NationStates Jolt Archive

If we are all equal, don't we all have an equal obligation, upon turning a certain age, to contribute to our government an equal amount?

We all enjoy the common protections of life, liberty and property that the government provides. And, to compare to another example, does an electronics store charge different price for the same TV based on who the customer is? Does a restaurant charge different prices for the same meal? Since we all enjoy the same common benefit of the government, shouldn't this also apply to our taxes?

For example, each adult would be charged the same amount (such as $500, $750, $1,000, etc. per year). The people would be able to change this fixed amount to anything they wish, but it would have to be the same for everyone.

Should current forms of direct taxation be repealed and replaced with a single, fixed amount charged to each adult?

Tried and failed.

Look up "Poll Tax"

Absolutely not. The wealthy get better services out of governement and more to lose if government collapses than the poor do. Rich neighborhoods get better roads and information infrastructure, better schools, and better police protection.

Should current forms of direct taxation be repealed and replaced with a single, fixed amount charged to each adult?
No, because taxes are not a commodity purchase, but a contribution to the running of the state proportional to what an individual can afford. The principle is an ancient one, predating all consumer culture.

Look up "Poll Tax"

For Americans, I want to clarify that this would NOT be assessed as a requirement for voting. It would just be a tax bill, and would have no effect on whether you can vote.

No, because taxes are not a commodity purchase, but a contribution to the running of the state proportional to what an individual can afford. The principle is an ancient one, predating all consumer culture.

Are you charged a different amount for a Playstation 3 based on what you can afford?

Are you charged a different amount for a Playstation 3 based on what you can afford?
Did you bother to read his post? Taxes aren't a commodity purchase, like a playstation 3.

For Americans, I want to clarify that this would NOT be assessed as a requirement for voting. It would just be a tax bill, and would have no effect on whether you can vote.
It would still be dead in the water.

How much would this fixed tax bill be? The amount of money the poorest individual could afford? So, nothing by default?

Sound like a quick way to kill the government to me.

No. I'm opposed to the concept of income taxation outright. It's inefficient and places a tremendous burden on the individual to deal with the taxes, keep records and the rest. Instead, I would be fully supportive of a Value Added Tax, or, more commonly referred to as a national sales tax. It's quasi progressive, but not in the impossibly irritating and arbitrary way that the income tax is, and it's nowhere near as wasteful and inefficient with people's time and effort as income tax is.

For Americans, I want to clarify that this would NOT be assessed as a requirement for voting. It would just be a tax bill, and would have no effect on whether you can vote.

For one who constantly goes on about "equality" you obviously know little of the concept. How is one person paying 10% of thier income equal to someone paying .01% of their income?

Look up "progressive tax rates" if you want more on equality.

Are you charged a different amount for a Playstation 3 based on what you can afford?
Taxes are not a commodity purchase.

It would help if you understood their origins, rather than the current economic snapshot.

No, but everyone should be charged the same, fixed, *percentage* of their income.

Absolutely not. The wealthy get better services out of governement and more to lose if government collapses than the poor do. Rich neighborhoods get better roads and information infrastructure, better schools, and better police protection.

The government should provide equal benefits for all. If the government is providing unequal benefits, this should be addressed and corrected.

I think the wrong way to go would be to correct this wrong with another wrong, by charging different tax amounts in saying its a correction for bad government policies. Fix the problems at their source.

No. I'm opposed to the concept of income taxation outright. It's inefficient and places a tremendous burden on the individual to deal with the taxes, keep records and the rest. Instead, I would be fully supportive of a Value Added Tax, or, more commonly referred to as a national sales tax. It's quasi progressive, but not in the impossibly irritating and arbitrary way that the income tax is, and it's nowhere near as wasteful and inefficient with people's time and effort as income tax is.

A value added tax is different from a sales tax. First, the government requires all retailers to incorporate the tax into their price, so it's hidden from the consumer. Secondly, it's charged at all levels of production, not just the end user. Governments use VAT to hide the true level of taxation from their citizens.

Am I the only goddamn libertarian in favor of progressive taxation?

No, but everyone should be charged the same, fixed, *percentage* of their income.

Why?

Do you receive a better service as you make more money? I would say that higher earning people actually save the government money.

No, but everyone should be charged the same, fixed, *percentage* of their income.
Really? So if we decide on 10% the poorest among us will have to decide between rent and taxes. Fuck it. Skip the taxes and you can live in federal prison rent free.

A greater percentage of middle class and poor people's income is spent on just staying alive. Food, rent, medical care, that kind of shit. They can't afford to pay the same percentage of their income as rich folks. Rich folks can pay in a much bigger percentage of their money and still be rich.

A value added tax is different from a sales tax. First, the government requires all retailers to incorporate the tax into their price, so it's hidden from the consumer. Secondly, it's charged at all levels of production, not just the end user. Governments use VAT to hide the true level of taxation from their citizens.
Then I obviously confused the name. I say just use a national sales tax.

Why?

Do you receive a better service as you make more money? I would say that higher earning people actually save the government money.

The services are the same but the poorer people are being taxed at a greater percentage for the same services.

Not exactly equal.

A value added tax is different from a sales tax. First, the government requires all retailers to incorporate the tax into their price, so it's hidden from the consumer. Secondly, it's charged at all levels of production, not just the end user. Governments use VAT to hide the true level of taxation from their citizens.
It is stated quite clearly on the receipt. The rate here in the UK is 17.5%, which one can work out, and often the sum is given as a component in the subtotals. It can be reclaimed if applicable.

Anyway, suppose for a moment I pay 22% income tax and my father pays 40%.

This is more or less the case.

It is what we can afford, based on our respective salary brackets. He makes lots, so 40% is easy, I make considerably less, so 22% is a contribution to the government which better reflects my ability to pay. Should he pay only 22%? No, because he can afford to pay considerably more, and taxes are a social obligation, not a commodity purchase.

Now suppose we change the tax to a fixed sum. My father would be laughing all the way to the bank, my finances would be screwed, and people earning less than me, which is to say many of my friends, would probably end up accumulating debt to the government.

Equality? It runs a lot deeper than equal sums, my friend.

For one who constantly goes on about "equality" you obviously know little of the concept. How is one person paying 10% of thier income equal to someone paying .01% of their income?

Look up "progressive tax rates" if you want more on equality.

Is it equal to allow 1 person to pay 1 dollar while the next person pays 10000 dollars, no i don't think so. I think its like in American 5% of the population pays 80% of the taxes.

This is one of the most stupid tax plans I have ever heard, even worse than the "flat tax rate" idea.

I dont think you can honestly issue an amount that people making 10m a year have to pay, and think that same amount should apply to people making 20k a year. It just doesn't work.

This is one of the most stupid tax plans I have ever heard, even worse than the "flat tax rate" idea.
The British Conservative Party briefly toyed with the idea, until they realised that they could not win an election on the vote of the wealthiest 10% of the population.

I'd simply stop paying my taxes and hopefully be joined by other dissenters in prison.

When Emerson went to visit his friend in jail, he said, "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau replied, "Waldo, what are you doing out there?"

The services are the same but the poorer people are being taxed at a greater percentage for the same services.

Not exactly equal.

Yes and richer ppl paying a dividend of 10000% higher then that of the poorer ppl is fair.

I say make a flat tax rate, but make it low, and then have a higher consumer rate, on non-essential things like food. The ppl who make more money get taxed according to what they spend not what they make. In which case they still end up paying 80% of the taxes. But atleast its fair.

A lower form would b have everyone pay one flate percentage such as 30% or whatever they choose.

The services are the same but the poorer people are being taxed at a greater percentage for the same services.

Not exactly equal.

Let's say you go to a sports store and want to buy some football equipment. When you go to check out, instead of charging you a set price, the store attendant asks for your income and computes a price based on a certain percentage of your income, would you regard this as fair?

Is it equal to allow 1 person to pay 1 dollar while the next person pays 10000 dollars, no i don't think so. I think its like in American 5% of the population pays 80% of the taxes.

So you think it's fair for a person to pay 25% of his earnings for the same services as someone paying 1% of thier earnings?

The British Conservative Party briefly toyed with the idea, until they realised that they could not win an election on the vote of the wealthiest 10% of the population.

So y not make it where the more u contribute to the gov, then the stronger ur vote? After all this would increase the incentive to make more money, maybe less would live off of welfare and what not.

Let's say you go to a sports store and want to buy some football equipment. When you go to check out, instead of charging you a set price, the store attendant asks for your income and computes a price based on a certain percentage of your income, would you regard this as fair?
No.

So you think it's fair for a person to pay 25% of his earnings for the same services as someone paying 1% of thier earnings?

Do you think its fair that if we both wen't out and bought a hamburger that you payed a dollar, and I payed 100?

No of course not. Just because I wen't to school so i could get a better job, doesn't mean I should get charged more. Even if the flat tax rate were used, i would still pay more taxes via sales tax and whatnot.

Let's say you go to a sports store and want to buy some football equipment. When you go to check out, instead of charging you a set price, the store attendant asks for your income and computes a price based on a certain percentage of your income, would you regard this as fair?

Is "football equipment" a basic necessity? Is it a provided gov't service? No, then it's a false analogy. COmpare that to food prices. A person w/ a 20K / year income is paying a greater percentage of thier income in taxes than someone who makes 200K.

Is "football equipment" a basic necessity? Is it a provided gov't service? No, then it's a false analogy. COmpare that to food prices. A person w/ a 20K / year income is paying a greater percentage of thier income in taxes than someone who makes 200K.

Dude simply replace the word sports equipment with food, or a gov't service and then answer again stop nitpicking around the point.

Quantity is not the same as proportion. If mathematics education in the US and a few other Western nations meant something, people would realise that.

Really taxes are a compromise - they are what works. Back when tax mechanisms were created, getting the balance wrong often resulted in the admin getting chopped up with sharp objects.

Today, were the system described by the OP introduced in the UK, people would simply not show up for work. You would have a spontaneous general strike, and a change in government, if not system of government. That's why the idea is in the realm of wishful pundits, bloggers and keyboard warriors.

Application of such a scheme in the US would have more stark consequences - the Second Amendment is there for a reason.

Dude simply replace the word sports equipment with food, or a gov't service and then answer again stop nitpicking around the point.
Why would anybody open a business in a poor neighborhood?

So y not make it where the more u contribute to the gov, then the stronger ur vote? After all this would increase the incentive to make more money, maybe less would live off of welfare and what not.
Who cares about the individual incentive to make more money?

National economies are more complicated than that.

For one thing, corporate renumeration policies would determine an individual's voting rights. :headbang:

Do you think its fair that if we both wen't out and bought a hamburger that you payed a dollar, and I payed 100?

No of course not. Just because I wen't to school so i could get a better job, doesn't mean I should get charged more. Even if the flat tax rate were used, i would still pay more taxes via sales tax and whatnot.

Once again, comparing basic necessities and gov't services to luxury items.

You're also making the assumption of "better schooling" automatically equals "better jobs". Most of what is classified as "rich" are inherited.

If we are all equal, don't we all have an equal obligation, upon turning a certain age, to contribute to our government an equal amount?

We all enjoy the common protections of life, liberty and property that the government provides. And, to compare to another example, does an electronics store charge different price for the same TV based on who the customer is? Does a restaurant charge different prices for the same meal? Since we all enjoy the same common benefit of the government, shouldn't this also apply to our taxes?

For example, each adult would be charged the same amount (such as $500, $750, $1,000, etc. per year). The people would be able to change this fixed amount to anything they wish, but it would have to be the same for everyone.

Should current forms of direct taxation be repealed and replaced with a single, fixed amount charged to each adult?

Look up the marginal utility method of valuation, apply it to dollars, and then rethink your ideas.

Am I the only goddamn libertarian in favor of progressive taxation?

I am as well.

Quantity is not the same as proportion. If mathematics education in the US and a few other Western nations meant something, people would realise that.

Really taxes are a compromise - they are what works. Back when tax mechanisms were created, getting the balance wrong often resulted in the admin getting chopped up with sharp objects.

Today, were the system described by the OP introduced in the UK, people would simply not show up for work. You would have a spontaneous general strike, and a change in government, if not system of government. That's why the idea is in the realm of wishful pundits, bloggers and keyboard warriors.

Application of such a scheme in the US would have more stark consequences - the Second Amendment is there for a reason.


Most of our oldest systems predate our current governments, and yet if you mess with them too much, everything we have now goes to pieces.

I'm off to bed. I will leave the discussion with the words that the idea is unworkable because in any given country, few are rich and most are not.

Why would anybody open a business in a poor neighborhood?

How many business r opened in neighborhoods? Secondly the majority wouldn't b they would b opened in rich neighborhoods, thus increasing the tax revenue.

Dude simply replace the word sports equipment with food, or a gov't service and then answer again stop nitpicking around the point.

I did answer. You and your cohort believe it is more "fair" for people to pay a higher percentage of thier earnings for the same services. I do not agree w/ that.

How many business r opened in neighborhoods? Secondly the majority wouldn't b they would b opened in rich neighborhoods, thus increasing the tax revenue.
Thus sending the poor neighborhoods deeper into poverty.

I did answer. You and your cohort believe it is more "fair" for people to pay a higher percentage of thier earnings for the same services. I do not agree w/ that.

Percentages isn't everything buddy, u don't buy food off of percentages, if that was the case everybody would make nothing and buy everything for free.

The ppl who pay a high percentage still don't help the gov't as much. Simply make it a tax on what u buy. The way u speak if not equality it is inequality.

How many business r opened in neighborhoods? Secondly the majority wouldn't b they would b opened in rich neighborhoods, thus increasing the tax revenue.

How would that happen? Most business's are opened in middleclass to poor neighborhoods. Your idea would then provide the "rich" w/ more services while they are putting less into the economy through their purchases and income taxes.

Good plan.

Thus sending the poor neighborhoods deeper into poverty.

Then they will know to get their kids an education so they rn't poor. Education is basically free. Secondary education can b close to free, im taking college and only had to pay $25 for this class, and thats with the book, and tuition.

How would that happen? Most business's are opened in middleclass to poor neighborhoods. Your idea would then provide the "rich" w/ more services while they are putting less into the economy through their purchases and income taxes.

Good plan.

No how in the world would having a person who buys double the number of expensive items provide less revenue then ppl who buy half them? Lets c if buy 100 things, and u buy 50 they will like me better. Thus i would provide more revenue.

Then they will know to get their kids an education so they rn't poor. Education is basically free. Secondary education can b close to free, im taking college and only had to pay $25 for this class, and thats with the book, and tuition.
Punishing people for being poor is not a cure for poverty. Read a history book for Christs sake.

The British Conservative Party briefly toyed with the idea, until they realised that they could not win an election on the vote of the wealthiest 10% of the population.

I still don't understand though, this isn't about votes, or about rich versus poor, this is a matter of basic fairness. For example, parliament could say that the richest person in the UK must give up everything they own, and it could pass by a vote of 659-0, but it would still be wrong.

The question is: If we are all equal, shouldn't this mean equal responsibility to pay for the benefits of government? This single fixed amount doesn't have to be very high, it could be very low, depending on how much people want government to do. It would put everyone in the same boat.

When the question of a new government service comes up, each person would have to decide if this is a program he/she wants to pay for before casting their vote. Right now, it's only sufficient if they think it's worth it for someone else to pay for.

Think on this: If you work hard for $500, as compared to winning a $500 shopping spree, don't you spend that $500 you earned very carefully? With the $500 from the shopping spree you spend on anything, you might not even care what you are buying, but you just load up on a bunch of things.

