NationStates Jolt Archive

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p

www.fairtax.org

Disclaimer: I'm also not fantastic with economics.

It seems to me that in order for this to work, the sales tax would have to be astronomically high. I'm talking perhaps 90% of the price of goods being tax. People simply wouldn't accept it, especially in a country as used to low sales tax as America.

What your proposing is called a "Flat Tax", I believe.

In theory, it sounds great from what I can see, it would mean less governmental revenue.
The government would be losing money, as it would recieve far more in taxes the current way.
This would mean reducing educational budgets,and who knows what else, becuase certainly, its not going to reduce its military budget.

Not a good idea.

I dont pay any taxes, but I do get some money(being under 18 and not having a job). I would end up having to pay more money. Thats why I oppose it :P

Some countries have a *similar* system already, although they didn't abolish taxes altogether, they put the income tax to a minimum but tax everything you can buy very highly. If I remember correctly, that is the reason why so many people have Swiss bank accounts ;)

The problem introducing such a system would be that it wil take some time to normalise. Until it does, you will have seriuos losses in revenue, because people will try to buy as little as possible. That way, you will also damage your retail sector.
Plus a policy like that will lead to serious increase in smuggling and you might end up with an extensive black market problem...

The people on the low end of the income scale would be paying the same tax as the rich for goods that they need, and would be hindered by the tax and least able to do anything about it, meaning they'd likely resort to a 'black market' for goods simply so they could afford them.

But, also-not an economist by any stretch.

I think it should be noted at this point that sales tax is a double tax under our current system, and a double tax is 'strictly prohibited' by our tax code, if I understand correctly. Something does need to be done about this, as it's a rather obvious contradiction to our ideals.

Many people, including prominent economists have suggested policies similar to what you are talking about.

The only setback to it would possibly be a reduction in spending due to added prices for goods.

However, the lower spending would cause excessive savings, which would drop interest rates, which would in turn lower prices, at least in a poorly formed theory.

Damn, Texpunditistan beat me to it.

I think it should be noted at this point that sales tax is a double tax under our current system, and a double tax is 'strictly prohibited' by our tax code, if I understand correctly. Something does need to be done about this, as it's a rather obvious contradiction to our ideals.
The Death Tax (Estate/Inheritance Tax) is also double taxation. You pay taxes on everything you own for your whole life, sometimes twice due to sales tax, then the government takes ANOTHER tax on it when you die. It could even be considered triple taxation. VERY illegal.

I'd argue the Pepe system.. abolish the sales tax, abolish entitlements of all varieties, implement a reverse income tax, and set up optional thrift savings accounts. That'd do it.

Damn, Texpunditistan beat me to it.
:D I'm a huge proponent of the Fair Tax.

The Death Tax (Estate/Inheritance Tax) is also double taxation. You pay taxes on everything you own for your whole life, sometimes twice due to sales tax, then the government takes ANOTHER tax on it when you die. It could even be considered triple taxation. VERY illegal.
Indeed. It provides for us no ideal recourse to dispose with our property as we see fit. Our income is taxed as it comes in, and it's taxed again whether we spend it or hoard it. *points to quote below*

:D I'm a huge proponent of the Fair Tax.

Actually, I think you were the one who reintroduced it to me. I had heard about it a while ago but it had just slipped my mind in favor of organic chemistry exams, and then you posted it somewhere else on here.

Bad idea.
The poor pay a dispropotionate amount of their income on food, shelter and other necessities.
The wealthier citizens spend far more of their income on luxury items. They have a great deal more for discretionary spending.

Actually, I think you were the one who reintroduced it to me. I had heard about it a while ago but it had just slipped my mind in favor of organic chemistry exams, and then you posted it somewhere else on here.
Probably in the NS Classic Liberal thread. I brought it up when we were discussing taxing systems for our "government".

Thanks for that link Texpunditistan...I've been reading through some stuff on there, and it has really helped clear up some things that were fuzzy in my wee little brain. :p

I could definetly support this idea. :)

Bad idea.
The poor pay a dispropotionate amount of their income on food, shelter and other necessities.
The wealthier citizens spend far more of their income on luxury items. They have a great deal more for discretionary spending.
True... but under Fair Tax, necessary items are NOT taxed, leaving the poor with more money in pocket to spend on other necesseties, some luxuries or even save/invest. Luxury items are taxed at a steady rate. Since the rich tend to buy big ticket items, they would put more into the tax system because big ticket items would bring in more money due to the proportional ammount of tax on the product.

Also, since there wouldn't be any loopholes like there are in the current tax system, everyone pays their fair share...rich people included.

The system would be much more fair than the current system, would bring in more money, due to the lack of loopholes for the rich...and most importantly...is voluntary.

Thanks for that link Texpunditistan...I've been reading through some stuff on there, and it has really helped clear up some things that were fuzzy in my wee little brain. :p

I could definetly support this idea. :)
No problem. :) I truly enjoy sharing this idea with people.

Plus a policy like that will lead to serious increase in smuggling and you might end up with an extensive black market problem...

Something I did not think of before.

As opposed to the standard 50$ that most video games go for new these days, you might be seeing them for, say, 65$, with the added tax. However, for people who either steal these games, or download them illegally, they are still paying 0 dollars. Thus, the government would be making reduced income.

I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.


No, the system requires a certain minimum level of consumerism, spread in a certain way over the population to work (rich people need to actually spend significantly more money than middle class people for instance) and all this consumerism must be done in the country itself. It is possible it could work, but definately not everywhere.

OK, let's see if I can explain why this is a bad idea so that everyone will understand it...

If you tax every product (apart from the stuff you said you wouldn't), it would become a 'regressive tax'. That is, it isn't as equal as you think it is.

For example, a guy earning $100 a week buys a beer for $10 for argument's sake. Say $5 of that is taxed, and goes to the govt for revenue.
This man has effectively paid 5% tax of his weekly income.
Next, a guy earning $100 000 a week buys exactly the same beer for $10. $5 still goes to the govt in tax, but this man has only paid 0.5% (that could be a bit off) of his weekly income in tax.

As you can see, the poorer in society are taxed a much higher percentage than the wealthy. Hope that made sense!

True... but under Fair Tax, necessary items are NOT taxed, leaving the poor with more money in pocket to spend on other necesseties, some luxuries or even save/invest. Luxury items are taxed at a steady rate. Since the rich tend to buy big ticket items, they would put more into the tax system because big ticket items would bring in more money due to the proportional ammount of tax on the product.

Also, since there wouldn't be any loopholes like there are in the current tax system, everyone pays their fair share...rich people included.

The system would be much more fair than the current system, would bring in more money, due to the lack of loopholes for the rich...and most importantly...is voluntary.That would be fine, but the state I live in now is one of those that has a sales tax on groceries.

Everyone who has given a reason for why this won't work, if you haven't done so already, should really go to Texpunditistan's link and read the entire FAQ.

It's a bit of a lengthy read, but it covers a lot of issues in full detail.

It cleared up EVERY issue I had with my original thought, and has convinced my fully that this is the way to go in terms of taxation. :)

Or you can go to www.house.gov , look up HR 25, and read the bill in full. (Cause that will take less time. :rolleyes: :p )

No, the system requires a certain minimum level of consumerism, spread in a certain way over the population to work (rich people need to actually spend significantly more money than middle class people for instance) and all this consumerism must be done in the country itself. It is possible it could work, but definately not everywhere.

So name a country in which a rich person doesn't spend more than a poor person.
According to economic theory, everyone spends a proportion of their income and saves the rest.
Also they spend more on luxury goods the greater their income.
One can therefore (as is the plan) tax simple consumption goods at a very low rate, and luxury goods at a higher rate.
It would probably be necessary to tax financial transactions as well, as some of the income goes into such things (especially with rich people). That must include overseas purchases as well.

