Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

it's worth noting that while a strong person could find work in countries a hedge fund manager probably could not in those countries the strong person themselves would be substantially poorer for moving there. And again, face the fact that they're infinitely more replaceable than a more specialized skillset is.

Right, both would be poorer -- it's just that the hedge fund manager would be much, much poorer, while the manual laborer would simply be poorer.

I was not speaking in absolutes. It isn't as if the manual laborer loses nothing, while the hedge fund manager loses everything; the reality is that the manual laborer loses something, while the hedge fund manager loses a lot more something.

As such, they both benefit from living in our society instead of those other societies. So they should both pay taxes, because they benefit from living here. But the hedge fund manager benefits a lot more, so he should pay a lot more.

 

[AiTM]

Right, both would be poorer -- it's just that the hedge fund manager would be much, much poorer, while the manual laborer would simply be poorer.

I was not speaking in absolutes. It isn't as if the manual laborer loses nothing, while the hedge fund manager loses everything; the reality is that the manual laborer loses something, while the hedge fund manager loses a lot more something.

As such, they both benefit from living in our society instead of those other societies. So they should both pay taxes, because they benefit from living here. But the hedge fund manager benefits a lot more, so he should pay a lot more.

So a US public school history teacher lets say, who isnt really needed anywhere outside of the US, because no other place would care enough about US history to have a dedicated teacher of it in their public schools, should pay a much higher tax amount because they benefit so much from living in the US?

 

[remnant]

Can any conservatives respond to my point? Because it seems very straightforwardly true to me.

Again, the most important point is this: my manual labor skills are useful in any country in the world. As such, I do not "benefit," exactly, from living in the US. I could just as easily move to Zimbabwe, and find my skills are important and applicable.

If I were a hedge fund manager, however, my skillset becomes far, far less useful if I move to Zimbabwe, or even if I move to Italy. Those societies are not set up in a way that benefits my hedge fund manager skills nearly as much.

It is logical to argue that the hedge fund manager "owes" the country known as the US more than does the manual laborer, as the manual laborer could still ply his trade anywhere else, while the hedge fund manager either wouldn't be able to work or would be far, far poorer.

Do you live in Zimbabwe? There is probably a reason.

I think your giving yourself a little to much credit. A hedge manager can't do manual labor? Uhh i don't think so. In the grand scheme of things I think if your best or only skills are manual labor, not even specialization but just manual labor you will probably find yourself easily replaceable.

And when looking at emerging economies, I would much rather live in a place like Nigeria, Brazil, Chile, Singapore, etc etc with with high finance skills than just a good back. The argument that you should pay more in taxes because you have a valuable skill is kinda strange.

 

[Opiate]

I would say its a supply and demand issue. You are less valuable as a manual labor because there are far more of those available than there are someone who can be successful as a hedge fund manager. Location has nothing to do with it.

Yes, it clearly does. You are wrong.

If I was a hedge fund manager living in Zimbabwe, my skills would be meaningless and I woudl be destitute, because there are no hedge funds in zimbabwe. If this were 200BC, the manual laborer would be much more likely to fend for himself, while the hedge fund manager would be eaten by wolves (this is intended as an extreme example, both to clarify the point and provide humor). My manual labor skillset would be in far greater demand than the hedge fund manager skillset if I lived amongst the nomadic tribes in Australia.

Even if I lived in Italy, being a hedge fund manager would be far less lucrative, because Italy's stock market is far less powerful and valuable.

 

[Enron]

Right, both would be poorer -- it's just that the hedge fund manager would be much, much poorer, while the manual laborer would simply be poorer.

I was not speaking in absolutes. It isn't as if the manual laborer loses nothing, while the hedge fund manager loses everything; the reality is that the manual laborer loses something, while the hedge fund manager loses a lot more something.

As such, they both benefit from living in our society instead of those other societies. So they should both pay taxes, because they benefit from living here. But the hedge fund manager benefits a lot more, so he should pay a lot more.

The skills needed to run a hedge fund are transferable to other things...nearly every country, third world or not, has a financial sector or businesses that can use management skills. The hedge fund manager may not be as rich in the third world as he is in NYC, but he's not going to be wondering how he's gonna eat either. Whereas the laborer will be.

Your example is flawed in assuming that one can ONLY be a hedge fund manager in country B simply because they were one in country A.

 

[Gaborn]

How is that a straw man? We both have uses for the roads -- he just uses the roads more and for more uses.

