NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think about the American tax system? How would you do it better?

I'd make it a lot easier and less filled with loopholes.

Did you know that US corporations pay a higher effective tax rate than Swedish companies? It's because the code is so complex and redundant.

Wow, I didn't know that. Imagain how much of your taxes go to paper work in the IRS.

I don't like income tax, but I do agree with it in principle as the government has to get funds from somewhere.

What do you think about the American tax system? How would you do it better?
I advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income, above a fixed minimum income level. I also advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

It should become a flat tax of around 15%, with no deductions, exemptions, or tax breaks allowed. The only tax free income that should exist are in municipal bond interest, so that they can avoid high interest rates. But there should be a cap on tax free earnings for those.
We must also work to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. It was created to ensure that rich families can't keep using tax shelters to avoid taxes, but now as the wealth in this country increases, far more people will have to pay it, which is always higher than regular income taxes.
As for corporate income tax, it is far more complex, and I hardly understand it. However, it needs to be simplified.
I also believe that while a decrease in spending is useful for these tax cuts, it is not neccessary. The stimulus provided will bring in a swarm of revenue that should cover spending, provided that it does not rise.

Since I started this thread maybe I should give my opinions on the whole thing.

I think the ENTIRE tax system is screwed up and doomed to fail.

What I would do better. Starting from scratch:

1) A 25% federal tax on all imports.

2) The states will have sales taxes, the rates of which shall be decided by the state goverment.

3) Two diffrent gas taxes. One for states to build and repair roads and state highways. The other for the federal goverment to build and repair interstate highways.

4) A tax on electricity, natural gas and water that will go to the city and whos rates will be decided by the city. To run the affairs of the city, the schools, the libraries, the fire Dept. and so on and so on.

Of course such a Tax system will require large budget cuts on all useless items, such as the ending of all nuke weapon programs (except the trident subs).

Negative income tax. Left or right, it helps provide social security for all.

1) A 25% federal tax on all imports.


This would effectively result in a 25% rate of inflation for almost all categories of goods, which would actually reduce tax income and severely reduce American consumers' buying power. The worst thing you could do economically is to charge a duty on imported goods as a source of revenue.

What do you think about the American tax system? How would you do it better?

I think a national consumption tax (sales tax) on everything except housing, food, medicine, and medical would be much more fair. The more you spend the more tax you pay.

I think a national consumption tax (sales tax) on everything except housing, food, medicine, and medical would be much more fair. The more you spend the more tax you pay.

Which will in turn cause people to spend less, and hurt the economy.

Income taxes are a necessary evil under our present system.

I like the "Fair Tax" that was proposed. It will eliminate the income tax and replace it with a sales tax of about 23-25 percent. This will actually not cause deflation or inflation because right now 23-25 percent of the cost in what we buy is directly the result from the taxes that company has to pay. So prices will not go up. In the book it states a specific formula that keeps the tax proportional to the economy and prevents the government from hiking the tax. This also mean that the government will not detract any money earned from your income. If you make 30 thousand a year, you get 30 thousand. I think it makes more sense to pay a tax on what you buy and not what you earn. It would also become impossible to cheat on taxes, illegal immigrants and native americans would begin paying taxes, low income families would have more money. Richer people would pay more because the buy more expensive things. More jobs would be created because they would not be driven out because of a huge, complex tax law. The current tax book has billions of pages, the "Fair Tax" has about 130.

Which will in turn cause people to spend less, and hurt the economy.

I disagree. Some people will spend less and save, but most will spend the same.

Income taxes are a necessary evil under our present system.

A tax is necessary to run the state and federal governments. That tax doesn't have to be an income tax. Florida, Texas, and New Hampshire have no state income tax and aren't any better or worse off than the states that have income tax.

What do you think about the American tax system? How would you do it better?
Eliminate all taxes, period. Taxation is theft.

I also believe that while a decrease in spending is useful for these tax cuts, it is not neccessary. The stimulus provided will bring in a swarm of revenue that should cover spending, provided that it does not rise.
Unfortunately this does not work. Sweden has the highest tax pressure in the capitalist world. A number of years ago we decreased taxes, with Laffer curve arguments. The tax revenues did not decrease as much as you would think if you didn't know about Laffer, but they did decrease. Since everyone already has lower taxes than we had, you must assume that tax revenue will decrease with lowered tax rates.

I don't like income tax, but I do agree with it in principle as the government has to get funds from somewhere.
With the exception of the War for Southern Independence, the US did not have an income tax from its inception until 1913.

I disagree. Some people will spend less and save, but most will spend the same.



A tax is necessary to run the state and federal governments. That tax doesn't have to be an income tax. Florida, Texas, and New Hampshire have no state income tax and aren't any better or worse off than the states that have income tax.
Then why is everyone leaving the high state income tax states in the NE to move to Floida?

I think it makes more sense to pay a tax on what you buy and not what you earn. It would also become impossible to cheat on taxes, illegal immigrants and native americans would begin paying taxes, low income families would have more money. Richer people would pay more because the buy more expensive things. More jobs would be created because they would not be driven out because of a huge, complex tax law. The current tax book has billions of pages, the "Fair Tax" has about 130.

If people buy less, it will hurt the economy, so taxing based upon consumption will not help because people won't be spending the money they aren't taxed on. It will also cost us jobs because corporations are going to be that much less willing to invest in American factories, offices, and other establishments because they will have to pay a lot more tax to build and maintain these operations. It would also seriously hurt large scale manufacturers and any other companies that purchase American goods or commodities, and more or less disable the chain of consumption, causing drastic economic damage.

With the exception of the War for Southern Independence, the US did not have an income tax from its inception until 1913.
And the liberal party tried three times to get it, before that it was deamed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

With the exception of the War for Southern Independence, the US did not have an income tax from its inception until 1913.

They collected tarrifs/excises on products as a primary source of revenue.

They collected tarrifs/excises on products as a primary source of revenue.
True (and that was one of the main items of contention which started the War for Southern Independence, but that's a digression), which shows that an income tax isn't actually necessary.

If people buy less, it will hurt the economy, so taxing based upon consumption will not help because people won't be spending the money they aren't taxed on. It will also cost us jobs because corporations are going to be that much less willing to invest in American factories, offices, and other establishments because they will have to pay a lot more tax to build and maintain these operations. It would also seriously hurt large scale manufacturers and any other companies that purchase American goods or commodities, and more or less disable the chain of consumption, causing drastic economic damage.
But people won't buy less, because when they get to keep all of their income they will be able to buy as much as before. And since a sales tax is necessarily a flat tax it will also improve the incentives structure so that people work more and buy more (the progressive tax gives people extra incentives to do stuff that do not require money). Thus it will be better to invest in the land that brings in the "Fair Tax".

True (and that was one of the main items of contention which started the War for Southern Independence, but that's a digression), which shows that an income tax isn't actually necessary.

The world economy can no longer function in that manner; the Great Depression more or less ended the tariff era, because the economy was growing far to globalized and connected for it to work. Reviving tariffs would seriously hurt the economy.

The world economy can no longer function in that manner; the Great Depression more or less ended the tariff era, because the economy was growing far to globalized and connected for it to work. Reviving tariffs would seriously hurt the economy.
And removing all tariffs and subsidies would be a major good thing, but unfortunately that does not seem to happen anytime soon.

But people won't buy less, because when they get to keep all of their income they will be able to buy as much as before. And since a sales tax is necessarily a flat tax it will also improve the incentives structure so that people work more and buy more (the progressive tax gives people extra incentives to do stuff that do not require money). Thus it will be better to invest in the land that brings in the "Fair Tax".

Not really; the price of goods would likely rise even though the actual tax burden would remain the same because companies would have to pass the costs on to consumers, thereby reducing the amount of things they would buy. It would increase costs for businesses which would have to pass them on to consumers.

This is assuming, of course, that the government does not eliminate the various subsidies and protections that unfairly drive up the price of many American products.

Then why is everyone leaving the high state income tax states in the NE to move to Floida?

Jobs, climate preferences, family, who knows ask them. People don't just pack up and move from one place to another because of taxes.

If people buy less, it will hurt the economy, so taxing based upon consumption will not help because people won't be spending the money they aren't taxed on...snip

Here, this will help explain it to you. http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html

Not really; the price of goods would likely rise even though the actual tax burden would remain the same because companies would have to pass the costs on to consumers, thereby reducing the amount of things they would buy. It would increase costs for businesses which would have to pass them on to consumers.
You are correct as far as the taxes would be passed on to consumers. But since the consumers don't have to pay income tax they are richer and can buy as many things as before. The only change is that the tax system doesn't punish those who work anymore.

If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports as they are with the current income tax. So the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now, with similar profit margins. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S.manufacturing sectors

Well then, I change my mind. This sounds like an excellent idea.

Not really; the price of goods would likely rise even though the actual tax burden would remain the same because companies would have to pass the costs on to consumers, thereby reducing the amount of things they would buy. It would increase costs for businesses which would have to pass them on to consumers.

This is assuming, of course, that the government does not eliminate the various subsidies and protections that unfairly drive up the price of many American products.

Companies already "pass on the costs" to consumers. The amount they have to pay in taxes is factored into the cost of the goods as part of the cost of doing business. If taxes go up under the current system, prices go up.

Eliminate all taxes, period. Taxation is theft.

Nice thought, but doesn't work because of public services, like fire departments. Yeah, you can say that if your house catches on fire, you'll let it burn to the ground rather than pay someone to put it out, but what about one's neighbors? Should they pay to have your burning house put out because they don't want their own house to catch on fire?


If people buy less, it will hurt the economy, so taxing based upon consumption will not help because people won't be spending the money they aren't taxed on. It will also cost us jobs because corporations are going to be that much less willing to invest in American factories, offices, and other establishments because they will have to pay a lot more tax to build and maintain these operations. It would also seriously hurt large scale manufacturers and any other companies that purchase American goods or commodities, and more or less disable the chain of consumption, causing drastic economic damage.
What's to say people shouldn't buy less? People may be living beyond their means already and have to resort to crime and public assistance to make ends meet. I would say both of those would hurt the economy more than someone deciding that maybe they should hold off on buying a new car.

This would effectively result in a 25% rate of inflation for almost all categories of goods, which would actually reduce tax income and severely reduce American consumers' buying power. The worst thing you could do economically is to charge a duty on imported goods as a source of revenue.

As compared to the 30% taken off my income that I would be spending? What about all the american built things? Plus American companies would be able to make more products to buy if they wern't taxed on income. Which would raise slaries (that wouldn't be taxed). Which means people could buy more things and so on and so on.

Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports as they are with the current income tax. So the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now, with similar profit margins. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S.manufacturing sectors
Well then, I change my mind. This sounds like an excellent idea.
Do you not think that if the USA imposed a 25% tariff on all imports, your trading partners (ie export markets) might retaliate in kind?

Do you not think that if the USA imposed a 25% tariff on all imports, your trading partners (ie export markets) might retaliate in kind?
If this is directed toward the Fair Tax, I think we will have created the kind of business climate in the US that will attract industry from every country. The United States will become the tax haven that foreign industry seeks to operate in. There's nothing but good that will come from the Fair Tax, if it's adopted.

Write your Congressmen now! Make sure they keep this moving forward!

If this is directed toward the Fair Tax, I think we will have created the kind of business climate in the US that will attract industry from every country. The United States will become the tax haven that foreign industry seeks to operate in. There's nothing but good that will come from the Fair Tax, if it's adopted.

Write your Congressmen now! Make sure they keep this moving forward!
Interesting assumption, but I see no link to the imposition of a 25% import tariff. If anything, quite the reverse.

Do you not think that if the USA imposed a 25% tariff on all imports, your trading partners (ie export markets) might retaliate in kind?

You bet they would. Just look at the big stink over Boeing and Airbus because of government subsidies.

We must also work to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. It was created to ensure that rich families can't keep using tax shelters to avoid taxes, but now as the wealth in this country increases, far more people will have to pay it, which is always higher than regular income taxes.
And this is a problem why? People with a higher income should be paying more tax.

Ok, I read all this drivel before posting. As a tax preparer, I will tell you right now that taxes are the lowest I have ever seen in my entire career. Most of my clients, in this area, recieve a great deal more back than is paid in (thank you, EIC). If one were to change from a national income tax to a national sales tax, feasably, the rich would pay significantly less now than they do now. Whereas the poor would be paying significantly more than they do now ($0). If you're alright with that, ok, but my clients prefer the way it is now.

As far as the Fair Tax:

From what's written on these boards, it sounds like a really bad idea, but I won't know for sure until I have the time to go to that link and look at it. Until then, have fun.

I would not only abolish the income tax, but radically slash government expenditures in all areas. Defense spending would be cut back to about 1-5% of what it is now, and all social welfare programs, foreign aid, etc. would be scrapped permanently.

The world economy can no longer function in that manner; the Great Depression more or less ended the tariff era, because the economy was growing far to globalized and connected for it to work. Reviving tariffs would seriously hurt the economy.
Yes, I know. However, the claim was how a government could operate without an income tax, and there is evidence that it is possible. Of course, to do it the government needs to rid itself of the parasitic programs it created.

But, I'm obviously no fan of taxation, and no fan of tariffs, either. An an anarchocapitalist, I'd prefer no government, period.

Companies already "pass on the costs" to consumers. The amount they have to pay in taxes is factored into the cost of the goods as part of the cost of doing business. If taxes go up under the current system, prices go up.
Now, if you read the economics texts, they will tell you that there is such a thing as a neutral tax, one that does not distort the operation of the market economy. But the neutral tax is a myth. In one way or another, every tax punishes productivity in both seen and unseen ways. It should be obvious that the money individuals pay to Washington could be put to better use in the household budget, whether it is save or spend or some combination thereof. The double taxation that comes from corporate taxes constitutes a direct hit on production.

But as Murray Rothbard shows, even excise taxes that supposedly tax consumption are really nothing more than taxes on production. Producers have no way to pass on the cost of the tax to consumers. To the consumer, the price plus the tax is just a price, and the decision to buy or not buy follows on that basis. When you go to the pump to purchase gasoline, you do not make a buying decision based on the price of $1 and then reluctantly cough up another $1 to pay the taxes. No, we consumers make a decision about whether to buy and in what quantity based on the full price, which is to say the market price plus the tax. The two are not easily separated because the price is not determined by the cost, but rather by the interaction of supply and demand.

The tax, then, cannot be passed on to the consumer any more than any other price hike can be passed on to the consumer. If the consumer is not willing to pay the higher price, he or she will not pay it, regardless of the source. To be sure, taxes cause prices to increase, but the quantity purchased responds to the will of the purchaser. And those purchasing decisions respond to the law of demand, which is to say that people will demand more at a lower price than a higher price and vice versa. When consumers purchase less, they are punishing producers, who enjoy less revenue for profits, dividends, and investment. So we can see that the idea of a consumer tax is something of a myth. It is paid at the retail end, but the effects shoot back through the entire structure of production, from the final seller to the most remote producer.

The same is true of residential property taxes. The tax is figured into the price of the home, and the judgment of what size house to buy in what neighborhood is made via a calculus that includes everything that goes into the price. The tax is not easily passed on. An increase in the property tax is a tax on the production of houses. There is no such thing as tax shifting.

What is interesting to me is how we seem to intuitively understand this in some sectors but not in others. We understand that the cigarette tax is not only a tax on users but on cigarette makers and finally on tobacco growers. And yet we talk about increasing the tax on homes, luxury goods, liquor, and gasoline with little thought concerning the effect on builders, gas stations, drillers, and other producers, to say nothing of the spillover effects on workers and their families.

Murray Rothbard's book Man, Economy, and State undertakes an analysis of every conceivable form of taxation to demonstrate every way in which this occurs. I won't march through his detailed and sweeping argument, but suffice it to say that he covers: income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, withholding taxes, inheritance taxes, and every other form you can imagine. There are many books I would recommend, but I would put this section of Rothbard's treatise at the top of the list for the political class. If they are going to plunder us, they should at least be denied the luxury of believing that it is for our own good.
http://www.mises.org/story/1727

Nice thought, but doesn't work because of public services, like fire departments.
Yes, it does. There's really no such thing as "public services" in the first place.


Yeah, you can say that if your house catches on fire, you'll let it burn to the ground rather than pay someone to put it out, but what about one's neighbors? Should they pay to have your burning house put out because they don't want their own house to catch on fire?
That's what insurance services are for.

http://www.mises.org/story/1727
What's your point? That someone else can write an essay?

What's your point? That someone else can write an essay?
*chuckles and pats you on your head*

I'll bet you think that Adam Sandler is the height of comedy, don't you? Now why don't you run along and let the adults have a discussion.

Unfortunately this does not work. Sweden has the highest tax pressure in the capitalist world. A number of years ago we decreased taxes, with Laffer curve arguments. The tax revenues did not decrease as much as you would think if you didn't know about Laffer, but they did decrease. Since everyone already has lower taxes than we had, you must assume that tax revenue will decrease with lowered tax rates.
I don't believe that the Laffer Curve gives governments a free pass to do what they please, but I do believe that it'd provide for a stabilization in revenue if new spending was limited.

And this is a problem why? People with a higher income should be paying more tax.
30 million families will have to pay it by 2010 because they have higher incomes than any previous generation of Americans before them. Most of them are middle class. That is why it's unfair.

I propose a flat tax of 15% for everyone.

People should be taxed based on their use of society, not their contribution to it.

We should use a 20% consumption tax. All wages that are exchanged for goods or capital should be taxed.

Why should we have taxation at all?

Why should we have taxation at all?

Because without being able to pay the public officials, we would not have a government at all.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/cunning1.jpg

I do taxes for a living, and I think all in all the tax code is pretty fair. There are a few things that need to be changed (loopholes for corporations, AMT, ect.)
I know it is complicated but I really believe that for it to be fair it has to be complicated (exceptions to exceptions and all that)

or maybe I am just trying to keep my job...... ;)

I think you should decide on what your income tax goes to.

If you don't like space, the govr. should not spend your money on the space program, so the govr. can take pictures of mars in a robot.

You should have a big list of choices, and you should circle the choices you want your tax to go to, but you have to choose.

*chuckles and pats you on your head*

I'll bet you think that Adam Sandler is the height of comedy, don't you? Now why don't you run along and let the adults have a discussion.
BAIC is that you?

Because without being able to pay the public officials, we would not have a government at all.
And that would be bad because....?

Hint: I'm an anarchocapitalist. I don't want government in the first place. Ergo, I also don't want taxation, as I (rightly) view taxation as theft.

I would decrease the tax rate to 0%, implement a sales tax of 0%, eliminate all tariffs, and place the various fees the government charges to a market level, I would not force anyone to accept any government service.

And that would be bad because....?

Hint: I'm an anarchocapitalist. I don't want government in the first place. Ergo, I also don't want taxation, as I (rightly) view taxation as theft.

I've seen a ton of anarchocaptialists on this forum, maybe there's something to this movement after all. BTW I'm an Anarchocapitalist as well(although I prefer the term Agorist).

Low progressive income tax rate (starting at about 5%), low sales tax, and all the money the country collects from tariffs, parking tickets, etc.

Yeah, I'm a libertarian, but I'm also a realist. The money needs to come from somewhere.

One last thought, the proposal of a sales tax would create a massive grey market for goods and services provided outside regulation and taxation and would create huge distortions in the market by artificially raising the price of legally mass produced goods higher than the price of many illegally, custom produced goods making the economy far less efficient and causing the need for the government to raise the sales tax or institute an income tax(which might be avoided as well by that time). While ultimately it could lead to the rejection of tax altogether, it would probably just damage our economy.

I've seen a ton of anarchocaptialists on this forum, maybe there's something to this movement after all. BTW I'm an Anarchocapitalist as well(although I prefer the term Agorist).It says less about the movement than it does about the quality of minds that spend their time debating politics in an online forum where it will never make a bit of difference to anybody.

Sadly, I have to include myself in that as well.

Anarcho-Capitalism: Competition for resources/power without Government providing security, laws or contractual guarantees.

Hmmmm...

Anarcho-Capitalism: Competition for resources/power without Government providing security, laws or contractual guarantees.

Hmmmm...
And private companies can provide security, laws, contracts, and courts.

Without taxes.

And private companies can provide security, laws, contracts, and courts.
Security? Yes (see my thread on privatising the military) - but there's issues with "loyalty" etc
Laws? Nope. Laws must be universal, no company can provide universal laws, unless they get together - and then it would be a corporate government, not anarchism anymore.
Contracts? Sure they can provide them, but how can you enforce them? With physical force...civil war's the deal then.
Courts? Perhaps, but they most certainly wouldn't be fair and imbalanced. Capitalism is meant as a means of making everyone better off, no? But even the staunchest capitalist can clearly see that without a neutral arbiter the system wouldn't work. (And yes, the government is not 100% neutral, but much moreso than a private court would be)

And another point: Capitalism needs predictability. If investors can't estimate their returns and costs, they won't invest (that's been shown hundreds of times in economic psychology and macroeconomics).
If people live in a constant 'dog eat dog', civil war type situation, they won't go out and do those things that capitalism does better than other systems.
Whether or not capitalism is the best system, it needs certainty and stability to work as much as it needs defined property rights (who'd define them in an anarchy?)