And it would:
a) eliminate taxation as a political tool (since everyone chooses their own tax rate)
b) add an awesome tool of demand management to the Government's repertoire
c) If it really does increase the savings rate then that's great. People have more to spend, so their consumption still stays more or less the same, but if savings (s) as a percentage of GDP growth per capita (y) in the long term goes up, then that means more capital can be afforded (sy=(n+d)k), and long term GDP-growth would increase, where n=population growth, d=depreciation rate of capital and k=growth of the capital stock.

OK, let's see if I can explain why this is a bad idea so that everyone will understand it...

If you tax every product (apart from the stuff you said you wouldn't), it would become a 'regressive tax'. That is, it isn't as equal as you think it is.

For example, a guy earning $100 a week buys a beer for $10 for argument's sake. Say $5 of that is taxed, and goes to the govt for revenue.
This man has effectively paid 5% tax of his weekly income.
Next, a guy earning $100 000 a week buys exactly the same beer for $10. $5 still goes to the govt in tax, but this man has only paid 0.5% (that could be a bit off) of his weekly income in tax.

As you can see, the poorer in society are taxed a much higher percentage than the wealthy. Hope that made sense!

Err...

Except for the fact that the person earning 100 000 a week would buy about 1000 beers in comparison to the 1 beer the 100 dollar person buys.

Two problems I can forsee with a national sales tax as the only means of income for the US goverment.

1. State and local goverments use this as their income source, which adding a national one could hurt state funds meaning more burden would have to be shifted to federal level in order to make up for it (You DO like your roads, right?).

2. I'm from a state that has no income tax and everything is sales tax based. This year Nevada had a bumper crop of people coming in to give us money (I love how that idea works), but this was after a few years of lower income rates after 9/11 when less people came and spent money, this resulted in cuts in services (education, roads, little things like that) due to lack of funds. If consumers aren't buying, money isn't generating. While spending within the limits is a nice idea, goverments don't work that way. You know, we might want to go to war and the other isde isn't understanding if we packup and go home because we ran out of money.

So name a country in which a rich person doesn't spend more than a poor person.

I said "middle class" - not poor. While a multi-multi-millionaire could in theory buy seventeen mansions and a different car for each day of the year, not each of them actually does that. Many of them pour that cash in charity for instance - since for them it *is* quite possible to live extremely comfortable while spending a lot less than they earn.

Err...

Except for the fact that the person earning 100 000 a week would buy about 1000 beers in comparison to the 1 beer the 100 dollar person buys.

Lol, well...you kinda missed the point of my argument.

You know, we might want to go to war and the other isde isn't understanding if we packup and go home because we ran out of money.

The thing is, you can always raise the tax rate temporarily, and then lower it again when the need is no longer there.

Lol, well...you kinda missed the point of my argument.

No, I was just pointing out a flaw in it. You assume a rich person buys as much as a poor person. In reality, a rich person would buy that beer, and then a car or two, a house, a nd a crap load of other luxuries. If a rich person only bought that beer, then he would not be using the rest of his money pretty much, which would mean he was being taxed fairly(if you only spend as much as a poor person, you are only taxed as much as one). I still do disagree with this type, but your analogy was really flawed.

I said "middle class" - not poor. While a multi-multi-millionaire could in theory buy seventeen mansions and a different car for each day of the year, not each of them actually does that. Many of them pour that cash in charity for instance - since for them it *is* quite possible to live extremely comfortable while spending a lot less than they earn.

Though our tax system gives tax benefits for giving to charities, so that is moot...

The thing is, you can always raise the tax rate temporarily, and then lower it again when the need is no longer there.
It's a little bit more than that though. The war(s) were what lowred Nevada's tax income for a while. During such times people spend less on high ticket items or vacations. Raising taxes then would just encourage people to buy less due to worries about the cost of things.

No, I was just pointing out a flaw in it. You assume a rich person buys as much as a poor person. In reality, a rich person would buy that beer, and then a car or two, a house, a nd a crap load of other luxuries. If a rich person only bought that beer, then he would not be using the rest of his money pretty much, which would mean he was being taxed fairly(if you only spend as much as a poor person, you are only taxed as much as one). I still do disagree with this type, but your analogy was really flawed.


One can assume both the rich and poor would wish to spend the same or similar percentage of their income. I'm not talking about actual dollar values, they were just for an example, the percentages remain the same.
The ratio of spending to expenses for both classes of society would be the same, only to poor would be a lower scale.

Hence when the wealthy man pays the 0.5% tax, it may still be a large amount, but only a fraction of the income percentage the poor man had to pay of his weekly income.

The Death Tax (Estate/Inheritance Tax) is also double taxation. You pay taxes on everything you own for your whole life, sometimes twice due to sales tax, then the government takes ANOTHER tax on it when you die. It could even be considered triple taxation. VERY illegal.

This is only so if we accept that the dead can have property. I don't. No property is being taking from the dead, because the dead can't own anything. Inheritance is a silly institution from a different time, for the most part, and mostly obsolete. It sounds ridiculous now for a person to inherit a political position from their father, but this is once the way it was. I have no doubt economic inheritance could gradually disappear if we let it.

This is only so if we accept that the dead can have property.

Utter balderdash.

Inheritance is about people being able to dispose of their property as they wish.

Why should people not be able to dispose of their property as they wish, especially if its their last wish?

Utter balderdash.

Inheritance is about people being able to dispose of their property as they wish.

Why should people not be able to dispose of their property as they wish, especially if its their last wish?

Oh please, don't come in here thinking your simple lolbertarian ethics are going to shut everyone else up. If you want to discuss property rights I'm up for it.

All that aside, Texistan was saying death tax is a triple tax. Since the dead can't have property, they're not being taxed-> the recipients are.

For those who think this system will overburden lower class citizens...

From FairTax.org

How does the rebate work?- All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.


Also...the American's for Fair Taxation score card currently lists support in Congress for H 25 / S 1493 as...

Senate

21 - For or Leaning For
21 - Against or Leaning Against
58 - Undecided

House

129 - For or Leaning For
81 - Against or Leaning Against
225 - Undecided

Oh please, don't come in here thinking your simple lolbertarian ethics are going to shut everyone else up. If you want to discuss property rights I'm up for it.

Oh, goodie, ad hominem.

All that aside, Texistan was saying death tax is a triple tax. Since the dead can't have property, they're not being taxed-> the recipients are

Nitpick fallacy.

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p
The major thing wrong with this is that it makes too much sense to ever be politically acceptable. The tax code is complex for a reason. Every item in the Federal budget is there because someone with influence, power and/or money wanted it in there. Ditto for taxes.

The major thing wrong with this is that it makes too much sense to ever be politically acceptable. The tax code is complex for a reason. Every item in the Federal budget is there because someone with influence, power and/or money wanted it in there. Ditto for taxes.

Isn't that always what gets in the way of good legislation? :p

I agree that certain groups are going to have a vested interest in keeping this sort of thing from ever becoming a reality, but considering the current views in congress that I posted earlier, I wonder just how unlikely such a law might actually be.

That's a heck of a lot of undecideds though... :(

Oh, goodie, ad hominem.

Not really, it's a general fact that libertarians have no clue what they're talking about. Besides which, the rhetorical question he asked was loaded to begin with?

Nitpick fallacy.

WTF? Are you saying the dead can be taxed? It's certainly important that we identify WHO in fact is being taxed.

Not really, it's a general fact that libertarians have no clue what they're talking about. Besides which, the rhetorical question he asked was loaded to begin with?

OMGWTFBBQ? You're saying you didn't make an ad hominen attack, and you support this by saying Libertarians have no clue what they're talking about.

