“Since rich people can only make money because society made it possible for them, it is only fair that they pay more taxes than those with less money.”
The above statement is clearly wrong. Though the rebuttal seems to be disproportionately large to be useful in a debate. Is there any good, short, easily understandable answer?
On a similar note, what exactly is usually meant with “social justice”? And in what way is it desirable or not?
Who is society?
“The whole of people” or “the state”.
Simply understanding the concept of voluntary trade makes the claim absurd. First, here’s Mr. Tucker’s take on “giving back to society.”. Here’s one quote from the article:
Even the richest person, provided the riches comes from mutually beneficial exchange, does not need to give anything “back” to the community, because this person took nothing out of the community. Indeed, the reverse is true: Enterprises give to the community. Their owners take huge risks, and front the money for investment, precisely with the goal of serving others. Their riches are signs that they have achieved their aims.
You’ll also find a lot of goodies in the Chapter 6 of Rothbard’s Power & Market and in Mises’s Anti-Capitalistic Mentality.
In regards to taxation on the rich, Reisman has a really good article addressing it called Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the “Rich”, which goes into the economics of it.
Who said there was a positive duty towards egalitarianism?
I would point out the opposite. Society is only as well off as it is because rich people created wealth, they should be entitled to more profit. Those with less money are undeservedly benefiting from other peoples wealth creation, they should pay higher taxes to subsidize the productive class who do all the work. The majority of wealth creators go bankrupt at great personal cost, let’s provide a safety net so they don’t have to suffer so much for their attempt at selflessly making society better off.
Also point out that there’s really no such thing as taxes on the rich. They delay economic growth and mostly hurt the poor, because the poor are those for whom economic growth causes the greatest improvement.
Simple rebuttal:
The premise and conclusion are seriously flawed.
Proof:
1a. The term “Society” used in the collective is really no different than the term “State”.
1b. The collective of all people has no way of determining subjective value. Exchange occurs at the individual level either directly or via the market (which is nothing more than the sum off all such exchanges).
1c. Saying that “all people”, as a collective, have rights is untrue. Only individuals have rights.
2a. Every person benefits from the labor of others, but this entitles no one if these benefits are acquired via mutual, voluntary exchange.
2b. An individual’s labor makes it possible to exhange his labor for money, which he uses to purchase the fruits of other people’s labor.
2c. The term “rich people” has too much ambiguity.
2c1. What is “rich”?
2c2. Are the people defined as rich productive or did they acquire their wealth via illegitimate means? Illegitimate being through force or the threat of force or outright theft of property.
The concept of “fairness” is purely subjective.
Even if you accept the premise, having the rich pay more taxes than those with less money simply doesn’t follow.
I think there are two simple facts:
The State taxes rich people because they have more money. Makes no sense to go after poor people, does it? The benefit of the poor has very little to do with the reason the State goes after the money. The State goes after money to maintain its power structure.
The poor benefit disproportionately more than the rich before you even attempt to redistribute the wealth. The success of the rich serves as an incentive for the poor to become more productive.
Corrollary: Taxation by the State is an incentive for people to remain or become poor.
Short answer:
Society needs neither taxes nor the State.
We don`t live in a free market/society, so claiming that the rich has become rich through voluntary exchange is ridiculous .
What if society has regulations/fiat-money etc, and what if someone benefits, should those who benfit get taxed?
A market consists of voluntary exchanges or else it is not a market.
Free market is the term used for those markets that have not been burdened by the Society/State.
So people do indeed become rich via voluntary exchange in even the most repressive Societies/States despite the burdens placed upon them. Black markets pop up when the Society/State overplays its hand.
Throwing it back at you, why would you tolerate the Society/State in their efforts to oppress the poor by making voluntary exchanges more difficult?
Now this doesn’t mean there are not rich people who have used the Society/State to manipulate the situation: obtain a monopoly power, establish regulations designed to harm others and restrict competition, etc. These are illegitimate means of wealth acquisition.
“What if society has regulations/fiat-money etc, and what if someone benefits, should those who benfit get taxed?”
Society should abandon their immoral regulations/fiat money.
Those who benefit from this theft should be held accountable to those who can prove they were harmed; that their property rights were violated. Being poor is insufficient to prove their property rights have been violated. The situation also becomes complicated in that legitimate means of wealth acquisition have been intermixed with illegitimate means of wealth acquisition. Being “rich” is not sufficient to prove guilt. It’s not a utopian world. Some criminals do get away with it. The important point is from a moment in time going forward these crimes cease to continue under the certification of a Society/State.
No one should get taxed, as taxation is theft and serves only the State.
I would say, “How much more?” This leads them to give you a specific amount, which is easily debated and oftentimes immediately refuted. Ideas are easy to talk about in generalities, but numbers don’t lie. Practicality is the ultimate test of foothold.
Ergo they become rich thanks to the regulations that are implemented by the Society/State?
Why do you ask?
So should these people pay taxes?
This actually made me laugh this morning. Thank you.
Do you trust the state to get back the money from the people it allowed to profit from an unjust system in the first place? The state can’t and won’t close the loophole it creates simply by existing, so how can it possibly provide any justice by chasing down the funds it allowed to be misappropriated in the first place?
It’s sorta like asking your rapist for a kiss.
If one can prove that someone has harmed someone else by taking advantage of the theft by the government/colluded with the government on such schemes, should they give it back(get taxed), or should they be allowed to keep the loot?
“Marxian agitation/propaganda turns people against each other and unleashes mans most evil faculties–jealousy being one of them. Some people are so jealous that they would willingly compromise their own economic welfare in order to destroy the wealth of others. They call this ‘social justice.’” - Esuric
“If a man says socialism, or planning, he always has in view his own brand of socialism, his own plan. Thus planning does not in fact mean preparedness to cooperate peacefully. It means conflict.” - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
Forget about the state, and ask yourself if those people who profitted should give it back to those who were harmed? Or if those that were harmed by the profiteers, should take back whatever was taken from them?
That’s like asking me to look at the clouds but ignore the sky.
You have to define harm. People who were taxed should get their money back. But who will manage this? The state? You want to use government run courts?
The entire thing is rotten, through and through. There is no justice as long as the state is running things. It’s like a bull in a china shop, every twitch and movement creates damage and harm.
“Since rich people can only make money because society made it possible for them, it is only fair that they pay more taxes than those with less money.”
Lame justification. The rich made money because of the fact that the consumers felt that they fulfilled their wants better than any other individual on earth did thanks to a property norm which everyone benefits from and is able to live in something resembling a civilized society.
Social justice today basically means attempting to help everyone who is poor at the expense of everyone who is better off than they are, which somehow qualifies as justice.
I feel that, if there must be taxes, the rich should pay slightly more the richer they are. Those who can afford to be hurt the most might as well be harmed the most. A flat tax is inherently regressive and a regressive tax harms those who can afford it least the most.
Aside from inheritance, theft etc if they worked their way up to becoming rich it means they have provided a valuable service or product to many people. This alone is sufficient. People can’t be born into a binding contract (legitimately) to “give back” anything to the society. As far as I’m concerned, everything that society has provided for me thus far has been a gift. Unless you can approach me with a contract I agreed to that I owe society anything, and good luck with that, any claims you attempt to make over my property is pure theft.