But that doesn't explain why existing in a community entitles some people to the income of others.
Because without living in that community, or using that community in some way, there would be no income to be taxed. You can't sell nobody anything to make a profit, you can't sell nobody a service.
But making a profit requires a voluntary exchange. Nobody is being used. One party sells a product or service to another party in exchange for money, because both see that they will benefit from the transaction.
So? I really don't see why the fact that no one forced someone to actually buy a product means that the person who profited doesn't do so becuase of society at large. Remember, I'm not saying they aren't entitled to a large portion of what they do make; I'm saying what they do make is only possible becuase society exists, becuase individuals come together and work together. My daily life is constantly effected by the decisions other people make; large unemployment in a society effects everyone, because in order for me to be able to buy the things I want, I need a large group than just myself demanding it. In order for me to sell anything and stay afloat requires me to have customers with jobs, who are educated, who have access to roads and transportation, etc,etc, etc. Even you implicitly use this logic to support your argument. At the most minimum and basic level, you have to be thankful to society for giving you the language to make it possible for you to communicate with other members of society so that you can even sell anything at all. Society is what makes it possible for two people to come together and perform an economic activity.
More than that, I challenge your assumption that it is always a voluntary exchange. No one person may be forcing someone to buy a product, but reality certainly does. I don't control the fact that I get hungry and thirsty, I don't control the fact that without shelter I'm more likely to die. It's pretty hard for me not to support Monsanto, I don't voluntarily support them... according to your argument, then, they are not entitled to all of that wealth becuase it's not voluntary.
Do you honestly think some people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for investing well in the stock market?
Provided they didn't behave unethically, yes, every penny.
What kind of work was accomplished?
The necessary capital was provided so the work could be carried out. Quite an accomplishment I'd say.
The fallacy is to think that the necessary capital is purely monetary, a number of a ledgerbook, or that the necessary capital has to be found in that one investor. Imagine a rich person who can't hire anybody; their capital would mean absolutely nothing. Capital and money have the power to direct human labor, and it's the human labor that actually do all the work involved. I mean seriously, the work can't be carried about by nobody.
To entertain an analogy; it's like a driver and a car. Without the driver, the car goes nowhere, and the work of going from point A to point B would not be possible (no one to start the engine, no one to direct it, etc). What you would be doing is taking this fact to then say that the car doesn't matter, that somehow the engine doesn't matter. Obviously, you need the car
and the driver - and for any enterprise to be undertaken, you need someone with the idea as well as the workers who actually make that idea happen.
All the work would be done by other people, by the members of the companies they invested in, by the workers hired, etc. Yes, it's a valuable service that we need, but it is not so valuable to deserve hundreds and thousands of times as much money as the common worker.
Yes, it is worth much more than the common worker. If investors risk their own money to fund an enterprise, they should get the biggest return, having made the whole thing possible. Can you provide a logical explanation for why Joe factory worker deserves as much as the individual who forwent consumption to save money and wisely invest it? Of course this doesn't mean that the guy who drives a forklift around the factory is a loser, but the services he provides are not worth as much in economic terms as the guy who fronted $50 million to build the factory.
The people and the workers make the whole thing possible as well. Employees someimtes risk their own well-being, and their own happiness, to make an enterprise
actually happen. Why isn't that worthy of a return? Seems to me someone who sacrificed 8 hours a day to a job he doesn't want to do, for food and shelter to feed his loved ones, is sacrificing a hell of a lot more than the rich person sitting in an office coming up with an idea of how to spend his
extra income. Investors invest because they have the opportunity to do so, becuase they've accumulated enough wealth to do so; it is not something special to themselves as a person, only indicative of the place they hold in society.
Without the workers and the employee's, an investors idea is nothing more than an idea. We need idea's, but we also need people to produce those idea's into actuality.
One reason you say that the forklift driver's work is not as economically important is because he's replaceable, yes? Two things: the capital wouldn't be destroyed if we taxed the person, it would simply change hands; more importantly though, the fact that he's replaceable is becuase of society, becuase there are plenty of other people who could do that work. You can only make the claim that the forklift operator isn't vitally important becuase of society; imagine a replacement isn't so easily attainable, becuase society isn't as well-functioning as our own.
Do you think the corrupt bankers who have exploited the US government, bet against the stock market, etc, deserve their money?
You've admitted in this thread that most rich people don't fit this description, so why dwell on it? But, no, I don't. If they're corrupt, like break-the-law corrupt, they deserve a lengthy jail sentence.
Most people don't fit the description of a murderer, does that mean I should ignore their existence? Also, a lot of the people who are getting rich today, the same people I want to tax, are people who have profited from such corrupt action. Warren Buffet invested in Goldman Sachs, didn't he? And we all know what Goldman Sachs is. If you ask me, the unevenness to our wealth distribution if a sign of just how corrupt things are. There are systemic problems with our system and how we compensate people for their work.
I'm also using this to show that just becuase someone earns money does not mean that the money is fairly earned. Isn't that important in why we shouldn't tax people?
And are you still disagreeing that being a member of society is a privilege, or just how I use that to defend my position?
The former. It's a sucky premise, so however you attempt to defend it will suck equally.
It's not a premise, it's a verifiable fact. If you don't think being a member of society is a privilege, go murder someone, then get back to me when you're on death row.
Topic: Buffet Says: Tax the Mega Rich (Read 16222 times)