The payment for using the roads is: 1) Gas, 2) local taxes, 3) state taxes. The business owner should pay more of each.

The straw man is the assumption that they don't. I mean, it's like saying that an exterminator should kill more insects than a plumber. The implication in the statement is that it isn't happening.

Exactly. When you own more things, you should pay more. That's the point. It seems you agree.

I repeat my objection to the word "should." the fact is that all properties are taxed and if you have more properties you owe more in property taxes. There is no "should" there is is.

There is a demand for his skillset only in our specific country, specifically because of how our society is constructed. Other countries are not constructed int he same way, and he would not benefit there.

It isn't like the demand is some intrinsic property of hedge fund managers, or business owners; it's a direct result of how our society has been built.

Sure, but demand is demand and you're going to go where the demand is. I mean, if you work in a coal mine for 10 years and it's all you know and it gets shut down you're not likely to go to work as an art historian, you're probably going to find another mine or find an unskilled labor position for less money.

Let's say I'm a baker, and I moved to a new society that really, really valued baking skill. I become very wealthy. Obviously I benefit hugely by living in that society; I would be far less wealthy living in other countries in the world. Other workers benefit less from living in the country. As such, I owe more to this specific country than does, let's say, the postman.

You could just as easily argue that society owes you more. The REALITY though is you PAY MORE in taxes the more you make. That is, a person that makes $50,000 in income is generally paying less than a person that makes $20,000,000. The problem I have is you are arguing not that a person who makes more money should pay more in taxes (which is basically the property argument, a person with multiple properties should pay for each individual property's taxes) what YOU are arguing is that because a baker is more successful in a country and sells more of their product they should pay a larger percentage. and that, I don't believe follows naturally. Pay more? Sure. But that's not justifying paying a different percentage, that's saying that, for example, 30% of $100,000 is a smaller number than 30% of $2,000,000

 

[chaostrophy]

Yes, but in my understanding many of the cutoffs are for >250k income, which is not filthy rich.

I make about $50k and consider myself to be pretty rich- I can afford a lot of luxuries like videogames and photography equipment, and my taxes going up wouldn't make me broke. Anyone who makes 5 times what I do and can't afford a tax hike is doing something wrong.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Again, the most important point is this: my manual labor skills are useful in any country in the world. As such, I do not "benefit," exactly, from living in the US. I could just as easily move to Zimbabwe, and find my skills are important and applicable.

This is blatantly wrong. Cross-country wage dispersion can be enormous, especially if you're comparing developed with developing countries. The same exact labor costs much more in the US than it does in Zimbabwe. And that's so for a simple reason: A factory worker's skills, for example, are much more "useful" in the US than in Zimbabwe because there are many more factories, and thus more factory work that needs to be done, in the US than in Zimbabwe. I'm sure many people in Zimbabwe would love to come work in US factories (hint: we should let them do so!).

Also, a factory owner in the US could possibly set up camp in El Salvador instead and just export to the US. It's what many factory owners actually do. Being in the US has its advantages (e.g., more skilled labor due to excellent public education and better infrastructure funded by public money) for factory owners, but the fact that US citizens benefit from Medicaid and Social Security ain't one of them. It's hard to say who -- the factory owner or factory worker -- benefits more from the public services the US government provides. Accordingly, that's not a very good way to decide how much taxes anyone should pay.

 

[Piecake]

I make about $50k and consider myself to be pretty rich- I can afford a lot of luxuries like videogames and photography equipment, and my taxes going up wouldn't make me broke. Anyone who makes 5 times what I do and can't afford a tax hike is doing something wrong.

depends on where you live. You'd be pretty broke in New York or California I'd imagine

 

[chaostrophy]

depends on where you live. You'd be pretty broke in New York or California I'd imagine

I live in Chicago. Not exactly the boondocks.

 

[Ken Masters]

I love it when someone can sum up what the general population is feeling with a simple sentence or two.

http://youtu.be/htX2usfqMEs

if that isn't socialism and class envy I don't know what it

 

[Technosteve]

if that isn't socialism and class envy I don't know what it

The rest of the world is wrong?

 

[Enron]

I make about $50k and consider myself to be pretty rich- I can afford a lot of luxuries like videogames and photography equipment, and my taxes going up wouldn't make me broke. Anyone who makes 5 times what I do and can't afford a tax hike is doing something wrong.

