Re: Mark Cuban

I’ll go you one better, Glenn. If Cubes and Buffett really wanted to pay more taxes, they could have already. There’s a box on every tax form that allows it. The fact they only pay lip service to the idea instead of putting their cash where their cake-hole is calls into question how earnest either are.

What’s more, the problem isn’t that the rich don’t pay enough income taxes. The problem is the bottom half of all income earners — who most benefit from all the welfare programs pols pander through — don’t pay their fair share.

Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Restaurants

Restaurants

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

2 responses to “Re: Mark Cuban”

  1. Jon says:

    Yeah, there’s a simple reason for that: THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO.

  2. Deathbed Muser says:

    I find a gaping hole in your logic…but first I would like to address your criticism of Cuban and Buffett.

    POINT 1:

    Why should they voluntarily pay it when other billionaires aren’t compelled to and would not voluntarily cough it up? You see, they are not suggesting it is a good idea, but rather an absolute mandatory requirement of the system. It is a fundamental building block of laissez-faire capitalism. Read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, it says, and I quote:

    “…The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

    This is the first and still most concise reasoning to advocate progressive taxation, which is what Buffett, Cuban, and Gates are all after.

    More Adam Smith that takes a different logical course regarding progressive taxation:

    “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation.”

    The first quip supports progressive taxation on the basis that it is fair that the wealthy pay the majority of the taxes, not in proportion to the total IRS tax bill, but in proportion to their income. In today’s numbers, this would roughly look like the top 8.9% of the people paying around 85-90% of all taxes in the country.

    The second Smith blurb makes the argument for progressive taxation on the basis of the wealthy enjoy the fruits of the system more than do the poor, and thus have more to lose should the state fail, giving them self-interest in maintaining a strong government.

    Both of these arguments are quasi bullet-proof, being that in the past 225+ years, no one has been able to adequately, and logically, deconstruct Adam Smith’s defense of progressive taxation.

    POINT 2:

    The bar chart is VERY misleading, as it presents the percentages for income as TAXABLE INCOME (which has already been adjusted for deductions) and it presents the percentage of taxes paid in % of the total U.S. tax bill, not in proportion to a persons’ wealth…notice I said wealth, not income. Smith is not just advocating using income as a basis for taxation, but moreover some measure of total wealth.

    I welcome the blamestorm of blue-blooded, SMU types to get on here and call me a communist. I, for once, would like to read a counter-point to Smith that doesn’t involve “I worked hard for what I have…blah blah blah.”

    That IS the point: You worked hard for what you have, and you did not do it in a vacuum, it was while enjoying the protection and freedom and services of this government. A bevy of services come from the labor of sub-$10/hour workers that essentially allow your life to click along without incident. The least capable should be burdened the least and the most capable should bear the heaviest burden.