It's not, it's literally what it is. Per default, accumulating wealth contains risks for the individual attempting to do so, and increasingly more and more of the wealth is stripped away while reducing none of the risk. Thats absolutely theft.
If you fully play out your argument, the least wealthy and least successful deserve it the most to have their remaining wealth taken because they are not assuming any risk in this society.
I think that is a very destructive world view.
No, if you fully play out his argument then the least wealthy deserve not to have their wealth stolen. His argument is that theft is bad, it isn't a complex argument with unexpected implications.
Although it does seem a bit faulty regardless, the amount of risk someone is taking has no bearing on whether taking their stuff is theft.
If this is what you believe raising taxes is like, I'm not surprised you're against it. But no wonder that you're struggling to get this point across, because it's outlandish in how far removed it is from what I perceive the instrument of taxation to be from concept to application to its morality... Forgive me for my own overblown comparison, but yours is a position I'd expect to hear in a comic from Scrooge McDuck.
It is not unreasonable to me that you have to pitch in for common goods if you live in a village, and should you refuse to take part in this you might find yourself in a situation where you have to either move out of the village or forfeit your share.
If you earned your wealth through driving on public roads, after receiving a public education, without it actually being blatantly stolen due to a public police force, etc etc etc.
Then it is also your responsibility to pay for these items so that they dan continue to be used for future generation.
Public roads can be taxed by use. Public education should be paid by people who participate.
You apply an "if" conditional here in a manner that's morally correct in my opinion. It's just that even if you didn't partake in those activities, you're forced to pay for them all the same. That's the issue.
You can move out of the country of course and find one that's more politically suitable, but the bottom line in my mind is that people in most societies are so different from each other that democracy just doesn't work at the scale it's trying to be applied. Sure, deciding what your society should collectively strive for at a neighborhood level might be possible. City level is reaching, and state or country level is ludicrous.
I think the only responsibility at the federal level should be watching the borders, and I can't convince myself otherwise no matter what material I read.
Never. No human being has ever thrived in total isolation, and no one’s accomplishments are solely their own. You may not like it, but you are unavoidably part of a society (even if you move into the wilderness and never interact with another person again, you were still raised in one). You wouldn’t have been able to gather whatever resources you’ve managed to amass without that society, and in return it requires you to share the burden of helping everyone else thrive as well.
Ethically is it right to increase the risk to accumulate wealth? That depends on what you buy with that risk. It’s well-established that people will take risks for fun, and they’ll take significantly more risk when security for themselves and their family is on the line.
Folks with hundreds of millions or billions in assets or millions in income have vastly higher levels of security compared to folks with $100 in the bank and a $15/hr job with no benefits.
So, how much is it ethical to take from the rich to ensure that the poor have decent odds to improve their situation and have a basic level of security? In America, it’s been as much as 60% in income taxes for the highly-paid. A wealth tax of 40% upon death still exists, even if the rich have found a way around that. It sounds like America has already established that 40% taxed to the benefit of all is ethically okay.
So we should probably be killing the buy, borrow, die strategy of tax avoidance, especially on transfer taxes should be collected. But could we take more from the wealthiest and have that be ethically okay?
Let’s say we have someone with $300M in assets and those appreciate 8% annually on average. Those assets will be worth $600M in 10 years. Assuming a spend of $10M per year, they’d still be worth $400M by the end of 10 years. So we’ve had at least $100M generated compared to where we started just for existing and living a lavish life. But we could have taxed that $100M at 40% and put 40M into public services, infrastructure, or entrepreneurial grants to provide tens of thousands of people with more security without materially affecting our asset-owning individual. Even just distributing $40M to supplement incomes for low-security folks would translate to 2500+ people getting a chance to improve their situations.
So, is it ethical to tax the excess asset appreciation that the individual didn’t use for anything? It’s not that it didn’t grow, it’s that it grew a little less fast. And we were able to impact thousands based on that. I’d argue yes, and I struggle to understand how “make life no different for the individual vs make life better for thousands of people” comes down on the side of the individual. It’s not until taxes grow higher than appreciation that I start to think it might be unethical.
But as you approach taxes equaling appreciation, I can see how it could be counterproductive. I think that’s not the argument though. It wouldn’t be terribly difficult to tax assets based on appreciation above their highest appraisal, with appraisal triggering taxes being owed. Certainly no more complicated than our current taxes assets and the loopholes that lead to buy, borrow, die.
I disagree with the guy upthread, but it’s a bit dense to say that taxes being theft is oxymoronic when you clearly understand what he meant.
Reality doesn't care about your feelings.