This entry was posted on Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 20:00 and is filed under Think about it..
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
There is no simple inherent link between percentage of total income earned and percentage of total taxes which are, or should be, paid.
Hence this chart, though interesting, is useless.
So, Dennis, how much of my income do you think I should be allowed to keep? According to this chart, Tim & I qualify as “the rich” who aren’t paying their “fair share” of the taxes. The other question is, if I work for my income, how it is “fair” to take money from me under threat of imprisonment and use it to pay for political favors, such as Solyndra?
How much should you keep? *shrug* Hypothesis non fingo. According to the chart, I’m in the ‘rich’ bracket, too. But that’s just a statistic.
A truer chart would show how much each bracket makes of total income over and above the poverty level. By that measure, are we paying more than our ‘fair’ share? Don’t know. Nobody’s run that number, because it can’t be used to bolster a right-wing class-war talking point.
The chart as presented is a classic falacy of aggregation. Ask Tim if you don’t already know what that means; it’s one of his favorites.
As to your second question, it rests upon another false correlation; there is no inherent link between tax revenue and corruption. That needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. By your example, is it ‘fair’ for someone who doesn’t own a car to pay taxes which subsidize road building and maintenance? Think it over.
There is no such thing as a ‘false correlation’. Either the correlation exists, or it doesn’t. The point, which you chronically miss, is that it is patently unfair under anybody’s rules for people to be required to pay a higher share of the tax burden than their share of the aggregate income in the nation. This whole ‘fair share’ nonsense is based on the socialist premise that what one earns by right belongs to the government, and may legitimately be taken by the government at any time and in any amount and used for whatever purpose the government things proper. Socialism pretends that systematic theft is somehow a high moral principle, and any system based on that attitude is as immoral (and as unproductive) as a government based on slavery or genocide.
What ‘poverty level’? The ‘poverty level’ for the U.S. would rank as solid middle class in most places overseas. ‘I want to visit America. I want to see a country where the poor people are fat.’ The U.S. government considers ‘poverty level’ to be the bottom X percentage of the population; by that measure, the poor will always be with us, by definition. And you provide neither evidence nor argument for your assertion that ‘over and above the poverty level’ has anything to do with fairness in taxation — a clever trick, since any proper measure will include government benefits along with income, and by that standard most of the ‘poor’ in America are pretty well off.
“There is no such thing as a ‘false correlation’. Either the correlation exists, or it doesn’t.” Correct. A ‘false Correlation’ therefore consists of putting two things side-by-side and stating or implying that a correlation exists between them when in fact it does not. Such is your chart. The only true correlation in it is that all of the bars are made up of percentages. It demonstrates nothing any more than putting two charts side by side that give the percentage of redheads in the population vs. the number of left-handers.
As for it being ‘patently unfair under anybody’s rules’, you are mistaken. It is not unfair under my rules, nor under the rules of many other reasonable people, so your premise is disproven.
The ‘fair share nonsense’ as you put it is predicated upon the simple fact that there is a certain minimum income which is required to keep body and soul together at a minimum standard. Anything more than that is fair game for taxation. Taking money from anyone who makes less than that is just callous and cruel. (Not that the right has ever been uncomfortable with that characterization; indeed, at times I think they revel in it).
If after taking the standard deduction and standard exemption–a pretty low bar, even you will admit–you have no taxable income, then you are poor by any measure. Government benefits are simply a way of trying to bring those poor schlubs up to the minimum so that we don’t have people dying in the gutter in every city in America–not that I think you would mind, but some of us would.
And as I have pointed out before, the poverty level for the US would make one a pretty good living in most places of the world–except that we don’t live in most other places of the world, so that argument is irrelevent. The cost of living here is higher, so the threshhold of what constitutes ‘poor’ is higher. Now there is a valid correlation, if you were looking for one, which you obviously are not.