WTF? Are you saying the dead can be taxed? It's certainly important that we identify WHO in fact is being taxed.

OMGWTFBBQ?

The argument against death tax is that it impedes the right of a dying person to have his/her dying wishes respected.

Who is being taxed is an unimportant nitpick.

OMGWTFBBQ? You're saying you didn't make an ad hominen attack, and you support this by saying Libertarians have no clue what they're talking about.

My original comment wasn't an ad hominem, though yes , my second obviously was, though it's also fairly true. Libertarians generally have little political philosophy background, which is why they're attracted to libertarianism in the first place- it's deceptively easy to understand (though once you fully examine it, it becomes fairly contorted and contradictory).

OMGWTFBBQ?

The argument against death tax is that it impedes the right of a dying person to have his/her dying wishes respected.

Who is being taxed is an unimportant nitpick.

Taxistans argued is that the death tax represents a 3rd tax on the same person for the same product, which it clearly isn't. The estate tax is essentially a transaction tax between two parties, and is not a tax on the dead person.

While estate tax does impinge on the receiving party's property rights, it seems a reasonable breach to me. The argument that property rights shoud be inviolable appeals only to those that already suscribe to libertarianism and depends on a previous acceptance of the assumptions which underlie that philosophy.

Taxistans argued is that the death tax represents a 3rd tax on the same person for the same product, which it clearly isn't. The estate tax is essentially a transaction tax between two parties, and is not a tax on the dead person.

Bully for him. I didn't.

While estate tax does impinge on the receiving party's property rights, it seems a reasonable breach to me.

Why is it reasonable?

Bully for him. I didn't.

I was replying to his comment jackass.

Why is it reasonable?

Rights are politically negotiable, a society can place other issues above rights. In this case, other issues like equality, fairness, and standard of living have been placed above the rights of the inheritor. If we don't accept libertarian conceptions of rights as absolute (and we shouldn't, they're silly) than we can make these kinds of taxes in good conscience.

Moreover, in the Rawlsian sense the inheritor did nothing to produce or deserve this wealth (in theory) and thus he has no more a moral entitlement to it than anyone else in society.

I made a thread about positive rights about an hour ago if you're interested.

I was replying to his comment jackass.

Whoop-dee-doo! I wasn't. If you want the discussion to be fully private, use PM's or e-mail.

equality, fairness, and standard of living

There is no moral basis for forcing equality.

As for fairness, is it fair that someone's dying wish be refused.

"Standard of living" is a ridiculous argument. Its revenue raising. The assets being transferred by the stiff to the inheritor would do more for the living standard if he were allowed to keep it to spend, bank, or invest.

Moreover, in the Rawlsian sense the inheritor did nothing to produce or deserve this wealth (in theory) and thus he has no more a moral entitlement to it than anyone else in society.

Irrelevant. The stiff did produce the wealth, he/she is entitled to transfer it as he pleases.

Whoop-dee-doo! I wasn't. If you want the discussion to be fully private, use PM's or e-mail.

Are you retarded or something? If I was talking to Texistan, and I say something you disagree with, you can't be all like 'Well I never said that'. I know you didn't say that, but you're coming all after me like I was making a strawman argument when I wasn't talking to you at all!

There is no moral basis for forcing equality.

See this is why I hate libertarians (or their philosophy at any rate). Just because you believe rights are absolute doesn't mean they are! There are many moral basis for equality (I mean this in the Rawlsian sense of fairness), but they're certainly not based on libertarian philosophy. This doesn't make them wrong however.

As for fairness, is it fair that someone's dying wish be refused.

Yes, it can be. I'm using fairness in the Rawlsian sense, estate tax is an excellent example of rights being impinged on for the sake of fairness, he actually wrote articles on this very subject.
"Standard of living" is a ridiculous argument. Its revenue raising. The assets being transferred by the stiff to the inheritor would do more for the living standard if he were allowed to keep it to spend, bank, or invest.

I meant this in general- that violations of property rights can result in higher standards of living, and that the violation of these rights is not a moral taboo but a political action that can be legitimately engaged upon.

specifically, however, you're again making wild assumptions (for one you're assuming I believe in classic supply side economics, which I don't). Moreover, channeling the estate to those more in need may benefit society as a whole.

Irrelevant. The stiff did produce the wealth, he/she is entitled to transfer it as he pleases.

That's only true if you accept libertarian phiosophy, which I clearly don't! You're statements are all based purely on unproven assumptions (specifically in this case that we are entitled absolutely to both output and the means of production, which is a very contentious statement) Once you prove that property rights are somehow magically absolute and natural (i.e. objectivism) then you'd be right, but guess what? They aren't, and you can't.

This is why I slag libertarians. You post like your political ideology is sent down from God or something. Seriously, you should try reading something other than libertarian drivel, at least be familiar with political philosophy in general.

Are you retarded or something? If I was talking to Texistan, and I say something you disagree with, you can't be all like 'Well I never said that'. I know you didn't say that, but you're coming all after me like I was making a strawman argument when I wasn't talking to you at all!

Incoherant rubbish.

See this is why I hate libertarians (or their philosophy at any rate). Just because you believe rights are absolute doesn't mean they are! There are many moral basis for equality (I mean this in the Rawlsian sense of fairness), but they're certainly not based on libertarian philosophy. This doesn't make them wrong however.

You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians You hate libertarians.

Rawls is not god.

Why is there a basis for forcing equality of result? Why should the productive be forced to prop up the willfully idle?

Yes, it can be. I'm using fairness in the Rawlsian sense, estate tax is an excellent example of rights being impinged on for the sake of fairness, he actually wrote articles on this very subject.

Fairness does not mean the right to initiate force because you feel others will benefit, unless you worship out socialist friend Rawls.

You're statements are all based purely on unproven assumptions (specifically in this case that we are entitled absolutely to both output and the means of production, which is a very contentious statement)

Rubbish. It is for you to prove that property rights are unnatural. Codified property rights date back to Hammurabi.

The idea that there is no entitlement to own, acquire, transfer, dispose of, and use property is relatively recent, and whereever it has been tried, it has made society worse off. The ending of property rights in Russia turned the world's largest food exporter in to the world's largest food importer.

This is why I slag libertarians.

You slag libertarians because you are too insecure to live your life. You insist that it be done for you.

Though this thread has found a tangent in the death tax, there are other purposes for taxes that are ignored with a flat sales tax. Taxes (or lack there of) are used to raise money as specific user fees and for encouragement/discouragement of behavior.

Cigarette taxes are an example of both. There are studies that show as cost goes up usage (particularly amoung youth) goes down. Thus the name "Sin Tax". The government can discourage smoking without infringing on people's rights since people now choose not to smoke (or smoke as much) because they can't afford it.

For those who still smoke there are states that use portions of the tax for specific bugetary purposes. Instead of the money going into general budget coffers, it goes to designated programs and agendas. So if more cigarettes are purchased more government goes to state sponsored (or given as grants) to non-smoking campains or to lung cancer research for example. This system is a built in self-regulating feed back loop. The smaller the budget the less emphasis on eliminating the bad behavior, and vice versa.

There are numerous numbers of taxes and tax-breaks for behavior purposes with economic and nonecomic advantages. Home ownership has direct tax advantages. This practice encourages less revenue for the govenment but encourages other economic and less measurable benefits. Home ownership vs. renting builds wealth for citizens. Also it means that people are more likely to care about their their community. Crime is generally decreased. Mobility rates of kids is less thus there is transfering from school to school and limiting educational effectiveness.

Flat taxers may have answers for all this, but instead of taxes there are a system of fines, grants and low-interest loans etc. It is important that taxes are not just about revenue but about shaping society.

Rawls is not god.