The second aspect isn't just the waste, but consider the person who paid to provide you with the $500 shopping spree, that was $500 they worked hard for. Now imagine if someone else took the $500 you earned and spent it on a shopping spree. How would you feel?

By instituting the fixed amount, everyone is equally in the boat.

Don't be stupid. Of course not. All the reasons as to why I think this have been posted by other people.

Punishing people for being poor is not a cure for poverty. Read a history book for Christs sake.

No however rewarding ppl for providing for them selves is a good way to increase the desire to provide for yourself.

No however rewarding ppl for providing for them selves is a good way to increase the desire to provide for yourself.
I think you jumped a gap somewhere in there.

I think you jumped a gap somewhere in there.

And what gap is that?

No how in the world would having a person who buys double the number of expensive items provide less revenue then ppl who buy half them? Lets c if buy 100 things, and u buy 50 they will like me better. Thus i would provide more revenue.

I like the word "if". How many "rich" are there compared to "non-rich" in purchasing items? If you have 50 people buying 1 thing and 1 person buying 2, guess where the money is coming from? Whose paying more of thier income for the items?

Then they will know to get their kids an education so they rn't poor. Education is basically free. Secondary education can b close to free, im taking college and only had to pay $25 for this class, and thats with the book, and tuition.

A Legislator was on TV defending public education being a right and he said (paraphrase):

If we didn't have public education, parents would be consumed with hundreds, if not thousands, of choices of where to send their kids for school.

And I was thinking, this is exactly why we should never have established public education. If you want the government to provide a package for poor kids, that might be worth it, but to put every student in the same public school, regardless of what special talents they have, what special troubles they may need help with, what learning style they like best, is big folly, and we must undo this so that we can progress.

If everyone were equal (financially), they could be taxed equally. This is not the case, a poor person paying as much as a rich person is incredibly unfair in the way it affects them.

By instituting the fixed amount, everyone is equally in the boat.

And the majority are paying more for it comparably.

By your logic, there wouldn't be any services available because the majority would not vote for something that reduced thier income substantially.

And what gap is that?
You are saying that people will be rewarded for having more money, yet the people who have less money will be punished. This is basically what you agreed to. If a person is raised to think they are less, they will remain less. This is part of the reason we have people dependent on welfare. Rich neighborhoods will become richer, poor neighborhoods will become poorer and the players will remain stationary.

A greater percentage of middle class and poor people's income is spent on just staying alive. Food, rent, medical care, that kind of shit. They can't afford to pay the same percentage of their income as rich folks. Rich folks can pay in a much bigger percentage of their money and still be rich.

The fact that "they can" is a pretty pathetic reason.

So they have more money? Yeah, let's play Robin Socialist Hood and redistribute more of them. After all, being rich is evil.

Flat tax for the win.

When did it become the government's responsibility to busy itself with the level of income of each person? This has nothing to do with our life, liberty or property, and should not be the business of the government.

A Legislator was on TV defending public education being a right and he said (paraphrase):

If we didn't have public education, parents would be consumed with hundreds, if not thousands, of choices of where to send their kids for school.

And I was thinking, this is exactly why we should never have established public education. If you want the government to provide a package for poor kids, that might be worth it, but to put every student in the same public school, regardless of what special talents they have, what special troubles they may need help with, what learning style they like best, is big folly, and we must undo this so that we can progress.

Now find the quote from the "legislator" and put it into context. People aren't "forced" into public schooling if they are providing their children w/ alternate schooling (ie private school, home-school, etc.)

The fact that "they can" is a pretty pathetic reason.

So they have more money? Yeah, let's play Robin Socialist Hood and redistribute more of them. After all, being rich is evil.

Flat tax for the win.
The fact that the poor "can't" is a much stronger reason.

When did it become the government's responsibility to busy itself with the level of income of each person? This has nothing to do with our life, liberty or property, and should not be the business of the government.

Look up the history of tax law.

I like the word "if". How many "rich" are there compared to "non-rich" in purchasing items? If you have 50 people buying 1 thing and 1 person buying 2, guess where the money is coming from? Whose paying more of thier income for the items?

Ok so u define poor has half the money of rich and vice versa. And 50 poor ppl to 1 rich.

So lets c if we all payed 10%(for easy math) 50 ppl would pay $5, and 1 person would pay $10 in income tax. Ok so a total of about $260. Devide that by the 51 ppl. Each person will pay about 5.10 in the flat rate. However if u did , where income is a flate rate of lets say $5, and the remaining 10 cents from each person is aquired via sales tax, more of it will b payed by the 1 rich person than any single poor person, yet it is still equal.

And the majority are paying more for it comparably.

By your logic, there wouldn't be any services available because the majority would not vote for something that reduced thier income substantially.

Then I suppose the majority really doesn't want said service.

If you decide you don't want a $100 pair of jeans, then you don't think the jeans are worth $100. If the majority of people don't think that national healthcare is worth an additional $1,000 per person per year, then they don't think the national healthcare is worth $1,000 per year.

It's the same idea.

Look up the history of tax law.

This notion existed for most of human history, I admit to you. However, the American Revolution "reordered things" and changed the pre-established concept of government to a "voluntary association of individuals, where each person compacts with the rest of society." It seemed to reemerge with the progressive/socialist movement.

it doesn’t matter whether or not you think the tax system works in your country because there are more poor than rich in every country in the world (I think anyways) and there the ones with the vote and thus there the ones with all the power so if the poor decide that “well I need more welfare so I will tax the rich more to pay for it” then its hard cheese if the rich who don’t like it because there not the ones with all the power now are they

But aside from that tax on your income isn’t about raising taxes for the rich its about lowering taxes for the poor so that they can afford to actually live it doesn’t matter if the rich use less services than the poor because in the end the rich mans gardener will be far more productive if he’s educated, healthy and not desperate enough to steal (which is why we actually still have rich living and employing in the developed world and why countries with a less cared for poor have to relax laws on industry to get any at all)

never mind the fact that the rich can pay more easily and will hopefully understand that there money is going to keep a single mother on her feet instead of going into that solid gold plane

Then I suppose the majority really doesn't want said service.

If you decide you don't want a $100 pair of jeans, then you don't think the jeans are worth $100. If the majority of people don't think that national healthcare is worth an additional $1,000 per person per year, then they don't think the national healthcare is worth $1,000 per year.

It's the same idea.

No, it's nowhere near the same idea. A person can choose to buy a $10 pair of jeans while if you pay $1K for healthcare, one person is paying a disproportional amount of thier income for the same service as another who makes more.

Ok so u define poor has half the money of rich and vice versa. And 50 poor ppl to 1 rich.

So lets c if we all payed 10%(for easy math) 50 ppl would pay $5, and 1 person would pay $10 in income tax. Ok so a total of about $260. Devide that by the 51 ppl. Each person will pay about 5.10 in the flat rate. However if u did , where income is a flate rate of lets say $5, and the remaining 10 cents from each person is aquired via sales tax, more of it will b payed by the 1 rich person than any single poor person, yet it is still equal.

Oh, please. I throw out some random numbers to counter your random numbers and you now decide that's how I "define", things.

You assume that the 1 "rich" person will purchase more in total than the large number of "poor". Better have some real numbers to back that up.

The fact that the poor "can't" is a much stronger reason.

Do you understand the concept of a flat (proportional) tax?

No, it's nowhere near the same idea. A person can choose to buy a $10 pair of jeans while if you pay $1K for healthcare, one person is paying a disproportional amount of thier income for the same service as another who makes more.

We need food, but supermarkets charge people the same amount for the same food, regardless of income.

Should this be changed?

For Americans, I want to clarify that this would NOT be assessed as a requirement for voting. It would just be a tax bill, and would have no effect on whether you can vote.


yes it would, if you dont pay your taxes, thats a federal offence, you get arrested, and you cant vote. It better the richer you are and worse the poorer you are

We need food, but supermarkets charge people the same amount for the same food, regardless of income.

Should this be changed?

:headbang:

They are selling commodities. If you can afford that commodity and want it, buy it. If not, don't.

Taxes are not buying a service from the government. It's money that the government is pooling to provide various services. We can't tax people a fixed amount because there are some that wouldn't earn enough to pay it (or not suffer excessively from paying it). On the other hand, government services need more than a $10 tax per person to be provided. So they get scaled in the interest of fairness meeting practicality.

Equality IS NOT equity.

Do you understand the concept of a flat (proportional) tax?
Do you understand poverty?

Do you understand poverty?

Do you understand how to answer questions?

And yes, I understand poverty. I don't understand penalizing an unrelated group of people for doing well.

:headbang:

They are selling commodities. If you can afford that commodity and want it, buy it. If not, don't.

Taxes are not buying a service from the government. It's money that the government is pooling to provide various services. We can't tax people a fixed amount because there are some that wouldn't earn enough to pay it (or not suffer excessively from paying it). On the other hand, government services need more than a $10 tax per person to be provided. So they get scaled in the interest of fairness meeting practicality.

Without any food, you would die. If anything education is less important than food. To be consistent, maybe the government should provide all food? Otherwise, maybe the government should get out of education? (indoctrination?)

I don't see how government services should be any different than any citizen-to-citizen services. The only valid assessment of taxes is that which you owe for your portion of the expenses that the government incurs protecting your inalienable rights (life, liberty and property). Since we get the same benefit from police, courts, armed forces, or at least it's unquantifiable, then what is the justification for different amounts to be paid?

If you aren't earning anything in a particular year, I'm sure a payment plan can be worked out to pay your tax. If I own a house and decide to quit my job, the bank still wants it's monthly payment....

I still don't understand though, this isn't about votes, or about rich versus poor, this is a matter of basic fairness. For example, parliament could say that the richest person in the UK must give up everything they own, and it could pass by a vote of 659-0, but it would still be wrong.

The question is: If we are all equal, shouldn't this mean equal responsibility to pay for the benefits of government? This single fixed amount doesn't have to be very high, it could be very low, depending on how much people want government to do. It would put everyone in the same boat.

When the question of a new government service comes up, each person would have to decide if this is a program he/she wants to pay for before casting their vote. Right now, it's only sufficient if they think it's worth it for someone else to pay for.

Think on this: If you work hard for $500, as compared to winning a $500 shopping spree, don't you spend that $500 you earned very carefully? With the $500 from the shopping spree you spend on anything, you might not even care what you are buying, but you just load up on a bunch of things.

The second aspect isn't just the waste, but consider the person who paid to provide you with the $500 shopping spree, that was $500 they worked hard for. Now imagine if someone else took the $500 you earned and spent it on a shopping spree. How would you feel?

By instituting the fixed amount, everyone is equally in the boat.

Economic valuation is based on marginal utility. A commodities value is a subjective measurement of the utility that one more unit as compared to the cost of one more unit.

To apply this to dollars we look at dollars at two different levels income or wealth. First we look at the utility that these dollars provide. While people may be able to derive more value from their dollar than others, the market has an established utility for a dollar. So in this case, dollars maintain a pretty even utility between the two income levels.

However, when we look at the costs of these dollars at the margins, you will notice a stark difference. While a person at a $100,000 income level will still have ample disposable income after spending a dollar, the margin of a person who makes $15000 a year can actually create a strain.

That is why the subjective valuation of a dollar at the $100,000 level is far lower than one at the $15,000 level, and taxation of a universal amount, even though it will maintain universal market value, will have very different subjective values.

Do you understand how to answer questions?

And yes, I understand poverty. I don't understand penalizing an unrelated group of people for doing well.
Yes, I understand flat tax. I don't see any penalization in taxing the rich. The ferraris can still be afforded, the basic necessities can still be haved.

Without any food, you would die. If anything education is less important than food. To be consistent, maybe the government should provide all food? Otherwise, maybe the government should get out of education? (indoctrination?)

I don't see how government services should be any different than any citizen-to-citizen services. The only valid assessment of taxes is that which you owe for your portion of the expenses that the government incurs protecting your inalienable rights (life, liberty and property). Since we get the same benefit from police, courts, armed forces, or at least it's unquantifiable, then what is the justification for different amounts to be paid?

If you aren't earning anything in a particular year, I'm sure a payment plan can be worked out to pay your tax. If I own a house and decide to quit my job, the bank still wants it's monthly payment....

The justification is that it's the only way for the government to get the money it needs without crippling those on lower incomes. It's simple practicality - your idea might be fairer, but it wouldn't work. Life isn't all about perfect equality. Except under communism. Which doesn't work.

Do you understand how to answer questions?

And yes, I understand poverty. I don't understand penalizing an unrelated group of people for doing well.

If you care about people so deeply, Desparate Measures, I suggest you make a case to each individual citizen and ask them for donations to help the poor. Christians are instructed to provide for the poor, which is part of the reason that free people almost need Christianity, or at least strong instruction in morality (usually only provided by faith), in order to live under a righteous form of liberty. However, this does not extend to the government using force to fund a charity.

Yes, I understand flat tax. I don't see any penalization in taxing the rich. The ferraris can still be afforded, the basic necessities can still be haved.

I don't see any problem in taxing the rich. I just don't think they should be taxed with a higher percentage just because they have more. We should have a flat percentage, so that everyone pays a fair proportion of their income.

Of course, there is the justification that taxing the rich proportionally more means more money for the government. Can't say much against that one. I just don't think excessive redistribution is fair.

The justification is that it's the only way for the government to get the money it needs without crippling those on lower incomes. It's simple practicality - your idea might be fairer, but it wouldn't work. Life isn't all about perfect equality. Except under communism. Which doesn't work.

$1,000 is low, even for poor people (for poor people, it's probably less than what they for their digital cable with Showtime per year) and would raise $200bn for the government. This should be enough for the government.

$1,000 is low, even for poor people (for poor people, it's probably less than what they for their digital cable with Showtime per year) and would raise $200bn for the government. This should be enough for the government.

Depends if you want to maintain your military. Furthermore, in 2003, government spending was $20,000 per household.

I don't see any problem in taxing the rich. I just don't think they should be taxed with a higher percentage just because they have more. We should have a flat percentage, so that everyone pays a fair proportion of their income.

Of course, there is the justification that taxing the rich proportionally more means more money for the government. Can't say much against that one. I just don't think excessive redistribution is fair.

I support the flat tax over the socialist progressive tax, but its really not even fair enough. I don't see how a rich person should pay more than a poor person. If they are consuming special govenrment services, then the government should charge extra fees for the extra services, but otherwise there should be no difference between rich and poor. We are all equal people, rich or poor!

No, because taxes are not a commodity purchase, but a contribution to the running of the state proportional to what an individual can afford. The principle is an ancient one, predating all consumer culture.
From each according to his means to those according to need eh? I hate people like you.

If you care about people so deeply, Desparate Measures, I suggest you make a case to each individual citizen and ask them for donations to help the poor. Christians are instructed to provide for the poor, which is part of the reason that free people almost need Christianity, or at least strong instruction in morality (usually only provided by faith), in order to live under a righteous form of liberty. However, this does not extend to the government using force to fund a charity.
If you disagree as much as you say you do, stop feeding into the system. Show your faith and stop paying taxes. That is what I would do.

As far as Christianity or any form of religion being the only grounds for morality, I couldn't disagree more. If it is only a fear of hell keeping you in a morally straight line, I would hate to see your true nature.

Depends if you want to maintain your military.

The military is about $450bn today, and the entire US budget is about $2,800bn (most of it goes to Social Secuirty and Medicare). The military can be trimmed. Socail secuirty and Medicare should be abolished and people should be encouraged to save up for retirement or rely on family if they can't.

If you disagree as much as you say you do, stop feeding into the system. Show your faith and stop paying taxes. That is what I would do.