And yes, the poor will always be with us. Tax policy is not intended to remedy this (although other government policies are, but that’s a different discussion). A fair tax policy should be based on not taking from people who can’t live on what they make anyway. When a man has a fish and you have 20, taking 1/2 of his fish to equal your ten leaves you still fat and happy while causing him to starve even sooner than he would have. If that seems ‘fair’ to you, then we have little ground in common.
No representation of correlation was either asserted or implied, so your handwaving is nothing but a classic example of a ‘straw man’.
The percentages and their comparison are as valid as comparing the percentages of what members of a dinner group at a restaurant ordered as a percentage of what the group spent, and what they paid, if there’s a difference between the two — the key concept being that if they aren’t the same then somebody is getting screwed, and when talking about ‘fairness’ who is getting screwed is of obvious relevance. Try to keep up.
And anyone who thinks of such a situation is ‘fair’ is not a ‘reasonable people’, but in character a thief, exactly equivalent to the guy who thinks, ‘Well, George over there makes twice what I do, so it’ll be okay to lift his wallet.’ All thieves have fancy rationalizations for why it’s okay for them to steal from other people, but they remain thieves.
So now you have become the touchstone of what is a reasonable person? How typically right wing: the only right-thinking people in the world are the ones who agree with me.
You remind me of the guy on the highway who said, “People who drive slower than me are idiots. People who drive faster than me are maniacs.”
I guess whining about me is easier that trying to justify your position that theft is somehow ‘fair’. If that’s your notion of a ‘reasonable person’, then you’re driving slower than me.
Well, it all depends on your mis-application of the word ‘theft’. Once one subtracts that bit of self-serving nonsense, there really is nothing to justify.
And you’ve been stalled by the side of the road for decades.
‘Mis-application’? Theft is taking something that belongs to someone else against their will. That’s what socialism is built on. It’s institutionalized theft masquerading as a moral principle.
April 13th, 2012 at 07:30
False correlation.
There is no simple inherent link between percentage of total income earned and percentage of total taxes which are, or should be, paid.
Hence this chart, though interesting, is useless.
April 13th, 2012 at 08:15
So, Dennis, how much of my income do you think I should be allowed to keep? According to this chart, Tim & I qualify as “the rich” who aren’t paying their “fair share” of the taxes. The other question is, if I work for my income, how it is “fair” to take money from me under threat of imprisonment and use it to pay for political favors, such as Solyndra?
April 13th, 2012 at 11:06
How much should you keep? *shrug* Hypothesis non fingo. According to the chart, I’m in the ‘rich’ bracket, too. But that’s just a statistic.
A truer chart would show how much each bracket makes of total income over and above the poverty level. By that measure, are we paying more than our ‘fair’ share? Don’t know. Nobody’s run that number, because it can’t be used to bolster a right-wing class-war talking point.
The chart as presented is a classic falacy of aggregation. Ask Tim if you don’t already know what that means; it’s one of his favorites.
As to your second question, it rests upon another false correlation; there is no inherent link between tax revenue and corruption. That needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. By your example, is it ‘fair’ for someone who doesn’t own a car to pay taxes which subsidize road building and maintenance? Think it over.
April 13th, 2012 at 12:35
There is no such thing as a ‘false correlation’. Either the correlation exists, or it doesn’t. The point, which you chronically miss, is that it is patently unfair under anybody’s rules for people to be required to pay a higher share of the tax burden than their share of the aggregate income in the nation. This whole ‘fair share’ nonsense is based on the socialist premise that what one earns by right belongs to the government, and may legitimately be taken by the government at any time and in any amount and used for whatever purpose the government things proper. Socialism pretends that systematic theft is somehow a high moral principle, and any system based on that attitude is as immoral (and as unproductive) as a government based on slavery or genocide.
