Your ideal tax structure? [Archive]

Myrmidonisia

28-11-2006, 23:36

Why does the government get the ability to get to take our money from us unilaterally, when the rest of us have to get it voluntarily? I do not argue that the government has legitimate responsibilities, but if these responsibilities are so worthy, why do they have to be funded by what is no less than theft (it's definitely not voluntary, and if you don't do it, you can expect them to make you do it).

As for the FairTax, that's about the least worst tax there is. It doesn't confiscate automatically (like payroll, income, and property taxes), and you could theorize that you are paying the imbedded costs of the goods and services that you buy that would not be possible otherwise. Still, people did not choose that protection, so it ends up being a form of theft as well.
Funding by coercion is one of those things that we have to put up with, if we are willing to accept government at all. So I guess we have agreed to be taxed if we accept government. Remember we have that choice, in theory anyway.

It's like insurance, anyway, you have to spread the burden in order for it to be feasible to fund certain things like national defense. There's no way I can even conceive of a per-use fee for that.

Maraque

28-11-2006, 23:38

you would take more than half of someone's hard earned money?Yup.

Andaluciae

28-11-2006, 23:38

Leaving them with at least $300,000. Not justification, I know. But still.

That is half of their time, half of the product of their lives and their liberty that you're taking there.

Smunkeeville

28-11-2006, 23:39

Yup.

why?

Illuve

28-11-2006, 23:40

Everyone here is making it all too complicated. The ideal tax system is really easy to come up with.

Just send all your money to me.

There - simple and easy!

Damor

28-11-2006, 23:41

That is half of their time, half of the product of their lives and their liberty that you're taking there.If they don't like it, they can emigrate. Nothing is forcing them to stay.
Just as nothing is forcing them to live in the house they might pay rent on.

Andaluciae

28-11-2006, 23:42

If they don't like it, they can emigrate. Nothing is forcing them to stay.

This is your ideal tax structure. You have the golden opportunity to put it into enforcement in every single country in the world. Where do they emigrate to?

Damor

28-11-2006, 23:44

This is your ideal tax structure. You have the golden opportunity to put it into enforcement in every single country in the world. Where do they emigrate to?The moon, Mars, it's a big solar system, an even bigger universe.
Also, I don't think you mentioned enforcing it globally.

Jambomon

28-11-2006, 23:45

how about no taxes? :p

Europa Maxima

28-11-2006, 23:45

No taxes. No government.

As long as the blight of government must exist though, a sales tax remains somewhat acceptable. Any country that tried to tax me above 20% would see me withdrawing every cent of income I invested in it. If other wealthy individuals did the same, it would collapse. Good riddance I say.

Andaluciae

28-11-2006, 23:47

The moon, Mars, it's a big solar system, an even bigger universe.
Also, I don't think you mentioned enforcing it globally.

This is your ideal tax structure. I'd assume that's how an "ideal" tax structure is going to be enforced.

And do you know how ludicrous that sounds?

Trotskylvania

28-11-2006, 23:48

I would prefer a system where taxation is not nescesary because of communal ownership and democratic control of the means of production. But that's just me.

Maraque

28-11-2006, 23:50

why?Why not?

Damor

28-11-2006, 23:51

Anyway. A tax system should start with how much money is needed to operate the necessary and preferred goverment functions. The latter might be also be considered opt-in services.
And it might be helpfull to discuss alternative means of income for a goverment. For example, one might make the government the only legal heir to any inheritance (levelling the economic playing field each generation). Or, it might run as a business, toll on each road, pay for each school, hire your own detective if someone gets killed and you care enough, etc.
Abundant options, but which are tolerable in a civilized world?

Enodscopia

28-11-2006, 23:51

Personal income taxes
Lowest quintile- 15%
2nd quintile- 15%
3rd quintile- 15%
4th quintile- 15%
5th quintile- 15%

Corporate taxes- 20%

Payroll taxes- 0%

Sales taxes
Necessities- 10%
Luxuries- 10%

Property taxes- 0%

Poll taxes- $50 at poll

Excise taxes- 5%

Tariffs- 15%

Every other tax imaginable- 0%

Damor

28-11-2006, 23:51

This is your ideal tax structure. I'd assume that's how an "ideal" tax structure is going to be enforced.

And do you know how ludicrous that sounds?Yeah, it sounds incredibly ludicrous that you might enforce a worldwide tax system. I wouldn't have even considered bringing it up.

Smunkeeville

28-11-2006, 23:53

Why not?

why not take 60% of everyone's money?

Neu Leonstein

28-11-2006, 23:55

why?
My money is on envy.

Now, while I don't like taxes and think their moral justification is more than just a bit iffy, I'm not an anarchist, and realise that government needs money to do the things I want it to do.

Ideally I'd want to see a flat tax of perhaps 10 or 15%, with an additional sales tax to make up the rest. Companies wouldn't need seperate corporate taxes in that case, I don't think.

In practice, I quite like the idea for taxes the FDP put forward:
http://wahlkampf.fdp.de/files/363/fdp-chances_of_freedom.pdf
A concept that achieves growth through tax relief for every taxpayer and a better environment for business. So that you can afford more and businesses can invest more.

To achieve this we shall create a simple and equitable system of taxation with low rates of 0%, 15%, 25% and 35% - that will provide relief for all. Every person, including every child, is entitled to a basic tax deduction of 7,700 euros – that is being pro-family.

We will reform the corporate tax. The tax slabs we propose are 15% and 25%. In the case of sales tax, we propose switching from taxation based on nominal figures to taxation on actual sales figures. This will make businesses competitive once more; this will generate new jobs. We will ensure reliable finances for local government and abolish the trade tax (“Gewerbesteuer”).

The FDP has the only well-founded, meticulously calculated concept. It provides for tax relief to the tune of about 17 billion to 19 billion euros. At the other end is a saving of approximately 35 billion euros on public budgets. Once all exemption provisions are removed, it will be possible to file tax returns on a single sheet and within a single hour.

