Why do my colleague and I pay as much in taxes?

[Bonam]

I think you and I both have a good understanding of the basic differences between the systems.

--- --- --- --- ---

Let's look at my point from a different angle. Marxism arose as a response to the industrial revolution, I think we can agree. Since then we have seen many changes... the telegraph, the production line of Henry Ford, the electronic age, the information age.

What changes to societal organization, specifically related to labour, can we see happening in the future ? As we have both stated on this thread, capitalism adopted some of the features of socialism. What for the future ?

I think technological progress over the next decades/century will be the biggest driver of change in the nature of our societies, as I pointed out in another thread. As more tasks can be automated by AI/robotics, there will be ever less need for human labour, including intellectual labour not only physical labour. As technology progresses, providing for the basic needs of the human population will be an almost negligible use of resources and so the idea of entitlement and a welfare state will become not only more popular but somewhat more sound, since it will have little/no impact on the productive part of society, rather than being a major drain as it is today. Furthermore developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology will allow us to achieve negligible senescence which will have substantial impacts as humans become able to live hundreds or thousands of years. Simulated reality and achievements in simulated worlds will become as important or even more important to many people than "real" reality, and will form a major part of the economy, a trend which can already be seen beginning to some extent. Considering how utterly reshaped the world will be by technological progress over the next few decades it is hard to see much farther in the future or make particularly accurate predictions.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

I think technological progress over the next decades/century will be the biggest driver of change in the nature of our societies, as I pointed out in another thread. As more tasks can be automated by AI/robotics, there will be ever less need for human labour, including intellectual labour not only physical labour. As technology progresses, providing for the basic needs of the human population will be an almost negligible use of resources and so the idea of entitlement and a welfare state will become not only more popular but somewhat more sound, since it will have little/no impact on the productive part of society, rather than being a major drain as it is today. Furthermore developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology will allow us to achieve negligible senescence which will have substantial impacts as humans become able to live hundreds or thousands of years. Simulated reality and achievements in simulated worlds will become as important or even more important to many people than "real" reality, and will form a major part of the economy, a trend which can already be seen beginning to some extent. Considering how utterly reshaped the world will be by technological progress over the next few decades it is hard to see much farther in the future or make particularly accurate predictions.

The idea of an economy, it seems, is based on working towards fulfilling our needs. At a certain point, if that effort becomes negligible then the economy turns into something else entirely.

[Bonam]

Most of us are well beyond the point of working for our needs. The majority of the wealth we produce goes to pay for things far beyond what we need, fulfilling our various wants and luxuries.

Providing for needs will certainly become negligible, and I think it could be argued that it already well on that path. For example, it takes about 20,000/year to (easily) provide for someone's needs in the US or Canada. Let's look at the US, where the GDP is 14 trillion and the population is 300 million. Taking that average, 6 trillion would provide for everyone's needs, whereas 8 trillion (the greater part) is leftover for other purposes. The 6 trillion is of course an overestimate since most people live in families of 3 or 4 and 60k-80k is far beyond what is needed to provide for their needs. The need number is probably closer to 2-3 trillion, that is, just 14-21% of the GDP. As that number continues to shrink, to just a few % of GDP, or even a fraction of a % of GDP, it will be exceedingly unlikely that some people will still manage to go with their basic needs unsatisfied.

The idea of an economy will retain meaning as long as there are wants and luxuries, however unnecessary, that are only in finite supply. These wants and luxuries can exist in virtual worlds as opposed to the real world, as well, so I think the concept of an economy will have meaning over the foreseeable future despite the advances of technology.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Bonam

[bloodyminded]

Of course there is, it is the very foundation of socialism.

Here you say "foundation," while later you say "effect." These aren't the same things.

Yeah, that's called capitalism. When the owner of an enterprise wants to maximize their profits they reward good employees and fire bad ones.

You talk as if there's some entity called "enterprise" where Econ 101 theories--excuse me, hypotheses--always and strictly apply.

But in fact, if you're an employee at WalMart or some comparable enterprise, you are either fired or allowed to remain when "the owner...wants to maximize [his] profits." The "reward" is a maximum of .50/hr. A year. And this monumental "reward" is notoriously rare; the common raise is .30/hr. A year.

It's not incentive; it's not "reward" in any meaningful sense.

In socialism, how would this get done? There is no owner of a company who cares about the profit and thus the performance of employees, there is just a giant government bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, like everyone else, want to do as little work as possible to keep their jobs.

You speak here of the inherited "wisdom" that is taken at face value, and in such a promiscuous generality that you are slandering the untold numbers of people who work hard, work creatively, and do their best because that's what so many people are like. This is truly unfair. Perhaps you're projecting.

And it would take an enormous amount of work for a government bureaucracy to properly determine who is performing well, who is performing poorly, and compensate them appropriately. Thus, it doesn't happen.

