Comments on: A clever cut http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut design.ui.technology.art.interaction.writing.creativity.politics.environment.family Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:39:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Bradford R. Pilcher http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-74 Bradford R. Pilcher Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:23:50 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-74 Eek... should probably read all the links first. My first comment is essentially the point made in the Tilting at Windmills link under "downloading." My apologies for restating something, but I noticed the quote at the end of Ryan's original post and wanted to add that little bit of nuance. Eek… should probably read all the links first. My first comment is essentially the point made in the Tilting at Windmills link under “downloading.” My apologies for restating something, but I noticed the quote at the end of Ryan’s original post and wanted to add that little bit of nuance.

]]> By: Bradford R. Pilcher http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-73 Bradford R. Pilcher Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:20:17 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-73 It should be pointed out that the tax burden of the middle class has increased not just because "the cut for the rich is propotionally larger than the cuts for everyone else," but also because the resulting dearth of federal funding for programs states are required to carry out (think "No Child Left Behind") forces subsequent hikes in property taxes, income taxes, etc. at the state and local levels. It should be pointed out that the tax burden of the middle class has increased not just because “the cut for the rich is propotionally larger than the cuts for everyone else,” but also because the resulting dearth of federal funding for programs states are required to carry out (think “No Child Left Behind”) forces subsequent hikes in property taxes, income taxes, etc. at the state and local levels.

]]> By: Joe Mason http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-64 Joe Mason Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:29:00 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-64 Yeah, I think I've mentioned it here before, come to think of it. Yeah, I think I’ve mentioned it here before, come to think of it.

]]> By: Ryan Freebern http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-63 Ryan Freebern Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:34:55 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-63 Joe, I'm fairly certain the CBO figures take all taxes into account, since they have sections that just deal with income tax as well as sections that deal with total federal taxes. That Tilting post is great -- I've seen it before, but now it's going into my bookmarks. Thanks. Joe,
I’m fairly certain the CBO figures take all taxes into account, since they have sections that just deal with income tax as well as sections that deal with total federal taxes. That Tilting post is great — I’ve seen it before, but now it’s going into my bookmarks. Thanks.

]]> By: Joe Mason http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-62 Joe Mason Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:46:04 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-62 I was going to point out the obvious difference in the debate: Matthew consistently uses the term, "taking money away", while Ryan consistently uses the term, "shouldering a share of the tax burden". But I guess Matthew's quote already threw that difference into relief. Are the CBO's figures only taking into account income tax? There's a great post at <a href="http://www.la-mancha.net/archives/000220.html">Tilting at Windmills</a> discussing the various types of taxes and cuts, and which are regressive. It's likely that the top 20%'s share of the total tax burden (not just income tax) is actually a fair bit less than 60%, because most of the other taxes in place aren't progressive like income tax. I was going to point out the obvious difference in the debate: Matthew consistently uses the term, “taking money away”, while Ryan consistently uses the term, “shouldering a share of the tax burden”. But I guess Matthew’s quote already threw that difference into relief.

Are the CBO’s figures only taking into account income tax? There’s a great post at Tilting at Windmills discussing the various types of taxes and cuts, and which are regressive. It’s likely that the top 20%’s share of the total tax burden (not just income tax) is actually a fair bit less than 60%, because most of the other taxes in place aren’t progressive like income tax.

]]> By: Aimee http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-61 Aimee Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:09:31 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-61 Also stunned. Also wondering where the money would come from to run the country. True, I think there are far far too many frivolous things being done with tax money, however some is needed. Either some tax revenue, or a completely different way of living which people who write things such as "As long as most Americans accept the moral premise that the needs of some are a moral claim on the lives and property of others...[ad nauseum]" would be far less capable of handling than shouldering their share of the bill.. Yay compassion. Also stunned.

Also wondering where the money would come from to run the country. True, I think there are far far too many frivolous things being done with tax money, however some is needed. Either some tax revenue, or a completely different way of living which people who write things such as “As long as most Americans accept the moral premise that the needs of some are a moral claim on the lives and property of others…[ad nauseum]” would be far less capable of handling than shouldering their share of the bill..

Yay compassion.

]]> By: Ryan Freebern http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-60 Ryan Freebern Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:40:02 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-60 I didn't say the wealthiest 20% should have to pay 85% of their income in taxes, I said that they (collectively) should have to shoulder between 80% and 85% of the total national tax burden, since they control around 80% of the total national wealth. That's a huge difference. I can't believe you are actually putting that quote forward as an example of your beliefs. That is one of the most selfish, greedy, heinous things I've seen said in a long time. Reject the premise that we have a moral obligation to help those in need? Claiming taxation is worse than letting poor people starve to death? Why on earth would anyone with a heart seriously advocate that? Yes, that moral premise is what most Americans believe, because it's <em>right</em>, and <em>good</em>, and <em>decent</em>. It's being willing to help others out because sometimes they can't help themselves. It's understanding that there are people less fortunate than you and sacrificing some of what you have to possibly give them a chance. It's being a compassionate, kind, loving human being. It's realising that there are more important things in this world than having money, and that when we all work together, we can do a lot more than each of us working alone. I am completely stunned. I didn’t say the wealthiest 20% should have to pay 85% of their income in taxes, I said that they (collectively) should have to shoulder between 80% and 85% of the total national tax burden, since they control around 80% of the total national wealth. That’s a huge difference.