Neither is Locke, Smith, etc. but Libertarians certainly present them as the be all end all of political discourse.

Why is there a basis for forcing equality of result? Why should the productive be forced to prop up the willfully idle?

I don't believe I mentioned 'equality of result'. Rawlsian fairness is about equal starting position, not equal results.

Fairness does not mean the right to initiate force because you feel others will benefit, unless you worship out socialist friend Rawls.


Uh, Rawls isn't socialist. He's liberal egalitarian, there's a huge difference (i.e. socialism implies proletariat control over the means of production, historical materialism, Marxist dialectic etc.)

Even this last statement is plagued by libertarian dogma by equating implied illegitimate force with taxation, which is neither widely accepted as a theory nor self-evident.

Rubbish. It is for you to prove that property rights are unnatural. Codified property rights date back to Hammurabi.

Codified property rights =/= natural property law. Basically I would argue that clearly rights are a social construct: asocial beings woud have no need or ability to create rights. The noble savage essentially would not need rights at all. Given that rights are therefore social in nature (i.e. they only occur in the coming together of peoples) it follows that they must be socially constructed, and thus mutable. So to imply that rights are absolute is foolish. Property rights exist because societies create them, not because they are inherent in the human condition or something.

The idea that there is no entitlement to own, acquire, transfer, dispose of, and use property is relatively recent, and whereever it has been tried, it has made society worse off. The ending of property rights in Russia turned the world's largest food exporter in to the world's largest food importer.

What are you talking about? Property rights have historically never been absolute, if that's what you're trying to say. There has never been a society with a complete set of absolute property rights- i.e. in all societies property rights have been limited. I'm hardly advocating Soviet revolution by the way so I hardly see what Russia has to do with it: estate tax is a long way, and a fundementally different thing, than the nationalization of the means of production.

You slag libertarians because you are too insecure to live your life. You insist that it be done for you.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to think I'm advocating a nanny state, which is not at all what I'm doing. Socialism and liberal egalitarianism are essentially at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

I don't believe I mentioned 'equality of result'. Rawlsian fairness is about equal starting position, not equal results.

From Wikipedia's "A Theory of Justice" Page

Secondly, economic and social inequalities are only justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members.

Uh, Rawls isn't socialist. He's liberal egalitarian, there's a huge difference (i.e. socialism implies proletariat control over the means of production, historical materialism, Marxist dialectic etc.)

Socialism implies Government control over the economy, which would be necessary to achieve the imposed social contract Rawls calls for.

Codified property rights =/= natural property law. Basically I would argue that clearly rights are a social construct: asocial beings woud have no need or ability to create rights. The noble savage essentially would not need rights at all. Given that rights are therefore social in nature (i.e. they only occur in the coming together of peoples) it follows that they must be socially constructed, and thus mutable. So to imply that rights are absolute is foolish. Property rights exist because societies create them, not because they are inherent in the human condition or something.

The "noble savage" is a Western myth, prove that it has real basis (which you can't).

Man is an imperfect social creature, therefore a system of rights is necessary to keep society from collapsing.

What are you talking about? Property rights have historically never been absolute, if that's what you're trying to say.

The less property rights are respected, the worse off society is. The most extreme examples are to be found in communist states, and the most extreme, arguably, is Cambodia under the KR.

"The major thing wrong with this is that it makes too much sense to ever be politically acceptable. The tax code is complex for a reason. Every item in the Federal budget is there because someone with influence, power and/or money wanted it in there. Ditto for taxes."

Bam! Eutrusca hit the nail on the head!


:: pulls out popcorn, watches two ideologies collide ::

From Wikipedia's "A Theory of Justice" Page


I don't know what you're trying to show with that quote. The Differece Principle, which is what the quote is, does not imply equal conditions- what it means is that when society is structured through a social contract (in Rawls case this occurs in the 'Original Position') socially controllable equalities should be structured to help the worst off. An example of this is why we pay doctors more: This inequality is acceptable because it helps everyone in society; if doctors didn't make more money, no one would become one.

Essentially Rawlsian Liberal Egalitarianism proposes giving everyone an equal 'bundle' of primary social goods- this means that at the start ofyour life you should have the same resources at your disposal as everyone else. YOu are encouraged to use these resources as you like, including through capitalism or what have you. Rawls point is to make the starting positions in society fair, essentially.

Socialism implies Government control over the economy, which would be necessary to achieve the imposed social contract Rawls calls for.


No, that's quite frankly wrong. The very definition of socialism is worker's contorl over the means of production. You're referring to state capitalism, or something similar. In a Rawlsian government there would be some regulation (i.e. taxes) to allow redistribution. It would be similar to what we have know, actually. A Rawlsian state is essentially the liberal welfare state, NOT a socialist state.

The "noble savage" is a Western myth, prove that it has real basis (which you can't).

I never said it was; I was using it as a metaphor. Asocial beings (that is what a noble savage is, after all) would have no need for rights, thus rights must come from society. That is all I meant by it.

Man is an imperfect social creature, therefore a system of rights is necessary to keep society from collapsing.

Possibly true, but these rights aren't necessarily absolute- in fact they never are. Laws are a part of every society, but they're neither absolute nor unchanging.

The less property rights are respected, the worse off society is. The most extreme examples are to be found in communist states, and the most extreme, arguably, is Cambodia under the KR.

That's not necessarily so. Note that quality of life indices don't coincide with the free-ist economies. I would say increased rights (including, perhaps especially, positive rights) in general help societies function, but I don't think the crux of the matter lies in property.

The very definition of socialism is worker's contorl over the means of production.

Theoretically, in practice however, it means government control.

I never said it was; I was using it as a metaphor. Asocial beings (that is what a noble savage is, after all) would have no need for rights, thus rights must come from society. That is all I meant by it.

And if the species were asocial, you would have made a relevant comment.

That's not necessarily so. Note that quality of life indices don't coincide with the free-ist economies. I would say increased rights (including, perhaps especially, positive rights) in general help societies function, but I don't think the crux of the matter lies in property.

"Quality of life indices" are an unreliable measure, and are merely a fashionable form of anti-market propaganda.

The crux of ensuring a successful economy is indeed in property.

Theoretically, in practice however, it means government control.


Sure, but we're discussing Rawls from a theoretical stand point, so we should use the correct definition. If you're going to call Rawls socialist in theory, you're quite wrong.

And if the species were asocial, you would have made a relevant comment.

Argh, are you really this dense? You asked me to show you that rights are not natural. My point was that they occur ONLY in society, through political deliberation of various kinds. Seriously reread what I said before you make an ass of yourself.

"Quality of life indices" are an unreliable measure, and are merely a fashionable form of anti-market propaganda.

How are they unreliable? They take commonly available statistics (like gdp/capita, life expectancy, doctors/capita, infant mortality rate, tax rates, etc) to form an index. They're no more unreliable than say growth indices. I would ask you to prove that societies are "better" when property rights are higher without using such an index.

The crux of ensuring a successful economy is indeed in property.
I'm not arguing that property isn't an important part of economic growth, just that, as a right, it shouldn't be seen as absolute or sacrosanct.

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p

This is VAT, in the UK. It doesn't generate enough revenue to run a government with. We have it at 17.5%. Granted it is a fairer system but you can't just drop all other taxes. Your government would go to pot and you would be left with (particually in America where the millitary is huge) with a vast decaying millitary.

Asocial beings (that is what a noble savage is, after all) would have no need for rights, thus rights must come from society. That is all I meant by it.
I counter with the idea that "rights" are innate. "Priviledges" are "granted" to you by society. One of the obligations of society is to protect rights in order to protect a free way of life. Individuals, if they are not part of "society", protect their own rights through various ways, not least of all by force and/or dominance over/defeat of those who would impinge upon those rights.