I prefer to aim for real-life goals, so this sounds pretty good to me. Alternatively, several Eastern European countries have flat tax systems which seem to work at the moment. Estonia is running a budget surplus IIRC, which is more than what the high-taxing Western European States can say for themselves.

Maraque

28-11-2006, 23:58

why not take 60% of everyone's money?Because it would be impossible for the majority of the population to live off the $18,000 or so they'd be left with.

Damor

28-11-2006, 23:59

why not take 60% of everyone's money?Because people that only barely earn enough to live off would then starve.
Unless, perchance, we use the tax to make bread and water free. Maybe peanutbutter and jello too.

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 00:01

Because it would be impossible for the majority of the population to live off the $18,000 or so they'd be left with.
So you tax the rich to the extent that they no longer want to even invest in creating capital? :confused: They will either leave, or just not even bother. This is what happened to France; it experienced an exodus of its wealthier citizens.

Damor

29-11-2006, 00:01

Estonia is running a budget surplus IIRC, which is more than what the high-taxing Western European States can say for themselves.We get considerably more services from our goverment though. Although they could probably save half if they cut down beaurocracy (on the other hand, that'd raise the number of unemployed).

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 00:03

Because it would be impossible for the majority of the population to live off the $18,000 or so they'd be left with.

so why not just take everyone's money and redistrubute it evenly?

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 00:03

We get considerably more services from our goverment though. Although they could probably save half if they cut down beaurocracy (on the other hand, that'd raise the number of unemployed).
It'd also give taxpayers much of their income back which would otherwise be wasted on inefficient bureaucrats.

Wallum

29-11-2006, 00:05

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 00:07

As an anarcho-capitalist, I would agree with the OP that no taxes is the best. But government's here to stay, my ideas will never happen, so I'd go with the fair tax. No taxes on income (personal or corporate), property, tarriffs, excise, just a flat sales tax on all goods and perhaps a poll-tax as well. So long as people think they have the right to vote to decide what we may and may not do, let's at least make them pay for it.
I agree; as long as the status quo is in place, we might as well do our best to go for the next-best alternative. A low, flat income tax, sales tax and poll-tax. Certain things, such as the military budget and such, should also be optional...

Christmahanikwanzikah

29-11-2006, 00:09

so why not just take everyone's money and redistrubute it evenly?

because greed dictates that most of it would stick to someones fingers

AB Again

29-11-2006, 00:09

so why not just take everyone's money and redistrubute it evenly?

Yeah, I can go for that. I'll just sit here and scratch my balls, while you work like a dog. At the end of the month we both get the same income. I like that.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 00:32

Yeah, I can go for that. I'll just sit here and scratch my balls, while you work like a dog. At the end of the month we both get the same income. I like that.

of course that would work out fine for them, otherwise why else take money from the rich?

Kraetd

29-11-2006, 00:49

so why not just take everyone's money and redistrubute it evenly?

I kinda agree, despite the risk of looking very stupid if Smunkeeville was being sarcastic. At least do something about the people who inherite millions from their family and never do a day of work in their lives

Yeah, I can go for that. I'll just sit here and scratch my balls, while you work like a dog. At the end of the month we both get the same income. I like that.

Suprisingly no-one complains when millions of people work like dogs and get paid just enough to live on, while some people sit around and get paid millions...

But im in favour of a tax system like the one Maraque suggested, maybe a bit harsher on those earning millions though

Andaluciae

29-11-2006, 01:03

Yeah, it sounds incredibly ludicrous that you might enforce a worldwide tax system. I wouldn't have even considered bringing it up.

It's a philosophical game.

Red_Letter

29-11-2006, 01:03

So you tax the rich to the extent that they no longer want to even invest in creating capital? :confused: They will either leave, or just not even bother. This is what happened to France; it experienced an exodus of its wealthier citizens.

This is what I predicted would happen to any country that tried to create an atmosphere of wealth contempt. Of course, I didnt know there were yet solid examples of it at work. Do you have any data on this in english?

It seems only natural that the rich, or anyone living within a system that had a hard ceiling on earning would leave as soon as they hit their maximum potential. Why should they stay?

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 01:05

My ideal situation would be one where Government is primarily an entity that gives to the people, not an entity that takes. Allow me to explain:

I would propose that all citizens who wish to work should be at the sole employment of the State, which then engages in subcontracting workers to employers (many employers would be state-owned, but not the majority, rather the state should have a finger in EVERY market in the nation, including mining, power, but also things like fast food and sportswear ("Hey mate, wanna go down to McDonalds?" "Nah bruv, I'd rather go down to StateBurger!"), share in the markets should range between 10-40%, depending on the success of the particular venture).

Employers treat their employees much as if the State was not there, giving them their instructions and taking disciplinary measures if needed. If the employer decides to sack the worker, the State should had no right to prevent that, indeed, the State should accept responsibility to the company for providing an inappropriate worker in the first place. When it comes to deciding wages, the employer suggests a figure to the Government, and the Government either adds or subtracts to that wage from their own pocket based on 'citizenship criteria', i.e. how much does the worker contribute towards society other than his what he contributes via his paid labour (for example, two people do the same job, Person A works 9-5 and then spends the rest of his time shut up in his room watching internet porn, and Person B spends his spair time volunteering for local charities, has a spotless criminal record and maintains a heavily oxygenating garden... Person B would be paid much more than his co-worker).

