Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

Your personal views of morality centre around whether someone is a moral agent (someone able to make moral choices), and so in this case whether someone is eligible for Rights. But that's not everyone's view of morality or everyone's moral foundation for Rights. It's not mine for example. Hence the concept of women, 'races', children, animals, or people with severe mental disabilities having rights isn't a problem for me. But it is for you, if you believe someone has to be a moral agent capable of making moral decisions, to be eligible for Rights.

The fact that a bunch of powerful white blokes were eventually convinced they aren't the only ones capable of making moral choices, hence slavery is wrong, is your interpretation of the basis for which rights were extended beyond their group and eg slavery abolished in the western countries practicing it, but that doesn't make it the only possible moral foundation for rights and the abolition of slavery.

Hmmm. Well, Ok. But the assumption that rights (and all other moral properties and imperatives) apply only to moral agents (and "moral subjects") is pretty widely --- even universally --- held among contemporary moral philosophers. Without such an assumption you place yourself on the brink of a precipitous slippery slope --- do rocks, bricks, clouds, raindrops, viruses, electrons have moral obligations? Do we have moral obligations to them?

Defining the class of entities or phenomena it contemplates, to which it applies, is a necessity for any theory, in any field. E.g., biology is is the study of living organisms, not of rock formations or nuclear reactions.

Nor does defining the scope of a moral theory constitute laying its "foundations." The foundations of a theory are its axioms.

As for "rights" specifically, they don't have a "foundation," and don't need one. The term simply denotes a "pseudo-property" imputed to a person (or other moral agent) when a particular historical relationship exists between that person and something he values.

But you no doubt have some alternative "foundation" for rights and morality in mind. Lay it out!

The football ''off side'' rule has changed, so since then people haven't really being playing football, and shouldn't be allowed to call it football, because football objectively has the original off-side rule? This is how we should treat rights too?

Heh. The scopes of the two terms are incommensurate, so the analogy doesn't work. "Football" is a game with many rules and defined moves and practices. Changing one of them doesn't alter the game to the extent that it is no longer recognizable as football. Applying the term "rights" to goods to be taken by force from others, however, expressly authorizes the very behavior the term was coined to prohibit. It is Newspeak: "Freedom is slavery," et al.

Wiki -
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. . . .

I have no quarrel with anything in that Wiki article. I certainly agree that all of those questions and controversies exist. It is the point of a moral theory to resolve some of them.

If we live in a real world of sometimes competing and mutually exclusive rights and goods, which we do, then morally responsible governments have to find ways of coming up with rules and systems which compromise in morally acceptable ways for the people they govern. In democracies this plays out via government by consent. It's messy, imperfect and not morally 'crisp'. Rights impose obligations not all of us agree with or personally benefit from. Democratic politics is an ongoing negotiation which individuals can see as doing better or worse, morally and otherwise. But as there is no objectively observable tablet of stone with the solution to a perfect moral system applicable to everybody in every circumstance for all time, for us to strive to achieve, this is inevitable.

For example, the concept of Natural Rights centres around the moral values of Individualism and Freedom, Me and Mine. This chimes with your Libertarian preferences. The concept of Equal Rights centres around the moral value of Fairness, which chimes with my Social(ist) preferences. These are rooted in two different approaches to the concept of morality and the role of Rights. We can debate individually, and they play out in politics which affects us both - and we both get a vote on which takes precedence in particular aspects of government. Neither have an 'objective' status which trumps the other.

That is an excellent exposition of moral pragmatism. But there is an abiding assumption in moral philosophy that compromises on moral issues are themselves immoral. While compromises of some sort are indeed sometimes the best we can do, there is always a residual obligation to strive harder to attain the ideal. Compromises are never the end of the matter.

Couple of other points: Individualism is not a "moral value." It is a biological and social reality. Societies consist of individuals, each of whom is unique --- individuals who differ in countless ways, who share no natural bonds and have no common interests, and have no a priori obligations to one another. Any sound social theory must recognize that fact.