Security? Yes (see my thread on privatising the military) - but there's issues with "loyalty" etc
No there isn't. Not unless you believe the neo-marxist hollywood tripe that they would be mercenaries.


Laws? Nope.
Yes they can.


Laws must be universal,
No, they mustn't. Laws must only cover those who've contracted for a specific set or agree to a set. Check out David D. Friedman.


no company can provide universal laws, unless they get together - and then it would be a corporate government, not anarchism anymore.
Why would they collude, and why couldn't what the customers want dictate a general level of relative sameness? After all, whether you go to McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Hardee's, etc: it's still a hamburger. The toppings may be different. The cooking method may be a little different. But it's still a hamburger.

What you're suggesting clearly flies in the face of reality.


Contracts? Sure they can provide them, but how can you enforce them?
Courts and the overall citizenry not dealing with contract-breakers. Y'know how some stores have notes by the registers with photocopies of bad checks, with the notes reading "do not take checks from this person"? Same idea.


With physical force...civil war's the deal then.
Non sequitur.


Courts? Perhaps, but they most certainly wouldn't be fair and imbalanced.
Unsupported assertion, and government courts are certainly biased toward the government.


Capitalism is meant as a means of making everyone better off, no? But even the staunchest capitalist can clearly see that without a neutral arbiter the system wouldn't work.
And the courts would be neutral arbiters.

No, they wouldn't be "owned" by one person. No, they wouldn't be mercenaries. Stop believing the neo-marxist hollywood tripe.


(And yes, the government is not 100% neutral, but much moreso than a private court would be)
And what planet do you live on?


And another point: Capitalism needs predictability. If investors can't estimate their returns and costs, they won't invest (that's been shown hundreds of times in economic psychology and macroeconomics).
If people live in a constant 'dog eat dog', civil war type situation,
Why would that happen? What makes you grossly assume that without any basis whatsoever?


Whether or not capitalism is the best system, it needs certainty and stability to work as much as it needs defined property rights (who'd define them in an anarchy?)
Same as now: we ourselves via a hypothetical contract between ourselves to respect that which others have as theirs in order to maximize our individual liberty and utility (not "collective" utility).

No, the government doesn't define property rights. No, it doesn't. Look, it doesn't matter if you think the government does, because it doesn't. It's supposed to protect them, not create them, remember?

Look into contractarianism. Granted, it is a system of morals and not a political system, but it is where we can find the basis of property rights.

And within that, we find that taxation is a violation of property rights. Hence, immoral.

(Gotta work in the topic somehow)

Deductions are nessacary. Alot of people have this idea that only rich multi-national comapnies use them. But the truth is my family's bussiness couldn't survive without them. Being taxed on money you spent on your bussiness would be an insane idea. Why? Because you donot have the money anymore.

No there isn't. Not unless you believe the neo-marxist hollywood tripe that they would be mercenaries.
Neo-Marxism? Mercenaries are people who fight for money, are they not?

No, they mustn't. Laws must only cover those who've contracted for a specific set or agree to a set. Check out David D. Friedman.
I'll give you that. It depends on what you think society is (or whether you think it even exists).
But if laws are merely contracts that are negotiated between individuals, the one with the most money gets the cake (oh, there are many implications of the Coase Theorem....) And the heroic entrepreneur, the central part of the entire system, is smothered by corporations with huge amounts of capital at their disposal.

Why would they collude, and why couldn't what the customers want dictate a general level of relative sameness?
It's of no consequence what you call it - a company that provides "laws", enforces them with its own "police" and charges people in its own "courts" is the same thing as a government - except that governments have constitutions they adhere to.

What you're suggesting clearly flies in the face of reality.
Unlike Anarcho-Capitalism...

Courts and the overall citizenry not dealing with contract-breakers. Y'know how some stores have notes by the registers with photocopies of bad checks, with the notes reading "do not take checks from this person"? Same idea.
Information Asymmetry.

Non sequitur.
Company A agrees to sell a million bucks worth of tunips to Company B. Company B is supposed to pay in a month, but doesn't. Company A enters B's name on a register of contract-breakers. Company B offers more money (say, $999,999) to the register owner to delete its name.
Company A can now either do nothing, or try to take its money by force.
Company B goes ahead and screws the next person, each time making enough money to pay the register. If it can't make that much money, it won't trade.
Result: Only rich companies can count on their contracts being adhered to, individuals can't. So what happens to the entrepreneur?

Unsupported assertion, and government courts are certainly biased toward the government...And the courts would be neutral arbiters.
A court that operates for money doesn't provide "justice" as a service, it provides a favourable ruling to the highest bidder.

No, they wouldn't be "owned" by one person. No, they wouldn't be mercenaries. Stop believing the neo-marxist hollywood tripe.
They'd be owned by a company = an economic agent = a "person".
And again: Neo-Marxism? You seem awefully defensive.

And what planet do you live on?
In most cases the courts (being seperate from politicians) don't actually have a stake in the case. There's laws against that too.
But if the court needs to make money of every case, they'd have a stake in every single one.

Why would that happen? What makes you grossly assume that without any basis whatsoever?
Economic Agents are decision-makers. They make decisions based on things like dicounted future values, risk adversity and the like. If contracts are not guaranteed to be enforced (and you haven't shown that they would be universally), uncertainty would be greater.
Just one of hundreds of papers on that (faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/yoshida/ Research/EFFECTS%20OF%20UNCERTAINTY_July2002.pdf )

Same as now: we ourselves via a hypothetical contract between ourselves to respect that which others have as theirs in order to maximize our individual liberty and utility (not "collective" utility).
We don't respect what others have. Your intellectual mentors themselves have stated that time and time again. We stay away from other people's stereos only when we think we could be caught and punished.
From Friedman over Coase to Becker - they all agree that if there wasn't a law that punishes you if you steal, you would.

No, the government doesn't define property rights. No, it doesn't. Look, it doesn't matter if you think the government does, because it doesn't. It's supposed to protect them, not create them, remember?
You can stay in your hypotheticals, but the only real life effect of the definition of property rights is government protection.
Different philosophers define property rights differently, but that is of absolutely no consequence if someone else comes along and bashes you over the head to take your stuff.

And within that, we find that taxation is a violation of property rights. Hence, immoral.
And within Communism we find that property rights aren't rights at all. Who's right?

*chuckles and pats you on your head*

I'll bet you think that Adam Sandler is the height of comedy, don't you? Now why don't you run along and let the adults have a discussion.
I love condescension. It usually masks ignorance. Most of us that post essays from others use them to make a point. Traditionally, that point is stated explicitly. I guess you just like the way he writes, huh?

One last thought, the proposal of a sales tax would create a massive grey market for goods and services provided outside regulation and taxation and would create huge distortions in the market by artificially raising the price of legally mass produced goods higher than the price of many illegally, custom produced goods making the economy far less efficient and causing the need for the government to raise the sales tax or institute an income tax(which might be avoided as well by that time). While ultimately it could lead to the rejection of tax altogether, it would probably just damage our economy.

Legally produced goods would be the same, as producers would lose the imbedded tax caused by the need for return on investment to cover income taxes.

The people would also have more disposable income as well, so the marginal utility of their dollar would shift and cause increased spending.

Anarcho-Capitalism: Competition for resources/power without Government providing security, laws or contractual guarantees.

Hmmmm...

It will be possible in the future, but we are not there yet. Although I cannot see how we can get around the need for a government police and military force.

It will be possible in the future, but we are not there yet. Although I cannot see how we can get around the need for a government police and military force.
You know, people say that about Communism... :D

I used to be one of those people, but I've come to the conclusion that unless a theory can be used in practice, at this point, it's not much good. People won't change to conform with an idealistic position - except maybe (and that's a big maybe) if you force them...and that surely isn't what an anarcho-capitalist would want, is it?

No there isn't. Not unless you believe the neo-marxist hollywood tripe that they would be mercenaries.
Neo-Marxism? Mercenaries are people who fight for money, are they not?
Boxers are mercenaries? "Pro wrestlers" are mercenaries?

Perhaps you're just not grasping the idea. A private police or military is not a mercenary force. They are contract-based organizations, just like today we have rent-a-cops, right? You wouldn't call them mercenaries (at least I should hope not, since they aren't).


No, they mustn't. Laws must only cover those who've contracted for a specific set or agree to a set. Check out David D. Friedman.
I'll give you that. It depends on what you think society is (or whether you think it even exists).
Society is merely an aggregate of individuals living in a given geographic area who have some level of association with each other. Otherwise, to speak of society existing apart from the members is stealing the concept and reification.


But if laws are merely contracts that are negotiated between individuals, the one with the most money gets the cake
Non sequitur.


(oh, there are many implications of the Coase Theorem....) And the heroic entrepreneur, the central part of the entire system, is smothered by corporations with huge amounts of capital at their disposal.
I doubt that corporations would exist as they do today, since they are a product of governmental legalspace.



Why would they collude, and why couldn't what the customers want dictate a general level of relative sameness?
It's of no consequence what you call it - a company that provides "laws", enforces them with its own "police" and charges people in its own "courts" is the same thing as a government
No, it most certainly is not. A government is the agency that claims the monopoly of use and dispensation of coercive force and justice in a given geographic area. Private agencies cannot have that.


- except that governments have constitutions they adhere to.
They are supposed to, but when push comes to shove, the constitutions tend to get ignored.



What you're suggesting clearly flies in the face of reality.
Unlike Anarcho-Capitalism...
Yes, unlike anarchocapitalism.

If you were trying for sarcasm, it failed.


Courts and the overall citizenry not dealing with contract-breakers. Y'know how some stores have notes by the registers with photocopies of bad checks, with the notes reading "do not take checks from this person"? Same idea.
Information Asymmetry.
Nice non-response.


Non sequitur.
Company A agrees to sell a million bucks worth of tunips to Company B. Company B is supposed to pay in a month, but doesn't. Company A enters B's name on a register of contract-breakers. Company B offers more money (say, $999,999) to the register owner to delete its name.
Ah yes, that old refuted-to-death chestnut. "But...but...but...what if someone has more money! Everyone has a price!"

No, they do not. You've bought into a hideous lie.

Furthermore, you have to prevent EVERYONE from speaking about the breach of contract. I fail to see how this would happen.


Unsupported assertion, and government courts are certainly biased toward the government...And the courts would be neutral arbiters.
A court that operates for money doesn't provide "justice" as a service, it provides a favourable ruling to the highest bidder.
Prove it. Don't just Merely Assert. Demonstrate.