As far as Christianity or any form of religion being the only grounds for morality, I couldn't disagree more. If it is only a fear of hell keeping you in a morally straight line, I would hate to see your true nature.

Christianity has the strongest moral background of all the faiths. This might seem mean to other faiths, but it's objectively true. However, Christ did not command people to raise taxes, he commanded people individually to help the poor. Besides, its not my place to tell non-Christians what to do weith their money. While I think the government should have a default faith, in order to strengthen morality, I don't think it should be a compulsory faith, because we value religious freedom.

Christianity has the strongest moral background of all the faiths. This might seem mean to other faiths, but it's objectively true. However, Christ did not command people to raise taxes, he commanded people individually to help the poor. Besides, its not my place to tell non-Christians what to do weith their money. While I think the government should have a default faith, in order to strengthen morality, I don't think it should be a compulsory faith, because we value religious freedom.
I disagree with nearly all of what you just said. Aside from it not being your place to tell people what to do with their money and that all religions are tolerated in the US.

$1,000 is low, even for poor people (for poor people, it's probably less than what they for their digital cable with Showtime per year) and would raise $200bn for the government. This should be enough for the government.


you think that all poor people spend money on cable, Im lower middle class, far far far from poor, we cant offord the cable your talking about, and the 200bn being enough from goverment, as stated above, your far from right

Here we go again. Ok numbers time people.

In FY 2006, the US Budget was $2,709,000,000,000 (Not counting emergency spending for Iraq, hurricanes, and other fun things).

In June of 2006 the WORKING population of the US (Since taxing the non-working is a bit bad) was 228,671,000 people.

The "tax" should we split this up evenly would end up being $11,846.71 per each working man and women in the US, regardless if they are Bill Gates and make well over a couple of million a year, or if you're burger flipping and make $18 thousand a year. Now who is that going to hurt more? Hmmm... hard to say, but my guess is someone who makes $18 thousand will be hurt a lot more by suddenly having to contribute $11,846.71 as opposed to Bill Gates whom that is pocket change.

This says NOTHING of state and local taxes.

The flat tax always sounds SO good until you look at the actual numbers and figure out that everyone who isn't pulling down triple digits is screwed or the government would have to spend itself into an even deeper hole than it is in now.

I disagree with nearly all of what you just said. Aside from it not being your place to tell people what to do with their money and that all religions are tolerated in the US.

I defended the people's right to spend their money any way they wish, you were arguing for compulsory government control through taxes. If you want to donate some of your personal funds to the government, you can do that, but you don't have the "right" to insist that everyone pay extra taxes for programs that are not mandated by the Constitution or essential to the protection of life, liberty and property.

In terms of morality, I think government should take a little role as it can, because morality should be taught under the direction of parents. However, in areas where government must take a role, the safest way to protect Liberty is to bind government with recognition of the Higher Power.

It creates an incentive not to fuck up your life and end up flipping burgers.

I'm a cold economist, those that are in low paying hobs are in them due to the choices they've made, and it is JUST for them to pay the price for mediocrity.

The military is about $450bn today, and the entire US budget is about $2,800bn (most of it goes to Social Secuirty and Medicare). The military can be trimmed. Socail secuirty and Medicare should be abolished and people should be encouraged to save up for retirement or rely on family if they can't.
One, Social Security doesn't NEARLY cover the cost of retirement. Two, what do you do if you're sick, or you HAVE no family? Rot in the streets? Go back to Dickenson England? Thank you, no.

you think that all poor people spend money on cable, Im lower middle class, far far far from poor, we cant offord the cable your talking about, and the 200bn being enough from goverment, as stated above, your far from right

Ther are 300 million people in the USA, I figured at most 100 million children, so $1,000 X 200 million = $200bn.

It creates an incentive not to fuck up your life and end up flipping burgers.

I'm a cold economist, those that are in low paying hobs are in them due to the choices they've made, and it is JUST for them to pay the price for mediocrity.
That's nice, now why don't come to the real world where sometimes bad things happen to people no matter WHAT choices they made in ther lives and they're forced into a bugger flipping job to make ends meet.

One, Social Security doesn't NEARLY cover the cost of retirement. Two, what do you do if you're sick, or you HAVE no family? Rot in the streets? Go back to Dickenson England? Thank you, no.

Why would you rot in the streets? Don't you think your neighbors would help you out? If we are to have mandatory welfare programs, they should be administered by localities, to be closest to the people.

If we were paying $1,000 per year in taxes, we would have a lot more money more than making up for the loss of Social Secuirty.

Ther are 300 million people in the USA, I figured at most 100 million children, so $1,000 X 200 million = $200bn.
Nope, the WORKING population (unless you plan to tax 89 year olds) is
228,671,000.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Use the actual numbers.

Why would you rot in the streets? Don't you think your neighbors would help you out? If we are to have mandatory welfare programs, they should be administered by localities, to be closest to the people.
Been there, and you know what, people were not banging down the door in their rush to help a single mother with two small children.

Not even the chruches.

That $500 per child per month was the only thing keeping my sister and I in our house sometimes.

If we were paying $1,000 per year in taxes, we would have a lot more money more than making up for the loss of Social Secuirty.
It's $11,846.71, not $1,000.

That's nice, now why don't come to the real world where sometimes bad things happen to people no matter WHAT choices they made in ther lives and they're forced into a bugger flipping job to make ends meet.

I don't believe anyone is locked into a burger flipping job if they truly try hard. But even if that's all they could find for a job, that doesn't make the case why the government should compel another citizen to give money to the burger flipper.

The government shouldn't be concerned with my job or your job or your income, or how you decorate your house, it should concern itself with the protection of life, liberty and property, and no more. If it does anything beyond, and it will most certainly constrain on life, liberty or property. And unlike any "rights" government "grants," the sacred rights of life, liberty and property are inviolate.

That's nice, now why don't come to the real world where sometimes bad things happen to people no matter WHAT choices they made in ther lives and they're forced into a bugger flipping job to make ends meet.
This is the real world pal. There is always a choice. No matter how much you would like to deny it. Those individuals are paid only what their skill is worth to their employer.

On a side note... Medicare, Medicaid and Social security are nothing but charity at gunpoint, and I for one am sick and tired of it. I'm all for the freedom of people to do what they want with their money, but the government stepping in to make things "equal" is a joke. If the person taking your money weren't the government we'd call it theft, So lets call a spade a spade.

Been there, and you know what, people were not banging down the door in their rush to help a single mother with two small children.

Not even the chruches.

That $500 per child per month was the only thing keeping my sister and I in our house sometimes.


It's $11,846.71, not $1,000.


Well, assuming your in England, or in many places in America, Christianity has been smashed and ridiculed, so there are fewer people out there who feel it is a duty to God and responsibility to conscience to help others. Also, government has seized control of a lot of things that should, by right, be charity, so people have less money to use to help others.

Ther are 300 million people in the USA, I figured at most 100 million children, so $1,000 X 200 million = $200bn.


yes and thats less then 10% of the money the goverment needs to run, and less the 50% of what it spends on the military alone. you dont seem to understand, that 200bn is not alot of money when it comes to the goverment

yes and thats less then 10% of the money the goverment needs to run, and less the 50% of what it spends on the military alone. you dont seem to understand, that 200bn is not alot of money when it comes to the goverment
Define Need.

It creates an incentive not to fuck up your life and end up flipping burgers.

I'm a cold economist, those that are in low paying hobs are in them due to the choices they've made, and it is JUST for them to pay the price for mediocrity.

No, you are a dull mind who considers himself a cold economist.

I don't believe anyone is locked into a burger flipping job if they truly try hard. But even if that's all they could find for a job, that doesn't make the case why the government should compel another citizen to give money to the burger flipper.
Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time a woman met and fell in love with a man. She had a high school degree, but growing up in a poor family, she did not have the funds to attend college. She instead was working in a casino when she met this guy who was attending the local university.

As I said, they fell in love and as things often happen, they got married and had two children within 16 months of each other. Now the man, with his degree, was a med tech and made good money for that time and place. The woman did what jobs she could, but mainly worked part time as when you have two small infants who have a remarkable tallent to get into trouble, it takes a lot of time to care for them and she was determined to be a good mother.

Sadly though, the man was a Vietnam vet. During the war, he was an x-ray tech and worked with improperly shielded equipment. He also got the troops right off the front, many of them coated in a substance called Agent Orange.

Because of this, he developed lukemia and died, leaving his young wife with a 3-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl.

It took my mother until I was about 16 to become fiscally secure. It only happened when she finally re-married. She worked long hard hours. She did everything she could to take care of two children and provide for them, giving up an awful lot to support my sister and I. We spent the years eating government food (I can still taste that Godawful cheese). We shopped in thrift stores. McDonalds was eating high on the hog for us. And yes, one year my presents at Christmas came from the US Marines Toys for Tots program (Still have that basketball back at home).

Like I said, my father's social security checks were the only things keeping us from losing the house sometimes. Goverment food banks and programs were the only thing keeping us fed. $1,000 tax would have HURT for most of the time when I was growing up.

How DARE you belittle that? How DARE you assume that all poor lounge around watching Showtime? How DARE you?!

Here we go again. Ok numbers time people.

In FY 2006, the US Budget was $2,709,000,000,000 (Not counting emergency spending for Iraq, hurricanes, and other fun things).

In June of 2006 the WORKING population of the US (Since taxing the non-working is a bit bad) was 228,671,000 people.

The "tax" should we split this up evenly would end up being $11,846.71 per each working man and women in the US, regardless if they are Bill Gates and make well over a couple of million a year, or if you're burger flipping and make $18 thousand a year. Now who is that going to hurt more? Hmmm... hard to say, but my guess is someone who makes $18 thousand will be hurt a lot more by suddenly having to contribute $11,846.71 as opposed to Bill Gates whom that is pocket change.

This says NOTHING of state and local taxes.

The flat tax always sounds SO good until you look at the actual numbers and figure out that everyone who isn't pulling down triple digits is screwed or the government would have to spend itself into an even deeper hole than it is in now.

NERVUN, you are missing the point. Part of the reason to institute a flat fee (or a flat tax, which is a little worse, but still better than the Marxian progressive tax we have now) is to put much higher pressure on Congress to slash the government much, much smaller than it is now.

An interesting fact to note is that when the middleclass/poor compared and the rich are paying the same tax rate and debating an increase/decrease, it is the middleclass/poor who are more strongly in favor of lower taxes.

The other piece to note is I don't like the idea of putting people into economic classes. Many people change their income level throughout their lives, when you are a college student you have no income, when you are into your fifties you have high income.

It should not be the government's business to figure out what economic class someone is in, it should be to treat people equally under the law, and the law should be based on our shared moral beliefs, including most highly the protection of our sacred rights to life, liberty and property.

This is the real world pal. There is always a choice. No matter how much you would like to deny it. Those individuals are paid only what their skill is worth to their employer.
Bullshit. Read the next page.

On a side note... Medicare, Medicaid and Social security are nothing but charity at gunpoint, and I for one am sick and tired of it. I'm all for the freedom of people to do what they want with their money, but the government stepping in to make things "equal" is a joke. If the person taking your money weren't the government we'd call it theft, So lets call a spade a spade.
So we leave people to die? To rot? How nice. I hope like hell you are NEVER in that situation. Because it ain't nice. It's not a fun time to have to face a choice between your powerbill, food on the table, or medicine for your child.

Those who usually are the first to complain about government theft have never truely looked at what the alternative is, or been in the situation where they really needed it.

Does a restaurant charge different prices for the same meal?
Some countries have places that charge a more expensive "foreigner's price".

Nope, the WORKING population (unless you plan to tax 89 year olds) is
228,671,000.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

Use the actual numbers.
In that case the tax recieved would be higher, further validating his claim if anything. What's your point?

How DARE you belittle that? How DARE you assume that all poor lounge around watching Showtime? How DARE you?!

Your story is sad, and if your neighbors and friends knew of this, it would be their Christian duty to help you make a transition from that tragic state. I'm surprised that your father didn't have some death benefits as part of the job package for being in the army.

If you don't like the idea of relying on neighbors, as many Christians on the receiving side of charity would see it as their duty NOT to impose on their neighbors), then the idea of Life Insurance would have been another way to provide the safety net you needed.

However, I don't see where this tragic story would then give you a "right" to betray the rights of life, liberty or property of another citizen (or of society, which does not exist separate from the composition of individual citizens and families).

Well, assuming your in England, or in many places in America, Christianity has been smashed and ridiculed, so there are fewer people out there who feel it is a duty to God and responsibility to conscience to help others. Also, government has seized control of a lot of things that should, by right, be charity, so people have less money to use to help others.
Right, that explains previous years when we had poor houses and debters prisons.

Unfortuantely, many Christians seem to take the view that if you're poor, God MUST be punishing you for SOMETHING. This isn't to say that Chrisitan charities don't exist, they do and they work hard, but even they admit that they don't have the money or resources and that people are more likely to go buy a damn plasma TV with the extra money then race around trying to find someone in need.

protection of our sacred rights to life, liberty and property.

you say this almost every post, like this is going to make you right and anyone who says against you hates them. Its like a politician saying god every five seconds so anyone who doesn’t vote for him is the antichrist, it more makes people look down on your arguments, and that’s what it has done for me.

Your about protecting life right, what about the people who if they lost social security, food banks, and food stamps would die, isn’t that denying them life? I seem to think when your starving, your not going to think "well at least the rich people are paying the same amount of money as I am"

Also when you say everyone benefits equally from the government, go to inner-city schools, tell me they are getting the same benefits as everyone else, go to parts of the country where cops just stay the hell out of, tell the people their they are being treated the same.

If you’re so big on life liberty and all that, you would be against having all people pay the same amount of money.

Some countries have places that charge a more expensive "foreigner's price".

If an individual business owner wants to charge Sally a different price than Johnny, I see no problem with this based on natural rights. However, this time of discriminatory business model wouldn't be sustained in the long run by the market, unless the market itself was composed of people who like the idea of different prices for different people.

However, there would then emerge a market of the discriminated purchasers (i.e. the foreigners) and, if another restauranteur is smart, he will open up a business that caters to foreigners.

The government should not be any part of it however, and a law that forces businesses to charge different prices to different people should be invalidated as a violation of the rights of both the seller and buyer.

NERVUN, you are missing the point. Part of the reason to institute a flat fee (or a flat tax, which is a little worse, but still better than the Marxian progressive tax we have now) is to put much higher pressure on Congress to slash the government much, much smaller than it is now.
No, I'm not. You're living in a fantasy world. The government overspends itself NOW, what makes you think they would stop? Things always happen that the government NEEDS to respond to, say, 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. Or roads. Or food aid. Or hundreds of little programs that help someone somewhere.

To say, oh, we'll just cap doesn't work. Colorado tried that and they finally had to stop as parks, libraries, and universities closed. Like it or not, our lifestyle is dependant upon the government chipping in a few bucks here and there. To state that all we need is to magically wave our hands and all will return to small government but they will be able to provide the services we now need and want is silly and childish in the extream.

In that case the tax recieved would be higher, further validating his claim if anything. What's your point?
Go back and re-read what was posted.

Your story is sad, and if your neighbors and friends knew of this, it would be their Christian duty to help you make a transition from that tragic state. I'm surprised that your father didn't have some death benefits as part of the job package for being in the army.
Oh he did, that's why we had a house in the first place and a car that lasted us for 12 years (Nissan makes good cars, BTW). But that does NOT pay for everything, nor can it last to raise up two small children to adulthood.

But, no, there wasn't a rush of people trying to help us, quite the opposet in fact.