"Libertarianism" also extolls the value of fairness. But that is a term, like "rights," which been subject to Newspeak re-definition. Per some "socialist" interpretations, "fair" means or implies "equal." But it doesn't; it means "in accord with the rules," or "in accord with merit." I.e., one ought to get what one deserves:

"7. Being in accordance with relative merit or significance: She wanted to receive her fair share of the proceeds."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=fair

Seizing something of value from the person who produced it or earned it and handing it over to someone who did not is manifestly un-fair, per that understanding and definition.

[Leontiskos]

This fiat business is reality!

Then don't come crying to me when your "might makes right" philosophy turns on you and your fiat-rights are taken away from you.

[GE Morton]

This fiat business is reality! Women in Afghanistan had rights a month ago that they do not have today. Did the natural law change in the last few weeks? No. That is because there is no natural law!

The women of Afghanistan still have natural rights. You're ignoring the difference between natural (and common) rights and legal rights, and presuming that violations of rights extinguishes them.

Legal rights --- fiat rights --- are arbitrary and per se have no moral significance. Any right can be violated, but violations do not extinguish the right. The Taliban thugs are common criminals who, like all criminals, may violate others' rights, but they have no power to abolish them.

[mystery]

We have to pay for virtually all the rights we enjoy in one way or another, and of course the wealthy are more able to exercise their rights than the rest of us. I can reduce my tax burden through a mortgage interest deduction or 401k contributions, but the billionaire has hundreds of other ways to reduce his taxes to a level I could never reach, even though he has the means to pay a greater share and still come out ahead.

Is any billionaire pay less tax than an average income earner? who is that?

perhaps the percentage is different or less, but who actually pays less tax by counting the actual money.

usually the more wealthy pay more for more tax than any common earns.

https://marketrealist.com/p/billionaire ... come%20tax.

Michael Bloomberg paid $292 million in taxes from 2014–2018, although his net worth grew by $24.3 billion.

For 2016 and 2017, Carl Icahn didn't pay any taxes on $544 million in reported income. He defended himself by saying that his investment expenses exceeded that income.

In his statement to ProPublica, George Soros said that he didn't owe taxes from 2016–2018 because his investments lost money.

From 2014–2018, Warren Buffett paid $23.7 million in taxes, although his wealth grew by $24.3 billion.

^These guys are paying about 1/10th of 1% in taxes. This is because their income is made through investment earnings. They don't pay tax unless they cash in. They can retain the earnings and defer paying taxes indefinitely. I could do the same in my 401k, but I am limited to 50% of my income in contributions. But, since I barely make enough to live, there is no chance I can even reach that threshold. But, the billionaire can live on 1% of his income or less, leaving the rest to grow without paying taxes on the growth.

In addition, much of their investment activity is being moved offshore to avoid taxes. Huge, well known American companies are often, in large chunks, actually registered in the Cayman islands or some other hot spot where those governments are happy to collect a small portion of what those companies would have paid in tax if they remained headquartered in the U.S. The resulting shortfall is left to be made up by Joe Lunchbox, who does not have the means, or perhaps even the right, to become a resident of Bermuda or Luxembourg.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... tax-haven/

Apple – The amount booked offshore is $214.9 billion. It uses Ireland as a tax haven. Apple would have owed the U.S. government $65.4 billion in taxes if tax haven benefits were not used.

Nike – It holds $10.7 billion offshore. It uses Bermuda as a tax haven. It would have paid $3.6 billion for taxes if tax haven benefits were not used. This implies Nike pays a mere 1.4% tax rate to foreign governments on those offshore profits, indicating that nearly all of the money is officially held by subsidiaries in tax havens.

I suppose in theory that Joe Lunchbox could do this in some small way, but as a practical matter, these havens are for the big guys.

is that true? ONE man was forced to pay 292 million dollars in taxes for just himself. He contributed more than hundreds or thousands of others combined.

[LuckyR]

We have to pay for virtually all the rights we enjoy in one way or another, and of course the wealthy are more able to exercise their rights than the rest of us. I can reduce my tax burden through a mortgage interest deduction or 401k contributions, but the billionaire has hundreds of other ways to reduce his taxes to a level I could never reach, even though he has the means to pay a greater share and still come out ahead.

Is any billionaire pay less tax than an average income earner? who is that?

perhaps the percentage is different or less, but who actually pays less tax by counting the actual money.

usually the more wealthy pay more for more tax than any common earns.

https://marketrealist.com/p/billionaire ... come%20tax.