Just as it doesn't happen in WalMart &co., even though they can easily determine perfomance levels. They simply choose to do nothing about it, as it's not worthwhile. Or rather, they perform half of your equation: they fire people who are performing poorly (which is fair enough, don't get me wrong); but they do not reward those who are performing exceptionally well.

Edited March 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

For what it's worth I'll state what I believe is what Bonam means.

Let's be clear here - your assertion was that laziness effectively was the very foundation of socialism. Can you clarify what you meant then ?

"The State is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat.

bloodyminded: Here you say "foundation," while later you say "effect." These aren't the same things.

It is the foundation and it's effect is that the foundational principle spreads through society.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

It is the foundation and it's effect is that the foundational principle spreads through society.

Perhaps, but it's not a stated goal and therefore it is deceptive to say that a movement was founded on a principle that wasn't stated in the foundational documents. It's like telling someone who doesn't know better that the US was founded on making the rich richer. It may be your opinion, but stating it that way may lead the uniformed to misunderstand what was in fact intended.

This is important.

[bloodyminded]

Perhaps, but it's not a stated goal and therefore it is deceptive to say that a movement was founded on a principle that wasn't stated in the foundational documents. It's like telling someone who doesn't know better that the US was founded on making the rich richer. It may be your opinion, but stating it that way may lead the uniformed to misunderstand what was in fact intended.

This is important.

Just so. My objection wasn't to the rhetoric, but to the somewhat promiscuous alternating between history and polemic, when surely some distinction can be made.

[Pliny]

Perhaps, but it's not a stated goal and therefore it is deceptive to say that a movement was founded on a principle that wasn't stated in the foundational documents. It's like telling someone who doesn't know better that the US was founded on making the rich richer. It may be your opinion, but stating it that way may lead the uniformed to misunderstand what was in fact intended.

This is important.

Since when did government state it would run the economy? Is that it's stated goal?

What is the stated goal of government? It is generally contained in the nation's constitution.

The fact that those of ability should provide for those in need contains that exact implication.

I personally believe that those of ability should provide for those in need but I am entirely against the coercive laws and selective judgement that decides who is in need! The government does not seem to differentiate between who is in need and who wishes to live off the avails of others since their very existence is dependent upon them living off the avails of others.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

Perhaps, but it's not a stated goal and therefore it is deceptive to say that a movement was founded on a principle that wasn't stated in the foundational documents. It's like telling someone who doesn't know better that the US was founded on making the rich richer. It may be your opinion, but stating it that way may lead the uniformed to misunderstand what was in fact intended.

This is important.

Yeah I was a bit messy in my original statement. Obviously, it was not the goal, and you were right to point that out. Nevertheless, I will maintain that it is an effect of socialism, and a negative one.

[Bonam]

Just as it doesn't happen in WalMart &co., even though they can easily determine perfomance levels. They simply choose to do nothing about it, as it's not worthwhile. Or rather, they perform half of your equation: they fire people who are performing poorly (which is fair enough, don't get me wrong); but they do not reward those who are performing exceptionally well.

So no one ever rises through the ranks at Walmart? No one ever gets a raise?

[Michael Hardner]

Since when did government state it would run the economy? Is that it's stated goal?

What is the stated goal of government? It is generally contained in the nation's constitution.

I think the economic basis of Marixsm does state that the state is in charge of economic enterprise.

The fact that those of ability should provide for those in need contains that exact implication.

Those of ability providing for those of need is not a feature of Marxism only.

I personally believe that those of ability should provide for those in need but I am entirely against the coercive laws and selective judgement that decides who is in need!

I realize that.

[bloodyminded]

Those of ability providing for those of need is not a feature of Marxism only.

True; it's also a crucial component of all moral philosophy worth their salt...and of every major religion.

[Pliny]

True; it's also a crucial component of all moral philosophy worth their salt...and of every major religion.

Yes. Agreed. Marxism is about the coercive enforcement of this morality. It isn't primarily about giving it is about taking. Giving should have nothing to do with taking. Morally, we are talking about giving and accepting. Politically we are talking about an agency forcefully taking and whimsically distributing.

And Marxism says nothing about the State being in charge of the economy. The means of production is owned by the people not the State. The State shall decide who it shall take from and who it shall give to which is essentially in charge of the economy it never claims to be in charge. It claims to be non-existent.

[Pliny]

Those of ability providing for those of need is not a feature of Marxism only.

The fact the individual owns nothing is a feature of Marxism. So there is essentially no taking or giving. If no one owns anything it can't be taken away.

The feature of Marxism is that there is no private ownership of property. Everything is owned in common and the state will be the great equalizer. Although, it seems the fact some will be more equal can't be escaped.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Pliny

[Bonam]

True; it's also a crucial component of all moral philosophy worth their salt...

I most certainly disagree with this statement. For one, many philosophies make no statement whatsoever on this subject. Secondly, there are philosophies which explicitly argue against this, and whether or not you agree with these philosophies, they are certainly "worth their salt".