I can’t believe you are actually putting that quote forward as an example of your beliefs. That is one of the most selfish, greedy, heinous things I’ve seen said in a long time. Reject the premise that we have a moral obligation to help those in need? Claiming taxation is worse than letting poor people starve to death? Why on earth would anyone with a heart seriously advocate that?

Yes, that moral premise is what most Americans believe, because it’s right, and good, and decent. It’s being willing to help others out because sometimes they can’t help themselves. It’s understanding that there are people less fortunate than you and sacrificing some of what you have to possibly give them a chance. It’s being a compassionate, kind, loving human being. It’s realising that there are more important things in this world than having money, and that when we all work together, we can do a lot more than each of us working alone.

I am completely stunned.

]]> By: Matthew Murray http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-59 Matthew Murray Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:52:35 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-59 I'm just trying to find the point at which you feel too much of their money is being taken away. Right now, that number seems to be at 85% which is, in effect, saying that rich people only deserve 15% of the money you earn. I guess I find that troubling, personally, but that's just me. I'm not sure if you're one of people from the MUD who has openly espoused Communism as being the ideal ecconomic system, but I don't think you are. But claiming that 85% is a fair amount of money to take away from people who make more than you do... That's not that far away from Communism, it seems to me, and it seems to me fundamentally flawed: Why should someone willingly open themselves up to having 85% of their money just taken away? Why not move somewhere else that wouldn't happen? I don't understand your point of view on this, I'm sorry. But anyway, I saw this quote the other day that seems to be a pretty good explanation of all this. I don't expect you to agree with it, but I thought I'd at least show it to you. (Before you ask, I don't know the author personally--it was from a letter in The Wall Street Journal.) "As long as most Americans accept the moral premise that the needs of some are a moral claim on the lives and property of others, taxation won't drop in any significant way. Taxes will be slashed only when Americans openly reject this premise and stand for the opposite proposition: that an individual's income is 100% his private property, not to be taxed and redistributed to other people." I’m just trying to find the point at which you feel too much of their money is being taken away. Right now, that number seems to be at 85% which is, in effect, saying that rich people only deserve 15% of the money you earn. I guess I find that troubling, personally, but that’s just me. I’m not sure if you’re one of people from the MUD who has openly espoused Communism as being the ideal ecconomic system, but I don’t think you are. But claiming that 85% is a fair amount of money to take away from people who make more than you do… That’s not that far away from Communism, it seems to me, and it seems to me fundamentally flawed: Why should someone willingly open themselves up to having 85% of their money just taken away? Why not move somewhere else that wouldn’t happen? I don’t understand your point of view on this, I’m sorry.

But anyway, I saw this quote the other day that seems to be a pretty good explanation of all this. I don’t expect you to agree with it, but I thought I’d at least show it to you. (Before you ask, I don’t know the author personally–it was from a letter in The Wall Street Journal.) “As long as most Americans accept the moral premise that the needs of some are a moral claim on the lives and property of others, taxation won’t drop in any significant way. Taxes will be slashed only when Americans openly reject this premise and stand for the opposite proposition: that an individual’s income is 100% his private property, not to be taxed and redistributed to other people.”

]]> By: Ryan Freebern http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-58 Ryan Freebern Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:44:09 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-58 You're kind of asking me to develop an entire taxation plan, which I'm not prepared (or qualified) to do, and anything I come up with will certainly be far too simplistic to apply to the real world. This is kind of a pointless exercise. But right now, based on the 80% figure, I would imagine asking the top 20% to shoulder, say, more than 85% of the tax burden is unreasonable. If their wealth increases, so would this estimate. If, somehow, they ever controlled 100% of the country's wealth (leaving the rest of us living in abject poverty), then expecting them to pay 100% of the taxes needed is perfectly reasonable. Where are you going with this? You’re kind of asking me to develop an entire taxation plan, which I’m not prepared (or qualified) to do, and anything I come up with will certainly be far too simplistic to apply to the real world. This is kind of a pointless exercise.

But right now, based on the 80% figure, I would imagine asking the top 20% to shoulder, say, more than 85% of the tax burden is unreasonable. If their wealth increases, so would this estimate. If, somehow, they ever controlled 100% of the country’s wealth (leaving the rest of us living in abject poverty), then expecting them to pay 100% of the taxes needed is perfectly reasonable.

Where are you going with this?

]]> By: Matthew Murray http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-57 Matthew Murray Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:49:27 +0000 http://ryan.freebern.org/2004/08/17/a-clever-cut#comment-57 I see. How much, however, is too much? In your opinion, at what point can the rich pay too much? I see. How much, however, is too much? In your opinion, at what point can the rich pay too much?

]]>