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p
Can't be torn to pieces. It's a great idea, except for those that want to enforce social policy through taxation and exemptions.

This is VAT, in the UK. It doesn't generate enough revenue to run a government with. We have it at 17.5%. Granted it is a fairer system but you can't just drop all other taxes. Your government would go to pot and you would be left with (particually in America where the millitary is huge) with a vast decaying millitary.
It's not a VAT. Well, not the Fair Tax legislation, anyway. It's a retail sales tax. The advantage is that companies will no longer participate in the charade of paying income taxes and will be able to pass the savings along to the consumers. They will also not pay sales tax on raw goods, only on retail purchases. That, and capitalistic competition, should ensure that the taxes aren't passed along.

Sure, but we're discussing Rawls from a theoretical stand point, so we should use the correct definition. If you're going to call Rawls socialist in theory, you're quite wrong.

Why should I bandy words on his theory, while neglecting anything regarding its possible practical application? Is it because you find being troubled with problems and practicalities inconvenient?

My point was that they occur ONLY in society, through political deliberation of various kinds. Seriously reread what I said before you make an ass of yourself.

I read it, and understood it fully, and what is or is not natural for an asocial species is irrelevant. We are discussing humans (real ones, not your "noble savage" balderdash).

I would ask you to prove that societies are "better" when property rights are higher without using such an index.

Lets take a counter example:

Cambodia under the KR, total elimination of property rights, and a substantial proportion of the population (25%) didn't survive 4 years of that.


Of course you claim that death tax is a reasonable intrusion into property rights, a claim which you've done nothing whatsoever to justify, apart from some rubbish about "equality, fairness, and standard of living" (sounding suspiciously like the Socialist's cry of "Give the government all the power, and the money, because we're here to help you") and invoking the name Rawls as though you were invoking God Himself.

I don't find it reasonable that people who lose their loved ones should be greeted with a tax bill.

This is VAT, in the UK. It doesn't generate enough revenue to run a government with. We have it at 17.5%. Granted it is a fairer system but you can't just drop all other taxes. Your government would go to pot and you would be left with (particually in America where the millitary is huge) with a vast decaying millitary.

You should read the Fair Tax FAQ page.

Why should I bandy words on his theory, while neglecting anything regarding its possible practical application? Is it because you find being troubled with problems and practicalities inconvenient?


The practical application of Rawls' theory is the Liberal Democratic State. Most European states and Canada are organized essentially along liberal egalitarian lines, and they're the most successful states there are, by virtually any indicator you care to use. So no, I'm not terribly troubled.
I read it, and understood it fully, and what is or is not natural for an asocial species is irrelevant. We are discussing humans (real ones, not your "noble savage" balderdash).

God this is like talking to a 15 year old wall.

If people are naturally social, so are rights. If rights are socially defined, then certain infringements on them are acceptable. Ergo, an estate tax is not a violation of your rights.



Lets take a counter example:

Cambodia under the KR, total elimination of property rights, and a substantial proportion of the population (25%) didn't survive 4 years of that.

I would say that has more to do with Pol Pot being a psycho than with the formal elimination of property rights; the formal elimination of property wasn't the CAUSE of the problem, it was a symptom of it. This is a cause and effect fallacy.

Of course you claim that death tax is a reasonable intrusion into property rights, a claim which you've done nothing whatsoever to justify, apart from some rubbish about "equality, fairness, and standard of living" (sounding suspiciously like the Socialist's cry of "Give the government all the power, and the money, because we're here to help you") and invoking the name Rawls as though you were invoking God Himself.

I was using Rawls in the hopes that it would clarify things for you, obviously I was wrong.

It is reasonable in the sense that if estate tax is viewed as not morally wrong (as it does not violated rights as I described above) then it becomes a political issue, and should be decided upon democratically. It is reasonable both to have such a tax or not have such a tax, but it should be up to the people to decide.

I don't find it reasonable that people who lose their loved ones should be greeted with a tax bill.

Why? They still come out on top financially speaking.

Disraeliland, your KR example is deeply flawed. First, you'd have to prove a direct connection between the elimination of all property laws and the deaths. Even if you did this, which you did not, you're example would still be flawed to the point of unusable. Mallberta is not advocating the elimination of all property rights, he is argueing against your extreme in the other direction. In your mind, there seems to be all or nothing. This is a childish way to think.

Forget the Noble Savage or asocial species. Just read this next statment.

Rights are constructs of society, not natural law. Therefor, since they were created by society, they can be changed and abridged by society, for the good of society. Clearer?

I know how fustrating it can be, Mallberta. I decided to jump in and help.

Also, how are his "vague cries of equality, fairness, and standard of living" any different than you "vague cries of property right, natural, absolute rights"?

Not that I completely disagree with you, or think the inheritance tax is a good thing, you are just being increduibly thick right now.

The practical application of Rawls' theory is the Liberal Democratic State. Most European states and Canada are organized essentially along liberal egalitarian lines, and they're the most successful states there are, by virtually any indicator you care to use. So no, I'm not terribly troubled.

No, they aren't. They're falling behind, the socialist policies they practice are an anchor.

If people are naturally social, so are rights. If rights are socially defined, then certain infringements on them are acceptable. Ergo, an estate tax is not a violation of your rights.

People are naturally social, but rights are not defined socially, they areprotected socially. The purpose of government is to protect rights.

I was using Rawls in the hopes that it would clarify things for you, obviously I was wrong.

Your use of Rawls was an appeal to authority.

First, you'd have to prove a direct connection between the elimination of all property laws and the deaths.

When the KR took over, they evacuated the cities, ended all property rights, and moved the people onto large communes where they were forced to farm.

Their intention was for Cambodia to become self-sufficient, and eventually an exporter, through collectivisation. In terms of rice production, they didn't achieve a third of their goal, and yet the KR demanded more and more as conditions worsened through 77-8. Most of what they could produce was taken away from the farmers, and given to soldiers and political cadres.

No government that respected property rights could have done this.

Rights are constructs of society, not natural law. Therefor, since they were created by society, they can be changed and abridged by society, for the good of society.

Rights are natural.

An asocial being has rights, but has no need of a system comprising a code of rights, and a government to protect rights, and punish people who violate the rights of others.

A social being needs a system comprising a code of rights, and a government to protect rights, and punish people who violate the rights of others.

Systems protecting rights are a construct of society, made necessary by man's imperfect state.

Also, how are his "vague cries of equality, fairness, and standard of living" any different than you "vague cries of property right, natural, absolute rights"?

People's rights are not a vague thing. "Equality", "Fairness", and "Standard of Living" are vague.

Terms like "Fairness" and "Standard of living" cannot be divorced from their inherient subjectivity.

Just an aside on John Rawls' A theory of Justice.

Rawls built in the notion that people would be more concerned about distributive justice than personal rewards in his model. The ideal that not knowing where in society you would be would automaticaly result in a society were the least bad situation obtains for the worst off is based on this false assumption. Most people if presented the same choice with an emphasis on the reward for the effort made rather than on the situation of the worst off, will choose a libertarian free market outcome, where you obtain and retain the value of what you do. So saying Rawls was not a socialist, is more than slightly being economical with the truth.

I have a better idea. Insitute a rent tax on foreign business and maybe U.S. companies in order to sell in the U.S. Since the U.S. is a good consumer economy, I believe companies would be willing to pay the rent. The rent tax cancels all personal income taxes.

Any tax on the individual sucks. I don't like the fair tax because I would have to pay it.

Just an aside on John Rawls' A theory of Justice.