[Pliny]

I most certainly disagree with this statement. For one, many philosophies make no statement whatsoever on this subject. Secondly, there are philosophies which explicitly argue against this, and whether or not you agree with these philosophies, they are certainly "worth their salt".

What philosophy explicitly argues against this?

I think each instance has to be based upon it's own merit. And I certainly don't think that giving should be entirely without any return. The person who accepts charity becomes owned until he has returned the favour.

The State, in providing welfare without any strings attached, degrades the individual and makes him feel worthless. Then it further degrades the person by telling him he has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his existence and it is all the fault of society or someone else. This makes him totally ineffective in creating a life for himself as an active and contributing member of society.

[Bonam]

What philosophy explicitly argues against this?

Objectivism, for one. It explicitly states that simply having NEED entitles one to nothing at all.

I think each instance has to be based upon it's own merit. And I certainly don't think that giving should be entirely without any return. The person who accepts charity becomes owned until he has returned the favour.

The State, in providing welfare without any strings attached, degrades the individual and makes him feel worthless. Then it further degrades the person by telling him he has absolutely no responsibility for the state of his existence and it is all the fault of society or someone else. This makes him totally ineffective in creating a life for himself as an active and contributing member of society.

I agree.

[Pliny]

Objectivism, for one. It explicitly states that simply having NEED entitles one to nothing at all.

Objectivism of the Rand variety?

I agree having need does not entitle one to anything. It does give purpose to others.

The difficulty is in the determination of whether or not someone is in need. Economics contributes a lot to determining need when Economics is understood as a measure of value and an estimation of effort not a tool to control society.

[Bonam]

Objectivism of the Rand variety?

Is there another kind?

I agree having need does not entitle one to anything. It does give purpose to others.

Not sure what you mean here exactly.

The difficulty is in the determination of whether or not someone is in need.

Personally, I don't think such a determination even should be made in the first place. Whether one is in need or not is irrelevant, because need entitles one to nothing.

[Pliny]

Is there another kind?

Not that I am aware of.

Not sure what you mean here exactly.

We all like to help each other; for some help is used as a tool for enslavement.

Personally, I don't think such a determination even should be made in the first place. Whether one is in need or not is irrelevant, because need entitles one to nothing.

Sounds "objectivist" to me.

The UN Charter of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to food, clothing and shelter. This is totally at odds with your statement. I am more in agreement with your statement than the UN.

A determination of need (demand) creates the fulfillment of the need (supply). Entrepreneurs in a free market are always attempting to make the determination, and their success is determined by their ability to correctly determine a need or desire.

Of course, a failure in determining need is much greater when it is simply done to make one feel good about himself - the raison d'etre of the lib-left do-gooder.

Edited March 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Natchuck]

Let's take a hypothetical situation here, and I'd like to read your thoughts on this:

My colleague and I earn the same income and so pay as much in income taxes. However, my colleague drives to work every day whereas I walk to work, so he's using the roads much more than I am, yet I'm still paying just as much in income tax, essentially subsidizing his lifestyle!

Would it not be more fair to lower our income taxes and introduce a gas tax instead so that he will pay proportionately more for the roads he uses?

This same colleague is on a Mc-diet, eating McDonald's and KFC, etc. on a regular basis, while I eat healthy. Why should I pay as much to wards public health care as he does? By doing so, am I not essentially subsidizing his unhealthy lifestyle at my expense? Would it not be more fair to tax unhealthy foods and lower income taxes to counterbalance that tax increase, so that he will pay proportionately more for healthcare in consideration of the fact that he's willingly increasing the chances of burdening the system via his unhealthy habits?

I don't see why this should be such a strange concept. After all, the same principle is applied to taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, whereby those who drink, smoke, etc. pay more taxes towards healthcare than the rest of us, as it ought to be. Why is this concept not extended to other vices? What incentive does the government provide me to use roads less or to care for my health if I know that no matter what I do, I'll still have to pay as much tax anyway?

I'm not against income taxes per se, and am certainly willing to pay some tax to help the less fortunate members of society. However, I still believe that some kind of incentive must be built into the tax system to promote more personal responsibility. To rely excessively on income tax to the exclusion of other taxes removes this incentive by ensuring that responsible taxpayers will pay just as much in taxes as less responsible ones earning the same income. How fair is that that one person could be hogging the roads and healthcare while the more socially conscious colleague is subsidizing it? It's only natural that the less socially aware colleague will simply think, 'hey, the government is paying for the roads and healthcare anyway, so might as well use those roads and enjoy my KFC', with little thought for the fact that his actions are burdening my income taxes.

Where is the justice in that, and how should we restructure the tax system to more accurately reflect how much one benefits from government services? And why is the right, in general at least, so opposed to such 'user-pay' tax systems, and are more in favour of everyone paying the same?

[Natchuck]

Taxes are levied and"subsidies" paid according to priorities we establish. If you, or we, don't like the priorities we can support a political party who will change them to suit us. Surely a party that would propose lowering income taxes but quit maintaining roads and add a means test to medicare would be elected with a huge majority <sarcasm off>