Tell me, what would happen to a court that began to rule based on "the highest bidder", regardless of the facts of the case? Wouldn't people stop doing business with it?

But you wouldn't think of something so mind-bashingly obvious, would you?


No, they wouldn't be "owned" by one person. No, they wouldn't be mercenaries. Stop believing the neo-marxist hollywood tripe.
They'd be owned by a company = an economic agent = a "person".
Nope. You're applying current legalspace to that situation. Don't do that.


And again: Neo-Marxism? You seem awefully defensive.
No, I do not.


And what planet do you live on?
In most cases the courts (being seperate from politicians) don't actually have a stake in the case.
In all cases, they have a stake in the case because the courts receive money from the taxpayers.



Why would that happen [dog-eat-dog war against all]? What makes you grossly assume that without any basis whatsoever?
Economic Agents are decision-makers. They make decisions based on things like dicounted future values, risk adversity and the like. If contracts are not guaranteed to be enforced (and you haven't shown that they would be universally),
I have no need to.


uncertainty would be greater. Just one of hundreds of papers on that
And you still haven't shown the basis for your claim.


Same as now: we ourselves via a hypothetical contract between ourselves to respect that which others have as theirs in order to maximize our individual liberty and utility (not "collective" utility).
We don't respect what others have.
Yes, we do.


Your intellectual mentors themselves have stated that time and time again.
No, they haven't.


We stay away from other people's stereos only when we think we could be caught and punished.
No, we don't.

See, you're just making blatant assertions, and all I have to do is gainsay you.


From Friedman over Coase to Becker - they all agree that if there wasn't a law that punishes you if you steal, you would.
No, they do not.

You might also want to look into Gauthier and Narveson.


No, the government doesn't define property rights. No, it doesn't. Look, it doesn't matter if you think the government does, because it doesn't. It's supposed to protect them, not create them, remember?
You can stay in your hypotheticals,
No, I'm in reality.


but the only real life effect of the definition of property rights is government protection.
We have no government protection of property rights.


Different philosophers define property rights differently, but that is of absolutely no consequence if someone else comes along and bashes you over the head to take your stuff.
Like governments do.


And within that, we find that taxation is a violation of property rights. Hence, immoral.
And within Communism we find that property rights aren't rights at all. Who's right?
If a person consents to being in a communist area, then there's no problem. If the person didn't consent, then the problem arises.

Again: read up on contractarianism.

I love condescension. It usually masks ignorance.
No, it usually masks someone who knows what s/he is talking about and is annoyed that someone just handwaves the point away out of ignorance.


Most of us that post essays from others use them to make a point. Traditionally, that point is stated explicitly.
And the point was explicitly stated in the excerpt. I guess you just didn't read it.

Listen, I suggest you try that again.
What is your area of expertise? I'm an Econ Student, and I assumed you were too, seeing as how you were talking about Lil' Friedman.

Do I need to explain the Economics of Crime by Gary Becker to you? Do I need to explain how the Coase Theorem works?
What about the definition of corporations as a "nexus of contracts"? Could it really be that I know more about your argument than you do?

Do you know what information asymmetry is?

I am aware of contractarianism - I was merely pointing out that what you define to be a natural right of the individual isn't universal either. By living in a state you have implicitly agreed to a "social contract" if you will - it is up to you to leave society and live in the mountains in a cave without paying taxes. Maybe you can get some other people to follow you, and you can start your own paradise.

Listen, I suggest you try that again.
No, I suggest that you disregard what your econ teachers tell you and research it on your own.



Do I need to explain the Economics of Crime by Gary Becker to you?
Do I need to explain contractarianism (http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html) to you?


Do I need to explain how the Coase Theorem works?
Do I need to point out how Walter Block (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_4.pdf) has shown much of Coase to be wrong?


What about the definition of corporations as a "nexus of contracts"?
What about corporations getting their power from the governmental legalspace? Remember: without that, there can be no corporations AS YOU KNOW THEM AND ARE USING THEM.


Could it really be that I know more about your argument than you do?
Nope.


Do you know what information asymmetry is?
Yes.


I am aware of contractarianism - I was merely pointing out that what you define to be a natural right of the individual isn't universal either.
Irrelevant.


By living in a state you have implicitly agreed to a "social contract"
No, you have not. Implicit agreement has been shown to be so utterly wrong that it's not funny.

The standard response, and Mike's, is that you "implicitly agree" by remaining in the country. But this works only if the government already has the right to throw you out of the country--i.e. if the government is somehow the owner of the entire territory it rules. Without a social contract, it is hard to see how you can justify such a claim. And until you can justify it, you can 't get your social contract.

I could, after all, propose a contract to Mike under which he agrees to pay me a thousand dollars a month in exchange for the valuable services I am providing by critiquing his FAQ. I could also inform him that by breathing, he agrees to accept that contract. But unless he already believes that he has no right to breath without my permission, it is hard to see why he should feel obligated to pay.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

See also: Oh, Ye Are For Anarchy: Consent Theory in Radical Libertarian Tradition (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/8_1/8_1_9.pdf)

Does the government own the territory it controls?
Interesting question. Recent supreme court rulings would seem to indicate in the affirmative.

However, one thing I can assure you is that all idealism aside, in the real world, the owner of property is he who has the biggest guns. Which, oddly, means that, yes, the government does own the property. Fortunately, it's willing (in exchange for it's membership dues, such as taxes), to protect your ability to live there in peace.

Friedman's argument is false in the most basic manner: He has no means to enforce his hypothetical contract. The government does have the means to enforce theirs. Because again, all idealism aside, any contract fails unless both sides have the power to enforce the terms of it on the other. (Case in point: NAFTA and the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the US, it's becoming increasingly apparant that that "contract" is worth far less than the paper it was printed on)

Change it back to flat tax, or perhaps drop it for the Fair Tax

Does the government own the territory it controls?
It claims to, but the question then becomes "How is that possible?"


Interesting question. Recent supreme court rulings would seem to indicate in the affirmative.

However, one thing I can assure you is that all idealism aside, in the real world, the owner of property is he who has the biggest guns.
No, in the real world, the owner of the property is he who has the title to it.


Which, oddly, means that, yes, the government does own the property. Fortunately, it's willing (in exchange for it's membership dues, such as taxes), to protect your ability to live there in peace.

Friedman's argument is false in the most basic manner: He has no means to enforce his hypothetical contract.
Even if he doesn't, it's irrelevant.


The government does have the means to enforce theirs. Because again, all idealism aside, any contract fails unless both sides have the power to enforce the terms of it on the other.
And the citizens have no way to enforce their side of the contract on the government. Ergo, it fails.

QED

I lean toward the Fair Tax, if I have to choose a system of taxation.

Sorry, could the supporters of this no-tax system explain how order would be mantained?

Sorry, could the supporters of this no-tax system explain how order would be mantained?
The Private Production of Defense (http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf), by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

No, I suggest that you disregard what your econ teachers tell you and research it on your own.
And move down to a level where unsupported idealism is supposed to rule my life? I'll stick to what I can observe, to what can practically be done, and to what people have found out before me.

Do I need to explain contractarianism (http://againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html) to you?
Read it, came to the conclusion that this has no more practical relevance than anything else you put forward so far. By bringing this up (which is really no different to any other form of pushing morality on people) you acknowledge that people are naturally bastards, and unless they think they will get punished, they won't stick to agreements or let others live in peace.
None of the Austrians have ever moved past the "our system is better because everything else is evil and immoral" - Mises regularly throws tantrums when he could be using his energy for useful things.
Philosophising is very nice and all, but I really don't care about it, because you really can't make me believe any of it.
Do I believe there is an universal property right? Something that covers me, and all that I create? No! And there the buck stops for me already.

So I conclude: People commit crimes for rational reasons, weighing the benefit they get and the cost of getting caught/killed in the process. Is there practical evidence? Yes - McKenzie and Tullock did empirical studies and interviews with criminals and found exactly that. Or maybe you'll believe David Friedman moreso: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Crime.html
Contractarianism: Morals should stop us from doing exactly that because we (implicitly) agreed so as not to be mugged, killed etc ourselves. Can we see that in real life? Nope - there's criminals all over the place, in most cases acting like the CSE predicted, but never adhering to some sort of social contract.

Do I need to point out how Walter Block (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_4.pdf) has shown much of Coase to be wrong?
Shown? With what?
But more important than any of these utilitarian considerations, we must reject Coase's advice because it is just plain downright immoral.
It is evil and vicious to violate our most cherished and precious property rights in an ill conceived attempt maximize the monetary of production. As the merest study of praxeological axioms will show, it is also impossible for an outside observer (the judge) to maximize the psychic value of production. I must conclude, then, with some advice of my own to the Chicagoans, Coase and Demsetz: a study of Austrian economics has great value, apart from its intrinsic merits; it will prevent straying from the paths of righteousness.
Again, ignore the world, instead focus on our own romantic notions of what ought to be. Not the slightest bit of a proof for me.

What about corporations getting their power from the governmental legalspace? Remember: without that, there can be no corporations AS YOU KNOW THEM AND ARE USING THEM.
So you're saying in Anarcho-Capitalism there wouldn't be corporations (as in the everyday use of the term - companies etc, not the legal entity defined as seperate from its owners)?

Yes.
Then how do you propose your system of sticking a photo of a contract-breaker to a cash register would solve this problem on a scale of a nation with 200million inhabitants?

Irrelevant.
It is not - you can only agree to a contract and give up something if you already own it.
If you don't actually own your tax dollars, the government is not stealing if it takes it from you.
If you don't have the right to kill someone already, it is not yours to give up to comply with some social contract.

No, you have not. Implicit agreement has been shown to be so utterly wrong that it's not funny.
And I'm supposed to take that by ignoring contractarianism?
The contractarian proposes a contract with all of mankind for the simple reason that anything less isn't good enough and won't work. It will, of course, be asked, What about the non-signers, those who will have no truck with any agreements at all? The short answer is that non signers, having claimed no protection, are entitled to no protection. The rest of mankind is, in effect, at war with them, since they have, in effect, declared war on it. What this means is that those who act in violation of reasonable arrangements may be regarded as enemies by everyone, and due protective measures taken. The moral "state of nature" is apt to be one in which, in the classic phrase of Hobbes, life is mean, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short; or at least, the rest of us have good reason to see to it that those who insist on staying in it, at our expense, face such prospects. The right of self-defense needs no rationalizing, no "contract." We just do defend ourselves, as best we can.

