Q for Thurs. night (3/10) on pp. 66-69

[Jay Levine]

Tonight's reading (pp. 66-69) focuses on the major arguments that are
presented by liberals and the counterarguments asserted by
libertarians over taxation. The example used is Michael Jordan's
extremely high salary. Which argument do you agree the most of the
five presented here? Why?

[elaw...@gmail.com]

I agree that with Objection 5: The poor need the money more. Yes, people always argue that the ones who make a lot of money have worked hard for it and deserve to keep their money. But what if you consider how much taxing 30% of a lower class citizen's wages would affcet their family compared to a billionaire. Matehmatically, it makes more sense to tax the rich more because the government will get the money from the rich instead of the poor. Instead of putting a larger burden on the lower class, the upper class who got taxed a little more would hardly feel the increase affect thier everyday lives.

[Rhianna Waterman]

Emily you mean objection 2. I agree with the counterarguement the Libertarian made for Objection 3. Michael Jordan's success does depend on other people, but his career is a team sport; everyone who goes to watch his team play contributes to the wealth each individual player makes. In the reading it states "These peolpe have already been paid the market value of their services. They voluntarily accepted compensation for the jobs they perform." Why should he give them a portion of his money, when they are already being paid for their services? Like it is said, "even if he owes something to his teammates and coaches, it is hard to see how this debt justifies taxing his earning to provide food stamps for the hungry.." Basically, if he owes a portion of his money to his teammates and coaches, then that's understandable because they got him to where he is today, but like the libertarian argued, why should he share his money with the poor, they weren't the ones who help him fufill his career.

[Jaclyn Solimine]

I agree with the libertarian argument made in Objection 4. Sure, Michael Jordan votes for which tax laws he wants,but he is in the minority consisting of exceedingly rich people, which is not represented fairly by the vote.Even if he votes to not tax the rich higher, the majority of people in the US ( mostly middle class) will probably vote against him. If the law gets passed based on that vote, Michael Jordan is being taxed without his consent because he never wanted the tax in the first place, but would be forced to pay it anyway. 

[Emily DelDotto]

I agree with objection 3. Michael Jordan's success depends on other people, and his career is a team sport. He could not make all his money without his teammates, coaches, trainers, etc. He shouldn't have to have to give up a portion of his money because the people contributing to his success are already being paid. Like it's said in the book, he shouldn't have to give a portion of his money to "provide food stamps for the hungry or public housing for the homeless" because they never contributed to his success. 

[Stephanie Pelletier]

I agree with the Libertarian reply on Objection 4. It is a very valid point that, yes, when taxes are taken out of a paycheck we are allowing the government to take out the money, but not everyone agrees with it.  Just because a majority of voters decided it was just, it does not mean that everyone is being represented in the situation. People earn the money they earn, and they should be able to do what they want with it, which can be to help others or be selfish.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Jaclyn Solimine <jvsol...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Egan Davis]

I also agree with Objection 2 because it seems to be very unfair that the lower classes are getting taxed more when they don't have the money to pay it. Instead, as Emily said we should be taxing the richer people.

[bridget stemmler]

In this chapter I disagreed with all the objections made against Michael Jordan and his wealth. I find objection 2 particularly ridiculous. The libertarian reply that, although their needs may be less pressing than those of the destitute person, it in no way affects the wealthy person's right to the money he earned, is something i whole-heartedly agree with. I think that people do own themselves, and the state's view of what is or isn't morally acceptable or necessary is not something that should affect the rights we all deserve, specifically the right to pay the same percentage of taxes as everyone else regardless of how much we make. 

[Zachary Brown]

I agree with argument 2 the most. People making billions of dollars do not need the money as much as somebody living in a one bedroom apartment with a family of 3. Some people may have had their house burn down and had to pay for what the insurace wouldn't pay for. Some money from a Wall Street broker could help the faimy with the house get back on their feet and live as they used to. Yes, some people would probably blow the money and continue their life of poverty, But many I believe would use the money to get themselves out of poverty and live a middle-class life.

[Michaela Pierro]

I agree the most with objection 3 because the people who helped Michael Jordan earn his money have been paid so I don't think he should have to give people who have not helped in his success, money that he earned.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jay Levine <jaymle...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Austin Ratkevicius]

Objection 4 is the clearly the argument I agree most with. Due to
America being a democracy everyone has a voice in what happens in it.
Michael Jordan just like any other member of our society has their
say, but due to him being many times wealthier than the average
citizen, he has the power to have a larger voice through his wealth.
Progressive income taxes are an attempt to keep a rich citizen equal
before the law with a poorer citizen. He gets to keep his greater
voice at the expense of paying more for it (which he easily can),
which is my justification of progressive taxes.