I make more than that in Atlanta (which is much cheaper to live in than Chicago) and I sure as fuck don't consider myself rich. I can't just go do whatever. I have to watch my money. And so do you and just about everyone else here.

 

[WickedAngel]

I make more than that in Atlanta (which is much cheaper to live in than Chicago) and I sure as fuck don't consider myself rich. I can't just go do whatever. I have to watch my money. And so do you and just about everyone else here.

I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't make sense; the COL in Atlanta isn't that high. It's very easy to live and work in Atlanta on 50K. It's not Manhattan.

 

[Enron]

I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't make sense; the COL in Atlanta isn't that high. It's very easy to live and work in Atlanta on 50K. It's not Manhattan.

The COL in Atlanta isn't that high? Isn't that what I just fucking said?

So are you saying I am rich? What the hell is your definition of rich?

I didn't say I was fucking struggling. I just said I can't just go do whatever I want like I was filthy rich and I have to watch my money like any other sensible working stiff.

 

[WickedAngel]

The COL in Atlanta isn't that high? Isn't that what I just fucking said?

So are you saying I am rich? What the hell is your definition of rich?

You're arguing the definition of "rich" which is entirely subjective. It's a waste of time, but nobody is going to offer you any sympathy for the hardship of living on 50K on Atlanta.

 

[Enron]

You're arguing the definition of "rich" which is entirely subjective. It's a waste of time, but nobody is going to offer you any sympathy for the hardship of living on 50K on Atlanta.

Again, I didn't say anything about life being HARD in Atlanta. I just said I wasn't rich and I watch my spending. Im not living in the lap of luxury here.

Do you really want to pick a fight this badly? Because your attempt at manufacturing conflict is pretty weak. I suggest you take lessons.

 

[WickedAngel]

Again, I didn't say anything about life being HARD in Atlanta. I just said I wasn't rich and I watch my spending. Im not living in the lap of luxury here.

Do you really want to pick a fight this badly? Because your attempt at manufacturing conflict is pretty weak. I suggest you take lessons.

I suggest you find another way to elicit sympathy because nobody gives a shit about that pathetic post you made a moment ago. On any given day, there are thousands of homeless, starving people in the streets of Atlanta.

chaostrophy's point wasn't that people with 50K should be able to do whatever they want; his point was that he can live comfortably on it without making many sacrifices so people with 5x that amount should be able to dig a little deeper.

 

[Ken Masters]

The rest of the world is wrong?

the economy in all these socialist countries (europe) are falling apart

 

[The Technomancer]

the economy in all these socialist countries (europe) are falling apart

And America is doing so much better? We may not be on the brink of bankruptcy, but I think Germany is still better off then us.

 

[Pandaman]

the economy in all these socialist countries (europe) are falling apart

The us economy isn't exactly a pillar of stability either, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Trojita]

He considers himself rich because he can afford to do the things he likes to do, live comfortably, and not starve.

 

[Ken Masters]

And America is doing so much better? We may not be on the brink of bankruptcy, but I think Germany is still better off then us.

America is falling down a cliff towards socialism, and Europe is already there

 

[Trojita]

the economy in all these socialist countries (europe) are falling apart

ALL OF THEM?

:lol

 

[Door2Dawn]

SOCIALISM1!11!

 

[WickedAngel]

America is falling down a cliff towards socialism, and Europe is already there

You might as well exit stage right.

 

[Ken Masters]

ALL OF THEM?

:lol

ok, not Holland and a few other select nations, but when UK/France/Italy/Spain..... are all in serious trouble I think I made my point

 

[Evlar]

Haven't heard a good old-fashioned 'America FUCK YEAH!' in a while.

ok, not Holland and a few other select nations, but when UK/France/Italy/Spain..... are all in serious trouble I think I made my point

Because when I visit London, there's nothing to describe the place better than 'Socialist hellhole'.

 

[WickedAngel]

ok, not Holland and a few other select nations, but when UK/France/Italy/Spain..... are all in serious trouble I think I made my point

Yes, you wished to impress upon us the extent to which you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've accomplished that.

 

[Pandaman]

America is falling down a cliff towards socialism, and Europe is already there

you're just adorable. :3

 

[FyreWulff]

America is falling down a cliff towards socialism, and Europe is already there

We weren't already there with Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Public Schools, Public Utilities, Public Parks, Libraries, Public Roads, Public Lakes, AMTRAK, Television, Radio and the USPS?