No, I suggest that you disregard what your econ teachers tell you and research it on your own.
And move down to a level where unsupported idealism is supposed to rule my life?
No, you would move up to a level where you realize that your life is yours, and that such crap the neo-classicals, Keynsians, and Monetarists have no support.


Do I need to explain contractarianism to you?
Read it,
I doubt it.


came to the conclusion that this has no more practical relevance than anything else you put forward so far.
Oddly enough, I feel the same about what you have "advanced". What a coincidence!


By bringing this up (which is really no different to any other form of pushing morality on people) you acknowledge that people are naturally bastards, and unless they think they will get punished, they won't stick to agreements or let others live in peace.
No, I do nothing of the sort. Try again.


None of the Austrians have ever moved past the "our system is better because everything else is evil and immoral"
Ad hominem fallacy.


- Mises regularly throws tantrums when he could be using his energy for useful things.
No, he didn't.

It's nice of you to lie, though. Makes my job easier.


Philosophising is very nice and all, but I really don't care about it, because you really can't make me believe any of it.
So says the 3 year old stomping his feet because his parents just can't make him go to bed (so he believes).


Do I believe there is an universal property right? Something that covers me, and all that I create? No! And there the buck stops for me already.
Then you won't be needing your eyes, right? Looks like your corneas can be harvested while you're still alive, since you have no "universal property right".


So I conclude: People commit crimes for rational reasons, weighing the benefit they get and the cost of getting caught/killed in the process.
So what?


Is there practical evidence? Yes - McKenzie and Tullock did empirical studies and interviews with criminals and found exactly that. Or maybe you'll believe David Friedman moreso: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Crime.html Contractarianism: Morals should stop us from doing exactly that because we (implicitly) agreed so as not to be mugged, killed etc ourselves.
"Should", not "will".

Don't conflate the two, as you are doing.



Do I need to point out how Walter Block has shown much of Coase to be wrong?
Shown? With what?
Words.



But more important than any of these utilitarian considerations, we must reject Coase's advice because it is just plain downright immoral.
It is evil and vicious to violate our most cherished and precious property rights in an ill conceived attempt maximize the monetary of production. As the merest study of praxeological axioms will show, it is also impossible for an outside observer (the judge) to maximize the psychic value of production. I must conclude, then, with some advice of my own to the Chicagoans, Coase and Demsetz: a study of Austrian economics has great value, apart from its intrinsic merits; it will prevent straying from the paths of righteousness.
Again, ignore the world, instead focus on our own romantic notions of what ought to be.
Again, just lie your ass off. I love it.



What about corporations getting their power from the governmental legalspace? Remember: without that, there can be no corporations AS YOU KNOW THEM AND ARE USING THEM.
So you're saying in Anarcho-Capitalism there wouldn't be corporations (as in the everyday use of the term - companies etc, not the legal entity defined as seperate from its owners)?
We're using the legal entity definition. I'll not allow equivocation or amphiboly.



Yes.
Then how do you propose your system of sticking a photo of a contract-breaker to a cash register would solve this problem on a scale of a nation with 200million inhabitants?
Why would there be such a large "nation"?

Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf), by Murray Rothbard.


Irrelevant.
It is not - you can only agree to a contract and give up something if you already own it.
And how does the government "own" the land?


If you don't actually own your tax dollars, the government is not stealing if it takes it from you.
And why isn't the money you earn yours?


If you don't have the right to kill someone already, it is not yours to give up to comply with some social contract.
You're not giving up the "right" to kill someone. Clearly, you haven't read anything about contractarianism.

I'd lend you my autographed copy of Narveson's The Libertarian Idea, but I value it too much. Ooops, there's that praxaeology thing that you think is just junk.



No, you have not. Implicit agreement has been shown to be so utterly wrong that it's not funny.
And I'm supposed to take that by ignoring contractarianism?
Why would you do that?

Sixth Challenge: Oppressing Minorities

This, of course, brings up Question Six: why not oppress minorities? The general answer to this is that literally everybody is in a minority with regard to almost everything that matters to him or her, so that if we allow the oppression of minorities, we are allowing the oppression of ourselves. It would be, in the longer run - and the longest possible run is what we are talking about here, after all - most unwise to write into a proposed universal social contract that such-and-such a majority should be recognized as having hegemony, even if you at the time happen to be a member of it. Of course, no non-members would accept that, and so to propose this is simply to propose war with those people, thus depriving everyone of any benefit to be got from individually peaceable dealings with them. And too, even members of that majority would soon come to regret it when they realized that no majority is solid - members of a majority differ as much from each other as from outsiders, and the majority's power is more likely to be used against its own members as on their behalf. Far better to have a universal recognition of a basic and general right of liberty for all.

So the reply to claim six is that those who invoke this complaint simply have not considered what they are getting into.

Here's what you quoted, which continues from the above:


The contractarian proposes a contract with all of mankind for the simple reason that anything less isn't good enough and won't work. It will, of course, be asked, What about the non-signers, those who will have no truck with any agreements at all? The short answer is that non signers, having claimed no protection, are entitled to no protection. The rest of mankind is, in effect, at war with them, since they have, in effect, declared war on it. What this means is that those who act in violation of reasonable arrangements may be regarded as enemies by everyone, and due protective measures taken. The moral "state of nature" is apt to be one in which, in the classic phrase of Hobbes, life is mean, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short; or at least, the rest of us have good reason to see to it that those who insist on staying in it, at our expense, face such prospects. The right of self-defense needs no rationalizing, no "contract." We just do defend ourselves, as best we can.
It continues:

But we do far better if we are united with a great many others, and morality, indeed, is an arrangement for doing just that. Morality gets us together under an acceptable set of rules for all, rules such that we will all do better if we all abide by them; and so it also assembles the community on the side of the rules and against the breakers of those rules. We thus do our bit to try to bring it about that people who don't have enough savvy to see the value of abiding by the rules without any threats from others are exposed to those threats. For everyone else, the rewards of civilized life are immense.

I have to admit, in the real world your property is your's until you can't a)defend it yourself or b) afford the protection costs.

I have to admit, in the real world your property is your's until you can't a)defend it yourself or b) afford the protection costs.
What about c) you give it away? Or d) it's destroyed in some natural disaster?

1 - how does property exist? how was it established?
2 - BAAWA - have you read a book called... eh, Jennifer Government? Just curious....

(note - question 2 was joking)

1 - how does property exist? how was it established?

Copied directly from the Election thread:

It begins with labor. Since we assume that people have the right to their own body, we assume that they have a right to labor, which is an economic value. Since we recognize the ownership of an economic value, we must respect property rights. This also means that, to respect one's right to their labor, we must also respect the product of that labor, be it a harvest or wages.

1 - how does property exist? how was it established?
It exists as tangible things, and established either by first comers/initial acquisition, or by the raw fact of your own body.

2 - BAAWA - have you read a book called... eh, Jennifer Government? Just curious....
I own a copy.

Legally produced goods would be the same, as producers would lose the imbedded tax caused by the need for return on investment to cover income taxes.

The people would also have more disposable income as well, so the marginal utility of their dollar would shift and cause increased spending.

Yes, but grey market producers would also use their "imbedded tax", although it might not be as high, and not have to pay the sales tax. Prices at Menards might stay the same, but prices at the timber yard behind the junkyard could go down because they lose imbedded taxes without replacing them with a sales tax.

Yes, but grey market producers would also use their "imbedded tax", although it might not be as high, and not have to pay the sales tax. Prices at Menards might stay the same, but prices at the timber yard behind the junkyard could go down because they lose imbedded taxes without replacing them with a sales tax.

OK, you shift from people cheating the income tax to people cheating the sales tax. I would say that sales tax cheating would be much harder to do on a large scale.

OK, you shift from people cheating the income tax to people cheating the sales tax. I would say that sales tax cheating would be much harder to do on a large scale.

I never said anything about people cheating on income tax, unless I accidentally wrote flat tax instead of fair tax. I think cheating on sales taxes would be far, far easier, the government only has to monitor your income(usually from one or two employers) with income tax. With sales tax it needs to monitor trillions of interactions between individuals, and with a high enough sales tax more people will have the incentive to cheat on sales tax, and because keeping track of things by the sales tax is such an insurmountable feat, they will have the ability. Not that I have a problem with cheating on taxes personally, but from the government's perspective it's bad policy.

This debate about Anarcho-Capitalism should get its own thread instead of hijacking this one, but while it's here I think I'll say a few things.

Market Anarchism is very difficult to achieve, and I think the government would have to be dissasembled in a certain orderly way in order for a market anarchist society to have a fighting chance at developing into a sustainable system.

The only problem with market anarchism is its sustainability, you need everyone to have some ammount of wealth in order for them to supply protection for their property rights. Somalia is an Anarchy, but the people there were so poor that most of them couldn't afford a gunman(although many can afford guns which is how they protect their property) to protect their home. With so many gunmen roaming around looking to steal things from unsuspecting people property rights in somalia are weak, and it hurts their economy greatly and discourages nearly all foreign investment. Buisness without regulation is good, but because they need to hire ten gunmen to secure their property rather than subscribing to some company along with thousands of middle-class people that has twenty guys sitting around ready to kick ass if major crime is committed and a few guys patroling the streets. In short, Somalia is what the third world would look like under anarcho-capitalism.

The situation in America is completely different, almost everyone could afford to pay a small fee for a police force that protects their property, and with market competition at work police forces would be far better at a far lower cost. Because life is so valuable in America, conflicts between different police firms(many would operate in the same area) would be rare and expensive. Of course we can't just shut down the government one day and expect these institutions to spring up from nothing, a controlled dissasembly of the government would be necessary in order to give the market time to form structures that could remain stable for a long period of time. If it is done incorrectly a state would arise and end the anarchy and it would probably be a worse state than the one we have currently. Courts can be set up in such a way that they are as impartial as possible, and I believe market forces would favor this end. America could, if done properly, privatize private property protection and defense.

The biggest problem with America switching over would be monetary. The almost inevitable abandonment of fiat money would cause major economic problems and probably even depression if done incorrectly. I really haven't put much thought into how it would be done, but I'm sure it could be done in such a way as to minimize the economic impact of this movement.

I think many Anarcho-Capitalists are overzealous and blinded by ideology and believe that all we have to do is destroy the State to achieve utopia. There is no guaruntee that this will happen, and it would be very difficult and risky to attempt. Furthermore, Anarcho-Capitalism may be the best system for allocating scarce resources, but it is by no means a utopia, nor will it solve other problems that governments profess to solve. That said I think a sustained, long-lived Anarcho-Capitalist society is very possible and extremely desireable, and well worth a try, but be careful how you try to attain it, or you could easily end up worse off than you were before.