Michael Bloomberg paid $292 million in taxes from 2014–2018, although his net worth grew by $24.3 billion.

For 2016 and 2017, Carl Icahn didn't pay any taxes on $544 million in reported income. He defended himself by saying that his investment expenses exceeded that income.

In his statement to ProPublica, George Soros said that he didn't owe taxes from 2016–2018 because his investments lost money.

From 2014–2018, Warren Buffett paid $23.7 million in taxes, although his wealth grew by $24.3 billion.

^These guys are paying about 1/10th of 1% in taxes. This is because their income is made through investment earnings. They don't pay tax unless they cash in. They can retain the earnings and defer paying taxes indefinitely. I could do the same in my 401k, but I am limited to 50% of my income in contributions. But, since I barely make enough to live, there is no chance I can even reach that threshold. But, the billionaire can live on 1% of his income or less, leaving the rest to grow without paying taxes on the growth.

In addition, much of their investment activity is being moved offshore to avoid taxes. Huge, well known American companies are often, in large chunks, actually registered in the Cayman islands or some other hot spot where those governments are happy to collect a small portion of what those companies would have paid in tax if they remained headquartered in the U.S. The resulting shortfall is left to be made up by Joe Lunchbox, who does not have the means, or perhaps even the right, to become a resident of Bermuda or Luxembourg.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... tax-haven/

Apple – The amount booked offshore is $214.9 billion. It uses Ireland as a tax haven. Apple would have owed the U.S. government $65.4 billion in taxes if tax haven benefits were not used.

Nike – It holds $10.7 billion offshore. It uses Bermuda as a tax haven. It would have paid $3.6 billion for taxes if tax haven benefits were not used. This implies Nike pays a mere 1.4% tax rate to foreign governments on those offshore profits, indicating that nearly all of the money is officially held by subsidiaries in tax havens.

I suppose in theory that Joe Lunchbox could do this in some small way, but as a practical matter, these havens are for the big guys.

is that true? ONE man was forced to pay 292 million dollars in taxes for just himself. He contributed more than hundreds or thousands of others combined.

Read it again, perhaps with a calculator.

[Belindi]

I think that personhood rights should apply only to conscious beings. Equality of distribution is an ethic that is appreciated by little toddlers therefore it must be pretty much a universal ethic . If most people are housed, then every person should be housed.

For an idealist (immaterialist), things that are not conscious beings should be treated respectfully as they are all creations of conscious beings. So we should house works of art in suitable shelters, and carefully and respectfully dispose of rubbish.

Nature i.e. not the world of human artifacts, wildernesses, is created by minds and what is around a conscious being should receive at least the treatment that is accorded to the Mona Lisa, or Guernica.

[mystery]

Is any billionaire pay less tax than an average income earner? who is that?

perhaps the percentage is different or less, but who actually pays less tax by counting the actual money.

usually the more wealthy pay more for more tax than any common earns.

https://marketrealist.com/p/billionaire ... come%20tax.

Michael Bloomberg paid $292 million in taxes from 2014–2018, although his net worth grew by $24.3 billion.

For 2016 and 2017, Carl Icahn didn't pay any taxes on $544 million in reported income. He defended himself by saying that his investment expenses exceeded that income.

In his statement to ProPublica, George Soros said that he didn't owe taxes from 2016–2018 because his investments lost money.

From 2014–2018, Warren Buffett paid $23.7 million in taxes, although his wealth grew by $24.3 billion.

^These guys are paying about 1/10th of 1% in taxes. This is because their income is made through investment earnings. They don't pay tax unless they cash in. They can retain the earnings and defer paying taxes indefinitely. I could do the same in my 401k, but I am limited to 50% of my income in contributions. But, since I barely make enough to live, there is no chance I can even reach that threshold. But, the billionaire can live on 1% of his income or less, leaving the rest to grow without paying taxes on the growth.