Making people pay taxes instead of avoiding paying them completely is less socialist than all of those other things. Would you prefer to continue handing out billions of dollars to GE because they were able to reduce their effective tax rate to 0%, therefore qualifying for billions in tax credit?

 

[Enron]

I suggest you find another way to elicit sympathy because nobody gives a shit about that pathetic post you made a moment ago. On any given day, there are thousands of homeless, starving people in the streets of Atlanta.

chaostrophy's point wasn't that people with 50K should be able to do whatever they want; his point was that he can live comfortably on it without making many sacrifices so people with 5x that amount should be able to dig a little deeper.

The only thing pathetic in here is your attempt at stirring the pot with juvenile posts and trying to put words in my mouth.

You are the only person here that thinks I am looking for sympathy. Im talking about the definition of rich, not "Oh woe is me" which you are trying to turn it into for a nice little target.

In fact, if you polled the people in this thread, I'd be willing to bet the majority of them would agree that a 50k/year household income is not exactly rolling in the dough.

Im done with shitting up the thread by humoring you with this. You want to rage? Send me a pm.

America is falling down a cliff towards socialism, and Europe is already there

hahaha come on man

 

[Ken Masters]

Yes, you wished to impress upon us the extent to which you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You've accomplished that.

right, I'm sure your knowledge on global economics is something for me to behold

 

[chaostrophy]

chaostrophy's point wasn't that people with 50K should be able to do whatever they want; his point was that he can live comfortably on it without making many sacrifices so people with 5x that amount should be able to dig a little deeper.

Exactly...my point was that I can live below my means on my income, and have non-essential things I can cut back on in case of an increased mandatory expense like a tax increase. And I don't think there's any excuse for someone making over 250k not being in a similarly stable financial situation. And if they're not, it's their own fault, not the government's for raising taxes.

 

[WickedAngel]

right, I'm sure your knowledge on global economics is something for me to behold

I'm sure it is too, given your enlightening posts on the subject thus far.

Got anything else to tell us about socialism? We're all waiting with bated breath.

 

[Zaptruder]

America: Trickle up socialism.

 

[diddles]

you really have to be an idiot to think this woman made a profound point. nobody is clamoring for zero government and zero taxes, so what she said is not applicable to anything whatsoever, except maybe if you're railing against the anarchy party.

 

[MetatronM]

right, I'm sure your knowledge on global economics is something for me to behold

So your response to "you don't know what you're talking about" is "yeah well I bet you don't either neener neener!?"

Nice.

 

[BotoxAgent]

if that isn't socialism and class envy I don't know what it

it seems you don't know jack about a lot about stuff

 

[Thunder Monkey]

America is falling down a cliff towards socialism, and Europe is already there

This country barely knows Socialism.

Right now right and left are at the beck and call of business. A true socialist would want all wealth taken in and apportioned among the masses accordingly through the government. Not one person would have wealth over another. True Socialism, like Libertarianism is a pipe dream because of human nature.

We horde. Even what we don't need. Some do it with gold, others with paper and credit.

Given free reign business would rather have slaves than workers. And government can be corrupt at any level. Combo of the two seems to be the only way we can make things work. And that's barely kept us afloat as it is.

Doesn't help that the balance has swayed so heavily in the Libertarian direction.

 

[Zabka]

you really have to be an idiot to think this woman made a profound point. nobody is clamoring for zero government and zero taxes, so what she said is not applicable to anything whatsoever, except maybe if you're railing against the anarchy party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiuPxFh5LOg
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...a-partiers-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/38924/

 

[Opiate]

The straw man is the assumption that they don't. I mean, it's like saying that an exterminator should kill more insects than a plumber. The implication in the statement is that it isn't happening.

I thought we were speaking in normative terms: we are talking about what should happen. It already is happening, but that is not relevant to a discussion of what should happen. Here is how I understood the situation, explained simply:

1) Rich people are already being taxed more.
2) People asked, "Hey, why are these rich people being taxed more? That doesn't seem fair."
3) Warren says, "Let me explain why it's fair to tax rich people more."

This is implicitly a normative discussion, as I understood it.

I repeat my objection to the word "should." the fact is that all properties are taxed and if you have more properties you owe more in property taxes. There is no "should" there is is.

There always is a "should." How else do you create tax code? That's an honest question. It is a discussion of the "correct" way to divide and use resources.