If you don't like the idea of relying on neighbors, as many Christians on the receiving side of charity would see it as their duty NOT to impose on their neighbors), then the idea of Life Insurance would have been another way to provide the safety net you needed.
Do you have ANY idea how much money it takes to raise a child?

However, I don't see where this tragic story would then give you a "right" to betray the rights of life, liberty or property of another citizen (or of society, which does not exist separate from the composition of individual citizens and families).
My point being that sometimes people are poor not due to their own choosing and if we were truely Christian, we should be helping them. It's also the government's responcibility to help, especially when others will not.

NERVUN, you are missing the point. Part of the reason to institute a flat fee (or a flat tax, which is a little worse, but still better than the Marxian progressive tax we have now) is to put much higher pressure on Congress to slash the government much, much smaller than it is now.

An interesting fact to note is that when the middleclass/poor compared and the rich are paying the same tax rate and debating an increase/decrease, it is the middleclass/poor who are more strongly in favor of lower taxes.

The other piece to note is I don't like the idea of putting people into economic classes. Many people change their income level throughout their lives, when you are a college student you have no income, when you are into your fifties you have high income.

It should not be the government's business to figure out what economic class someone is in, it should be to treat people equally under the law, and the law should be based on our shared moral beliefs, including most highly the protection of our sacred rights to life, liberty and property.

I am a libertarian and a capitalist and explained why a progressive tax is fair, so calling it "Marxian" is ignorant (you did ignore my post, I am unsure whether it was willing or not).

NERVUN has hit the point exactly on the head, while you are shifting the parameters. Do you seriously wish to justify crippling taxation on the poor simply to force the government to spend less. How much less can they spend? They would have to cut their expenditure by 75% to not make this tax horribly inappropriate.

Also, the government does not place people into economic classes, it happens naturally.

Finally, you claim this notion of shared moral beliefs as backing, when I would imagine polls would show that the people overwhelmingly support progressive taxation. And where does the right to life, liberty, and property (it is the pursuit of happiness) provide any justification for a flat tax or progressive tax?

NERVUN, you are missing the point. Part of the reason to institute a flat fee (or a flat tax, which is a little worse, but still better than the Marxian progressive tax we have now) is to put much higher pressure on Congress to slash the government much, much smaller than it is now.

Progressive tax was not created by Marx, it was also one of Adam Smith's ideas. Severe progressive taxes are Marx's ideas but I believe that Reagan got rid of the severity. The current system is not Marxist, it is relatively free-market.

im just wondering anyone know how many times Conscience and Truth has said life liberty and property, it has to be a heck of a lot. and if he is trying to quote the DECLORATION OF INDEPENDECNE (not the constitution) its pursuit of happiness not property

Absolutely not. The wealthy get better services out of governement and more to lose if government collapses than the poor do. Rich neighborhoods get better roads and information infrastructure, better schools, and better police protection.


The vast majority of which are paid for by local taxes - not income taxes - and which have little to do with income. Get your facts straight.

Did you bother to read his post? Taxes aren't a commodity purchase, like a playstation 3.


oooh, someone is a bit anol..ogy-retentive tonight.

oooh, someone is a bit anol..ogy-retentive tonight.

did you just read the first page and jump in with out reading anything else?

not that i can say much ive done it before. :cool:

but really, that was a long time ago

and try to post all your comments at once, not over a bunch in a row

For one who constantly goes on about "equality" you obviously know little of the concept. How is one person paying 10% of thier income equal to someone paying .01% of their income?

Look up "progressive tax rates" if you want more on equality.

Ummm, I'll take a stab at it - the price is equal? Just like the price of cable, movie tickets, postage stamps and condoms.

Income differences do not make anyone less equal than does gender or skin color.

Am I the only goddamn libertarian in favor of progressive taxation?


Nah - I do too - I just love playing devils advocate to folks who are clueless. ;)

I believe in basing taxes on how much a person earns as opposed to a flat rate for everyone. People with low incomes simply can't afford to give as much money as people with high incomes can, and a flat tax rate would only widen the gap between the lower and upper class and could potentially drive lower class families onto the streets, as many live paycheck to paycheck as it is.

Income differences do not make anyone less equal than does gender or skin color.

Income difference make dollars inequal, even if it does not make people inequal.

By the way, how does that sentence I quoted not qualify as a non-sequitor?

im just wondering anyone know how many times Conscience and Truth has said life liberty and property, it has to be a heck of a lot. and if he is trying to quote the DECLORATION OF INDEPENDECNE (not the constitution) its pursuit of happiness not property
You should check out the intro to the other thread about tax cuts for the rich and compare this message to that one!

It creates an incentive not to fuck up your life and end up flipping burgers.

I'm a cold economist, those that are in low paying hobs are in them due to the choices they've made, and it is JUST for them to pay the price for mediocrity.
Mediocre people are vital to the services industry. Besides, not everyone is born with a good enough brain to acheive.
http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/potential.jpg

There are many things I do not like, but I know are necessary in order to prevent problems. For example, I suspect very few people like exams, but they are a necessary way of ensuring people understand the material and deserve certification.

You should check out the intro to the other thread about higher taxation for the rich and compare this message to that one!

Honestly y would any1 wan't to try and tax the rich higher, if anything they should b getting tax cuts.

No matter how big of a cut we give them they still pay well of 3/4 of the taxes.

Income difference make dollars inequal, even if it does not make people inequal.

By the way, how does that sentence I quoted not qualify as a non-sequitor?


Really - The dollar in my wallet is worth less or more than the dollar in Bill Gates wallet? What peculiar economics you have...

You should check out the intro to the other thread about tax cuts for the rich and compare this message to that one!

I have no idea what you are getting at, I read it, and, dont see what your talking about

The services are the same but the poorer people are being taxed at a greater percentage for the same services.

Not exactly equal.

They also are paying a much larger percentage of their income for movies, toe-nail clippers and toilet paper. So fucking what?

Really - The dollar in my wallet is worth less or more than the dollar in Bill Gates wallet? What peculiar economics you have...

Economic valuation is subjective.

To you that dollar is worth far more than the wallet in Bill Gates wallet.

Anyway, suppose for a moment I pay 22% income tax and my father pays 40%.

This is more or less the case.

It is what we can afford, based on our respective salary brackets. He makes lots, so 40% is easy, I make considerably less, so 22% is a contribution to the government which better reflects my ability to pay. Should he pay only 22%? No, because he can afford to pay considerably more, and taxes are a social obligation, not a commodity purchase.

Now suppose we change the tax to a fixed sum. My father would be laughing all the way to the bank, my finances would be screwed, and people earning less than me, which is to say many of my friends, would probably end up accumulating debt to the government.

Equality? It runs a lot deeper than equal sums, my friend.

Since when is it a social obligation? It is more like social extortion. TAxes are certainly comparable to commodoty or service purchases.

This is one of the most stupid tax plans I have ever heard, even worse than the "flat tax rate" idea.


Goddam! You're right! You have convinced me with your brilliance! You're a fucking genious!

I dont think you can honestly issue an amount that people making 10m a year have to pay, and think that same amount should apply to people making 20k a year. It just doesn't work.


Why not? They pay the same for car insurance. They pay the same for a bottle of asprin. Other than government greed explain how it does not work.

Goddam! You're right! You have convinced me with your brilliance! You're a fucking genious!


and youve convenced me you are going to post a thousand times before you start commenting on more recent posts. Try having some space between posts

So you think it's fair for a person to pay 25% of his earnings for the same services as someone paying 1% of thier earnings?


Yes. Absolutely. THe amount I pay for a haircut is the same as what you pay - though it likely is much less a proportion of my income. It is completely fair - unless you consider the fact that you probably have more hair...

Since when is it a social obligation? It is more like social extortion. TAxes are certainly comparable to commodoty or service purchases.
Bullshit.

Since when is a army a commodity purchace? (Let me see here, I'll take a tank, an air craft carrier, and, hmm... can I get a squad of Marines?)

Since when are roads such things? (Oops, sorry, I can only aford to pave my driveway and MAYBE out to the corner today)

Diasters? (Thank you for calling FEMA, would you like to hear about our bargin rate for fighting forest fires and rebuilding after hurricanes?)

Funding education?

Funding research and devlopment?

There are lots of things that the government does because that's what the government is SUPPOSED to do, even if it operates at a loss because the services NEED to be provided. The must do it because it's either too big for a compnay to do alone, or in an area where it wouldn't be profitable, or because no one sane wants a company in that particular area in the first place.

So how is any of that the same as buying a carton of milk?

Yes. Absolutely. THe amount I pay for a haircut is the same as what you pay - though it likely is much less a proportion of my income. It is completely fair - unless you consider the fact that you probably have more hair...

your a borken record. Yours saying its fair just becouse thats how most thinigs cost. but I dont think a rich person pays the same for shoes as i do, if they did, fancy shoe stores would go out of buisness. I pay 20-40 dollers per pair, you see rich people paying easy 10x that amount. your argument isnt valid

So y not make it where the more u contribute to the gov, then the stronger ur vote? After all this would increase the incentive to make more money, maybe less would live off of welfare and what not.


BRILLIANT IDEA!!!! I floated this idea here a few years ago. Goddam it was fully to watch all the lefties shit themselves responding to it! Too bad it is no longer in the archives - it was a gas!

Why not? They pay the same for car insurance. They pay the same for a bottle of asprin. Other than government greed explain how it does not work.
Again, because the services provided by the government falls into areas that are needed, but damned expensive or prohibative for non-government agencies to manage. You don't NEED to drive, but you DO need good roads to make the nation work.

Since we need them, why force those people who don't have the money to pay more and force them to be even poorer than they currently are and thus needing even MORE government services.

Again, because the services provided by the government falls into areas that are needed, but damned expensive or prohibative for non-government agencies to manage. You don't NEED to drive, but you DO need good roads to make the nation work.

Since we need them, why force those people who don't have the money to pay more and force them to be even poorer than they currently are and thus needing even MORE government services.

A good portion of the roads are paid for with tax dollars collected from.... gasoline sales. So um - your point is completely moot since the tax collected for roads ALREADY IS a fixed cost (per use). Try again.

your a borken record. Yours saying its fair just becouse thats how most thinigs cost. but I dont think a rich person pays the same for shoes as i do, if they did, fancy shoe stores would go out of buisness. I pay 20-40 dollers per pair, you see rich people paying easy 10x that amount. your argument isnt valid

A rich person pays 10 times the amount for their Nikes than I do? GOddam! If they are that stupid then how did the ever get rich?

We all enjoy the common protections of life, liberty and property that the government provides. But not to equal amounts.

Instead, I would be fully supportive of a Value Added Tax, or, more commonly referred to as a national sales tax. It's quasi progressive, but not in the impossibly irritating and arbitrary way that the income tax is, and it's nowhere near as wasteful and inefficient with people's time and effort as income tax is.Sales taxes are nearly always regressive, as would the the type of taxation commonly called the Fair Tax.

If the government is providing unequal benefits, this should be addressed and corrected.So you support income equality? Since rich people benefit more from the system (as they make more), they should pay more.

A rich person pays 10 times the amount for their Nikes than I do? GOddam! If they are that stupid then how did the ever get rich?

You are a broken record because the Federal determined value of a dollar is not the same as the subjective valuation of a dollar, yet you continually repeat that it is.

I have no idea what you are getting at, I read it, and, dont see what your talking about
The same poster who posted about a flat fee for this thread also posted about severe progressive income taxes to promote a socialist state. Do you now get what I am getting at? There was a very short conversion period between socialism and minarchism.

A rich person pays 10 times the amount for their Nikes than I do? GOddam! If they are that stupid then how did the ever get rich?

no they dont bozzy, they buy more expensive shoes, you dumb shit. instead of spaming and never actually supporting your arguments, maybe you should actually amke a point and not act like the 6 year old kid you probly are

Bullshit.

Since when is a army a commodity purchace? (Let me see here, I'll take a tank, an air craft carrier, and, hmm... can I get a squad of Marines?)
PRivate Security forces are already in use around the world - including in Iraq.

Since when are roads such things? (Oops, sorry, I can only aford to pave my driveway and MAYBE out to the corner today)
As I already mentioned in a prior post - roads already are paid for per use via gas taxes. Your point does not serve your argument - it serves mine.

Diasters? (Thank you for calling FEMA, would you like to hear about our bargin rate for fighting forest fires and rebuilding after hurricanes?)
I know far more about this than you would imagine. Never heard of insurance?

Funding education?
You never heard of private schools? You should get out more.

Funding research and devlopment?
You mean like GM, Merck and Intel do?


There are lots of things that the government does because that's what the government is SUPPOSED to do, even if it operates at a loss because the services NEED to be provided. The must do it because it's either too big for a compnay to do alone, or in an area where it wouldn't be profitable, or because no one sane wants a company in that particular area in the first place.

So how is any of that the same as buying a carton of milk?
I've already illustrated it. You have provided no good reason why one individual should pay more for the few exclusive services government can provides than another nor why government service should be billed any differently than any other service.

and youve convenced me you are going to post a thousand times before you start commenting on more recent posts. Try having some space between posts


More brilliance - you are a fountain of wit and wisdom.

no they dont bozzy, they buy more expensive shoes, you dumb shit. instead of spaming and never actually supporting your arguments, maybe you should actually amke a point and not act like the 6 year old kid you probly are

Great, way to make him feel good about himself.

You invalidated every good argument in this thread, and allowed him to walk away feeling right because you resorted to an ad hominem.

If he replies to your post before reading mine, he will be exuding self-righteousness without once making a decent argument.

EDIT: Notice how he jumped all over your post?

Tried and failed.

Look up "Poll Tax"


The vast majority of poll taxes were charged selectively. It was rarely charged to every person to came to vote.

bozzy your a spammer. You have yet to actually make a point

A flat tax is simply not practicable – there is simply no way to fund the government, even a minimalist government, with the amount of money the lowest can afford.

A flat tax rate however, that is entirely plausible – and just to be extra nice, exempt a person’s income up to the poverty line. This way you cannot bitch about how it kills poor people as it is purely a tax on ‘excess’ monies and it is ‘fair’ in that it treats everyone equally.

I know that there are diehards out there that refuse to accept anything less than a 100% tax on anyone making more than they are, but being jealous and bitter is not productive.

I personally am opposed to all payroll and income taxes as they discourage people from working and discourage people from hiring workers. Paperwork is a serious inhibitor on payroll – I would love to hire people now and then for a little work if it wasn’t obscenely expensive in both taxes and compliance costs. This is why the black market is so strong – it is one hell of a lot easier to just pick up someone to work under the table for cash. Just in case someone wants to cry about sweatshops, we actually pay more money to illegals – they get more money in their pocket and it costs us a lot less to pay them.

So back to my suggestion…

We exclude PL (Poverty Line = about $19k for a family of 4, but this is a US national average and does not include local discrepancies) and anything above PL gets taxed at T (fixed tax rate). Now we have an incidence where anything up to poverty line is tax free – thus there is no appreciable tax burden for the ‘poor’ – and beyond that it is entirely fair in that the government does not discriminate based on class nor does it attempt social engineering by wealth redistribution (sorry communists).

Additionally, these taxes will not be taken out of your paycheck automatically. This does two things – it reduces compliance costs for businesses and makes everything more transparent for the average person. Instead, everyone will be obligated to make quarterly payments to the treasury just like those of us who are self-employed have to do. I will guarantee you that if every working person in the US had to actually write a check and realized how much money they pay in taxes, there would be a massive change in government.

What is wrong with this proposal? (aside from ‘R1cH p3oP1e R teh 3v1l’)

Who cares about the individual incentive to make more money?