In addition to the direct payment that the Government offers, there is a further scheme of grading individuals on a scale of 1-100 based on their imput into society. Again, let's bring back Persons A and B: Person A is a habitual drug-user, he has never held a steady job and it prone to violent behaviour, in our societies, he would probably live in the street, in my scenario he is classified as a Grade 1 Citizen, as such he is entitled to a roof over his head (probably in a hostel), free medical care for serious ailments and a ration including enough essential foodstuffs to survive off of. Person B is married with kids and holds a stable desk-job, they will probably be categorised as a Grade 50 Citizen, as such they are allocated a reasonably sized house in a nice neighbourhood, full rations for both neccessities and some luxuries, and medical care for both essential and non-essential treatment. The fine-tuning of this system is the responsibility of the democratically elected Government. Furthermore, let us add Person C: Person C is the equivilent of our Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Richard Branson, etc. These people, who hold incredible powers of investment, are Grade 100 Citizens (or Centenaires). The Centenaires are a special case, as they are not given a wage. Instead, their entire estate is the property of the State, but, in exchange, they have total and FREE access to as much of the State's resources as they can personally use. Say you are a Centenaire and you want a swimming pool, instead of having to go through the hastle of bringing together the funds and hiring the labour, you can just pick up the phone and call the Department of Centenaires, say to the civil servant on the other end, 'I want a swimming pool', and then bam, the state arranges it for you. This system works due to the fact that although Centenaires may order obscene amounts of material, the fact remains that they will never order more than what they have already given to the State.

---

Of course, if that doesn't happen, I'm fairly nonchalant when it comes to economic policy, I'm fine withthe Government doing whatever it wants in terms of taxation as long as it doesn't unfairly persecute or leave people starving.

AB Again

29-11-2006, 01:06

I kinda agree, despite the risk of looking very stupid if Smunkeeville was being sarcastic. At least do something about the people who inherite millions from their family and never do a day of work in their lives

Suprisingly no-one complains when millions of people work like dogs and get paid just enough to live on, while some people sit around and get paid millions...

But im in favour of a tax system like the one Maraque suggested, maybe a bit harsher on those earning millions though

If they are stupid enough never to do anything, then they are stupid enough to lose their inherited wealth to those that are doing something. No need to take it from them by force.

The issue is that taxing the rich heavily does not discriminate between the lazy rich kid and the hard working self made man. It will have no great effect on the former - they will remain lazy and stupid, but it punishes the efforts of the latter.

Now why should a government need to tax at all? Yes it has obligations to its people, but it also has at its disposal a huge array of assets from which it can derive income to meet these obligations. How much land does the government own? What does it do with this land - does it make anything from it - no. Why not? Because it can legally steal the money from its citizens instead - so why should it bother.

Compulsive Depression

29-11-2006, 01:08

Yeah, I can go for that. I'll just sit here and scratch my balls, while you work like a dog. At the end of the month we both get the same income. I like that.

Why the sarcasm tags?
Best argument against pure communism. What would any rational person do? Bugger all; no reason to. Some other prat does the work and I get the money. Bargain.

My ideal tax structure would be me paying nothing and everyone else... Well, I don't care really. Whatever works ;)

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:10

Vacuumhead

29-11-2006, 01:12

Suprisingly no-one complains when millions of people work like dogs and get paid just enough to live on, while some people sit around and get paid millions...

I'm complaining.

I don't think that CEOs actually deserve to get paid so much more than those they pay minimum wage to do a crappy job. It looks to me like they are getting their 'hard-earned' money at the expence of others. What's worse is that many companies are still using sweatshops to make cheap goods while those at the top just sit around in an office all day yet still make millions.

Yes, I like the progressive taxation system. Going up to about 40% for the filthy rich.

AB Again

29-11-2006, 01:13

Why the sarcasm tags?
Best argument against pure communism. What would any rational person do? Bugger all; no reason to. Some other prat does the work and I get the money. Bargain.

My ideal tax structure would be me paying nothing and everyone else... Well, I don't care really. Whatever works ;)

The sarcasm because I can not "go for that". It is an abhorrent idea to me.

Soheran

29-11-2006, 01:17

None at all. I think my other proposals violate property rights sufficiently.

Posi

29-11-2006, 01:19

Personal income taxes
Some F'd up function. People earning under $15000 would pay nothing and it would increase to a maximum rate of about 40%.

Corporate taxes- 0%

Payroll taxes- 0%

Sales taxes
Necessities- 0%
Luxuries- 0%

Property taxes- 0%

Poll taxes- 0%

Excise taxes- 0%

Tariffs- 0%

Every other tax imaginable- 0%

Trotskylvania

29-11-2006, 01:19

None at all. I think my other proposals violate property rights sufficiently.

They completely ignored my post on the subject. But right one! :p

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:21

Flat tax of %18 for everyone, corporations included, no loopholes. You donate money to chairty, good for you, no tax break. You have 8 kids, good for you, no tax break. No one told you to have so many Fing children. Taxes on income, taxes on earning, taxes on investments, %18 of every bit of income you have from either wages or investment, %18. Inheritance of 3 million and it gets taxes at %18. Don't want to pay and we do it like Goodfellas "Fuck you pay me!" %18 on dividends, on interest and no sales tax, luxury tax, etc. You want to buy a 60 foot yacht for 1.2 million, you pay it. But for every dollar you ear you're giving the government 18 cents with no God damn whining out of you.

So
You make 10,000 you pay 1,800 in taxes at the end of the year.
You make 10,000,000 you pay 1.8 million.

No sales tax, property tax, F you, you're getting my %18 anyway. Flat national tax rates for all.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 01:24

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:25

As an anarcho-capitalist, I would agree with the OP that no taxes is the best. But government's here to stay, my ideas will never happen, so I'd go with the fair tax. No taxes on income (personal or corporate), property, tarriffs, excise, just a flat sales tax on all goods and perhaps a poll-tax as well. So long as people think they have the right to vote to decide what we may and may not do, let's at least make them pay for it.

poll tax=voter supression=unconstitutional by the USSC so no deal in America. Unless you're willing to fight precident.

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:26

of course that would work out fine for them, otherwise why else take money from the rich?

it's called pure communism. Does it work?

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:26

You have 8 kids, good for you, no tax break.
I believe the reason a tax-break is given here is to create an incentive for having more children. I in no way agree with it, but that seems to be the rationale behind it.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 01:27

I believe the reason a tax-break is given here is to create an incentive for having more children. I in no way agree with it, but that seems to be the rationale behind it.

I think you don't understand the tax code.

The reason the people with 8 kids get tax credits and more exemptions is to offset the amount of money they spend on neccesities.

