Help
An argument that comes up time and again when discussing progressive taxes is that liberals feel that since the government maintains the society that allows the rich to become wealthy, the rich are obligated to put more back into it.
Does anyone have a quick, concise response to this argument?
Page 1 of 1
Responses to a progressive tax argument?
Rate Topic:
#2
MinorityOfOne 
- Member
-
- Group: Member
- Posts: 488
- Joined: 25-August 03
Posted 14 February 2004 - 09:52 AM
"I didn't mug you. You owe me lunch."
#3
Joerj11
- Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 27-February 04
- Location:Redmond, WA
- Real Name:Joe
Posted 27 February 2004 - 04:39 AM
Who needs who to survive?
To rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer. -Ayn Rand-
My Portfolio!
My Portfolio!
#4
y_feldblum
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 1,372
- Joined: 19-October 03
Posted 27 February 2004 - 07:11 AM
The premise of the argument is false.
The argument is, in syllogistic form -
Premise: Government maintenance of society enables accumulation of wealth.
Premise: One who is wealthy by law must return some of his wealth to those entities which enabled his accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: One who is wealthy by law must return some of his wealth to the government.
However -
Premise: The law is (at least one aspect of) government maintenance of society.
Premise: The law impedes accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: Government maintenance of society impedes - not enables - accumulation of wealth.
Premise 2 of the above argument follows from -
Premise: The law mandates the sacrifice of wealth.
Premise: The sacrifice of wealth impedes the accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: The law impedes accumulation of wealth.
The conclusion of argument 2 contradicts premise 1 of argument 1 and renders it false - if you find a contradiction, check your premises. The conclusion of argument 1 therefore doesn't follow from the argument. Without any further information, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Though this argument is not too concise, it does show how the argument logically contradicts reality and as such makes no sense.
The argument is, in syllogistic form -
Premise: Government maintenance of society enables accumulation of wealth.
Premise: One who is wealthy by law must return some of his wealth to those entities which enabled his accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: One who is wealthy by law must return some of his wealth to the government.
However -
Premise: The law is (at least one aspect of) government maintenance of society.
Premise: The law impedes accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: Government maintenance of society impedes - not enables - accumulation of wealth.
Premise 2 of the above argument follows from -
Premise: The law mandates the sacrifice of wealth.
Premise: The sacrifice of wealth impedes the accumulation of wealth.
Conclusion: The law impedes accumulation of wealth.
The conclusion of argument 2 contradicts premise 1 of argument 1 and renders it false - if you find a contradiction, check your premises. The conclusion of argument 1 therefore doesn't follow from the argument. Without any further information, there is no reason to assume it is true.
Though this argument is not too concise, it does show how the argument logically contradicts reality and as such makes no sense.
> Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
#5 Guest_heusdens_
Posted 09 March 2004 - 03:34 PM
The central problem is, how do the rich get rich. This must be already based on some form of injustice, for instance the underpaying of workers and/or mass-unemployment. Taxations mostly don't do anything against this, but keep the unemployed unemployed and the poor poor. Typically, only social-democrats advocate that, and undermine the class-struggle.
#6
y_feldblum
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 1,372
- Joined: 19-October 03
Posted 09 March 2004 - 05:30 PM
The socialist rich get rich by pull - they manage to get government to strangle their competition and leave people with little choice but buy their expensive yet defective product or buy nothing. They use mindless brute force.
The capitalist rich get rich by creating quality goods at low cost and leaving people with the choice to buy their quality products cheaply or buy some else's slightly poorer or slightly costlier product. They depend on the virtues of the producer and the values of the consumer.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impoverish one's fellow. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to enrich one's fellow.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impose the class system on others and banish their minds. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to banish the class system from this world and introduce reason to others.
The capitalist rich get rich by creating quality goods at low cost and leaving people with the choice to buy their quality products cheaply or buy some else's slightly poorer or slightly costlier product. They depend on the virtues of the producer and the values of the consumer.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impoverish one's fellow. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to enrich one's fellow.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impose the class system on others and banish their minds. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to banish the class system from this world and introduce reason to others.
> Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
#7 Guest_heusdens_
Posted 09 March 2004 - 05:57 PM
y_feldblum, on Mar 9 2004, 06:30 PM, said:
The socialist rich get rich by pull - they manage to get government to strangle their competition and leave people with little choice but buy their expensive yet defective product or buy nothing. They use mindless brute force.
The capitalist rich get rich by creating quality goods at low cost and leaving people with the choice to buy their quality products cheaply or buy some else's slightly poorer or slightly costlier product. They depend on the virtues of the producer and the values of the consumer.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impoverish one's fellow. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to enrich one's fellow.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impose the class system on others and banish their minds. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to banish the class system from this world and introduce reason to others.
The capitalist rich get rich by creating quality goods at low cost and leaving people with the choice to buy their quality products cheaply or buy some else's slightly poorer or slightly costlier product. They depend on the virtues of the producer and the values of the consumer.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impoverish one's fellow. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to enrich one's fellow.
The only way to get rich as a socialist is to impose the class system on others and banish their minds. The only way to get rich as a capitalist is to banish the class system from this world and introduce reason to others.
A capitalist does not produce any value, the only ones that produce value under capitalism are the labourers who do wage labour.
Under free market conditions and competition, market prices in the long run and on average fluctuate around the cost price. The profits made by the capitalist, do not derive from the market themselves. If that were the case, then market conditions would be extraordinary, and could not exist for long. If market prices were above cost price, the capitalist or their competitor would increase the production, untill the suppliy exceeds the demand, and the price would decrease below costprice, cause production to decrease.
All buyers and sellers on a market interchange values, but buyers and sellers are mutual interchangeable. Each transaction can be profitable (based on the difference between market price and cost price) to either the buyer or seller, but what the first wins, the other looses. On all transactions over the entire market, and in the long run, there can not be a nett profit, nor an increase of value. Yet, profits are being made, and are increasing, and also the amount of value is increased.
This can only be based on the existence of a special commodity, that can add value, and costs less as it returns. This commodity is called: labour.
#8
y_feldblum
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 1,372
- Joined: 19-October 03
Posted 09 March 2004 - 06:23 PM
And the socialist produces value - by leveraging oppression?
Now you show yourself to be wanting an education in basic economics. Therefore I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, a brilliant writer. Read it after you get done with Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.
Until then...
Jow does human labor add value, but capital (specifically the labor of a machine at the same cost) not? And more importantly, how does the muscle create value but the mind not?
Which concept is epistemologically based on the other and how: value, market?
Why would anyone voluntarily agree to a trade in which he loses? or take any action whatsoever by which he loses?
Why did you quote my entire post in yours?
Now you show yourself to be wanting an education in basic economics. Therefore I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, a brilliant writer. Read it after you get done with Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.
Until then...
Jow does human labor add value, but capital (specifically the labor of a machine at the same cost) not? And more importantly, how does the muscle create value but the mind not?
Which concept is epistemologically based on the other and how: value, market?
Why would anyone voluntarily agree to a trade in which he loses? or take any action whatsoever by which he loses?
Why did you quote my entire post in yours?
> Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
> To a life which is a reason unto itself. - Ayn Rand, The Early Ayn Rand, "Kira's Viking"
#9
RadCap
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 02-August 03
- Location:LA, CA
Posted 09 March 2004 - 06:23 PM
The above is both false and not a discussion of Objectivism. It is simply a marxist diatribe. Since this site is not a political free-for-all site (of which there are plenty to frequent if that is your desire), but is devoted specifically to discussing aspects of, or airing confusion about, Objectivism, the above post is not appropriate.
#10
Richard_Halley
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 532
- Joined: 11-March 04
Posted 11 March 2004 - 02:02 AM
dont even respond to him... anyone who honestly thinks that physical labor is more valuable than ideas is beyond reason.
This is the law:
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
-John Steinbeck
#13
BlackSabbath
- Member
-
- Group: Regulars
- Posts: 362
- Joined: 16-March 04
- Real Name:Bruce Crichton
Posted 16 March 2004 - 04:13 PM
Form the shape of a gun with your hand, place it against their head (it helps if you have been weight training with one of Mike Mentzer's heavy duty courses) and tell them that you are re-distributing their cash into someone else's pocket.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1