National economies are more complicated than that.

For one thing, corporate renumeration policies would determine an individual's voting rights. :headbang:

Only for those who choose to work for corporations, which is, as I recall, less than half of taxpayers.

Once again, comparing basic necessities and gov't services to luxury items.

You're also making the assumption of "better schooling" automatically equals "better jobs". Most of what is classified as "rich" are inherited.

How is it you determine that most of the wealth in the world is inherited? Provide evidence. Oh wait - umm, you cannot. Because it is a lie. Bummer for you and your point, eh?

Thus sending the poor neighborhoods deeper into poverty.
ummmm, riiight. Everyone knows that there is no McDonalds in a poor neighborhood and that the ones in the real rich neighborhoods do the best. Same goes for Walmart and Exxon.

You are saying that people will be rewarded for having more money, yet the people who have less money will be punished. This is basically what you agreed to. If a person is raised to think they are less, they will remain less. This is part of the reason we have people dependent on welfare. Rich neighborhoods will become richer, poor neighborhoods will become poorer and the players will remain stationary.
ACtually you are wrong. THere was a recent study about wealth in AMerica. It was typical alarmist rap highlighting something stupid like only 3% of people born 'poor' ever become rich, but ignoring that less than 50% of people born poor stay poor. I have to go soon or else I'd look it up. It was fairly recent - you may remember it. If not I can try to find it later...

The fact that the poor "can't" is a much stronger reason.

Keep telling them that and they'll eventually believe you, but at this point you're batting less than 50% at keeping the poor down...

A flat tax is simply not practicable – there is simply no way to fund the government, even a minimalist government, with the amount of money the lowest can afford.

A flat tax rate however, that is entirely plausible – and just to be extra nice, exempt a person’s income up to the poverty line. This way you cannot bitch about how it kills poor people as it is purely a tax on ‘excess’ monies and it is ‘fair’ in that it treats everyone equally.

I know that there are diehards out there that refuse to accept anything less than a 100% tax on anyone making more than they are, but being jealous and bitter is not productive.

I personally am opposed to all payroll and income taxes as they discourage people from working and discourage people from hiring workers. Paperwork is a serious inhibitor on payroll – I would love to hire people now and then for a little work if it wasn’t obscenely expensive in both taxes and compliance costs. This is why the black market is so strong – it is one hell of a lot easier to just pick up someone to work under the table for cash. Just in case someone wants to cry about sweatshops, we actually pay more money to illegals – they get more money in their pocket and it costs us a lot less to pay them.

So back to my suggestion…

We exclude PL (Poverty Line = about $19k for a family of 4, but this is a US national average and does not include local discrepancies) and anything above PL gets taxed at T (fixed tax rate). Now we have an incidence where anything up to poverty line is tax free – thus there is no appreciable tax burden for the ‘poor’ – and beyond that it is entirely fair in that the government does not discriminate based on class nor does it attempt social engineering by wealth redistribution (sorry communists).

Additionally, these taxes will not be taken out of your paycheck automatically. This does two things – it reduces compliance costs for businesses and makes everything more transparent for the average person. Instead, everyone will be obligated to make quarterly payments to the treasury just like those of us who are self-employed have to do. I will guarantee you that if every working person in the US had to actually write a check and realized how much money they pay in taxes, there would be a massive change in government.

What is wrong with this proposal? (aside from ‘R1cH p3oP1e R teh 3v1l’)

a few things are wrong, and nune are rich are evil. one, this will cause a huge increase on tax evasion, simply because, people suck at paying bills, it dosnt really matte who it is. People will spend all the money they have just smile they have more, and then when the querterly tax bill comes, well shit, we dont have any money left. Secound, If your proposing a flat tax, it would be detrimentil to people right above the poverty line. Say the flat tax was 10,000, So say you make 20,000, above the poverty line, so you pay, this makes it so that you now have 10,000 dollers, and have less money then the guy who only made 17,000, lifes a bitch for them. Now this can be changed by making the amount sliding for a set amount of time, as to insure you dont dip below the poverty line from taxs, it does remove any rewards for getting out of powerty untill you break the amount of money that is poverty line + tax amount. but if your not proposing a flat tax, then im wrong and thus this isnt a flaw.

And as for highering, I really dont see all that much paperwork and cost to higher someone temp, I got a job that lasted 3 weeks, and both me and the employer knew that was as long as it would last. no need for a costume walker after halloween. So im not sure what the real proplom is, unless it something diffrent where you live or with your buisness.

And I know people who hated not having tax's taken out pre hand. my friend had to get a loan from his parents because his place of employment didnt take out tax, he got hit with a lot of tax in the end, and didnt save the money up for it.


sorry for any spelling errors, im tired and didnt run it to word

No, it's nowhere near the same idea. A person can choose to buy a $10 pair of jeans while if you pay $1K for healthcare, one person is paying a disproportional amount of thier income for the same service as another who makes more.


You really ought to begin that statement with a warning that it only makes sense if you are smoking canabis.

yes it would, if you dont pay your taxes, thats a federal offence, you get arrested, and you cant vote. It better the richer you are and worse the poorer you are

You need to explain and justify what makes it better or worse.

You really ought to begin that statement with a warning that it only makes sense if you are smoking canabis.
and you should warn if your only posting spam. get out of the thread, your just taking up space

Depends if you want to maintain your military. Furthermore, in 2003, government spending was $20,000 per household.


Very clear evidence that government spending is out of control. Obviously very few people would be willing to spend $20,000 for what the government provides. The value is not there. All the more reason to slash it. If everyone actually had to pay what it cost then people would be more concerned with government waste

I disagree with nearly all of what you just said. Aside from it not being your place to tell people what to do with their money and that all religions are tolerated in the US.

You can be christian and still tolerate other religions - just like you can be straight and tolerate gays.

Here we go again. Ok numbers time people.

In FY 2006, the US Budget was $2,709,000,000,000 (Not counting emergency spending for Iraq, hurricanes, and other fun things).

In June of 2006 the WORKING population of the US (Since taxing the non-working is a bit bad) was 228,671,000 people.

The "tax" should we split this up evenly would end up being $11,846.71 per each working man and women in the US, regardless if they are Bill Gates and make well over a couple of million a year, or if you're burger flipping and make $18 thousand a year. Now who is that going to hurt more? Hmmm... hard to say, but my guess is someone who makes $18 thousand will be hurt a lot more by suddenly having to contribute $11,846.71 as opposed to Bill Gates whom that is pocket change.

This says NOTHING of state and local taxes.

The flat tax always sounds SO good until you look at the actual numbers and figure out that everyone who isn't pulling down triple digits is screwed or the government would have to spend itself into an even deeper hole than it is in now.

Or, maybe we could (gasp) slash government spending since nobody really feels they are getting $1000 worth of government each month.

bozzy are you commenting on every single post on this thread? just want an answer

bozzy are you commenting on every single post on this thread? just want an answer

Good for post count. *nodnod*

you say this almost every post, like this is going to make you right and anyone who says against you hates them. Its like a politician saying god every five seconds so anyone who doesn’t vote for him is the antichrist, it more makes people look down on your arguments, and that’s what it has done for me.

Your about protecting life right, what about the people who if they lost social security, food banks, and food stamps would die, isn’t that denying them life? I seem to think when your starving, your not going to think "well at least the rich people are paying the same amount of money as I am"

Also when you say everyone benefits equally from the government, go to inner-city schools, tell me they are getting the same benefits as everyone else, go to parts of the country where cops just stay the hell out of, tell the people their they are being treated the same.

If you’re so big on life liberty and all that, you would be against having all people pay the same amount of money.

Life, liberty and property are among the most fundamental and sacred of natural rights. Rights guaranteed by the Almighty, and are self-evident upon examination of His established Order for the universe. Inasmuch as people and governments have violated these rights in the past (and present), does not speak to the inadequacy of God's power, but the extent of human sin and wickedness, particularly in lust for power over our fellowman. Insomuch as humanity continues to struggle against the natural Order, we choose to fight against the things that are true. Mankind, being afflicted with sin and wickedness, must be forever vigilant if we are to maintain an enduring liberty.

The way to determine if something is a real right versus a fraud is to look at the natural Order. The best way is to look at what natural rights you would have in society if government did not exist. For simplication, society, being the composition of individual people and families ("your neighbors"), can be reduced down to you and one other person ("your neighbor"). If you would have a right to protect yourself in a certain way when its just you and your neighbor, you have the right to delegate the protection of this right to government.

For example, you would have the natural right to self-defense if your neighbor attacks you. You would have the right to protect your property if your neighbor attempts to steal from you. (etc., etc.)

While your neighbor could not challenge your natural right to educate your children or seek out healthcare, you would not have the right to demand your neighbor educate your children or heal you.

Whether or not your neighbor has a moral obligation to help you if you are in need is a separate question. However, education and healthcare, not being natural rights, you would have no power to compel your neighbor to help you.

In their most fundamental form, your natural rights can be distilled into life, liberty and property. This is why protection of these most fundamental and sacred rights is the only proper function of government. Anything the government does in excess of this protection, you should, by right, have the ability to opt-out and provide for yourself and your family.

It creates an incentive not to fuck up your life and end up flipping burgers.

I'm a cold economist, those that are in low paying hobs are in them due to the choices they've made, and it is JUST for them to pay the price for mediocrity.

Come on now, that's just bad economics. I'm a fairly hardcore capitalist, and I believe in eat what you kill, but regardless of what level it sits at, a job like burger flipping is an important part of a big industry - a lot of people have to do it. It's not an incentive either, it's a punishment, and hardly a good free market system.

No, you are a dull mind who considers himself a cold economist.


Wow - that statement says far more about you than Jon. Alot more. How sad for you.

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time a woman met and fell in love with a man. She had a high school degree, but growing up in a poor family, she did not have the funds to attend college. She instead was working in a casino when she met this guy who was attending the local university.

As I said, they fell in love and as things often happen, they got married and had two children within 16 months of each other. Now the man, with his degree, was a med tech and made good money for that time and place. The woman did what jobs she could, but mainly worked part time as when you have two small infants who have a remarkable tallent to get into trouble, it takes a lot of time to care for them and she was determined to be a good mother.

Sadly though, the man was a Vietnam vet. During the war, he was an x-ray tech and worked with improperly shielded equipment. He also got the troops right off the front, many of them coated in a substance called Agent Orange.

Because of this, he developed lukemia and died, leaving his young wife with a 3-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl.

It took my mother until I was about 16 to become fiscally secure. It only happened when she finally re-married. She worked long hard hours. She did everything she could to take care of two children and provide for them, giving up an awful lot to support my sister and I. We spent the years eating government food (I can still taste that Godawful cheese). We shopped in thrift stores. McDonalds was eating high on the hog for us. And yes, one year my presents at Christmas came from the US Marines Toys for Tots program (Still have that basketball back at home).

Like I said, my father's social security checks were the only things keeping us from losing the house sometimes. Goverment food banks and programs were the only thing keeping us fed. $1,000 tax would have HURT for most of the time when I was growing up.

How DARE you belittle that? How DARE you assume that all poor lounge around watching Showtime? How DARE you?!
Aside from the nonsese of ancedotal cheezyness - apparently life insurance wasn't invented until AFTER Vietnam... right? No? Oh gee - well then -0 sounds like you were as much the victim of poor financial planning on your fathers part as anything else. Sucks to be you - but you do not have the right to force me to pay for it. (though ah good argument could be made against veteran affairs)

No, I'm not. You're living in a fantasy world. The government overspends itself NOW, what makes you think they would stop? .
Because when nearly half of the people voting do not pay for anything decided by their vote - fiscal responsibility becomes a low priority.

Life, liberty and property are among the most fundamental and sacred of natural rights. Rights guaranteed by the Almighty, and are self-evident upon examination of His established Order for the universe. Inasmuch as people and governments have violated these rights in the past (and present), does not speak to the inadequacy of God's power, but the extent of human sin and wickedness, particularly in lust for power over our fellowman. Insomuch as humanity continues to struggle against the natural Order, we choose to fight against the things that are true. Mankind, being afflicted with sin and wickedness, must be forever vigilant if we are to maintain an enduring liberty.

The way to determine if something is a real right versus a fraud is to look at the natural Order. The best way is to look at what natural rights you would have in society if government did not exist. For simplication, society, being the composition of individual people and families ("your neighbors"), can be reduced down to you and one other person ("your neighbor"). If you would have a right to protect yourself in a certain way when its just you and your neighbor, you have the right to delegate the protection of this right to government.

For example, you would have the natural right to self-defense if your neighbor attacks you. You would have the right to protect your property if your neighbor attempts to steal from you. (etc., etc.)

While your neighbor could not challenge your natural right to educate your children or seek out healthcare, you would not have the right to demand your neighbor educate your children or heal you.

Whether or not your neighbor has a moral obligation to help you if you are in need is a separate question. However, education and healthcare, not being natural rights, you would have no power to compel your neighbor to help you.

In their most fundamental form, your natural rights can be distilled into life, liberty and property. This is why protection of these most fundamental and sacred rights is the only proper function of government. Anything the government does in excess of this protection, you should, by right, have the ability to opt-out and provide for yourself and your family.

In this statement your a Christian fundamentalist (thus you don’t like the government anyways cause its not Christian and never should be) and say that you should fend for yourselves and have nothing to aid you. And that healthcare and education should not be provided by the goverment

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).

in this you say that we need healthcare for all, education for all.

:eek: MY GOD THEY ARE AGAINST EACH OTHER :eek:

I do believe we have a hypocrite :cool:

i believe that is point me

Economic valuation is subjective.

To you that dollar is worth far more than the wallet in Bill Gates wallet.
So if my money is worth more than Bills, why does he get all the fun toys?

cause he has more of it. Bozzy if you hate american welfare, leave the country, we dont want you in it

So you support income equality? Since rich people benefit more from the system (as they make more), they should pay more.

Really? The 'system' decides who gets to be rich and then makes them that way? Amazing. How can I get 'in' with this system?

(yes kiddies - that is sarcasm)

You are a broken record because the Federal determined value of a dollar is not the same as the subjective valuation of a dollar, yet you continually repeat that it is.

Maybe I missed it, but you have not yet defined this 'subjective' value of a dollar in any conclusive manner within the cotext of this thread.

Another point is being ignored here - public goods. A lot of what the government provides are public goods, and the private market wouldn't provide them anyway, because of free rider behaviour. That's why it's not as simply as taking a fixed amount of money and giving a fixed amount of services back. It doesn't work like that. I do believe everyone should be taxed the same percentage, but not the same amount. Government has to pool resources to the best of its ability, and provide services, many of them as public goods, as efficiently as it can.

I'm not saying it succeeds in this, either. Bureaucracy seems to bleed taxpayer money, for the most part. But taxing everyone the same amount isn't right. With a proportional system, everyone is being treated equally relative to their income.

no they dont bozzy, they buy more expensive shoes, you dumb shit. instead of spaming and never actually supporting your arguments, maybe you should actually amke a point and not act like the 6 year old kid you probly are

Wow - you call people names when they get the best of you? You really ought to reconsider which of us is the more mature.

Wow - you call people names when they get the best of you? You really ought to reconsider which of us is the more mature.

Don't waste your time. People so often always resort to name calling when they can't compose a decent argument. Says a lot about their intelligence.