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:31

This is what I predicted would happen to any country that tried to create an atmosphere of wealth contempt. Of course, I didnt know there were yet solid examples of it at work. Do you have any data on this in english?

It seems only natural that the rich, or anyone living within a system that had a hard ceiling on earning would leave as soon as they hit their maximum potential. Why should they stay?

because even if they are being taxed heavily they may be in a market that allows them to make a terribly large sum of money. Move them to a country that taxes far less and the demand for their product or service is far less and they get to keep a greater percentage of their money but make less. In addtion to that they'll get less services from their government and actually be in a worse circumstnace than if they were taxed more heavily. simple example. You can make 10 million in my system and get taxes at 1.8 million per year while you can make 5 million in Outer Buttholia and be taxed at 5%. Are you still making far more money while being taxed at triple the rate in my system. This will not change until we have a free martket global economy that truly encompasses the globe. Until then you're better of being taxed at a higher rate by me than moving. I didn't even calculate the cost of moving your business which would make it even worse.

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:31

I think you don't understand the tax code.

The reason the people with 8 kids get tax credits and more exemptions is to offset the amount of money they spend on neccesities.
I find it against my liking either way. People should learn to invest in condoms and pregnancy pills.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 01:33

I find it against my liking either way. People should learn to invest in condoms and pregnancy pills.

you wish to control the reproductive choices of people? how anti-choice of you.

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:33

I believe the reason a tax-break is given here is to create an incentive for having more children. I in no way agree with it, but that seems to be the rationale behind it.

Smunkee is right and that's one of the reasons I love her in a purely cyber fantasy kind of way :fluffle: The incentive is not for you to have more children but to be able to afford to feed, cloth, educate those children if you do have more. The government is in no way saying "HAVE ALL YOU WANT!" They are, however, trying to make it easier for large families to be able to afford to live.

Virtue and Progress

29-11-2006, 01:34

Personal income taxes
Lowest quintile- -30%
2nd quintile- -4%
3rd quintile- 10%
4th quintile- 20%
5th quintile- 33%
Top 10%- 42%
Top 5%- 50%
Top 1%- 63%
Top .1%- 70%

Corporate taxes- 45%

Payroll taxes- 5%

Sales taxes- 10%
Necessities- 0%
Luxuries- 15%

Property taxes-2%

Poll taxes- $-5000 (i.e. The government gives everyone $5000 a year).

Excise taxes- 0%

Tariffs- 25%

Every other tax imaginable- 0%

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:35

you wish to control the reproductive choices of people? how anti-choice of you.
You wish to take a share of my money to finance the caprices of others? How anti-choice of you...

Individualism without a concept of individual responsibility is worth very little.

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:35

you wish to control the reproductive choices of people? how anti-choice of you.

in his defense Smunkee I must say I agree with the slogan, "If you can't feed them don't breed them." There's exceptions to every rule and sometime people can't avoid mistakes that happen. But you do have a responsibility to take care of your children and should not expect others to sacrifice for your choice. Agreed?

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 01:38

You wish to take a share of my money to finance the caprices of others? How anti-choice of you...

I am of the minarchist tradition, I wish to give all people equal economic freedom, in my dream government there would be a system very similar to the fair tax where people chose how much of their money went to the government, and the government wouldn't need much because they would be basically nightwatchmen.

In the current system the economic freedom of individuals is being taken away peice by peice, chipped away and before we know it there will be none.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 01:39

in his defense Smunkee I must say I agree with the slogan, "If you can't feed them don't breed them." There's exceptions to every rule and sometime people can't avoid mistakes that happen. But you do have a responsibility to take care of your children and should not expect others to sacrifice for your choice. Agreed?

I agree 100%

I also get annoyed when people misrepresent the current tax code to fluff up their own twisted ideas of fair.

(being a tax professional, it's pretty close to my heart)

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:41

I am of the minarchist tradition, I wish to give all people equal economic freedom, in my dream government there would be a system very similar to the fair tax where people chose how much of their money went to the government, and the government wouldn't need much because they would be basically nightwatchmen.

In the current system the economic freedom of individuals is being taken away peice by peice, chipped away and before we know it there will be none.
I surmised as much. I am still not sure if your reaction was sarcasm though, as it would otherwise be rather inconsistent with the minarchist rationale.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 01:42

I surmised as much. I am still not sure if your reaction was sarcasm though, as it would otherwise be rather inconsistent with the minarchist rationale.

to which reaction do you refer?

Greill

29-11-2006, 01:44

Ughhh.. that tax=theft crap again? It's capitalism; just move to a competing country with lower or no tax. Look at tax as rent, or is that theft too?

My uncle, Don Giuseppe, agrees with you. He provides valuable "protection" services for the neighborhood, but everyone always complains about paying up for some reason. If they don't like it, they should just move to another neighborhood. If they want to stay, they should just think of it as rent, like you say.

Funding by coercion is one of those things that we have to put up with, if we are willing to accept government at all. So I guess we have agreed to be taxed if we accept government. Remember we have that choice, in theory anyway.

It's like insurance, anyway, you have to spread the burden in order for it to be feasible to fund certain things like national defense. There's no way I can even conceive of a per-use fee for that.

Dubai has no taxes, but it certainly has a government. So you can have tax-free governance. Also, it makes no sense that we have to force people to pay for what we see are valuable, integral services; shouldn't they merit being funded in and of themselves, without force? It makes it seem like we have to force people to be free, which is inherently self-defeating. Just as people will pay generously for charity work, a cause that seems to them as being worthy of their own sacrifice, it should be the same for them to pay, voluntarily, to the government- their fate depends far more on it than sending money to some distant country.

Also, by poll tax, I do not mean a tax on voting, I mean more-or-less a "head tax", but I just wished to put it more elegantly.

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:44

to which reaction do you refer?

you wish to control the reproductive choices of people? how anti-choice of you.

