almost anyone who his hardworking or talented to have access to higher education.

To redistribute wealth seems to discourage earning more through accomplishment, while encouraging earning money through entitlement.

[ArtDrake]

Among the less wealthy, yes. And if you're content to stay less wealthy, yes.

But if you're rich, and you have a finance manager working for you who will invest your money for you...

Or if you're poor, but you really want to achieve...

redistribution actually pressures and allows, respectively, Americans to accomplish more.

[ArtDrake]

To redistribute wealth seems to discourage earning more through accomplishment, while encouraging earning money through entitlement.

This is what I was talking about. I answered that point in two sentences. I used ellipses.

[SmartyPants]

Among the less wealthy, yes. And if you're content to stay less wealthy, yes.

Senseless half-thought.

But if you're rich, and you have a finance manager working for you who will invest your money for you...

Smart middle class people talk to financial advisors and stock brokers.  Dumb middle class people spend as much as they earn without savings or investing.  Don't punish people for being smart and investing.

Or if you're poor, but you really want to achieve...

Again, that is why the government invests heavly in higher education.  "One of the reasons that America is the land of opportunity is because of subsidized student loans, subsidized public universities, and numerous scholarships allow almost anyone who his hardworking or talented to have access to higher education."

redistribution actually pressures and allows, respectively, Americans to accomplish more.

How does taking money away from the successful and giving that money to the unsuccessful suppose to encourage anyone to be sucessful?

[ArtDrake]

No, it's not a senseless half-thought, any more than "no" is a senseless half-thought when put in context. I thought I could provide that context for you, but apparently you're too thick to understand.

Among the less wealthy, perhaps the redistribution of wealth discourages earning through accomplishment, as the redistribution is in their favour. They, then, might make a living for themselves with less accomplishment then they might have been pushed towards otherwise. Among those who are less wealthy and do not aspire to reach any further than mediocrity, then certainly; redistribution of wealth will not help your case, but rather make you more content to muddle along without a serious education. Sure.

But if one is rich, and one has a finance manager or hired investor to allow you to simply attend fancy cocktail parties and slack off, then redistribution is going to hurt in the wallet. These same people you were talking about when you said that

If the rich weren't sucessfully earning their own money, then the rich would get poorer and poorer until they weren't rich anymore.

when making the point that anyone who's rich isn't going to stay rich through entitlement are staying rich through no effort on their own part. I'm not talking about punishing anyone. I'm simply saying that if, in your idealist version of America, the rich only stay rich through hard work, that directly conflicts with your views about how the rich are paying more than their fair share of taxes. The rich are paying their current taxes, and some of them don't even have to work hard to be rich. The logical consequence is to tax the rich further and stop giving them so many stinking tax cuts, along with giving some of that money to people who need it; that will certainly make the rich more determined to accomplish.

Then, I'll consider the point of the lower classes. With not much money, many cannot afford to go to college. This barrier hits hard despite any achievement on the part of the student who would like to recieve a college education. I'm certain that you've heard the story before: kid wants education, parents can't afford it, kid tries hard, kid gets scholarship, kid can't go to school because his parents have become dependent on the income he brings in with his part-time job, kid takes job at gas station, kid earns cruddy wages because working at gas stations used to be a better gig than it was when his dad was his age, kid becomes adult, gets married to someone he doesn't really even love but is attracted to the hips of, gets drunk, again, and again, and again, abuses wife, but not after getting her pregnant. Rinse and repeat.

With just a bit more money, the parents of the kid could have taken care of his three other siblings without the kid's income, he can go to school on a scholarship, try hard, get a degree, and have a nice life with a charming young lady he meets at school. He might have a couple of kids, read to them at night, take an active role in his daughter's education by helping out with studying, and he will probably earn enough money to send both of his kids to college, and the upward cycle can continue.

Redistribution of wealth encourages the rich and the poor to try harder and accomplish more with what they have, rather than encouraging laziness like you say it does.