Rawls built in the notion that people would be more concerned about distributive justice than personal rewards in his model. The ideal that not knowing where in society you would be would automaticaly result in a society were the least bad situation obtains for the worst off is based on this false assumption.
It's not a false notion, the original position was never intended as historical; it's an intellectual tool like Locke's state of nature (though obviously more nuanced). So you can't describe it as false, because just like the state of nature it is an intellectual exercise, nor an assumption, because he never says this is something that actually happend.

Most people if presented the same choice with an emphasis on the reward for the effort made rather than on the situation of the worst off, will choose a libertarian free market outcome, where you obtain and retain the value of what you do.
Sure, but this is besides the point: the original position is intended explicitly as a tool to isolate as from individual experience and look at society as a whole- what would we decided to do if we did not know before entering society what our natural abilities and social roles would be?

So saying Rawls was not a socialist, is more than slightly being economical with the truth.

Not at all! Redistribution is NOT the same as socialism! Socialism in it's basest form is workers control of the means of production, which Rawls does not advocate. Moreover, it's particularly incoherent given that Rawls is intellectually descended from Kant, while socialism/marxism descends from Hegel. About the only thing in common Rawls has with socialism is redistribution. It would be like saying objectivism and socialism is the same thing because they both rely on absolute moral knowledge.

With the Rent Tax there's no reason to have any individual tax at all. The tax allows everyone to keep thier money and to make even more! It also pays for the government.

No, they aren't. They're falling behind, the socialist policies they practice are an anchor.


Do you have ANY evidence for that at all?

People are naturally social, but rights are not defined socially, they areprotected socially. The purpose of government is to protect rights.

See, you're just spouting back libertarian drivle. Where do rights come from if not societies? Are they magically created out of the ethers of time? Were the cast down from above by Cthulu the great or something?

Your use of Rawls was an appeal to authority.

No, it was an attempt to clarify the meaning of the terms I used in context. I mistakenly believed you had a clue. Yes, that's an ad hominem, you clearly having it coming though. I brought up Rawls because fairness has a specific context within his theories, and that was the context I was refering too. It is possible to bring up philosophers in a discussion surrounding philosphical things isn't it?

When the KR took over, they evacuated the cities, ended all property rights, and moved the people onto large communes where they were forced to farm.

Their intention was for Cambodia to become self-sufficient, and eventually an exporter, through collectivisation. In terms of rice production, they didn't achieve a third of their goal, and yet the KR demanded more and more as conditions worsened through 77-8. Most of what they could produce was taken away from the farmers, and given to soldiers and political cadres.

No government that respected property rights could have done this.


What's your point? Taxing estates =/= forced collectivisation. No one is saying we should abolish all property rights, merely that they aren't absolute. This has been pointed out to you by myself and at least one other poster.

Rights are natural.
Prove it. Show this. Give us some evidence. You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Even if they ARE (which they aren't, but just for the sake of argument) how do you presume to know the nature of these rights? Having visions or something?
An asocial being has rights, but has no need of a system comprising a code of rights, and a government to protect rights, and punish people who violate the rights of others.

Where do this person's rights come from?

A social being needs a system comprising a code of rights, and a government to protect rights, and punish people who violate the rights of others.

Sure, I agree, but they don't have to necessarily be libertarian rights. These rights could take many forms, because, in essence, a right is a legal artifact created by societies.

People's rights are not a vague thing. "Equality", "Fairness", and "Standard of Living" are vague.

Terms like "Fairness" and "Standard of living" cannot be divorced from their inherient subjectivity.
Ha ha ha ha ha

That's hilarious.

Here we are having a multi-page discussion on property rights and you're calling them clear and absolute.

If rights are objective, prove it. Show me that rights are unchanging, naturally occuring and knowable. If rights are objective, you should be able to do this- you should be able to use science or something to show me a right .

Goddamn I can't even believe this conversation, it's like every bad libertarian cliche wrapped into on tidy little package.

Rights are innate because you can live away from society. In order for an individual to have his rights taken away is through force.

like I said, it's all or nothing with you. "we must have unabridged property rights because when one group took away all property rights it didn't work!"
There is a middle ground, you know.

Also, prove rights are natural.

Ok, I'll give you that "fair" and "equal" are vague. He should have said "more fair" or "more equal," which are not, as they have set definitions.

Rights are natural because man's ability to reason and choose is natural.

But, Man is an imperfect social creature, creating the potential for some to initiate force against others, negating their ability to reason and choose.

A code of rights, with government to protect them and punish violators is societie's way to deal with the natural abilities and problems of man.

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p
First off, property taxes are collected at a local level, they're not imposed by the feds. Second, in my opinion, there are two more things that should be exempt. Diesel fuel & Home heating oil (many people in Maine that I know had trouble heating their homes this past winter, considering it can easily take $400+ to fill up the tank)

Diesel should not be taxed either, anything and everything you buy in a store somehow got there in a vehicle that uses diesel fuel, since that's what big rigs use. When diesel goes up, it won't take long for EVERYTHING to go up.

Now, in my opinion, the reason this hasn't been implemented, and that there has been no effort to implement it, mostly has to do with sneakyness.
Think about it, with the witholding tax, you never actually see the money you pay the government, so you don't actually feel it, some people even act like the government was benevolent if they get a refund! With a national sales tax, people would see every penny that went to the government, and if that were to happen, they never would get by with taxing as much as they do.

Incidently, I personally am in favor of the idea, I just think that's the reason why it hasn't been implemented.

This is only so if we accept that the dead can have property. I don't. No property is being taking from the dead, because the dead can't own anything. Inheritance is a silly institution from a different time, for the most part, and mostly obsolete. It sounds ridiculous now for a person to inherit a political position from their father, but this is once the way it was. I have no doubt economic inheritance could gradually disappear if we let it.

Eh? Not only can the dead have property, fictional entities can have properties.

You can easily avoid inheritence tax if you establish a trust to do things the state approves. You just can't leave it to your relatives. (Unless your name is kennedy, then special laws apply to grandfathered trusts).

And don't even get me started on intellectual property that belongs to the dead.

A solitary BUMP to see if anyone else has input on the ORIGINAL topic

(Silly hijackers :p )

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p


That system is actually being studied in the legislature. It would work, but it wouldnt be fair. Those who have more money save more, those who have little tend to live paycheck to paycheck. The poor end up paying more money. Not only that, but sales tax is the main source of revenue for many states and they do not want it taken away from them. If states were to add their sales tax to the federal sales tax things would begin to be prohibitively expensive. Finally, it is bad for the economy to have a tax system that promotes saving instead of spending. The economy thrives when people spend money, thats when more jobs are created. The government only preffers you save money when it is trying to stave off inflation.

Rights are natural because man's ability to reason and choose is natural.
well, prove it. And moreover, what does naturual even mean here? Also, did you know this flies in the face of conventional science? Also, does that mean that those who cannot reason are less than human? YOU EFFING NAZI!!! ;)

More over, the even if you could show that man is naturally reasoning it doesn't follow from this than he should then have property rights. It's called Hume's Law, it's impossible to look at something in the objective world, and then use it and it alone to may a moral rule. In other words, it's impossible (or at least very difficult) to justify drawing a 'should' statement from an 'is' statement.

A code of rights, with government to protect them and punish violators is societie's way to deal with the natural abilities and problems of man.
I'm not arguing this part of your argument.

well, prove it. And moreover, what does naturual even mean here?

Frontal lobe.

Put Rawls down and read this: http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/pr-frontal.shtml (Study Pinpoints Region In Frontal Lobes As "Essence" Of What Makes Us Human)

Also, did you know this flies in the face of conventional science?

Don't keep us waiting, lets see it.

Also, does that mean that those who cannot reason are less than human? YOU EFFING NAZI!!!

Don't be a bonehead.