This. :)

Virtue and Progress

29-11-2006, 01:45

Oh, and in the income tax section on my original post:
Top .01%- 83%
Top .001%- 95%

These are estimated figures. All of them, of course. They might change slightly if i had more knowledge on the top 1% earners.

Soheran

29-11-2006, 01:46

In the current system the economic freedom of individuals is being taken away peice by peice, chipped away and before we know it there will be none.

What is "economic freedom"?

Liuzzo

29-11-2006, 01:47

I agree 100%

I also get annoyed when people misrepresent the current tax code to fluff up their own twisted ideas of fair.

(being a tax professional, it's pretty close to my heart)

Interesting. The just of what I learned of taxes I taught myself. Funny, since my father is a CPA and probably should have given me a lesson or two. Now that my father has worked his ass off and finally is making a fair salary as a CFO, I suggest he be taxes at my proposed flat tax rate of 18% same as me, and I make considerably less than he. Fair is fair for all.

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 01:48

Greill

29-11-2006, 01:54

What is "economic freedom"?

Property rights.

Neo Kervoskia

29-11-2006, 01:58

Top 1% - 76%
Top 5% - 2%
Top 10% - 42%
Bottom 37% - 97%
Bottom 2%- 0
Bottom 1 %- 76%

Dunlaoire

29-11-2006, 02:02

Interesting. The just of what I learned of taxes I taught myself. Funny, since my father is a CPA and probably should have given me a lesson or two. Now that my father has worked his ass off and finally is making a fair salary as a CFO, I suggest he be taxes at my proposed flat tax rate of 18% same as me, and I make considerably less than he. Fair is fair for all.

Fair for one is not fair for all.
2 people in the sea needing to be rescued, one can swim and one going down
for the last time, treat em both equally and decide who to pluck out of
the water first by tossing a coin.

You need x amount of money to live at the most basic level
that should not be taxed at all

You need x+y to live comfortably
That should be taxed at a reasonable level.

As your income increases up to the level of the GDP of small countries, be
grateful your doing so well and pay the tax you can well afford.

One of the worst mind tricks that is played on American citizens is
they may not be making much money but so many of them are
convinced of the need to protect their imaginary future earnings
from taxes.
For most of them they will never earn hundreds of thousands
per annum, never mind millions but
they are still foolish enough to vote for people who promise not to
impose high taxes on the millions the voters will never have but the
politician and his friends definitively have.

Posi

29-11-2006, 02:05

Top 1% - 76%
Top 5% - 2%
Top 10% - 42%
Bottom 37% - 97%
Bottom 2%- 0
Bottom 1 %- 76%

I like it!

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 02:21

Dubai has no taxes, but it certainly has a government. So you can have tax-free governance. Also, it makes no sense that we have to force people to pay for what we see are valuable, integral services; shouldn't they merit being funded in and of themselves, without force? It makes it seem like we have to force people to be free, which is inherently self-defeating. Just as people will pay generously for charity work, a cause that seems to them as being worthy of their own sacrifice, it should be the same for them to pay, voluntarily, to the government- their fate depends far more on it than sending money to some distant country.

The United Arab Emirates survive on slave labour, by press-ganging third-worlders to work in unsafe conditions with the worst mortality records in the world. Unions are illegal, dissent is crushed, and workers are indebted so that escape is impossible. Dubai is hardly a good role model and as for anyone who voluntarily hands over a single dinar to that dispicable sheikdom, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 02:26

Top 1% - 76%
Top 5% - 2%
Top 10% - 42%
Bottom 37% - 97%
Bottom 2%- 0
Bottom 1 %- 76%

But the bottom 1% are those with negative incomes (proprietors of loss-making businesses and so on), so you propose taxing a debt? How would that work? Giving them 76% of what they owe?

*negatives are confusing*

Greill

29-11-2006, 02:49

The United Arab Emirates survive on slave labour, by press-ganging third-worlders to work in unsafe conditions with the worst mortality records in the world. Unions are illegal, dissent is crushed, and workers are indebted so that escape is impossible. Dubai is hardly a good role model and as for anyone who voluntarily hands over a single dinar to that dispicable sheikdom, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

I'm not saying, "Dubai rules!", I'm saying they don't have taxes and have a government, in order to disprove a false dichotomy. Please don't assume that I support any evil things they do.

IDF

29-11-2006, 02:54

A single flat income tax at 15%

Secret aj man

29-11-2006, 03:08

Taxes are an important issue in governance, so let me ask: What is your ideal tax structure? As an example, here is mine-

Personal income taxes
Lowest quintile- 0%
2nd quintile- 0%
3rd quintile- 0%
4th quintile- 0%
5th quintile- 0%

Corporate taxes- 0%

Payroll taxes- 0%

Sales taxes
Necessities- 0%
Luxuries- 0%

Property taxes- 0%

Poll taxes- 0%

Excise taxes- 0%

Tariffs- 0%

Every other tax imaginable- 0%

Now tell me your ideal tax structure.

i would favor a v.a.t. tax(value added tax)

abolish income tax,keep state and local taxes(as i can move to a taxpayer friendly state)

use a sliding scale for the vat tax...what i mean is you only pay tax es on whatever commodity you purchase.

have it low so it does not unduly burden the poor on the bottom of the scale,and as ithe price of said commodity raises,so should the vat tax.

if your rich enough to buy the queen elizbeth,you can pay more taxes for it,if your in the position to buy a lambo or ferrari..you can afford more in taxes.
not to mention...you saved a bit on income taxes.
rich will still buy stuff so it wont hurt the people that create the object of their desire.

most importantly though,it will force fiscal responsibility in our so called leaders...we just took away the platinum card that does not need to be repaid(and if it is...it is by the taxpayer)
and handed the gov a debit card!

say goodbye to pork barrel bridges to nowhere,and all the other bullshit they waste our money on.
millions on this and that..to make you feel good about your car purchase or whatever(so the brother in law gets his free money)

and it dont hurt the poor in my opinion,they would be forced to elimanate pork and waste...or go broke..you know..like everyone else!