What do you think about the American tax system? How would you do it better?
To make the US tax system more equitable, I would institute a graduated income tax:

a) those below the poverty line would be exempt from all taxes,
b) the top 2% would pay as much as 75% to 80%,
c) all other taxes (except an estate or death tax on fortunes exceeding $1.000.000 and corporations [including religious institutions]) would be abolished,
d) the federal government would be the only institution to collect taxes and would return 50% of the monies collected to the states where they originate,
e) all tax loop-holes would be abolished,
f) all companies doing business in the USA would be subject to taxation.

Any country that permits its citizens to amass enormous fortunes should make them pay for the privilege.

To make the US tax system more equitable, I would institute a graduated income tax:

a) those below the poverty line would be exempt from all taxes,
b) the top 2% would pay as much as 75% to 80%,
c) all other taxes (except an estate or death tax on fortunes exceeding $1.000.000 and corporations [including religious institutions]) would be abolished,
d) the federal government would be the only institution to collect taxes and would return 50% of the monies collected to the states where they originate,
e) all tax loop-holes would be abolished,
f) all companies doing business in the USA would be subject to taxation.

Any country that permits its citizens to amass enormous fortunes should make them pay for the privilege.


Might raise the estate tax to $5,000,000,000 but other than that I agree.

Sales tax hits the poor the hardest because they have to spend everything they get to survive. so they pay on their entire income. The richer one is the less percent they spend so the less they are taxed.

A flat tax would do about the same as sales tax. Lower the rate for the richest and raise the rate for the poorest. Even if you give a break at the bottom. Whereever you draw the line the people just above that line get hit harder.

An import tax would cause other countries to respond. Our exports would be hurt worse than theirs.

Tax should be on the excess not on what a family needs to live on. The more one makes the more wants (needs) there are but also the more excess. When the country was doing it's best economically, when families lived on one income, when everyone could buy a new car, the top rate was 90%. At the same time the bottom payed very little. That changed with Reagan. He said if you give more to the rich they will pass it down to the poor. Unfortunately, the rich kept it. Ever since the gap between rich and poor has widened and the middle has gotten smaller. That's why middle class stores (Sears, Wards, etc.) have gone down or out And why those that cater to the poor (Walmart) have prospered. Before Reagan, the idea was to allow the bottom to have money, because they would spend it. It would then ripple through the economy until the rich got it. Now it goes directly to the rich and they keep it. Notice who the bulk of the Bush cuts went to. He threw a bone to the middle and caviar to the rich. The middle seem to think that's fair.

To make the US tax system more equitable, I would institute a graduated income tax:...
b) the top 2% would pay as much as 75% to 80%,


Equitable my ass. If you're taxing the rich like this, chances are you'll see a decrease in business investments, startups, manufacturing capital, and... well, maybe even jobs sometime down the road.

Also, by drawing lines like this [ie "Lets tax the top 2% at 80&"] you're basically just creating another wealthy tax bracket [the tax exempt 3rd percentile] to get angry at and repress even more. Rinse. Repeat.

your life is yours
Prove it.

and that such crap the neo-classicals, Keynsians, and Monetarists have no support.
Ahem...look out the window. Watch the news. You see a world that was built by, and has built those very ideas.
If Orthodox Economics doesn't work, then why is the world the way it is? Why can Keynesian demand management affect GDP? Why does money growth cause inflation in the long run?
And why did you choose to buy a PC rather than a thousand lollies?

No, I do nothing of the sort. Try again.
Please, write a little longer sentences, okay? I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now.
From the very website you posted:
David Gauthier, who is the 20th-Century's chief exponent of the Hobbesian idea, characterizes this internalized rejection of the temptation to take advantage as "Constrained Maximization". The constrained maximizer is defined as having the tendency to cooperate with those who will cooperate, and to "Defect", as the technical term has it, with people who will not. Translated into ordinary language, this means that we play ball with those who will play by the rules, while with those who won't, we reach for our guns.
I'm not going to bother with the whole bit on compliance (which is nothing but a critique of some sort of unmentioned philosopher), I'm sure you've read it.
I don't care what Gauthier calls it though: All this is is that we don't want the other side to reach for the gun! We do it because we're scared we'll get caught out and excluded in the future.
And, as the CSE has shown extensively, the smaller the chance of getting caught, the more likely we are to do the crime.
So to come back to my Corporations A&B example from earlier:
There are no universal moral rules to stop B from paying the crime register. There's no chance of getting caught doing that either, since the register guy can only gain from the transaction - even if there were a register for registers (he could bribe that too).
So other than that you personally don't think it would be the right thing to do, other than that Gauthier thinks (not proves) there is some sort of natural tendency to keep away from criminals, there is nothing to stop both B and the register from making the deal that helps them. Great - I wonder why we can't see it in the real world ...oh, that's right: We have no way of knowing about the other side's history.

Ad hominem fallacy.
What? I didn't mention a person - I rejected an argument because it is based on purely subjective notions of how the world is, and how it should be like.
Show me that it isn't - show me some sort of evidence that the Austrian model really does work better than any other. Show me the equations that map out my happiness if I lived in Mises' world.

No, he didn't.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html#3
INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian -- people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself -- Mises got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists," and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.

It's nice of you to lie, though. Makes my job easier.
:rolleyes:

So says the 3 year old stomping his feet because his parents just can't make him go to bed (so he believes).
Ahem...yes. All these personal attacks are nice and all, and I really appreciate your arrogance, but here's the deal: Subjective Value Judgements cannot prove a point.

Then you won't be needing your eyes, right? Looks like your corneas can be harvested while you're still alive, since you have no "universal property right".
Go ahead - but I can guarantee you that the Government will be onto you.

"Should", not "will".
Do you mean that the other way around?

Again, just lie your ass off. I love it.
Maybe you need to have a close look at the section I so kindly copied out of that article:
He does not deliver a reason for why the Coase Theorem, and its implications, would not hold. If you add "psychic valuations" to something, then does that change the concept? No - it changes the numbers around. You could take it to the extreme, and say that no one but yourself can judge this (which might be what you've been trying to convey all along) - and how can there be a court then? What is to stop the company from destroying your flower patch? You and what army?
Instead he makes a value judgement: "plain downright immoral" - whose morals is that? "Evil and Vicious to violate our property rights" - what's his definition of evil? What's his mathematical relationship showing property rights?
And he equates "Austrian Economics" with "Righteousness". Please, that's not an academic article - that's an editorial.

We're using the legal entity definition. I'll not allow equivocation or amphiboly.
Okay, okay.
Do you, or do you not believe that under a system without a government, with private individuals providing the money supply - thus creating an anarcho-capitalisitc society (or lack thereof), do you believe that people will get together and form companies (whatever you want to call them), which pool their resources and thus have more money than any single person would have?

Why would there be such a large "nation"?
Ahem..pardon me, but what difference does it make? There are no geographical boundaries for a company, or an individual to move, correct?
Then we live on a planet with 6 billion people. Again:
"Then how do you propose your system of sticking a photo of a contract-breaker to a cash register would solve this problem on a scale of a planet with 6 billion inhabitants?"

And how does the government "own" the land?
And within Communism we find that property rights aren't rights at all. Who's right?
If a person consents to being in a communist area, then there's no problem. If the person didn't consent, then the problem arises.
What makes an area "communist", that is any different from making an area a "nationstate"?
Fact of the matter is that in our here and now, a country/government has the ultimate control over any piece of land in its borders. If it wants to build a motorway, it can go to your house, give you some compensation money, and kick your arse out on the street.
It would be idealistic at the least to think that your abstract view of who owns something would make a difference.
It is obvious:
You (as in you personally) value living where you live now moreso than you hate paying income tax.
If you didn't, you'd leave and move somewhere where you would not be paying income tax. Like the Mongolian Mountains. Or Antarctica.
You obviously value your tax dollars - but you value your quiet, comfortable life even more.
Contract or not, in practice you agree to pay income tax. Morality doesn't even enter the equation.

And why isn't the money you earn yours?
Well, ask a communist, I'm sure they could give you about a billion reasons.

Why would you do that?
I never signed a social contract. Did you sign a social contract? Did you go ahead, and agree to some sort of universally accepted morality? I didn't, I must've slept through that part of being born.
This website is suggesting that we all implicitly agree to a social contract, through no other act than not to do something wrong at any particular point in time.
As I said above, wondering whether the state owns this piece of land is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether you agree and live by this society's moral rules (ie paying an income tax), or whether you leave.
Afterall, you could choose not to pay income tax, but don't expect niceties from the rest of us.
Contractarianism fails because there is no set of morals that everyone could agree on. Strong people with guns wouldn't agree to a "no killing" rule, poor people wouldn't agree to a "no stealing" rule.
Instead we live on Earth, where to sort out that problem we have a state that imposes rules on us, with which we may not all agree, and if we break those rules, we get screwed. Those rules change over time...but it seems obvious that the only thing universal is what we conform with in order not to get punished for it.

===================================
And a final point: Who provides public goods? Who would willingly build a light house, or a street light, knowing perfectly well that they are unlikely to get their investment back.
Philantropists? You might as well start arguing that communism is perfect, it just didn't work because the people wouldn't play ball.

your life is yours
Prove it.
Ok, then your life is mine. You're my slave.



and that such crap the neo-classicals, Keynsians, and Monetarists have no support.
Ahem...look out the window. Watch the news. You see a world that was built by, and has built those very ideas.
And look at the problems that the countries have which use those ideas.


If Orthodox Economics doesn't work, then why is the world the way it is?
Because of it.


Why can Keynesian demand management affect GDP?
How can stagflation happen in a Keynesian system, which says that it's never ever supposed to happen? But guess what: it happened in the US in the 70s, during the Keynesian crap.


Why does money growth cause inflation in the long run?
Why does Keynesian nonsense ignore that, since "we'll all be dead in the long run"?


And why did you choose to buy a PC rather than a thousand lollies?
Austrian subjective value preference would tell you that, wouldn't it?


No, I do nothing of the sort. Try again.
Please, write a little longer sentences, okay?
No.


I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about now.
Then you're clearly unintelligent.


From the very website you posted:

Quote:
David Gauthier, who is the 20th-Century's chief exponent of the Hobbesian idea, characterizes this internalized rejection of the temptation to take advantage as "Constrained Maximization". The constrained maximizer is defined as having the tendency to cooperate with those who will cooperate, and to "Defect", as the technical term has it, with people who will not. Translated into ordinary language, this means that we play ball with those who will play by the rules, while with those who won't, we reach for our guns.