More over, the even if you could show that man is naturally reasoning it doesn't follow from this than he should then have property rights. It's called Hume's Law, it's impossible to look at something in the objective world, and then use it and it alone to may a moral rule. In other words, it's impossible (or at least very difficult) to justify drawing a 'should' statement from an 'is' statement.

You either don't read well, or you are the type who snips relevant statements where you can't pick at them.

All Hume's law shows is the need for a bridge between objective and moral.

There is a bridge between 'objective' and 'moral'. If you were honest, you would have picked up on it.

It is:
Man is an imperfect social creature, creating the potential for some to initiate force against others, negating their ability to reason and choose.

Frontal lobe.

Put Rawls down and read this: http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/pr-frontal.shtml (Study Pinpoints Region In Frontal Lobes As "Essence" Of What Makes Us Human)
Link is broken for me

Don't keep us waiting, lets see it.

Well, there's entire fields of it. Neuropsychology for example as a field is entirely based on the concept that choices are predicated by physical state- this implies that reason is limited by biology.


You either don't read well, or you are the type who snips relevant statements where you can't pick at them.

All Hume's law shows is the need for a bridge between objective and moral.

There is a bridge between 'objective' and 'moral'. If you were honest, you would have picked up on it.

It is:

I don't believe that's so. There's nothing in the (alledged) fact that Human's are imperfect social beings which tells us they have a moral claim to absolute property rights.

Link fixed.

http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/tbi/pr-frontal.shtml

There's nothing in the (alledged) fact that Human's are imperfect social beings which tells us they have a moral claim to absolute property rights.

Given the lack of perfection in humans, I'd say that it was a foregone conclusion that humans are imperfect. If humans were perfect, that damned old guy in the Datsun wouldn't have cut me off at the roundabout.

As for your point, its bollocks.

Human imperfection leads to the imposition of force. Rights protect people from the imposition of force.

You've not shown that humans don't have a claim to rights.

Show me why humans have no rights (other than what 'society' chooses to dole out)

OK...I've been toying with this idea in my head for a couple of weeks now, and I'm about to display my extreme lack of knowledge about tax policy and economics by posing this question.

This techincally applies only the the U.S., but I suppose you could change it to apply to any country.

So here we go.

Scrap the entire tax system...the whole thing. Property tax, income tax, exemptions, deductions...everything.

Then, put in place a National Sales Tax to replace all the previous income (I'm assuming the U.S. needs the same amount of revenue it recieves under the current tax system)

It seems to me that this tax system would be more equal and fair than any other. A rich person who spends tons of money pays a lot more in taxes than a poor person who spends only what he/she has to, and saves what they can.

The only things I would think might need to be exempt from this National Sales Tax would be food that isn't sold in restaurants, and tuition for education...everything else is taxed, and all at the same rate.

This seems to me to be a pretty good idea, but I know there has to be something wrong with it, otherwise you would think there would be some sort of effort to implement this type of policy.

So...who wants to tear this idea to pieces? :p

Looks like I'm going on shopping sprees in Mexico and shipping stuff home via UPS again... :)

Link fixed.
As for your point, its bollocks.

Human imperfection leads to the imposition of force. Rights protect people from the imposition of force.

These points I can accept, though I don't necessarily agree with them.

You've not shown that humans don't have a claim to rights.

You can never prove a negative, it's a logical impossibilty.

Show me why humans have no rights (other than what 'society' chooses to dole out)

Because Rights are clearly not natural (i.e. you can't DISCOVER rights, it's not like Locke was digging around one day and uncovered 'rights'), and if they are not natural, they most be social artifacts.

Because Rights are clearly not natural

Rights are a consequence of man's natural condition.

If you're looking for a Divine Stone Tablet, you're on the wrong track.

The Protection of rights by society is a social construct.

Rights are a consequence of man's natural condition.

You keep saying this, but you've done nothing to show it's true. I could just as easily say Donuts are a consequence of man's nature because people like sweet fried things.

It's not a VAT. Well, not the Fair Tax legislation, anyway. It's a retail sales tax. The advantage is that companies will no longer participate in the charade of paying income taxes and will be able to pass the savings along to the consumers. They will also not pay sales tax on raw goods, only on retail purchases. That, and capitalistic competition, should ensure that the taxes aren't passed along.

You havent actually described a diffrence between your system and VAT. What you have described IS VAT. And its what Margret Thatcher did in Britain in the 80's. A fairer system where you have a higher VAT so only those who buy more pay more. What is the diffrence between your idea and VAT?

You should read the Fair Tax FAQ page.

Can you give a link?

The first post links to the Fair Tax site. Once there, click on FAQ.

I could just as easily say Donuts are a consequence of man's nature because people like sweet fried things.

And you did say something far less intelligent, and made no effort to prove it, namely that rights are merely a social construct, revokable at any time by society (which begs the question, why call them rights?)

And you did say something far less intelligent, and made no effort to prove it, namely that rights are merely a social construct, revokable at any time by society (which begs the question, why call them rights?)

argh, I already gave my proof at least once. Let me dumb this down for you as much as possible.

1) There is no such thing as magic, and we must assume there is no higher power as we have no proof of it.

2) Thus there is only one world- the material, observable world.

3) If we can find a thing by investigation, it can be described as 'natural'.

4) We can't find rights in this way- science will never proof the existence of rights. They do not exist as extraneous entities in the natural world.

5) Thus rights are not natural.

6) But some of us DO have rights in our various socieities; we experience them through political interaction.

7) if these rights are not natural, where do they come from?

8) they must come from political interaction- i.e. the creation of legal systems by people within these societies. If rights are not 'magic' they must be created and defined by people.

9) thus rights are socially created.

In terms of 'why call them rights', because that is what we call government assured, legally defined guarantees of the ability to do/not do or be/not be a certain thing.

I have proven man's inherient ability to reason, and you only need open a newspaper to find proof of his imperfection.

These are the basis of rights

9) thus rights are socially created.

That, along with this "a society can place other issues above rights" is a contradiction.

If a society can abrogate someone's rights merely for the good of society (as opposed to suspending someone's rights as a punishment for their violations of the rights of others) then that someone had no rights to start with, because, by your own definition of rights below (with which I agree), there is no guarantee.

In terms of 'why call them rights', because that is what we call government assured, legally defined guarantees of the ability to do/not do or be/not be a certain thing.

A 'guarantee' that, according to you, can and should be breached if the powers that be feel that it is of benefit to society. In other words, not a guarantee.

That's the problem with the utilitarian muck you're advocating, the only right is the right to submit to society.

Can you give a link?
Dood. It's in the #2 post on this thread.

*pelts you with cyanide laced cookies for not even reading the first page*

www.fairtax.org

I have proven man's inherient ability to reason, and you only need open a newspaper to find proof of his imperfection.

These are the basis of rights

Even if we accept that reason is inherent, you certainly haven't shown that rights naturally progress from this!

That, along with this "a society can place other issues above rights" is a contradiction.

Show me why this is so.

If we accept that societies create rights, than society placing other factors above them is certainly not contradictory, because the nature of rights are then politically determined (and consequently negotiable).

If a society can abrogate someone's rights merely for the good of society (as opposed to suspending someone's rights as a punishment for their violations of the rights of others) then that someone had no rights to start with, because, by your own definition of rights below (with which I agree), there is no guarantee.

The abridgement is inherent in the definition of the right in question. For example, if your right to property looks something like:

the right to create and maintain property, subject to taxation

which is what property rights generally actually look like in modern societies, then you are guaranteed that your property will not be interfered with EXCEPT under a specific situation. Thus a right guarantees something, and is valid, without being absolute. What I am saying is that the DEFINITION of the right is a political issue, NOT inherently or naturally determined.