In addition, much of their investment activity is being moved offshore to avoid taxes. Huge, well known American companies are often, in large chunks, actually registered in the Cayman islands or some other hot spot where those governments are happy to collect a small portion of what those companies would have paid in tax if they remained headquartered in the U.S. The resulting shortfall is left to be made up by Joe Lunchbox, who does not have the means, or perhaps even the right, to become a resident of Bermuda or Luxembourg.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... tax-haven/

Apple – The amount booked offshore is $214.9 billion. It uses Ireland as a tax haven. Apple would have owed the U.S. government $65.4 billion in taxes if tax haven benefits were not used.

Nike – It holds $10.7 billion offshore. It uses Bermuda as a tax haven. It would have paid $3.6 billion for taxes if tax haven benefits were not used. This implies Nike pays a mere 1.4% tax rate to foreign governments on those offshore profits, indicating that nearly all of the money is officially held by subsidiaries in tax havens.

I suppose in theory that Joe Lunchbox could do this in some small way, but as a practical matter, these havens are for the big guys.

is that true? ONE man was forced to pay 292 million dollars in taxes for just himself. He contributed more than hundreds or thousands of others combined.

Read it again, perhaps with a calculator.

tell what your idea is. 292 / 1 man = 292.

[chewybrian]

tell what your idea is. 292 / 1 man = 292.

The four billionaires in the example I quoted had a tax burden of about 1%, 0, 0, and 1/10th of 1%. Regular folks who earn just enough to live while paying rent or buying a house will have a tax burden of 20% or more, even if they try to reduce their taxes in every reasonable way they can. Income tax, sales tax, real estate tax, license fees and other use taxes all turn out to be extremely regressive in practice.

Now, do you think it makes sense for the working man to pay 200 times the rate in taxes as the billionaire? Do you think that is fair?

[mystery]

tell what your idea is. 292 / 1 man = 292.

The four billionaires in the example I quoted had a tax burden of about 1%, 0, 0, and 1/10th of 1%. Regular folks who earn just enough to live while paying rent or buying a house will have a tax burden of 20% or more, even if they try to reduce their taxes in every reasonable way they can. Income tax, sales tax, real estate tax, license fees and other use taxes all turn out to be extremely regressive in practice.

Now, do you think it makes sense for the working man to pay 200 times the rate in taxes as the billionaire? Do you think that is fair?

That's a well-articulated point, I get it, thanks.

I think that the sliding scale is unfair. 1 man = 1 tax is fair. Or perhaps we could have a tax based on kilo per person.

--
If we look closer, those in very low income with dependants do not pay much tax. Last year it was even less.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61perce ... -says.html

The wealthy end up paying less percentage per person but far more actual money.

I agree that the "middle class" pays most of the tax. They also use most of the services. What services are provided for by the government other than macro protection as provided by military and law enforcement that the wealthy use? At the higher end, the wealthy only use military protection because they have private security for all else.

Many folks I talk with agree that anyone that earns more than they do should pay more tax, most of the same folks look for any way they can to pay less themself and think it is unfair that they pay more than others that earn less than them.

I have been in the poor, average, and above-average category for this. At the time of being in each category, it seemed very unfair. I have come to realize that it simply is human nature to feel that it is unfair if being required to give anything while if doing it by choice it feels good. Taxes by nature feel unfair.

The system we have for now provides perhaps the highest ever standard of living for other than the wealthy as compared to most of history. Even as we critique it, the value of how it works is self-evident. Although the Gini coefficient (USA) rise is disturbing and may lead us to a less pretty way of life.

A macro view of what is going on is discussed in the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E ... nal_theory. I believe the taxation policies are part of the overall cultural climate as it cycles.

The total tax burden is more than just income tax, things like employer health care premiums and employer employment tax are significant. without those sorts of deductions can not get to the zero. Just having money stashed and if being honest will result in much tax. If fueling an economic engine for others it is possible to already pay so much for taxes and fees even before income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax

[GE Morton]

Now, do you think it makes sense for the working man to pay 200 times the rate in taxes as the billionaire? Do you think that is fair?

Taxes pay for government services. A fair tax is one per which each taxpayer pays in accordance with the value of the government services he receives, just as you pay for anything else. If you leave a supermarket with a case of beer, you pay for a case. If you leave with a 6-pack, you pay for a 6-pack. I.e., you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.