I happen to think the majority of government spending is unnecessary. Consumers Against Government Waste ( www.cagw.org ) estimate about $29 billion dollars in pork this year, and that does not include very obscene examples of waste and inefficiency such a few million dollars for McDonald’s to advertise overseas – on a side note, that money for McDs came from the Dep of Ag and was supposed to promote small businesses just starting out in new overseas markets. And did you know that when asking for a grant or low interest loan from the Dep of Ag targeted at helping out small businesses (as in help out the small family farm), they classify anything making less than $100 million a year as a small business.

If more voters actually paid attention to their tax bill a lot of this would change, and we would not need nearly as much in revenue. Right now, the average voter doesn’t care because they just figure the solution is to stick it to the rich – make them pay the bill for Senator Byrd to build another bridge, school, of teapot museum named after him (because 33 projects with his name just isn’t enough).

People are very free when it comes to spending other people’s money – when they have a more tangible realization that it is their money being spent, we might get spending under control.

Perhaps switching to a flat tax rate would be worth it for this reason alone.

Another point is being ignored here - public goods. A lot of what the government provides are public goods, and the private market wouldn't provide them anyway, because of free rider behaviour. That's why it's not as simply as taking a fixed amount of money and giving a fixed amount of services back. It doesn't work like that. I do believe everyone should be taxed the same percentage, but not the same amount. Government has to pool resources to the best of its ability, and provide services, many of them as public goods, as efficiently as it can.

I'm not saying it succeeds in this, either. Bureaucracy seems to bleed taxpayer money, for the most part. But taxing everyone the same amount isn't right. With a proportional system, everyone is being treated equally relative to their income.
Baloney. The word efficient should never be used in the same county as the word government, unless it's prefixed with in-. The government can provide public services that might not be provided by private industry because it can always just raise taxes and extort the money from the population. If the bus line runs short of money because it can't attract enough riders, the city doesn't have to raise the fare, it just takes more of our property.

in this you say that we need healthcare for all, education for all.

:eek: MY GOD THEY ARE AGAINST EACH OTHER :eek:

I do believe we have a hypocrite :cool:

i believe that is point me
Exactly my point!! He only was posting like that about a week ago. Now, of course there are quick conversions but this is super-fast.

a few things are wrong, and nune are rich are evil. one, this will cause a huge increase on tax evasion, simply because, people suck at paying bills, it dosnt really matte who it is. People will spend all the money they have just smile they have more, and then when the querterly tax bill comes, well shit, we dont have any money left.
So, what you are saying is that people are too stupid to handle their money responsibly so we should take it from them first. Under that logic then shouldn't mortgage foreclosures be much higher?

Maybe if folks felt they were getting VALUE for their COST there would be less cause for concern.

bozzy are you commenting on every single post on this thread? just want an answer


Only the ones which deserve a response.... and this one.

This has come down to it dosnt matter who has the better argument but who can post the most saying the most unintelegent things. fun times

Baloney. The word efficient should never be used in the same county as the word government, unless it's prefixed with in-. The government can provide public services that might not be provided by private industry because it can always just raise taxes and extort the money from the population. If the bus line runs short of money because it can't attract enough riders, the city doesn't have to raise the fare, it just takes more of our property.

Geesh. Do you people just have a tolerance level for alternative arguments, and once you hit it, you just have to hit reply instead of reading further? You might notice that in the second paragraph, I point out that government tends not to be efficient. :rolleyes:

Secondly - what's your point? I don't see one.

So, what you are saying is that people are too stupid to handle their money responsibly so we should take it from them first. Under that logic then shouldn't mortgage foreclosures be much higher?

Maybe if folks felt they were getting VALUE for their COST there would be less cause for concern.

actually that is exactly what im saying. People are two stupid to handle their money, and thats why foreclosures happen. I dont see why you would care, to you, if they loss their house its tough cookies they should have had more money

actually that is exactly what im saying. People are two stupid to handle their money, and thats why foreclosures happen. I dont see why you would care, to you, if they loss their house its tough cookies they should have had more money

Actually 97% or so mortgages are never foreclosed. In fact they are paid as agreed. So, at least 97% of people who own homes are NOT too stupid to manage their money. Pretty much destroys your point - but I'm sure you're used to that by now.

Actually 97% or so mortgages are never foreclosed. In fact they are paid as agreed. So, at least 97% of people who own homes are NOT too stupid to manage their money. Pretty much destroys your point - but I'm sure you're used to that by now.

not really, its not 100% now is it. thus many people still cant. sorry

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/foreclosures.html

more evidence people do loss their house

A good portion of the roads are paid for with tax dollars collected from.... gasoline sales. So um - your point is completely moot since the tax collected for roads ALREADY IS a fixed cost (per use). Try again.
Try again yourself, part of the funding for the interstate system comes out of the general pool, which is income taxes. Maybe not the majority, but it IS there.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/foreclosures.html

more evidence people do loss their house


What exactly is your point? That 3% equals a majority? That because 3% of a population is irresponsible the 97% cannot be trusted? Please elaborate.

Try again yourself, part of the funding for the interstate system comes out of the general pool, which is income taxes. Maybe not the majority, but it IS there.
Interstate roads do not account for even a tenth of public roads. Maybe it is there but it is obviously not the keystone to public streets that you innitially implied it to be.

PRivate Security forces are already in use around the world - including in Iraq.
Oh please. Look at the small services there vs a national army. Jesh.

As I already mentioned in a prior post - roads already are paid for per use via gas taxes. Your point does not serve your argument - it serves mine.
Try reading things in order next time. I already answered.

I know far more about this than you would imagine. Never heard of insurance?
Yes, and I just LOVE how the insurance companies have been screwing the folks who delt with Katrina. Matter of fact, many companies are just NOW getting around the paying out. They're, what, a year late? No problem, people can just live in shit for a year with no food, water, or medical care.

Not to mention rebuilding things like, say, levies.

You never heard of private schools? You should get out more.
You never heard of Gerlach, NV have you?

You mean like GM, Merck and Intel do?
Hate to break this to ya, B0zz, most of the R&D done in the US is done by the universities on government grants.

I've already illustrated it. You have provided no good reason why one individual should pay more for the few exclusive services government can provides than another nor why government service should be billed any differently than any other service.
No, you have not. You've tossed in a few one liners about expensive TP and Nikes but you have not shown why a government needs to be treated like Wal*Mart.

Try again, I'm sure you can provide me with something.

not really, its not 100% now is it. thus many people still cant. sorry

Yes indeed – 3% of people is just too horrific a foreclosure rate. I mean, if there is even a single person who misses a mortgage payment it shows how horrible the system is that it relies on people being responsible for themselves. What we really need is for government bureaucrats to control every penny you spend – from now on you need to fill out a form and get approval for every expenditure. This would have ancillary benefits as well… we could start using this for other things as well… like we could give people a stern talking too if they buy too much junk food.

Wow.

Just wow.

Well let me start with this as I remember, sorry if the order comes out jumbled nine pages is a lot to put into a cogent stream (especially consider that this is the NS forum)

First the flat tax. There are two ideas being toyed with here that I can see. One, a set stipend – the number $1,000 is tossed around quite a bit, the other setting a flat percentage. I will grant that from certain mathematical perspectives that this is equal. And as an economics professor once said to me “Economists can determine equity, never fairness. It is equitable to give everyone one hotdog a day. Is it fair that I just gave Bill Gates a free lunch? Who knows.” The man was a staunch capitalist who emigrated from Soviet Russia, I don’t think the iron curtain could have come up fast enough for him. But even he knew where his expertise lie – and it was not in asserting the moral correctness of any given action, but the economic factors relevant to it.

I would posit that in your definition of fairness you have given a biased consideration to one variable. Taxation affects many different variables and you have given, in my opinion, undue weight to one of them. While it is true that the rich do put more money into the tax system per capita I would note that many western nations see the burden of income tax falling squarely on the shoulders of the middle class - too rich to squeak under a tax bracket and too poor to write off anything substantial. So while on an individual basis the rich do contribute more they, as a demographic, do not.

Next one has to wonder that it is that we are asking of these individuals. By assigning a 60% income tax rate to a millionaire I am dooming him to a life of $400,000 annually. That said nothing I can do to the lowest tax bracket (here it is $12,000 and under – of which I am a part) will ever ‘condemn’ them to that same lifestyle. In actuality anything I make goes straight to my expenses. I live pay cheque to pay cheque and the government only charges me sales tax. I am exempt from income taxes of any kind, but I need to live my life under $9,000 – as that is what I am making.

If you were to ask a millionaire and I to contribute equally – at either 10% or a flat 1,000 – my lifestyle would be substantially changed, and for doing absolutely nothing different that millionaire would be making substantially more money. If I was asked to contribute $1,000 a year I would be paying %11 of my income in taxes. The rise in tax would be incalculable to me as we went from 0 to 11. The millionaire would however be paying a tenth of a percent. The flat stipend does not appear equal to me, as I would be paying proportionally more.

Were we to each pay 10% I would be contributing $900 dollars and he/she $100,000. This is indeed proportionally equitable, when one considers what we pay in, but this is where one must consider the other variables of which I spoke. I would estimate the cost of living in my country to stand at around $12,000. This would provide a good level of comfort and ensure three square meals a day (of nutritious content). Beyond that it should give me enough to not go crazy from boredom. And joy of all joys I might be able to save up a little bit. So now running at about $8,000 I am standing almost 34% below the poverty line. That said the millionaire is standing at about 7,400% above the line, give or take. That leaves me with a negative amount of disposable income and him/her with almost $900,000 of it.

(I noticed that as I write this Entropic Creation pointed out a tax bracket on the low end. I will respond below)

This means that as I, for lack of a better word, toil the millionaire is creating equity (unless he is stupid, but what ever). Moreover in this example I am incurring debt. Now you spoke of assigning government services as commodities – likening them to footballs and PS3s. This is where the analogy is flawed. The millionaire requires police and fire protection for his person as well as nearly 900,000 in assets. I require the same – for my person.

The millionaire is now driving the economy. The service sector is catering to him, and understandably so, he has money. The government now finds itself in the business of providing infrastructure.

Now the time comes to receive and education. In my country there is an amalgamation of public private in the post secondary area. Not perfect but it works well enough. The government graciously loans me the difference I need to acquire an education. They are even so kind as to wave interest and repayment for five years. The millionaire can pay for his/her education upfront.

Now suppose we manage to hit the workforce. Outside of his/her family the millionaire is no longer a millionaire. They are middle class and need to climb the social ladder. I am in the same position. The (former) millionaire looks to buy a house, establish credit, etc. They are once again gaining equity.

I however start from a negative number and supposing I outpace him I will still find myself struggling to over take him/her. Interest compounds and I have no liquid assets to invest. Our (former) millionaire does.

To consider another variable one might think of the relative wages. Suppose our millionaire and a person of middle class, $30,000 a year, work identical hours. In my country we are talking roughly 9-5, one statutory holiday a month, and weekends off. Lets be generous and toss in a week of vacation. Roughly 2,000hrs a year comes to $500/hr and $15/hr respectively. This means that a millionaire spends one day of his life earning his keep. One full 24hr period will see our millionaire earn enough to sustain them self in my country. Every other hour worked by that millionaire is for their benefit and their benefit alone. That said my country asks a person of middle class to work more than eight hundred hours before they are working for themselves. That works out to roughly a month and a couple of days of straight work. If we translate this back into working days we are saying three and 100 respectively.

When we consider these variables we see that my country asks for slightly less than one third of a middle class person’s life to sustain themselves, while asking for only a ninth of the millionaires.

Before you respond that this is the way of the market and the middle class person could increase their value per hour I would ask – but what is the market. The market is merely the mechanism for exchange and I would posit that perhaps the only reason people value the millionaire’s work at such a rate is because of the way society is built – taxes included. Perhaps we feel some small satisfaction at knowing that 60% of the money we are paying out will be redistributed.

Also I have noticed that the life, liberty, and property saying has been tossed about, how very Lockean of you. While I am not an American I too enjoy the pursuit of happiness. I do not however find that statement to be synonymous with the endless acquisition of material wealth. That said I ask you what property is. In civilized society it is that which can be demonstrated before the justice system as ‘rightfully yours’. And without that justice system? I know how Locke would answer this but let us leave him out of this for now.

In civilized society your right to hold onto property comes from the compact that you made with that society. We service your property as gardeners, protect it as fire fighters, police, and as armed forces officers – enlisted or otherwise. The aforementioned millionaire has no ability to hold onto that property but through the labour of others. Labour which was bought with money at a price that was decided by the market. If the people employed to service the millionaire ever decided to cease to be in his employ then the deed would be as done as if a revolution took place and appropriated his land by force. Perhaps society’s decision to bleed the rich through taxes is preferable to literally bleeding them through violent revolution – as that has never happened in history. Even the United States of America has its own class warfare history – See the great railroad strike.

Interstate roads do not account for even a tenth of public roads. Maybe it is there but it is obviously not the keystone to public streets that you innitially implied it to be.
alright you live the rest of your life, and never ever touch an interstate. and have fun living your life. THey are a keystone to socioty, with out it,well capatilism that you love so much would fail. Try having a good buisness with no interstate transpertation

Or, maybe we could (gasp) slash government spending since nobody really feels they are getting $1000 worth of government each month.
Alright, what will you slash?

Provide justification and reduce that spending!

I'll even make it easier for ya, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

There's the budget, tell me what you're going to cut, your justification, and the numbers. Go on. I'll wait.

Wow - that statement says far more about you than Jon. Alot more. How sad for you.

His post represented either an inability or an unwillingness to look further into the issue an question his own thoughts. It furthermore represented absolutely no economic training or intuition whatsoever.

My statement stands.

So if my money is worth more than Bills, why does he get all the fun toys?

I have explained this once before.

He gets all of the fun toys because dollars at your income level are more valuable than dollars at Gates's income level.

Consider a jet ski, the market sets values for them at around a few thousand dollars. Even though the market has assigned a value to them, you assign your own value based on marginal utility. The value of the jet ski, as you determine it, is based on the utility you will receive from having one more jet ski contrasted to the opportunity cost you will incur if you purchase it.

This means that the value of the jet ski to you will equal exactly what you would be willing to give up to obtain it. So you make measurements in your head, what would I be willing to give up, the house payment, electricity, going out on the weekends? Bill Gates , on the other hand, calculates his value using none of these, instead using superfluous factors that neither of can even dream of. Most likely it is so inconsequential it isn't even a calculation.

So when you are calculating the value of the jet ski, you will decide on a much lower price that you would be willing to pay for it than Bill Gates would, meaning that the jet ski has a very different value to the two of you, even though the market prices them the same. This is subjective value, and it is based on marginal utility.

Now we apply this to dollars at your normal income and Gates's astronomical income. We weigh the marginal utility, how much utility would you derive from one more dollar. Chances are that the things that you value (time with the family, vacation, sleep) that you give up in order to earn that next dollar is far more valuable to you than those things that Gates's gives up (blinking).

Because of this, every dollar at a lower income level has a higher subjective value (of course there are variations depending on the person) than that dollar from a level above it, as it had a much higher marginal utility and cost.

Maybe I missed it, but you have not yet defined this 'subjective' value of a dollar in any conclusive manner within the cotext of this thread.

From the quotes around subjective, you question whether subjective value exists. To that I ask you to pick up any economics textbook.

That above was my second explanation of subjective value so far, I am sure you will pick out the one that is more prone to misinterpretation and semantic issues and attack it.

Aside from the nonsese of ancedotal cheezyness - apparently life insurance wasn't invented until AFTER Vietnam... right? No? Oh gee - well then -0 sounds like you were as much the victim of poor financial planning on your fathers part as anything else. Sucks to be you - but you do not have the right to force me to pay for it. (though ah good argument could be made against veteran affairs)
Oh we had it, but tell me, how much money do you honestly think we got?