You could just as easily argue that society owes you more. The REALITY though is you PAY MORE in taxes the more you make. That is, a person that makes $50,000 in income is generally paying less than a person that makes $20,000,000. The problem I have is you are arguing not that a person who makes more money should pay more in taxes (which is basically the property argument, a person with multiple properties should pay for each individual property's taxes) what YOU are arguing is that because a baker is more successful in a country and sells more of their product they should pay a larger percentage. and that, I don't believe follows naturally. Pay more? Sure. But that's not justifying paying a different percentage, that's saying that, for example, 30% of $100,000 is a smaller number than 30% of $2,000,000

Yes, and it can vary, and it can be quite complicated. It depends on how the gains are accrued; many times, the uses of public resources grow geometrically. If I become a wealthy business owner, I not only have more private property to protect, but more bank accounts, more investment portfolios, more reasons to use the roads, more reasons to thank the military for protecting my interests, more reasons to thank the public schools for educating my workers, and so forth.

A non-progressive tax system does not capture this benefits adequately. As evidence, I offer the current situation in the United States, where a less progressive tax system has yielded far greater inequality in the last 30 years.

 

[Operations]

you really have to be an idiot to think this woman made a profound point. nobody is clamoring for zero government and zero taxes, so what she said is not applicable to anything whatsoever, except maybe if you're railing against the anarchy party.

Nor is she trying to counter a hypothetical notion of zero taxes. She´s making the case of contributing more to society due to obtaining greater benefits from it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Oh, Ken Masters, how I love thee. XD Your posts are pure GOLD

 

[Pterion]

I should visit poligaf more often. So much lulz.

 

[Opiate]

This is blatantly wrong. Cross-country wage dispersion can be enormous, especially if you're comparing developed with developing countries. The same exact labor costs much more in the US than it does in Zimbabwe. And that's so for a simple reason: A factory worker's skills, for example, are much more "useful" in the US than in Zimbabwe because there are many more factories, and thus more factory work that needs to be done, in the US than in Zimbabwe. I'm sure many people in Zimbabwe would love to come work in US factories (hint: we should let them do so!).

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that a manual laborer's skills are exactly as useful in Zimbabwe as they are in the US, just that the loss in usefulness is relatively low. Comparatively, a hedge fund manager's loss of usefulness is extremely high.

Also, a factory owner in the US could possibly set up camp in El Salvador instead and just export to the US.

Which is to say -- they could also hook themselves in to the US system. And in normative terms, this is not any different. Practically speaking, you cannot tax a business owner living in El Salvador, even if 100% of his business is done in the US; but in normative terms, he obviously should be taxed by the US system, as he's benefiting hugely from the US society while contributing virtually nothing to it.

It's what many factory owners actually do. Being in the US has its advantages (e.g., more skilled labor due to excellent public education and better infrastructure funded by public money) for factory owners, but the fact that US citizens benefit from Medicaid and Social Security ain't one of them. It's hard to say who -- the factory owner or factory worker -- benefits more from the public services the US government provides. Accordingly, that's not a very good way to decide how much taxes anyone should pay.

Again, you're speaking practically, rather than normatively. As an example, it obviously benefits many international corporate conglomerates to list all their profits over seas, while doing much or most of their business in the US.

GE is a great example of this; they successfully paid 0 dollars in taxes this year through overseas manipulations. No one is saying that isn't possible -- obviously it is -- what we are saying is that it should not be possible.

And the reason it should not is quite clear: you should not be able to engage the American society for personal profit, then pay nothing back to the system from which you have gained advantage. Similarly, it is obviously possible for many businesses to move overseas then do most of their business in the US anyway, thus giving nothing back to society while simultaneously reaping the rewards of doing business in it.

Yes, that's possible. I don't think you'll find many people who feel it should be, though.

 

[Gaborn]

I thought we were speaking in normative terms: we are talking about what should happen. It already is happening, but that is not relevant to a discussion of what should happen.

I think it's EXTREMELY relevant because, again, you're implying that people AREN'T paying more because they have more resources. That for example, a business with multiple trucks is not paying the salary of multiple drivers. Is not licensing each and every truck. Is not getting the permits needed to ship goods, is not getting any permits needed if they cross a border into Canada or Mexico. Are not paying for gas for each of these trucks. I mean, when you bring up the example

My company owner also uses the roads to get to work, and to get home, but he also uses the roads for far more than that. He uses them to deliver new product to the store; he uses them to ship his product out.