[AverageBozo]

Now, do you think it makes sense for the working man to pay 200 times the rate in taxes as the billionaire? Do you think that is fair?

Taxes pay for government services. A fair tax is one per which each taxpayer pays in accordance with the value of the government services he receives, just as you pay for anything else. If you leave a supermarket with a case of beer, you pay for a case. If you leave with a 6-pack, you pay for a 6-pack. I.e., you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.

GE

You’ve probably considered this already, but I just haven’t figured it out:

Let’s say I cannot afford to buy milk for my children; if I leave the supermarket with milk, thanks to the services of a government program, how will I be able to pay taxes in the amount of the milk-service I received? How does the milk program not go broke?

[Ecurb]

Taxes pay for government services. A fair tax is one per which each taxpayer pays in accordance with the value of the government services he receives, just as you pay for anything else. If you leave a supermarket with a case of beer, you pay for a case. If you leave with a 6-pack, you pay for a 6-pack. I.e., you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.

There are several problems with this.

First, you can't get blood from a turnip. As a practical matter, we need to tax those who can afford to pay.

Second, the issue is more complicated than buying beer at a supermarket. The Waltons (who own WalMart) amassed their massive wealth by locating their stores on cheap properties on the outskrits of towns. The infrastructure provided by the state was the hidden cost of their venture, for which they did not pay. Without support for the auto industry and massive spending on public roads, WalMart could not have existed. The same is true for most large companies. Could Ford motors exist without government spending on roads? Aren't all of our computer companies beholden to NASA?

The rich are inevitably the beneficiaries of government services, directly or indirectly, and they should pay more taxes than anyone else (and a higher percentage).

[chewybrian]

Taxes pay for government services. A fair tax is one per which each taxpayer pays in accordance with the value of the government services he receives, just as you pay for anything else. If you leave a supermarket with a case of beer, you pay for a case. If you leave with a 6-pack, you pay for a 6-pack. I.e., you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.

There are several problems with this.

First, you can't get blood from a turnip. As a practical matter, we need to tax those who can afford to pay.

Second, the issue is more complicated than buying beer at a supermarket. The Waltons (who own WalMart) amassed their massive wealth by locating their stores on cheap properties on the outskrits of towns. The infrastructure provided by the state was the hidden cost of their venture, for which they did not pay. Without support for the auto industry and massive spending on public roads, WalMart could not have existed. The same is true for most large companies. Could Ford motors exist without government spending on roads? Aren't all of our computer companies beholden to NASA?

The rich are inevitably the beneficiaries of government services, directly or indirectly, and they should pay more taxes than anyone else (and a higher percentage).

https://www.jwj.org/walmarts-food-stamp ... easy-chart

[chewybrian]

tell what your idea is. 292 / 1 man = 292.

The four billionaires in the example I quoted had a tax burden of about 1%, 0, 0, and 1/10th of 1%. Regular folks who earn just enough to live while paying rent or buying a house will have a tax burden of 20% or more, even if they try to reduce their taxes in every reasonable way they can. Income tax, sales tax, real estate tax, license fees and other use taxes all turn out to be extremely regressive in practice.

Now, do you think it makes sense for the working man to pay 200 times the rate in taxes as the billionaire? Do you think that is fair?

That's a well-articulated point, I get it, thanks.

I think that the sliding scale is unfair. 1 man = 1 tax is fair. Or perhaps we could have a tax based on kilo per person.

Well, I would have to go to battle against the kilo system. I'm 6'5", and it's all I can do to stay under 250 freedom pounds! But, I don't necessarily disagree with your proposed system if I am reading it right.

If you mean everyone pays $20,000, I certainly don't think that's fair.

If you mean everyone pays 20%, that's better.

If you mean everyone pays 20% on everything over the first $20,000, then that's pretty good.

The problem, as you hinted, is the complexity of the system that is only necessary so that preferred groups can dodge taxes. A flat value added tax, sales tax or income tax (that included investment income), could be simple, fair and efficient.

[GE Morton]

Let’s say I cannot afford to buy milk for my children; if I leave the supermarket with milk, thanks to the services of a government program, how will I be able to pay taxes in the amount of the milk-service I received? How does the milk program not go broke?

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.