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 03:35

This. :)

ah......that was 80% sarcasm

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 03:41

ah......that was 80% sarcasm
I guessed so - seems I gambled and lost. :p

An archy

29-11-2006, 03:52

Personal income taxes
1st quintile- -1000000%
2nd quintile- -1000000%
3rd quintile- -1000000%
4th quintile- -1000000%
5th quintile- -1000000%
(This means everyone's income will be multiplied by 10000.)

Corporate taxes- -1000000%
(Corporate revenues will also be multiplied by 10000.)

Payroll taxes- -1000000%

Sales taxes
Necessities- -1000000%
Luxuries- -1000000%
(People will get paid for shopping.)

Value-added Tax- -1000000%

Property taxes- -1000000%

Poll taxes- -1000000%

Excise taxes- -1000000%

Tariffs- -1000000%

Every other tax imaginable- -1000000%

Greill

29-11-2006, 03:59

Europa Maxima

29-11-2006, 04:11

I sure hope this is in an economy with a fiat currency regime. If it's a gold-standard economy, you'd have to call in a lot of alchemists...
Well even if it isn't, it'd pretty much require the deforestation of the entire planet given how much paper it'd require. That, or we'd switch to electronic credits. <.<

Greill

29-11-2006, 04:33

Well even if it isn't, it'd pretty much require the deforestation of the entire planet given how much paper it'd require. That, or we'd switch to electronic credits. <.<

Could just have bigger and bigger denominations. But wow, could you imagine the inflation? "OK, I just earned my paycheck of 10,000 dollars. And now I've got 100010000 dollars!" You go and spend that, and the company that your money goes to gets 100010000, which is multipled by ten-thousand and equals 1000200010000. They then give out that money in income, which then ultimately equals 10003000300010000 dollars. Not to mention meanwhile that you get that sales tax rebate and get to spend your new money, and all of that money just goes crazy and keeps building up and up and up... Goodbye medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account...

Delator

29-11-2006, 07:53

Taxes are an important issue in governance, so let me ask: What is your ideal tax structure?

www.fairtax.org

Streckburg

29-11-2006, 08:05

Tech-gnosis

29-11-2006, 08:19

I support either a flat tax percentage on everyone at a low rate or a national sales tax system at a low rate, with maybe higher rates for drugs or something" . Hell you could probably fund a government by just taxing vices if you really wanted to. Just enough tax for the essentials. Progressive taxes tend to penalize people for being sucessful and dont really adhere to idea of legal equality. Why should the people that create jobs, wealth and innovation have there cash taken from them? Everyone should be legally equal and that includes taxation.

Why tax drugs and/or other vices be taxed more or the only thing taxed? That hurts people who prefer drugs and other vices. Everyone should be treated legally equal right? Why have a national sales tax? Why should the people who create jobs, wealth, and innovation, i.e. consumers, have their cash taken from them?

Entropic Creation

29-11-2006, 08:49

The government does not need to tax as it does not need to spend nearly as much as it does.

The US spends billions of dollars on worthless projects – the GAO recently reported that programs totaling somewhere around 38% of funding have no appreciable impact on society. That basically means that you could have a 38% tax cut with negligible cost on society. Hopefully everyone can understand how much the economy would benefit from such a cut.

I believe that the vast majority of government expenditure is unnecessary. If you cut government down to minimums, the capital requirements would be small enough to make without resorting to direct taxation.

Let us take radio frequencies: were they auctioned off rather than given away, it would bring in a substantial amount of money. The same goes for use of government land – they could collect rents from companies using public land.

There are many sources of revenue for government other than direct taxation. These sources would be sufficient to run government if you eliminated the unnecessary programs. Personally, I object to money being stolen from my hard earned income to be gifted to Israel for buy more bombs. If they didn’t do things like that, they wouldn’t need to extort money from its citizenry.

Tech-gnosis

29-11-2006, 09:07

The US spends billions of dollars on worthless projects – the GAO recently reported that programs totaling somewhere around 38% of funding have no appreciable impact on society. That basically means that you could have a 38% tax cut with negligible cost on society. Hopefully everyone can understand how much the economy would benefit from such a cut.

The fact that 38% of spending is worthless doesnt mean that if cut 38% of taxes can be cut. It presumes a balanced budget which the US doesnt have. The good it will do for the economy is debatable too. It may have little effect on the economy.

Kyronea

29-11-2006, 10:05

Damor

29-11-2006, 10:54

My uncle, Don Giuseppe, agrees with you. He provides valuable "protection" services for the neighborhood, but everyone always complains about paying up for some reason. If they don't like it, they should just move to another neighborhood. If they want to stay, they should just think of it as rent, like you say.Wow, so now government is nothing more than maffia?
You really would prefer anarchy, wouldn't you. I bet your uncle would love that too.

Goverment doesn't just "protect" a country, it de facto owns the country. The same can't be said for your mobster family. Nevermind that you also get to vote for your government.

Branin

29-11-2006, 11:29

Christmahanikwanzikah

29-11-2006, 11:35

I support either a flat tax percentage on everyone at a low rate or a national sales tax system at a low rate, with maybe higher rates for drugs or something" . Hell you could probably fund a government by just taxing vices if you really wanted to. Just enough tax for the essentials. Progressive taxes tend to penalize people for being sucessful and dont really adhere to idea of legal equality. Why should the people that create jobs, wealth and innovation have there cash taken from them? Everyone should be legally equal and that includes taxation.

youre joking, right?

you arent arguing that a flat tax system is fair regardless of the fact wealthy citizens use thousands of tax loopholes to escape it, are you?

Branin

29-11-2006, 11:37

youre joking, right?

you arent arguing that a flat tax system is fair regardless of the fact wealthy citizens use thousands of tax loopholes to escape it, are you?

Sure, why not.
Mostly I need to post in this thread in my obscene quest to have the last post in every first page thread.

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 11:42

Why does the government get the ability to get to take our money from us unilaterally, when the rest of us have to get it voluntarily? I do not argue that the government has legitimate responsibilities, but if these responsibilities are so worthy, why do they have to be funded by what is no less than theft (it's definitely not voluntary, and if you don't do it, you can expect them to make you do it).