What do you think you're implying? It seems like you're suggesting that somehow their added costs are NOT being paid which is nonsense. Since you're now acknowledging that of COURSE they are it makes even less sense.

There always is a "should." How else do you create tax code? That's an honest question. It is a discussion of the "correct" way to divide and use resources.

There IS always "should" but there is also reality. People with multiple properties pay for them all because that's what a property tax is. It's essentially definitional.

Yes, and it can vary, and it can be quite complicated. It depends on how the gains are accrued; many times, the uses of public resources grow geometrically. If I become a wealthy business owner, I not only have more private property to protect,

Straw man again, unless you can show me a country that does not impose additional taxes for additional properties. You're already paying it.

but more bank accounts, more investment portfolios,

All subject to the same tax burdens as those with fewer of these.

more reasons to use the roads,

Again, can you give me a real world example where this is not adquately taxed? Again, this example makes no sense except as a straw man.

more reasons to thank the military for protecting my interests,

Actually this fails on it's face. While it's true a wealthier individual has more material assets in an electronic age such as this it's entirely likely a wealthier individual would have at least some assets overseas. Add to that a man with a large family would have considerably more reason to thank the military for it's protection than a single rich man regardless of the man with the large family's income level.

more reasons to thank the public schools for educating my workers, and so forth.

Come on, really? Education is a right in any case, it doesn't require thanks. although the majority of it is again funded by local taxes which a wealthier person is naturally paying more of anyway.

A non-progressive tax system does not capture this benefits adequately. As evidence, I offer the current situation in the United States, where a less progressive tax system has yielded far greater inequality in the last 30 years.

That is an argument for closing tax loopholes, not for making people pay a larger percentage of their income simply because they make more money.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Let's say I'm a baker, and I moved to a new society that really, really valued baking skill. I become very wealthy. Obviously I benefit hugely by living in that society; I would be far less wealthy living in other countries in the world. Other workers benefit less from living in the country. As such, I owe more to this specific country than does, let's say, the postman.

Why does the society value baking so much? Is it cultural? Is it religious? Whatever the reason, there's clearly a high demand for a skilled baker. The people of this society will benefit greatly from your baking skills. Of course you make more money for yourself in the process, but why would that necessitate you paying higher taxes? You are already contributing more to the society than the average joe by providing a service/good that is in very high demand (baking).

Or am I overlooking something?

 

[XMonkey]

It's fair, but what will it solve? Is it enough to solve the "budget problem?" Honest question, I don't keep up with this shit.

Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet solution to solving our problems. Increasing tax rates is just one part of the solution. We desperately need corporate tax reform so the examples posted earlier in the thread of large multinational companies getting away without paying taxes on their profits because of generous loopholes don't keep happening. We also need to start working on our spending. Getting out of the middle east will help but we're also going to have to draw down our defense spending beyond that. Health costs need to be worked on more. In my opinion, universal healthcare would be the best solution but we all know that isn't going to happen in the near future. At any rate, I'd like to see Medicare closely examined to see where we can make it more lean and efficient, but I have a feeling there isn't as much waste as conservatives would have us think.

I think we're in a very tough spot because so many of our fundamental institutions need fixing and reform and it all seems to be coming to a head in a short period of time. With a Congress paralyzed by inaction and partisanship, I don't know if we'll able to address the problems we're facing in time.

 

[Opiate]

Why does the society value baking so much? Is it cultural? Is it religious? Whatever the reason, there's clearly a high demand for a skilled baker. The people of this society will benefit greatly from your baking skills. Of course you make more money for yourself in the process, but why would that necessitate you paying higher taxes? You are already contributing more to the society than the average joe by providing a service/good that is in very high demand (baking).

Because demand is not some natural property intrinsic to the world, it is a specific property of that specific culture. Why do we pay football players so much money int he US, when they would barely make six figures plying that trade anywhere else in the world? The answer is the same.

It isn't that football has intrinsic value. The value is determined by the society, and those football players just happened to be lucky enough to be born in the right society that happened to value their specific skills. If they were born in a society only interested in watching swimming, they'd be out of luck.

Or am I overlooking something?

Let me ask the question this way: do you agree that the Baker is benefiting hugely from living in that specific society, rather than any other one in the entire world?

It isn't that his baking skills suddenly became much tastier, or that his food became more nutritious -- he becomes richer not because he's a more skilled worker, but because outside circumstances changed in his favor.

No one is saying the baker should not profit from it. But society happened to tilt in his favor, and it makes sense that he should give back more.