April 13th, 2012 at 12:40
What ‘poverty level’? The ‘poverty level’ for the U.S. would rank as solid middle class in most places overseas. ‘I want to visit America. I want to see a country where the poor people are fat.’ The U.S. government considers ‘poverty level’ to be the bottom X percentage of the population; by that measure, the poor will always be with us, by definition. And you provide neither evidence nor argument for your assertion that ‘over and above the poverty level’ has anything to do with fairness in taxation — a clever trick, since any proper measure will include government benefits along with income, and by that standard most of the ‘poor’ in America are pretty well off.
April 13th, 2012 at 13:10
“There is no such thing as a ‘false correlation’. Either the correlation exists, or it doesn’t.” Correct. A ‘false Correlation’ therefore consists of putting two things side-by-side and stating or implying that a correlation exists between them when in fact it does not. Such is your chart. The only true correlation in it is that all of the bars are made up of percentages. It demonstrates nothing any more than putting two charts side by side that give the percentage of redheads in the population vs. the number of left-handers.
As for it being ‘patently unfair under anybody’s rules’, you are mistaken. It is not unfair under my rules, nor under the rules of many other reasonable people, so your premise is disproven.
The ‘fair share nonsense’ as you put it is predicated upon the simple fact that there is a certain minimum income which is required to keep body and soul together at a minimum standard. Anything more than that is fair game for taxation. Taking money from anyone who makes less than that is just callous and cruel. (Not that the right has ever been uncomfortable with that characterization; indeed, at times I think they revel in it).
If after taking the standard deduction and standard exemption–a pretty low bar, even you will admit–you have no taxable income, then you are poor by any measure. Government benefits are simply a way of trying to bring those poor schlubs up to the minimum so that we don’t have people dying in the gutter in every city in America–not that I think you would mind, but some of us would.
And as I have pointed out before, the poverty level for the US would make one a pretty good living in most places of the world–except that we don’t live in most other places of the world, so that argument is irrelevent. The cost of living here is higher, so the threshhold of what constitutes ‘poor’ is higher. Now there is a valid correlation, if you were looking for one, which you obviously are not.
And yes, the poor will always be with us. Tax policy is not intended to remedy this (although other government policies are, but that’s a different discussion). A fair tax policy should be based on not taking from people who can’t live on what they make anyway. When a man has a fish and you have 20, taking 1/2 of his fish to equal your ten leaves you still fat and happy while causing him to starve even sooner than he would have. If that seems ‘fair’ to you, then we have little ground in common.
April 14th, 2012 at 03:40
No representation of correlation was either asserted or implied, so your handwaving is nothing but a classic example of a ‘straw man’.
The percentages and their comparison are as valid as comparing the percentages of what members of a dinner group at a restaurant ordered as a percentage of what the group spent, and what they paid, if there’s a difference between the two — the key concept being that if they aren’t the same then somebody is getting screwed, and when talking about ‘fairness’ who is getting screwed is of obvious relevance. Try to keep up.
And anyone who thinks of such a situation is ‘fair’ is not a ‘reasonable people’, but in character a thief, exactly equivalent to the guy who thinks, ‘Well, George over there makes twice what I do, so it’ll be okay to lift his wallet.’ All thieves have fancy rationalizations for why it’s okay for them to steal from other people, but they remain thieves.
April 14th, 2012 at 05:43
So now you have become the touchstone of what is a reasonable person? How typically right wing: the only right-thinking people in the world are the ones who agree with me.
You remind me of the guy on the highway who said, “People who drive slower than me are idiots. People who drive faster than me are maniacs.”
April 14th, 2012 at 10:22
I guess whining about me is easier that trying to justify your position that theft is somehow ‘fair’. If that’s your notion of a ‘reasonable person’, then you’re driving slower than me.
April 15th, 2012 at 15:36
Well, it all depends on your mis-application of the word ‘theft’. Once one subtracts that bit of self-serving nonsense, there really is nothing to justify.
And you’ve been stalled by the side of the road for decades.
April 16th, 2012 at 06:16
‘Mis-application’? Theft is taking something that belongs to someone else against their will. That’s what socialism is built on. It’s institutionalized theft masquerading as a moral principle.