How much, you have no fucking clue do you?

BTW, the US Government to this day refuses to admit that Agent Orange has ANYTHING to do with lukemia.

Oh please. Look at the small services there vs a national army. Jesh.


Try reading things in order next time. I already answered.


Yes, and I just LOVE how the insurance companies have been screwing the folks who delt with Katrina. Matter of fact, many companies are just NOW getting around the paying out. They're, what, a year late? No problem, people can just live in shit for a year with no food, water, or medical care.

Not to mention rebuilding things like, say, levies.


You never heard of Gerlach, NV have you?


Hate to break this to ya, B0zz, most of the R&D done in the US is done by the universities on government grants.


No, you have not. You've tossed in a few one liners about expensive TP and Nikes but you have not shown why a government needs to be treated like Wal*Mart.

Try again, I'm sure you can provide me with something.

You have missed the point completely. You challenged me to demonstrate where any of those 'exclusive' government benefits had any commercial counterpart, specifically in that it is impossible for a cost or value determined for them. I demonstrated that EACH one does have a commercial counterpart and a determinable cost and value. Now you are switching your argument to suggest that the government is bigger - which neither you nor I ever addressed before. (and as an aside - I strongly doubt that public R+D is greater than private R+D - you'll have to prove that one - I strongly doubt that GE, GM, Intel etc. combined are spending less thant he govt on R+D.)

So really - I have demonstrated that the value of the government services you listed IS quantifyable. You and many others have pointed out that the current cost for these services is less than the perceived value for the vast majority of Americans.

Oh we had it, but tell me, how much money do you honestly think we got?

How much, you have no fucking clue do you?

BTW, the US Government to this day refuses to admit that Agent Orange has ANYTHING to do with lukemia.

I suppose that would depend on how much life insurance your father puirchased before his illness now, wouldn't it?

I happen to think the majority of government spending is unnecessary. Consumers Against Government Waste ( www.cagw.org ) estimate about $29 billion dollars in pork this year
29 billion from 2,709 billion still leaves a whole hell of a lot of money the government is spending that doesn't seem to be pork.

Bozzy Prove to me that the private sector puts more into R & D then the government that includes NASA and all public schools, prove to me there is a private security force capable of doing what the US military does, everything it does including marinating a nuclear arsenal. I want you to show me Companies that are RIGHT NOW doing everything the government is doing on the same or grater level, the burden of proof is on you baby.

And all sources must be unrelated to you, and I want multiple sources for everything. Or else its just bs

Interstate roads do not account for even a tenth of public roads. Maybe it is there but it is obviously not the keystone to public streets that you innitially implied it to be.
One, I never mentioned city streets, I was talking about federal roads, the highway and interstate system. Two, if you think that because the interstate system makes up less than 10th than the paved roads they are not important you really do have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

First the flat tax. There are two ideas being toyed with here that I can see. One, a set stipend – the number $1,000 is tossed around quite a bit, the other setting a flat percentage. I will grant that from certain mathematical perspectives that this is equal. And as an economics professor once said to me “Economists can determine equity, never fairness. It is equitable to give everyone one hotdog a day. Is it fair that I just gave Bill Gates a free lunch? Who knows.” The man was a staunch capitalist who emigrated from Soviet Russia, I don’t think the iron curtain could have come up fast enough for him. But even he knew where his expertise lie – and it was not in asserting the moral correctness of any given action, but the economic factors relevant to it.

You should watch your command of English - you're mistaking equity for equality.

Equality - when everything is the same.
Equity - when things are fair.

In this case, you are contrasting equity with being fair, when they're actually the same thing. Or your economics teacher is, which is kind of amusing.

You have missed the point completely. You challenged me to demonstrate where any of those 'exclusive' government benefits had any commercial counterpart, specifically in that it is impossible for a cost or value determined for them. I demonstrated that EACH one does have a commercial counterpart and a determinable cost and value. Now you are switching your argument to suggest that the government is bigger - which neither you nor I ever addressed before. (and as an aside - I strongly doubt that public R+D is greater than private R+D - you'll have to prove that one - I strongly doubt that GE, GM, Intel etc. combined are spending less thant he govt on R+D.)

So really - I have demonstrated that the value of the government services you listed IS quantifyable. You and many others have pointed out that the current cost for these services is less than the perceived value for the vast majority of Americans.
No you have not. I challenged you to show that it was the same as buying a damned roll of toilet paper because it ain't. Yes, it IS bigger because it has to be. Ignoring that is idiotic at best because you're trying to, in effect, say that buying a house is no different from buying a coke at the 7-11.

...

The ability to wield such astounding concepts as marginal utility doesn't really make you right.

If someone has more money than someone else, and as such values a given amount of that money less in regards to opportunity costs, should they have to give disproportionately more money to the government? No. It's weak reasoning.

So earlier I posted a suggestion of what seems to be a good solution addressing some of the concerns raised here:

Poverty line income is excluded. Everything after that is then taxed at a single rate of taxation.

As some people seem to need examples to figure this out:

Assuming a poverty line of $9800 and a tax rate of 20% if you make:

$9,000 = pay no tax as everything is below poverty line.
$12,000 = (12,000 – 9800) x 20% = pay $440 in tax
$22,000 = (22,000 - 9,800) x 20% = pay $2,440 in tax
$70,000 = (70,000 - 9,800) x 20% = pay $12,040 in tax

The $9,800 came from the 2006 US Health and Human Services poverty guidelines for a single individual in the contiguous 48 states. The 20% was just pulled out of nowhere.

This way everyone pays the same rate, which is equitable. Those in poverty, who are those who cannot afford to pay, do no have to pay.

Even those who are most adamantly against giving any special consideration to some just because they are in poverty should note that the cost of collecting their tax payments would likely exceed the revenue collected – so even the most heatless bastard cannot complain (unless they are personally offering to pay for the collection out of their own personal pocket).

I suppose that would depend on how much life insurance your father puirchased before his illness now, wouldn't it?
Hard to get life insurance when you have terminal cancer, but in any case, try to, you know, actually think about how much money is needed to raise two children from toddlers to adults and you'd see the problem.

There was no way in hell for my father to buy that kind of insurance, or are you walking around with a nice half a million policy on yourself?

So while on an individual basis the rich do contribute more they, as a demographic, do not.
Wrong. 50% of income tax is paid by the top 5% of earners in the US.

If you were to ask a millionaire and I to contribute equally – at either 10% or a flat 1,000 – my lifestyle would be substantially changed, and for doing absolutely nothing different that millionaire would be making substantially more money.
Wrong. First - your definition of a millionaire is incorrect. I think what you mean to say is someone who earns $1mil annually. Huge difference. That is considerably higher than the top 5% of earners. Regardless. I'll presume you meant someone who earns $1mil annually. After the tax adjustment their earnings would still be the same - that is, $1 mil annually.

Were we to each pay 10% I would be contributing $900 dollars and he/she $100,000. ...That leaves me with a negative amount of disposable income and him/her with almost $900,000 of it.
So what? Other than demonstrating your math aptitude this does nothing for me. Do you not feel the need to support your government's spending or do you just prefer to force other people to spend thier money on government folly?

The millionaire requires police and fire protection for his person as well as nearly 900,000 in assets. I require the same – for my person.
Which is why they paid ver 100 times more money than you in tax.

The millionaire is now driving the economy.
so?

I however start from a negative number and supposing I outpace him I will still find myself struggling to over take him/her. Interest compounds and I have no liquid assets to invest. Our (former) millionaire does.
once again - so what? First - not everyone who is born a millionaire stays one (I think in fact, it is less than 50%) Second - just because their parents can purchase more stuff (including education and busienss opportunities) does jot justify punishing them. Once you and they hve achieved pariety in income they will still have more assets than you. Fortunatly - equality is not measured or bought with dollars.

When we consider these variables we see that my country asks for slightly less than one third of a middle class person’s life to sustain themselves, while asking for only a ninth of the millionaires.
Wrong. You started your post discussing the flat tax rate - so lets keep to that here. If everyone paid 15% income tax then everyone would spend 15% of the year working to pay their taxes. Period.

The market is merely the mechanism for exchange and I would posit that perhaps the only reason people value the millionaire’s work at such a rate is because of the way society is built – taxes included. Perhaps we feel some small satisfaction at knowing that 60% of the money we are paying out will be redistributed.
As I pointed out in other posts - if government service were priced by the market it would not cost nearly so much. I don't know anyone who has ever made a purchase decision based on how much income tax the provider of the goods or service would be paying.

I do not however find that statement to be synonymous with the endless acquisition of material wealth.
You just spent a considerable effort justifying that income and assets are the most measure of equality and fairness.

If the people employed to service the millionaire ever decided to cease to be in his employ then the deed would be as done as if a revolution took place and appropriated his land by force. Perhaps society’s decision to bleed the rich through taxes is preferable to literally bleeding them through violent revolution.
Ah yes, theft is always an option. Funny you should compare it to taxes.

alright you live the rest of your life, and never ever touch an interstate. and have fun living your life. THey are a keystone to socioty, with out it,well capatilism that you love so much would fail. Try having a good buisness with no interstate transpertation

Still a losing argument. You have both conceeded that interstates are not fully or even primarily funded with income tax. Now you are just arguing the exceptions - a strategy employed by people who have already lost the primary argument.

Alright, what will you slash?

Provide justification and reduce that spending!

I'll even make it easier for ya, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

There's the budget, tell me what you're going to cut, your justification, and the numbers. Go on. I'll wait.

A vast amount of federal spending could be eliminated or transferred to state and local governemts including public education and welfare, a substantial amount of business regulation entities, Medicare, Social Security should be privatized. Pork should not be tolerated. Business Subsidies, Public Transportation (AMtrak), Public Broadcasting. Subsidy payments to Egypt, Israel and other nations. There - that reduces the federal budget by about 50%. State ald local budgets may increase but only at a fraction and with better alignment to their communities values.

From the quotes around subjective, you question whether subjective value exists. To that I ask you to pick up any economics textbook.



No, that is a cop-out on your part. Besides - you just defined it in that same post I quoted.

The subjective value of MY money may be greater to me than to Bill - at least in my mind. But the subjective value of MY money is greater to me than anyone elses money is to me either be they richer or poorer- except, of course, the money which they are paying to me - which is suddenly quite equal to me regardless of the source.

I do, however - agree with your premise, which is one of the reasons I do support a progressive tax system. I just don't support one in which half of the people who vote pay not tax whatsoever. Some taxes should be collectred not for the economic advantage as much as for the principal.

29 billion from 2,709 billion still leaves a whole hell of a lot of money the government is spending that doesn't seem to be pork.


Unless the taxes you paid on your 1040 were all used up in that pork. It also is about 10% of the current deficit.

Bozzy Prove to me that the private sector puts more into R & D then the government that includes NASA and all public schools, prove to me there is a private security force capable of doing what the US military does, everything it does including marinating a nuclear arsenal. I want you to show me Companies that are RIGHT NOW doing everything the government is doing on the same or grater level, the burden of proof is on you baby.

And all sources must be unrelated to you, and I want multiple sources for everything. Or else its just bs

Umm, you were the one who said that the government spends more on R+D - so the burden is on you. You really would prefer to find yourself wrong than to allow me to demonstrate it then gloat over your smoldering carcass.

You also seem to be completely inable to comprehend the point I made before that security force is not something with an unquantifyable value. You have become fixated on the example instead of the point. I believe you are smarter than that.

In FY 2006, the US Budget was $2,709,000,000,000 (Not counting emergency spending for Iraq, hurricanes, and other fun things).

...

The "tax" should we split this up evenly would end up being $11,846.71 per each working man and women in the US, regardless if they are Bill Gates and make well over a couple of million a year, or if you're burger flipping and make $18 thousand a year. Now who is that going to hurt more? Hmmm... hard to say, but my guess is someone who makes $18 thousand will be hurt a lot more by suddenly having to contribute $11,846.71 as opposed to Bill Gates whom that is pocket change.

...

It's $11,846.71, not $1,000.

You seem to forget that us libertarians wish to privatize the majority of government services. If all the government needs to pay for is the criminal justice system and essencial services (police, fire, paramedic [not healthcare though]), then $200 bn should be plenty. If the government has a buget of about $3 trillion per year (factoring in your "emergency expenses"), it's in SERIOUS need of some fat trimming.

Too many people, even the "flat taxers"/Young Republicans, miss the point. Everyone is all concerned about the government having money to pay for programs and things, and worried that without government involvement we would all be poor and needy.

I view our tax policy as a moral issue. When the "shot that was heard round the world" was fired in Lexington, Massachusetts, the point was that people have certain inalienable rights, that first people are individuals who voluntary delegate the protection of their rights to government.
(To the majority Marxians on the Forum: government/the state =/= society/community/neighborhood)

The miracle of America wasn't that our politicians made a calculation and said that a low tax/low regulation state was best for business, it wasn't even in the minds of most people. The point was that it was the moral thing to do, it was God's law.

When we enter into a state of society (voluntarily), we do not forfeit our individual rights, in fact, we only join the state because it ENHANCES our individual rights. Now, when people want to enter into arrangements over and above this, they can enter into voluntary groups. The "mandatory" force of government should only be used for protection of our most basic rights, no more.

So, the question is, why should people have to yeild a certain percentage of their income to government? When taxation theoretically is only supposed to be used for our share of cost for the protection of our individual rights.

Government services should be privatized, if that can't be done it should be funded by user fees, and for the basic core of government it should be a fixed, per-adult fee assessed to each citizen. Whatever can be done by local government, as oppposed to national, should be done at the local level.

One, I never mentioned city streets, I was talking about federal roads, the highway and interstate system. Two, if you think that because the interstate system makes up less than 10th than the paved roads they are not important you really do have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Nope - you are chaniging your story again. You said "Since when are roads such things?" (Commodity purchases) And even discussed driveways.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11350509&postcount=141

I pointed out that a good portion of roads are paid for by gas taxes. Local taxes also.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11350539&postcount=145

Ain't consistiencey a bitch?

No you have not. I challenged you to show that it was the same as buying a damned roll of toilet paper because it ain't. Yes, it IS bigger because it has to be. Ignoring that is idiotic at best because you're trying to, in effect, say that buying a house is no different from buying a coke at the 7-11.

They each have a qualtifyable value - in that respect they are similar. Your earlier point was that the value of government services, in general, cannot be determined. Therefore - this example is inconsistent with the disproven point you are trying to defend.

So earlier I posted a suggestion of what seems to be a good solution addressing some of the concerns raised here:

Poverty line income is excluded. Everything after that is then taxed at a single rate of taxation.

As some people seem to need examples to figure this out:

Assuming a poverty line of $9800 and a tax rate of 20% if you make:

$9,000 = pay no tax as everything is below poverty line.
$12,000 = (12,000 – 9800) x 20% = pay $440 in tax
$22,000 = (22,000 - 9,800) x 20% = pay $2,440 in tax
$70,000 = (70,000 - 9,800) x 20% = pay $12,040 in tax

The $9,800 came from the 2006 US Health and Human Services poverty guidelines for a single individual in the contiguous 48 states. The 20% was just pulled out of nowhere.

This way everyone pays the same rate, which is equitable. Those in poverty, who are those who cannot afford to pay, do no have to pay.

Even those who are most adamantly against giving any special consideration to some just because they are in poverty should note that the cost of collecting their tax payments would likely exceed the revenue collected – so even the most heatless bastard cannot complain (unless they are personally offering to pay for the collection out of their own personal pocket).


hehe - actually - I believe it should be more progressive at the top - but also include a token amount at the bottom.