Say half the people (geographically spread out) want to pay for the protection of the Army, the other half don't want to pay for it. The half that do not pay benefit from the expense of the half that do - and the half that do have to spend more each to protect the half that don't (as they still have to protect the land they are on, if a large bomb drops on your neighbors house you are still fucked). The half that don't pay are stealing from the half that do.

Or - do poor people not deserve protection from crime? A completely private police force would I assume not protect people who did not pay for it - hence if someone can't afford to hire the services of the police you can do whatever you want to them. Under a completely private police force someone could go about raping and murdering low income children, but as their parents can't afford the police costs the killer will not even be looked for. While the rich would basically have their own private armies (bet THAT won't lead to any corruption or abuse of power of people with less protection...).

Branin

29-11-2006, 11:52

Say half the people (geographically spread out) want to pay for the protection of the Army, the other half don't want to pay for it. The half that do not pay benefit from the expense of the half that do - and the half that do have to spend more each to protect the half that don't (as they still have to protect the land they are on, if a large bomb drops on your neighbors house you are still fucked). The half that don't pay are stealing from the half that do.

Or - do poor people not deserve protection from crime? A completely private police force would I assume not protect people who did not pay for it - hence if someone can't afford to hire the services of the police you can do whatever you want to them. Under a completely private police force someone could go about raping and murdering low income children, but as their parents can't afford the police costs the killer will not even be looked for. While the rich would basically have their own private armies (bet THAT won't lead to any corruption or abuse of power of people with less protection...).

Poor people definantly desrever protectino. Isn't human nature pesky?

Myrmidonisia

29-11-2006, 14:29

Dubai has no taxes, but it certainly has a government. So you can have tax-free governance. Also, it makes no sense that we have to force people to pay for what we see are valuable, integral services; shouldn't they merit being funded in and of themselves, without force? It makes it seem like we have to force people to be free, which is inherently self-defeating. Just as people will pay generously for charity work, a cause that seems to them as being worthy of their own sacrifice, it should be the same for them to pay, voluntarily, to the government- their fate depends far more on it than sending money to some distant country.

Also, by poll tax, I do not mean a tax on voting, I mean more-or-less a "head tax", but I just wished to put it more elegantly.

Dubai is an emirate within the UAE. The government also controls the only source of wealth in the nation. That's hardly a fair or desirable comparison. Without repeating myself, I think I pointed out that many of the services that government provides are too broadly scoped to be realistically funded by use fees.

Neu Leonstein

29-11-2006, 14:52

The government also controls the only source of wealth in the nation.
Nitpick: In Dubai finance, construction and real estate have probably overtaken oil by now.

Myrmidonisia

29-11-2006, 14:56

Nitpick: In Dubai finance, construction and real estate have probably overtaken oil by now.

Is that still a government function? I've done some business with Dubai concerns and it's hard to tell if they're commercial or if they're government.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 15:15

Taxes are an important issue in governance, so let me ask: What is your ideal tax structure? As an example, here is mine- *all taxes at 0%*

This might look all nice, but how does your government with this tax structure operate?

Some tax is necessary, else government wouldn't be able to do its job. Unless, your ideal government is anarchy - in which case, it will fall to the first agressor who wants whatever resources your nation has. And, then, that government will be in place.

Now tell me your ideal tax structure.

A flat tax of 15% with a $25,000 deduction.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 15:20

Leaving them with at least $300,000. Not justification, I know. But still.

If it's not justification, how is it valid?

Why should those who make more be required to pay a higher rate? Why penalize success? Why are wealthy taxpayers not entitled to their property as the less wealthy?

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 15:28

why not take 60% of everyone's money?

For what purpose?

What on Earth does your government do that requires such a substantial tax?

A government should always operate in the red. It should always be begging the People for the money it needs to operate, thus keeping it in check. The People should never beg the government for money. Then, it is the People being kept in check by the government and that is tyranny.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 15:34

so why not just take everyone's money and redistrubute it evenly?

Because it removes the incentive to succeed.

If the lazy bum who swills beer and watches soaps all day gets the same paycheck as Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, why should the Trumps, Jobs or Gates of the nation bother working their butts off?

A democracy thrives only until the electorate realizes they can vote themselves largesse.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 15:38

At least do something about the people who inherite millions from their family and never do a day of work in their lives

Why?

What crime did they commit?

Suprisingly no-one complains when millions of people work like dogs and get paid just enough to live on, while some people sit around and get paid millions...

Then, they need to find better jobs.

But im in favour of a tax system like the one Maraque suggested, maybe a bit harsher on those earning millions though

As I asked earlier, why? What is the foundation for removing, arbitrarily, because you don't like them being wealthy, the monies earned by some?

Teh_pantless_hero

29-11-2006, 15:48

For what purpose?

What on Earth does your government do that requires such a substantial tax?

Real work?

If the lazy bum who swills beer and watches soaps all day gets the same paycheck as Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, why should the Trumps, Jobs or Gates of the nation bother working their butts off?
This is what would happen if we let the people who oppose it run the program, but why the fuck would we do that?

Then, they need to find better jobs.
Wow, didn't see that coming. Not. No country is the land in milk and honey, not everyone can get a better job, not everyone can raise in the ranks. That is the American dream but it is exactly that, a dream.

A democracy thrives only until the electorate realizes they can vote themselves largesse.
Another nonsurprise. You overestimate democracy.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 15:54

you arent arguing that a flat tax system is fair regardless of the fact wealthy citizens use thousands of tax loopholes to escape it, are you?

A flat tax system does away with tax loopholes.

You pay a flat tax, whatever your income; no deductions, no loopholes.

But, I would toss in a flat $25,000 deduction that applies to everyone. Still, no loopholes.

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 15:56

A flat tax system does away with tax loopholes.

You pay a flat tax, whatever your income; no deductions, no loopholes.