I'm not going to bother with the whole bit on compliance (which is nothing but a critique of some sort of unmentioned philosopher), I'm sure you've read it.
I don't care what Gauthier calls it though: All this is is that we don't want the other side to reach for the gun!
Not entirely.


We do it because we're scared we'll get caught out and excluded in the future.
Not entirely.

You make it seem as if those are the ONLY reasons. They aren't. Try again.


And, as the CSE has shown extensively, the smaller the chance of getting caught, the more likely we are to do the crime.
Again, you and they make it seem like that is the only reason; it's not. Try again.


So to come back to my Corporations A&B example from earlier:
There are no universal moral rules to stop B from paying the crime register. There's no chance of getting caught doing that either,
Unsupported assertion. Analogy rejected.



Ad hominem fallacy.
What? I didn't mention a person
Yes you did, liar.


- I rejected an argument because it is based on purely subjective notions of how the world is, and how it should be like.
But it's not, so you lied again.

How many more lies will you tell?


Show me that it isn't
Show me that it is.



No, he didn't.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingh...friedman.html#3

Quote:
INTERVIEWER: Some of those debates became very, very heated. I think [Ludwig] von Mises once stormed out.
MILTON FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes, he did. Yes, in the middle of a debate on the subject of distribution of income, in which you had people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian -- people like Lionel Robbins, like George Stigler, like Frank Knight, like myself -- Mises got up and said, "You're all a bunch of socialists," and walked right out of the room. (laughs) But Mises was a person of very strong views and rather intolerant about any differences of opinion.
Ok--I'm looking for the support of your claim. Did you have any?



So says the 3 year old stomping his feet because his parents just can't make him go to bed (so he believes).
Ahem...yes. All these personal attacks are nice and all,
What personal attacks? You mean the ones you're making against Mises?


and I really appreciate your arrogance,
You confuse "being correct" with "arrogance".


but here's the deal: Subjective Value Judgements cannot prove a point.
You have a point?



Then you won't be needing your eyes, right? Looks like your corneas can be harvested while you're still alive, since you have no "universal property right".
Go ahead - but I can guarantee you that the Government will be onto you.
Nah, the chance of me getting caught is too small. Besides--there's no universal property right, so you have no way to complain.

Hoist. Petard. Your own.



"Should", not "will".
Do you mean that the other way around?
No, you meant it the other way around. I meant it as I wrote it. Y'see, you want to strawman it and say that in contractarianism, people will always do such-and-such, rather than what they should do.



Again, just lie your ass off. I love it.
Maybe you need to have a close look at the section I so kindly copied out of that article:
I did.


He does not deliver a reason for why the Coase Theorem, and its implications, would not hold. If you add "psychic valuations" to something, then does that change the concept?
Yes.


No - it changes the numbers around. You could take it to the extreme, and say that no one but yourself can judge this (which might be what you've been trying to convey all along) - and how can there be a court then? What is to stop the company from destroying your flower patch? You and what army?
Ah--the lament of the statist.


Instead he makes a value judgement: "plain downright immoral" - whose morals is that?
Ah, the lament of the one who conflates subjective and relative.

Do yourself a favor and get an education.



We're using the legal entity definition. I'll not allow equivocation or amphiboly.
Okay, okay.
Do you, or do you not believe that under a system without a government, with private individuals providing the money supply - thus creating an anarcho-capitalisitc society (or lack thereof), do you believe that people will get together and form companies (whatever you want to call them), which pool their resources and thus have more money than any single person would have?
That's not the legal definition.



Why would there be such a large "nation"?
Ahem..pardon me, but what difference does it make?
All the difference. Why wouldn't people separate into smaller communities?


There are no geographical boundaries for a company, or an individual to move, correct?
There are.



And how does the government "own" the land?
And within Communism we find that property rights aren't rights at all. Who's right?
If a person consents to being in a communist area, then there's no problem. If the person didn't consent, then the problem arises.
What makes an area "communist", that is any different from making an area a "nationstate"?
Consent.


Fact of the matter is that in our here and now, a country/government has the ultimate control over any piece of land in its borders.
How did it get that control? Is that control just? Is that control proper? Is it moral to infringe on property rights like that?




And why isn't the money you earn yours?
Well, ask a communist, I'm sure they could give you about a billion reasons.
Nice evasion. Try again.



Why would you do that?
I never signed a social contract.
It's hypothetical, remember?


This website is suggesting that we all implicitly agree to a social contract, through no other act than not to do something wrong at any particular point in time.
No, it's not precisely suggesting that at all. Why don't you read The Libertarian Idea, Respecting Persons In Theory And Practice, and Morals By Agreement.


As I said above, wondering whether the state owns this piece of land is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether you agree and live by this society's moral rules (ie paying an income tax), or whether you leave.
But it is relevant, because income tax is not part of "society's moral rules", but a rule of the government.

You. Lose.


Afterall, you could choose not to pay income tax, but don't expect niceties from the rest of us.
Sorry, but you don't even grasp what an income tax is.


Contractarianism fails because there is no set of morals that everyone could agree on.
It doesn't need to be entirely universal--just among the people who agree.

You really need to do some research and grow out of your infantile phase.


===================================
And a final point: Who provides public goods?
There's no such thing.

Equitable my ass. If you're taxing the rich like this, chances are you'll see a decrease in business investments, startups, manufacturing capital, and... well, maybe even jobs sometime down the road.

Also, by drawing lines like this [ie "Lets tax the top 2% at 80&"] you're basically just creating another wealthy tax bracket [the tax exempt 3rd percentile] to get angry at and repress even more. Rinse. Repeat.

Jeez, I'm a damn lefty and like a bit of wealth distribution but I completely agree. 80% is an absurd tax rate and it wouldn't take long at all before unemployment went through the roof...

Something to think about.....

National Sales Tax as a Replacement for Income Tax. This sort of system would put the highest percentage tax rate on the poorest people. Poor people spend a greater percentage of their income than the rich do. Poor people live paycheck to paycheck and spend 100% of their income. Rich people save their income and would be encouraged to save more under such a system.

If you grow up and live your whole life in the State of New York, by the time your Estate Taxes have been paid you will have paid approximately 95 cents of every dollar you ever earned in taxes. Incredible I know - but think about it..........active income tax, passive income tax, gift tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, sin tax, real property tax, personal property tax, school tax, communications tax (look at your phone bill), auto tax, city tax, self-employment tax, luxury tax, emissions tax, unemployment tax, other payroll tax, county tax, capital gains tax.......I know I'm missing some, but you get the idea - TAX TAX TAX

Something to think about.....

National Sales Tax as a Replacement for Income Tax. This sort of system would put the highest percentage tax rate on the poorest people. Poor people spend a greater percentage of their income than the rich do. Poor people live paycheck to paycheck and spend 100% of their income. Rich people save their income and would be encouraged to save more under such a system.


I think the sales tax proposal that was posted here included refunds for the essentials of life, which would cover the majority of what poor people spend their money on. However, these kinds of taxes get very complicated if they are not uniform. I've heard that in Australia there was/is a sales tax on cooked food but not uncooked. This meant that you could go to a fish and chip shop, but some raw potatoes, and as a completely free bonus they would cut them up and fry them for you, tax free...

Even with "necessities" remaining untaxed, poor people would still bear the greater percentage of the tax burden. Is a purchase of the news paper essential - for instance. What about gas? Remember, the working poor and the middle class are not destitute and on social welfare. They will be the ones paying through the nose. The hardest working, slaving masses will be carrying those above them and those below them on the capital scale.

Even with "necessities" remaining untaxed, poor people would still bear the greater percentage of the tax burden. Is a purchase of the news paper essential - for instance. What about gas? Remember, the working poor and the middle class are not destitute and on social welfare. They will be the ones paying through the nose. The hardest working, slaving masses will be carrying those above them and those below them on the capital scale.

It's a bit hard to tell without having specific figures. Rent, food and bills should be considered 'essentials' for modern life, and would make up most of poorer people's expenses. But I agree that the working poor would end up with a lower quality of life. Their gains from not paying income tax would be low, and anything but the bare essentials would become far more expensive. Education is an important thing to consider as well. If education became more expensive their would jut be even further obstacles to social mobility.

The Private Production of Defense (http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf), by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

That piece of writing has more holes in it.. than something really really holey. But seriously, just directing me to an example of ignorant, short-sighted thinking doesn't really make any points.

The argument against tax using 'Tax = stealing' is just unbeliviably moronic for anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds (I'll give you a hint, people being against stealing is due to damage/morals/principles, consider the implications of such a system on those who don't have the power/ money and what damage will be caused. 20% 'Stealing' from the priviliedged is infinitely preferable to death and real desperation) that it literally staggers me that people can present it as a genuine suggestion. I know I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face.

That piece of writing has more holes in it.. than something really really holey. But seriously, just directing me to an example of ignorant, short-sighted thinking doesn't really make any points.

The argument against tax using 'Tax = stealing' is just unbeliviably moronic for anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds (I'll give you a hint, people being against stealing is due to damage/morals/principles, consider the implications of such a system on those who don't have the power/ money and what damage will be caused. 20% 'Stealing' from the priviliedged is infinitely preferable to death and real desperation) that it literally staggers me that people can present it as a genuine suggestion. I know I wouldn't be able to keep a straight face.

Yeah, I'm surprised that the whole tax=theft argument crops up so often. It is only true from a very specific perspective, ie that the only possible object of moral consideration is individual liberty.

Yeah, I'm surprised that the whole tax=theft argument crops up so often. It is only true from a very specific perspective, ie that the only possible object of moral consideration is individual liberty.
Isn't it?

Isn't it?

What about ensuring that people aren't desperate, hungry, dying? That's more important practically, and morally, than people being upset because they have to give some of their power back to the community that gave it to them.

Isn't it?

It's only the extreme individualism I don't agree with. Tax=theft ultimately requires that you accept that there is no unit outside the individual, and if one person disagrees it becomes unjustifiable. This is a valid viewpoint, but so is the viewpoint that collectives exist and that it can be justified in some cases to restrict liberties for a greater good.

Yeah, I'm surprised that the whole tax=theft argument crops up so often. It is only true from a very specific perspective, ie that the only possible object of moral consideration is individual liberty.
It is, for only individuals can have a moral code.

What about ensuring that people aren't desperate, hungry, dying? That's more important practically, and morally, than people being upset because they have to give some of their power back to the community that gave it to them.
Those can't be moral issues because morality is only concerned with individual choice, and compassion for the desperate/hungry/dying [not many of which exist in this country right now, but hey] is an individual emotion with an individual criteria that fulfills individual emotional and/or moral needs.