29 billion from 2,709 billion still leaves a whole hell of a lot of money the government is spending that doesn't seem to be pork.

That 29 billion dollar figure does not in any way constitute the entirety of government waste – it merely represents the money that is an obvious boondoggle. In other words, that is just what is spent on things tacked onto a bill by one member of congress to specifically reward one small locality or special interest which is not the subject of review, competitively awarded, or specifically authorized.

That is 29 billion in what anyone can clearly see is an obvious pork project for a congressman at just a glance. This is exactly what the line-item veto is supposed to correct. That’s 29 billion that won’t be spent simply by taking a quick glance at it. If you don’t think that is a significant amount of money, you exemplify the problem in congress (“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money”). I don’t know about you, but I can come up with some pretty amazing things to do with $29 billion.

Hard to get life insurance when you have terminal cancer, but in any case, try to, you know, actually think about how much money is needed to raise two children from toddlers to adults and you'd see the problem.

There was no way in hell for my father to buy that kind of insurance, or are you walking around with a nice half a million policy on yourself?


DAMN! You have ESP? Yes - I have a $500k policy. creepy...

The premium cost is less than 2% of my income. The face value of the policy is considerably higher than my income.

I am sorry to hear your father was diagnosed with cancer before you were born. Even more sorry to hear that your mother did not know how to seek out financial aid. I certainly hope her second marriage was for personal and not economic reasons and that she is still happy today.

I spend 2% of my income to provide certainty for me that my family will not suffer financially in my absense.

hehe - actually - I believe it should be more progressive at the top - but also include a token amount at the bottom.

E.C.'s plan is too complex, make it even simpler. Either you are part of society or not. Even if you never work a day in your life, you benefit from the protection of your individual rights.

Why a token amount at the bottom? The full amount at the bottom! Plus, just become someone has no income, doesn't mean they don't have a large savings account.

DAMN! You have ESP? Yes - I have a $500k policy. creepy...

NERVUN's story is a tear-jerker. But I don't see where that entitles him to rob his neighbors through the intermediary of government. (He would not be able to rob his neighbors by breaking into their safe deposit box, no matter how sad his story is.)

If he wants their money, he can request help, but not by force.

If a local community wants to set up a small temporary assistance fund, it has the option, but it should be done at the most local level possible.

snip

Interresting post. I'll have to mull that while I sleep. Which I think I'll do now....

Or maybe I'll log off first..

Look, progressive taxation is very, very old... and the logic behind it is just as old. It has stood up against thousands of years of criticism... because, well, it makes sense.

The basic principle is this. If I barely make a living off of my day-to-day job as a shoemaker, two things are true: 1) I can't afford to pay much more than a small fraction of my wages to the government; and 2) If the government were suddenly to collapse and stop providing its various services and protections, I would (assuming I survived the revolution) probably be able to make just as much money as a shoemaker under the next regime as under the current one. In other words, very little of my livelihood depends directly or indirectly on the government.

If, on the other hand, I own a factory in which I employ a thousand workers... and I have accumulated considerable wealth, which I keep in an insured bank account... and I a control complicated investments in the stock market, then two things are true: 1) I can afford to pay much, much more than the shoemaker for government services; and 2) If the government were suddenly to collapse, with all of its infrastructure, services, and protections, I would (assuming I survive the revolution) be faced with massive financial losses. The system of roads that supports shipping to and from my factory might go into disrepair, my liquid assets might be lost, and the complex economic machinery that maintains relative stability in the stock market might vanish overnight.

In other words (obviously), almost all of my wealth depends in some way (directly or indirectly) on the infrastructure protected by the government.

The wealthy have more to lose from a failure of government than do the poor... and this is not a matter of "unfair law" so much as it is the natural result of great wealth depending on complex social relations. The government cannot provide equal benefits to rich and poor... the only way it can provide equal benefits is by enforcing equality, and I doubt many in this discussion want that.

Hence, wealthy citizens necessarily receive government benefits in proportion to their wealth. It only makes sense that they should contribute to running said government in proportion to their wealth.

E.C.'s plan is too complex, make it even simpler. Either you are part of society or not. Even if you never work a day in your life, you benefit from the protection of your individual rights.

Why a token amount at the bottom? The full amount at the bottom! Plus, just become someone has no income, doesn't mean they don't have a large savings account.


Hehe - for sixteen pages I played devils advocate for you. Why not a larger payment at the bottom? Several reasons. One - the bottom wage earner may be minors living at home still. Two - second incomes for a household. Three - People who would otherwise need to be subsidized by charity (or government) resulting in charity paying their tax for them. Four - The similarity to indentured servitude. Five - people who choose not to participate in the economy should not be compelled to by the government.

I could go on...

Hence, wealthy citizens necessarily receive government benefits in proportion to their wealth. It only makes sense that they should contribute to running said government in proportion to their wealth.

So, you are saying that if I own a nice home, unless I pay the government a higher amount of money, they will let crooks and robbers steal from me?

This makes no sense. Wealthy communities use FAR LESS in government services, especially from the income tax. The income tax is almost entirely for redistribution. The cops are all in the inner city, because the people there don't respect their neighbors and are always try to shoot them or steal from them.

Wealthy people pay entirely for their education, but they pay again for people in the inner city, because they are funded almost entirely by income tax (as opposed to local taxes), and they are often funded at HIGHER LEVELS than suburban schools.

If a business, for example, needs extra cops to protect their warehouse, then they should pay for a security guard.

On the contrary, a business should get a tax break because it hires so many other people!

And the progressive tax was virtually unheard of until Karl Marx. If your public school teachers say the progressive tax has been around forever, they are absolutety telling you rubbish. Governments could barely collect tax prior to the 20th century.

Hehe - for sixteen pages I played devils advocate for you. Why not a larger payment at the bottom? Several reasons. One - the bottom wage earner may be minors living at home still. Two - second incomes for a household. Three - People who would otherwise need to be subsidized by charity (or government) resulting in charity paying their tax for them. Four - The similarity to indentured servitude. Five - people who choose not to participate in the economy should not be compelled to by the government.

I could go on...

Whether you have kids or not is your individual decision, it does not affect your neighbors, nor should it require that your neighbors pay more for you. Indentured servitude is a play on Marx's wage slave idea, which is garbage. If you don't want to work for the man, work someplace else. You have no "right to work" if someone doesn't need your services. The tax is not because you are not participating in the economy, is it because you are getting the benefit of the protection of your individual rights. You owe your share for that service.

So earlier I posted a suggestion of what seems to be a good solution addressing some of the concerns raised here:

Poverty line income is excluded. Everything after that is then taxed at a single rate of taxation.

As some people seem to need examples to figure this out:

Assuming a poverty line of $9800 and a tax rate of 20% if you make:

$9,000 = pay no tax as everything is below poverty line.
$12,000 = (12,000 – 9800) x 20% = pay $440 in tax
$22,000 = (22,000 - 9,800) x 20% = pay $2,440 in tax
$70,000 = (70,000 - 9,800) x 20% = pay $12,040 in tax

The $9,800 came from the 2006 US Health and Human Services poverty guidelines for a single individual in the contiguous 48 states. The 20% was just pulled out of nowhere.

This way everyone pays the same rate, which is equitable. Those in poverty, who are those who cannot afford to pay, do no have to pay.

Even those who are most adamantly against giving any special consideration to some just because they are in poverty should note that the cost of collecting their tax payments would likely exceed the revenue collected – so even the most heatless bastard cannot complain (unless they are personally offering to pay for the collection out of their own personal pocket).
Well, using your numbers we'd get an intake of $380,358,520,000 which covers the federal budget with room to spare for a few more wars.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/perinc/new10_001.htm

A vast amount of federal spending could be eliminated or transferred to state and local governemts including public education and welfare, a substantial amount of business regulation entities, Medicare, Social Security should be privatized. Pork should not be tolerated. Business Subsidies, Public Transportation (AMtrak), Public Broadcasting. Subsidy payments to Egypt, Israel and other nations. There - that reduces the federal budget by about 50%. State ald local budgets may increase but only at a fraction and with better alignment to their communities values.
Copout, I said show me what you would cut and the numbers. I'm not going to tollerate a pull some nice slogans out of your ass.

Well, using your numbers we'd get an intake of $380,358,520,000 which covers the federal budget with room to spare for a few more wars.
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/perinc/new10_001.htm

We shouldn't base tax policy on numbers or statistics, but on our values.

Besides, the point isn't to "maximize" revenue for the government. The point is that it should be used to protect our individual rights. Whatever the government needs to do that, we should all pay for equally. And the rest should be ours to do with what we please.

You seem to forget that us libertarians wish to privatize the majority of government services. If all the government needs to pay for is the criminal justice system and essencial services (police, fire, paramedic [not healthcare though]), then $200 bn should be plenty. If the government has a buget of about $3 trillion per year (factoring in your "emergency expenses"), it's in SERIOUS need of some fat trimming.
Where? What? Why?

Please tell me.

The ability to wield such astounding concepts as marginal utility doesn't really make you right.

It is a rather important economic principle and isn't at all astounding if you have a good teacher explain it to you.

And of course simply using the concepts does not make my argument correct.

If someone has more money than someone else, and as such values a given amount of that money less in regards to opportunity costs, should they have to give disproportionately more money to the government? No. It's weak reasoning.

The lower the level of a dollar, the more important it is to someone's well being, and why should taxes be assessed with some acknowledgement of this importance?

Nope - you are chaniging your story again. You said "Since when are roads such things?" (Commodity purchases) And even discussed driveways.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11350509&postcount=141

I pointed out that a good portion of roads are paid for by gas taxes. Local taxes also.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11350539&postcount=145

Ain't consistiencey a bitch?
Ain't reading comprehension a bitch?

Especially when you keep trying to change things around.

No, my point was and has always been that you cannot show me the US Army is the same as a roll of tolietpaper.

It would be as if you were trying to tell me that hiring Bob the Builder to build a chicken coup is the same as constructing the Golden Gate Bridge.

They each have a qualtifyable value - in that respect they are similar. Your earlier point was that the value of government services, in general, cannot be determined. Therefore - this example is inconsistent with the disproven point you are trying to defend.
Then you SERIOUSLY did not understand a word I said.

That 29 billion dollar figure does not in any way constitute the entirety of government waste – it merely represents the money that is an obvious boondoggle. In other words, that is just what is spent on things tacked onto a bill by one member of congress to specifically reward one small locality or special interest which is not the subject of review, competitively awarded, or specifically authorized.

That is 29 billion in what anyone can clearly see is an obvious pork project for a congressman at just a glance. This is exactly what the line-item veto is supposed to correct. That’s 29 billion that won’t be spent simply by taking a quick glance at it. If you don’t think that is a significant amount of money, you exemplify the problem in congress (“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money”). I don’t know about you, but I can come up with some pretty amazing things to do with $29 billion.
I'd like 29 billion meself. But the point being I need numbers to see how much of the budget is pork and waste. I really would like to know these things.

So, you are saying that if I own a nice home, unless I pay the government a higher amount of money, they will let crooks and robbers steal from me?No, I'm saying that if government fails, you have a lot more to lose.

Wealthy communities use FAR LESS in government services, especially from the income tax.Actually, they tend to get more. But the point is that even if wealthy communities receive less in direct expenditures, more of their wealth is dependent on government stability than is that of the poor.

This should be obvious from the simple fact that great wealth requires complex social systems: simple societies never develop the incredible wealth that can be possible in complex economies. If that doesn't convince you, just look at how stock markets often react to even the slightest rumor of government instability. If investors don't think that their investments will be protected by a stable government, they have a tendency to cut and run.

The income tax is almost entirely for redistribution.Right. And the only reason the wealthy tolerate it is because most of them have been intelligent enough to realize that without the minor redistributive policies of the welfare state, they risk the much more dramatic costs of social disruption, widespread strikes, and threats of revolution... which is precisely what they were dealing with before hitting on the government solution of welfare.

The wealthy, in fact, probably receive more benefits from welfare than all of its actual recipients combined.

The cops are all in the inner city, because the people there don't respect their neighbors and are always try to shoot them or steal from them. The cops are in the inner city because if they keep large parts of the population in prison, they effectively keep them contained.

If you want to measure police resources, just look at the divergent reactions to a suburban break-in and an inner-city break-in. On which one do you think the police will spend more resources?

One of the most serious problems with the inner city is that they do not recieve sufficient police protection.

Wealthy people pay entirely for their education, but they pay again for people in the inner city, because they are funded almost entirely by income tax (as opposed to local taxes), and they are often funded at HIGHER LEVELS than suburban schools.Where the fuck do you get this shit?

I could dig for more recent data, but offhand I have this... In the inner city schools the per student expenditure is $5590, while in a suburban school the per student expenditure reaches close to $11,000 (Kozol, Jonathan (1991). Savage Inequalties: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown Publisher, Inc.)

And the progressive tax was virtually unheard of until Karl Marx. If your public school teachers say the progressive tax has been around forever, they are absolutety telling you rubbish. Governments could barely collect tax prior to the 20th century.Bullshit. The Athenians had a very advanced tax system well over two thousand years ago... and beginning with Pericles' populist movement--you guessed it, it was progressive.

:rolleyes:

We shouldn't base tax policy on numbers or statistics, but on our values.

Besides, the point isn't to "maximize" revenue for the government. The point is that it should be used to protect our individual rights. Whatever the government needs to do that, we should all pay for equally. And the rest should be ours to do with what we please.
It wasn't my call on that. I was using his system and I was interested to see where we would be if we did use his numbers.

I do, however - agree with your premise, which is one of the reasons I do support a progressive tax system. I just don't support one in which half of the people who vote pay not tax whatsoever. Some taxes should be collectred not for the economic advantage as much as for the principal.

Yes, I provided a kind of jumbled economic explanation for the central argument coming from the progressive tax side, and you did state earlier that you were more or less playing devil's advocate.

Economics doesn't always deal in common sense, and most people don't really examine the forces beneath the surface. I tried to explain it, and even I can admit my explanation wasn't great.

I agree with you that everyone should contribute at least a little, but we can't take that to the point where those that can't contribute can't vote, so we back off of the stance a little.

:rolleyes:
Financial aid... you mean... GOVERMENT HAND OUTS?!?!?!?!?! Oh my gosh! (note: C&T edit)

B0zzy, God bless you. (note: C&T edit)

And if you died at age 33, how much money would you have left, hmm?

NERVUN, your story is a tear-jerker, but you still don't make the moral case for why your neighbors should be compelled (by force of government/possible prison time) to take care of you?

(Please note that I'm not that your neighbors don't have a moral duty to help you, but only where you have the right to use force of government to force them to help you.)

Yes, I provided a kind of jumbled economic explanation for the central argument coming from the progressive tax side, and you did state earlier that you were more or less playing devil's advocate.

Economics doesn't always deal in common sense, and most people don't really examine the forces beneath the surface. I tried to explain it, and even I can admit my explanation wasn't great.

I agree with you that everyone should contribute at least a little, but we can't take that to the point where those that can't contribute can't vote, so we back off of the stance a little.

If you are delinquent on taxes, you should forgo your right to vote until you are paid up.

If you are delinquent on taxes, you should forgo your right to vote until you are paid up.

Why?

NERVUN, your story is a tear-jerker, but you still don't make the moral case for why your neighbors should be compelled (by force of government/possible prison time) to take care of you?
So you feel that it is right then for two children to starve? Be left homeless?

If you are delinquent on taxes, you should forgo your right to vote until you are paid up.

ya know...usually I think you're pretty freaking out there, but I could get behind this..