[Phil Sasso-Flanagan]

I honesly don't know what I agree with. I'm leaning toward argument 2 but, not all poor people deserve more money. Some people are poor because they have made bad decisions that caused them to lose their money. However I still do believe that the rich should be taxed a little more than people who are making less.

[whitney milewski]

I agree with Objection 3. When you really think about it, Jordan relies heavily not only on his skills but on other people such as direct people his agents, the team manager; and indirect people, custodial staff, venders at basketball courts, and even fans. Without all them supporting him or indirectl affecting his career, he more than likely wouldn't be making the amount of money he is today.

[George Bonner]

#2 makes sense. but we dont do that. taxes go to fund a large number
of things, rather than going just directly to the lower class. I am
still unsure whether or not this chapter/article is about ONLY michael
jordans taxes being raised or of all people who make over idk,
$2,000,000. If it is ONLY michael jordan, then that is very odd and im
not sure if it is legal.





WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS A VERY DESCRIPTIVE ARTICLE OF THAT CANNIBAL
GUY WHO FOUND HIS VICTIM ONLINE. IT IS VERY DETAILED. BUT ITS
WIKIPEDIA, SO THE FACTS MIGHT BE A LITTLE "OFF"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

On Mar 10, 8:54 pm, Zachary Brown <zachbrown31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with argument 2 the most. People making billions of dollars do not
> need the money as much as somebody living in a one bedroom apartment with a
> family of 3. Some people may have had their house burn down and had to pay
> for what the insurace wouldn't pay for. Some money from a Wall Street broker
> could help the faimy with the house get back on their feet and live as they
> used to. Yes, some people would probably blow the money and continue their
> life of poverty, But many I believe would use the money to get themselves
> out of poverty and live a middle-class life.
>

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM, bridget stemmler <bridgetstemm...@gmail.com

>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > In this chapter I disagreed with all the objections made against Michael
> > Jordan and his wealth. I find objection 2 particularly ridiculous. The
> > libertarian reply that, although their needs may be less pressing than those
> > of the destitute person, it in no way affects the wealthy person's right to
> > the money he earned, is something i whole-heartedly agree with. I think
> > that people do own themselves, and the state's view of what is or
> > isn't morally acceptable or necessary is not something that should affect
> > the rights we all deserve, specifically the right to pay the same percentage
> > of taxes as everyone else regardless of how much we make.
>

> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Jay Levine <jaymlevin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> Tonight's reading (pp. 66-69) focuses on the major arguments that are
> >> presented by liberals and the counterarguments asserted by
> >> libertarians over taxation.  The example used is Michael Jordan's
> >> extremely high salary.  Which argument do you agree the most of the

> >> five presented here?  Why?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Nick Roy]

I feel like I mostly agree with argument too also because it's true that the wealthiest people in America will feel an increase in taxes a lot less than the average working person. However, I also feel that even though they morally should maybe give back, it's not their right to do so.In other words, I'm conflicted.

[Lucille Sirois]

Like others, I agree most with the Libertarian reply in Objection 3.
Sure you go to a basketball games to see the popular players, but if
it was just Michael Jordan playing alone on a court, people would have
no intrest to watch the game, thus Jordan relies on other players plus
coaches and trainers to help him, as well as all the other employees
who work in the stadium like vendors, maintenance, etc. But, like
Rhianna and others pointed out, these people would be the ones, if
anyone, to recieve something like money from Jordan. It is not as if
the average man who has a low income job is not contributing to his
success. Who is to say that we as average Americans deserve money
from Jordan that we had no factor in helping create?

[Adelise Roberts]

I don't necessarily agree with any of them completely but I agree to an extent with Objection 2.  Yes, I believe that the poor do need money because if they didn't need money they wouldn't be considered but poor but there's also different circumstances for the poor people.  I do not believe that poor people who are just lazy and that's why they are poor deserve the money.  I believe that the poor people who can't work with a legitimate reason deserve a portion of money.

[Misa Tran]

I agree with objection 2. People that make more money compared to people that make very low income is a big factor. It should be their responsibility to give their money away if they want to but I still think sharing their money is best.

[Calé Frost]

I agree with the token Asian. If they make that much, they should give
back to society, if not people who are in worse situations than they
are. Maybe it's not an "obligation", but they should /feel/ obligated
to give back. If you don't, then you're probably just greedy and
ignorant.