Oh, and that 'power' was given to me by my employer, not the community, not the government. That money is a result of providing a [i]service for your community that it obviously had no problem rendering payment for. If you want things for free, just grab a burlap sack and a ski mask like all the other looters.

That piece of writing has more holes in it.. than something really really holey. But seriously, just directing me to an example of ignorant, short-sighted thinking doesn't really make any points.
That's a nice piece of unsupported assertions.

Now then, do you have anything actually to say, or did you just lie and say that you read the essay?


The argument against tax using 'Tax = stealing' is just unbeliviably moronic for anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds (I'll give you a hint, people being against stealing is due to damage/morals/principles, consider the implications of such a system on those who don't have the power/ money and what damage will be caused.
There won't be any.

It boggles my mind that people actually support theft.

What about ensuring that people aren't desperate, hungry, dying?
If you want to help, go for it. Don't force others to do the same. That's no different from wanting to have sex and raping someone.


That's more important practically, and morally, than people being upset because they have to give some of their power back to the community that gave it to them.
It has nothing to do with "power", and everything to do with keeping your property.

Unless, of course, you don't care if someone comes and takes all of your property without your consent. I hope you never call the cops if something of yours gets stolen, because then you'd be a hypocrite.

Those can't be moral issues because morality is only concerned with individual choice, and compassion for the desperate/hungry/dying [not many of which exist in this country right now, but hey] is an individual emotion with an individual criteria that fulfills individual emotional and/or moral needs.

Oh, and that 'power' was given to me by my employer, not the community, not the government. That money is a result of providing a [i]service for your community that it obviously had no problem rendering payment for. If you want things for free, just grab a burlap sack and a ski mask like all the other looters.

So, if you were born in a rural villiage in Africa, you'd have the same power you have today? Your community gave you the opportunities, the security and the skills so that you can be where you are today. Give something back so others can do the same. Of course, that's what it's all about isn't it, conserving your power and pulling up the ladder you climbed?

Btw:

Definitions of morality on the Web:

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence.

-------------

If you wish to clarify what you mean but I think I'll go with the above definitions. Right and wrong, not simply individual choice. Also, with your backwards (let's not mix our words here, it's not progressive, it's leaning towards animalistic) proposals those who aren't starving very well might be.

Your views are sickening, strong words but I mean it, you are screwing over those who are less priviledged out of nothing but greed and that's the bottom line.

It's only the extreme individualism I don't agree with. Tax=theft ultimately requires that you accept that there is no unit outside the individual, and if one person disagrees it becomes unjustifiable.
No, it requires that one recognize that taxation is not voluntary and if something isn't voluntary it's forced. If it's forced and it's taking away my resources, then it's quite plainly theft. I don't remember talking to an IRS agent about whether or not I felt that subsidizing honey prices or buying foreign lumber [to protect our enormous forests] was a good use of my funds. It's not so much that it's unjustifiable if one person disagrees, it's that its unjustifiable to begin with.

Until and unless they pass out the proverbail clipboard, asking me if I want to waste my money on a morass of political programs, most of which aren't going anywhere, I will remain opposed to a mandatory income tax.

This is a valid viewpoint, but so is the viewpoint that collectives exist and that it can be justified in some cases to restrict liberties for a greater good.
The greater good has been used to justify just about every atrocity from the beginning of human civilization on this planet. Everyone thinks they are operating for the 'greater good,' and many of them are prepared to enact any steps neccesary to fulfill their goals: it's largely human nature. Ask any despotic dictator why he does what he does and many of them will invariably answer along those lines, be it for the 'greater good' of their whole nation, supposedly, or the 'greater good' of a select class or caste, as is often the case with fascism.

The greater good can kiss my ass. I'm sick of politicians trying to pretend they know what it is or how to acheive it.

It's only the extreme individualism I don't agree with. Tax=theft ultimately requires that you accept that there is no unit outside the individual,
Wrong. It requires you accept that the foundation of anything is the individual.

Collectives can exist, but they do not exist apart from their individual constituents. And there is thus no such thing as "collective rights" or "collective morality" or "collective conscious" or "collective unconscious" or any number of other silly ideas.

If you want to help, go for it. Don't force others to do the same. That's no different from wanting to have sex and raping someone.

No, because the right of the person not to die is a BILLION times your right to keep some nicities

It has nothing to do with "power", and everything to do with keeping your property.

Property is a form of power, do try and keep up

Unless, of course, you don't care if someone comes and takes all of your property without your consent. I hope you never call the cops if something of yours gets stolen, because then you'd be a hypocrite.

Sorry, I'm unware of anything stolen from me being used for a greater good :)

.

It boggles my mind that people actually support theft.

Such as the majority of people in the democratic world, who have never elected a government that promised to abolish tax? Maybe things in the real world are more complicated than pure ideology, which is why people will support being 'stolen' from every time because it provides a net benefit.

That's a nice piece of unsupported assertions.

Now then, do you have anything actually to say, or did you just lie and say that you read the essay?


It's funny you should mention unsupported assertions as that essay was simply composed of them. It's the same kind of thing riddled with logic leaps, wrongful assumptions and ignorance of other factors that make it great in theory but it'll fall apart if you ever try and put it into practice. (See also: Marx, Karl)

I advocate the total elimination of all deductions and exemptions, the taxation of every dollar of income for all individuals and organizations ( without exception! ), and the establishment of a fixed percentage for this taxation regardless of income, above a fixed minimum income level. I also advocate the elimination of all governmental welfare programs which cannot show a 20% increase in the standard of living for at least 80% of clients over a three-year period ( and "sunset law" provisions for all programs remaining ), and the institution of a "reverse income tax" on a sliding scale based on income, for all those below the fixed minimum income.

excellent

also, a new force known as Welfare Eradication Team for the Destruction of Retardation-Enhanced Apathic Mooches (WETDREAM).

hehe

Shift the tax burden from wages to investment income, close loopholes, make the tax more progressive.

Shift the tax burden from wages to investment income, close loopholes, make the tax more progressive.

yes, of course...

make it less attractive to invest... which will lead to less money for companies to spend on workers/R&D (etc.)... which will lead to fewer jobs and crappier products.

:D

Did you know that TODAY corporations pay way less
than in the 1950s.
Now these legal entities get away almost scott-free.

Some, like Exxon even got a rebate, in the year they spilled on
Alaska and tried to blame it solely on the captain.

If you want to help, go for it. Don't force others to do the same. That's no different from wanting to have sex and raping someone.
No, because the right of the person not to die is a BILLION times your right to keep some nicities
There is no such thing as the "right to not die". Humans are MORTAL. We die. That's how it happens.


It has nothing to do with "power", and everything to do with keeping your property.
Property is a form of power, do try and keep up
No it's not. Do try and keep up.


Unless, of course, you don't care if someone comes and takes all of your property without your consent. I hope you never call the cops if something of yours gets stolen, because then you'd be a hypocrite.
Sorry, I'm unware of anything stolen from me being used for a greater good
All the taxes you pay--supposedly go to a "greater good".

It's funny you should mention unsupported assertions as that essay was simply composed of them.
Then you should be able to point them out. Hinthinthint.

IOW: your blatant assertion means exactly two things: jack and shit. And jack left town (with due reference to Ash).

Such as the majority of people in the democratic world, who have never elected a government that promised to abolish tax?
Do you think the majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews?


Maybe things in the real world are more complicated than pure ideology, which is why people will support being 'stolen' from every time because it provides a net benefit.
No, they don't actually support it. They simply live with it. There's a big difference.

...Then you're clearly unintelligent...Yes you did, liar...How many more lies will you tell?..You confuse "being correct" with "arrogance"...You have a point?...Hoist. Petard. Your own....Do yourself a favor and get an education....You. Lose....You really need to do some research and grow out of your infantile phase.
I rest my case.

Do you think the majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews?

That's not relevant. The Germans were a majority supporting the persecution of a number of seperate minorities, for reasons of supposed self-interest. Your example would be relevant if I was advocating that only Jews pay income tax. Tax affects everyone, including the majority that vote to retain it.


No, they don't actually support it. They simply live with it. There's a big difference.

This really doesn't work. People aren't just going to say "oh well, the government just stole another 20-40% of my income again". If the public wanted to live in an anarcho-capitalist state, it wouldn't exactly be hard for a candidate to win an election by promising to abolish tax. People realise that tax pays for essential government services, even though obviously they have different ideas on which services are justified.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
It has nothing to do with "power", and everything to do with keeping your property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitshanger
Property is a form of power, do try and keep up

No it's not. Do try and keep up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
Unless, of course, you don't care if someone comes and takes all of your property without your consent. I hope you never call the cops if something of yours gets stolen, because then you'd be a hypocrite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitshanger
Sorry, I'm unware of anything stolen from me being used for a greater good

All the taxes you pay--supposedly go to a "greater good"."

:D :D
Sorry, I gotta give up now, I have never seen such blatant disregard for basic logic in my life :D :D and you couldn't even follow more than a singular clause :D How do you manage to turn your computer on?

PROPERTY NOT A FORM OF POWER :D :D :D

That's a classic, I'd tell everyone I knew but they wouldn't believe me.

What the MERRY HELL do you think money is for? To look nice :D

You can't be for real, you MUST be a wind up merchant :D

I rest my case.
Thank you for your concession.

That's not relevant.
It's perfectly relevant. You were talking about majority-rules politics. So--answer the question.


This really doesn't work. People aren't just going to say "oh well, the government just stole another 20-40% of my income again".
They do, actually.


If the public wanted to live in an anarcho-capitalist state, it wouldn't exactly be hard for a candidate to win an election by promising to abolish tax. People realise that tax pays for essential government services, even though obviously they have different ideas on which services are justified.
No, they go along with it because the government has the weapons.

Unless, of course, you don't care if someone comes and takes all of your property without your consent. I hope you never call the cops if something of yours gets stolen, because then you'd be a hypocrite.
Sorry, I'm unware of anything stolen from me being used for a greater good
All the taxes you pay--supposedly go to a "greater good"."
Sorry, I gotta give up now, I have never seen such blatant disregard for basic logic in my life
I have never seen such a blatant lie and blatant cowardice in all my life.

How do you manage to not kill yourself getting out of bed?


What the MERRY HELL do you think money is for?
[Money is] The most commonly used medium or media of exchange (q.v.) in a market society. A community's most marketable economic good, which people seek primarily for the purpose of later exchanging units of it for the goods or services they prefer. The circulating media most readily accepted in payment for goods, services and outstanding debts. Money is an indispensable factor in the development of the division of labor and the resulting indirect exchanges on which modem civilization is based.

What do you think it's for? Power? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!