A 'guarantee' that, according to you, can and should be breached if the powers that be feel that it is of benefit to society. In other words, not a guarantee.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. You are guaranteed some rights, but these rights can be abridged legitimately through legal means.

That's the problem with the utilitarian muck you're advocating, the only right is the right to submit to society.

Do you even know what utilitarianism is? I'm not advocating it at all. I believe in rights as much as you do I, I simply differ in terms of what these rights actually are, and what how they are determined.

Even if we accept that reason is inherent, you certainly haven't shown that rights naturally progress from this

Yes, I have, several times.

Show me why this is so.

the nature of rights are then politically determined (and consequently negotiable).


Already did. You defined a right as a government assured, legally defined guarantee of the ability to do/not do or be/not be a certain thing.

A negotiable "guarantee" is not a guarantee.

If we accept that societies create rights

Why should I accept it? It makes no sense, and you've not made sense of it.

the right to create and maintain property, subject to taxation

which is what property rights generally actually look like in modern societies, then you are guaranteed that your property will not be interfered with EXCEPT under a specific situation. Thus a right guarantees something, and is valid, without being absolute. What I am saying is that the DEFINITION of the right is a political issue, NOT inherently or naturally determined.

As specific situations go "taxation" is pretty vague.

Here's what a property right looks like.

(From the US Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution)

Article [V.] No person shall be ... deprived of ... property, without due process of law.

This is not politically negotiable. The allowance for deprivation of property is not linked to what some think is the good of society, but to violations and defence of individual rights above all else.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. You are guaranteed some rights, but these rights can be abridged legitimately through legal means.

That is not what you've been saying.

I'll quote you directly: "Rights are politically negotiable, a society can place other issues above rights."

If a society consisted of 5 wolves, and 1 sheep, such a society can place tonight's dinner ahead of rights.

Yes, I have, several times.

No, you haven't. You've said:

1) man is naturally reasoning
2) ????
3)man should have rights.

3 does not follow from 1

Already did. You defined a right as a government assured, legally defined guarantee of the ability to do/not do or be/not be a certain thing.

A negotiable "guarantee" is not a guarantee.

I'm going to skip this because you essentially prove my point below.

Why should I accept it? It makes no sense, and you've not made sense of it.

I gave you a point by point progression of why rights are so, if you need me to clarify a point I will, but if you can't make sense of it, I'm sorry, it's not my problem. It's yours.

As specific situations go "taxation" is pretty vague.

Here's what a property right looks like.

(From the US Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution)

Article [V.] No person shall be ... deprived of ... property, without due process of law.

This is not politically negotiable. The allowance for deprivation of property is not linked to what some think is the good of society, but to violations and defence of individual rights above all else.

This is actually the perfect proof of my point. Note where it says 'due process of law'? Laws allow us to abridge the right in this case correct? And how are laws made? Through political negotiation! Your right to property is subjective to social definition of what the law is! How can this be any more clear?



That is not what you've been saying.

I'll quote you directly: "Rights are politically negotiable, a society can place other issues above rights."

If a society consisted of 5 wolves, and 1 sheep, such a society can place tonight's dinner ahead of rights.
Yes, it can. And if the 5 wolves were to be starving, it MAY be justifiable depending on their politically negotiated set of rights. The point is that the sheep's right to not be eaten is NOT set in stone; in some cases exceptions may apply if its right to not be eaten is structured in a certain way.

However, this is NOT utilitarian- I am not saying the good of the many should be placed in all situations above the good of one, merely that a legal system that, providing it was politically bargained legitimately, allowed some redistribution would not be inherently wrong or incoherent by placing limits on rights.

I dont know if its been mentioned yet, but a flat national sales tax is profoundly unfair and places the burden of taxation squarely on the people with the lowest income.

The reason for this is that as income goes down, the proportion of income spent goes up.

The only solution to this is to credit back the sales tax to poor people or exempt certain things from it, while taxing luxury goods at astronomical rates.

An example would be charging a 100% sales tax on a hummer H2, or a 200% tax on a ferarri, &c, while rebating all the taxes paid by anyone making less than 40,000 a year. In essence, it would be a shift of the income tax.

A progressive income tax is the best 'fair' system.

2) ????

Were you on the can when the others were being taught to read?

2) Man is imperfect

This is actually the perfect proof of my point. Note where it says 'due process of law'? Laws allow us to abridge the right in this case correct? And how are laws made? Through political negotiation! Your right to property is subjective to social definition of what the law is! How can this be any more clear?

Due process doesn't mean make a law, and you can take whatever you want.

Here's a definition of due process:

"The guarantee of due process requires that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a fair and adequate process. In criminal proceedings (as well as juvenile) this guarantee includes the fundamental aspects of a fair trial, including the right to adequate notice in advance of the trial, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to refuse self-incriminating testimony, and the right to have all elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

The key element is "fair and adequate process". The criminal's rights cannot be suspended (this suspension being the punishment for the crime) without fair and adequate process proving that he did violate the rights of another.

Yes, it can. And if the 5 wolves were to be starving, it MAY be justifiable depending on their politically negotiated set of rights.

And what did the sheep do to deserve this?


New Granada, did you read the fairtax.org site?

Were you on the can when the others were being taught to read?

2) Man is imperfect

1) Man is by nature reasonable
2) Man is imperfect
3) Man should have rights to protect a given thing

doesn't follow- note you have not bridged is/ought gap here. Saying that man is imperfect does not tell us what we should do.


Due process doesn't mean make a law, and you can take whatever you want.

Here's a definition of due process:

"The guarantee of due process requires that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a fair and adequate process. In criminal proceedings (as well as juvenile) this guarantee includes the fundamental aspects of a fair trial, including the right to adequate notice in advance of the trial, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to refuse self-incriminating testimony, and the right to have all elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt."

The key element is "fair and adequate process". The criminal's rights cannot be suspended (this suspension being the punishment for the crime) without fair and adequate process proving that he did violate the rights of another.


It doesn't matter, it still shows that rights are negotiable and are limited.
Moreover, the political process is fair and adequate, in terms of formally creating laws, by virtually any standard.
And what did the sheep do to deserve this?

Does it matter? If we accept that lives are valuable, surely then it is better that one dies rather than 5? If you don't believe lives are valuable, I would say you will have trouble 'selling' that code of ethics.

It doesn't matter, it still shows that rights are negotiable and are limited.

No, it doesn't, implicit in the concept of rights is their suspension for those who violate the rights of others.

Does it matter? If we accept that lives are valuable, surely then it is better that one dies rather than 5? If you don't believe lives are valuable, I would say you will have trouble 'selling' that code of ethics.

Did I say the wolves were starving? Did I say the wolves had no other culinary alternative to the sheep? No.

No, it doesn't, implicit in the concept of rights is their suspension for those who violate the rights of others.

Well, that does not reflect what you said above. Moreover, I think due process of law as an aspect of rights applicablility clearly proves my point. The law is not self-made, it is made by society through the political process. If the law is created justly (i.e. through the normal mechanisms of liberal democratic government) it follows that abridging a right in such a way is not a violation of the right; the right is conditioned on it's abrigability through due process. Your assertion that this applies only to criminal proceedings has neither been shown, nor is it self-evident in the right.

Did I say the wolves were starving? Did I say the wolves had no other culinary alternative to the sheep? No.

Ok, well then let me say it. If the 5 wolves will starve if they don't eat the sheep, are they not justified in doing so? Is not one death better than five?

Just a side note, Mallberta, what is your view of right and wrong? Do you believe that there are absolutes, things that are just wrong in any society or time, or that right and wrong are socially defined and thus fluid?

Like, in acient Scandinevian society, murder was not illigal, so long as you did it honerably in front of everyone, and didn't try to hide that fact that you'd done it. Thus, decite was the crime, not murder.