But, I would toss in a flat $25,000 deduction that applies to everyone. Still, no loopholes.

The irony is that many of the most wealthy would seriously oppose this as it would greatly increase their tax burden.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 16:04

Real work?

Mite vague there, fella. Care to elaborate a bit?

This is what would happen if we let the people who oppose it run the program, but why the fuck would we do that?

Vulgarities. Yeah, that makes you convincing.

What people would "run" this operation, if they knew that they would get the exact same paycheck as the worst of their workers? Or, the worst of the non-workers?

What is their incentive to work? Certainly not to get a paycheck so that they can afford that 102" DLP HDTV. They get that paycheck whether they work or not.

So, why work?

Wow, didn't see that coming. Not.

How can I oppose such a well thought argument? The demonstrated skills of debate are astounding.

Moving along...

[No country is the land in milk and honey, not everyone can get a better job, not everyone can raise in the ranks.[/QUOTE]

Then, they are being paid what the market can afford for their skillset. If a better job for one's skillset is not available, one increases or improves one's skills, thereby becoming a more competetive commodity.

Another nonsurprise. You overestimate democracy.

Really.

Tell it to those who want to keep the New Deal going in the US. Tell it to those who have twisted the "promote general welfare" clause into something that it is not.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 16:15

The irony is that many of the most wealthy would seriously oppose this as it would greatly increase their tax burden.

Perhaps.

But, there are far more less wealthy voters than wealthy.

Besides, look at how much money the wealthy would save from not having to pay accountants or tax attorneys to find the loopholes.

How many $2,500/hour tax attorneys could be scrapped by a flat tax?

The Fleeing Oppressed

29-11-2006, 16:16

Then, they are being paid what the market can afford for their skillset. If a better job for one's skillset is not available, one increases or improves one's skills, thereby becoming a more competetive commodity.

That is probably the most consistent and niave argument I hear from right wing people. I assume when you were improving your skills mummy and daddy helped you get by. Or maybe you got a part time job that you could do at the same time as getting educated. If the only job you can get is subsustence wage for a 16 hour a day, 7 day a week job, when are you improving your skills?

Leave the land of ideology and look at the real world. I was going to say look outside your front door, but I assume you'd see the perfect picket fence, gated neighbourhood, to have such a myopic view of the world.

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 16:20

Perhaps.

But, there are far more less wealthy voters than wealthy.

Besides, look at how much money the wealthy would save from not having to pay accountants or tax attorneys to find the loopholes.

How many $2,500/hour tax attorneys could be scrapped by a flat tax?

I'm actually not all that against a flat tax such as that.

I have doubts that 25% would be enough to cover what a lot of people expect from the government though...

I think although the most wealthy would pay more, the poor would probably pay less and middle America (or UK for me) would definately pay less.

Which means the government either has to up tax % or make cuts.

Which I think a lot of people will be unhappy about if the cuts are in things that benefit them.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 16:29

For what purpose?

What on Earth does your government do that requires such a substantial tax?

A government should always operate in the red. It should always be begging the People for the money it needs to operate, thus keeping it in check. The People should never beg the government for money. Then, it is the People being kept in check by the government and that is tyranny.

Because it removes the incentive to succeed.

If the lazy bum who swills beer and watches soaps all day gets the same paycheck as Donald Trump, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, why should the Trumps, Jobs or Gates of the nation bother working their butts off?

A democracy thrives only until the electorate realizes they can vote themselves largesse.
yeah, I wasn't saying that was my stance......I was questioning other people.

I support the fair tax.

Teh_pantless_hero

29-11-2006, 16:29

What people would "run" this operation, if they knew that they would get the exact same paycheck as the worst of their workers? Or, the worst of the non-workers?
I'm not going to bother explaining anything to you because it is a waste of time, you will just come back with the same "arguments" that you invented in your head that you think the people who advocate such a thing believe but never actually heard them say.

Then, they are being paid what the market can afford for their skillset. If a better job for one's skillset is not available, one increases or improves one's skills, thereby becoming a more competetive commodity.
Impossible because with that argument everyone at the same skill level develops in the same way and negates the competition of the other person.

Tell it to those who want to keep the New Deal going in the US. Tell it to those who have twisted the "promote general welfare" clause into something that it is not.
I have a question for you. How is a democracy at any point altruistic? (Which is what you assert it is if you remove "people voting themselves largesse" from it.)

History proves that taxing the poor relatively higher than the wealthy are taxed will eventually fuck you over.

The Fleeing Oppressed

29-11-2006, 16:30

Ice Hockey Players

29-11-2006, 16:31

The tax system is complicated. I actually had to look up what the IRS's tax brackets are for tax year 2006...and I did taxes for extra money this past winter. Taxes aren't hard...with a computer program helping out.

Right now, in the U.S., tax brackets for a single person are as follows:

Up to $7,550 - 10%
$7,550-$30,650 - 15%
$30,650-$74,200 - 25%
$74,200-$154,800 - 28%
$154,800-$336,550 - 33%
$336,550 and above - 35%

They're different for married couples and people with kids, but that's what I have. Using 2006 dollars, I would have to map out an ideal tax structure. This factors in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Line. For a single person in the lower 48, it's $9,800; for each additional person in the home, $3,400 is added. Special rates would have to be used for AK and HI, but we can ignore those.

Personal income taxes
Up to $9,800 - 0%
$9,800-$41,400 - 15%
$41,400-$82,800 - 25%
$82,800-$165,600 - 35%
$165,600-$331,200 - 45%
$331,200 and above - 50%

$41,400 is roughly the average income in America; $9,800 is the poverty line for a single person. Adjustments of $3,400 would factor into a person's income and would be removed from one's adjusted gross income.

Corporate taxes- Corporations would be taxed only on money that is not paid in wages, expenses, or to shareholders; really, a corporation wouldn't pay any taxes. Profits would be paid to those individuals who collect them, and taxes would be paid on them as ordinary income.

Payroll taxes- 0%, unnecessary

Sales taxes
Necessities- 0% (necessities include food bought at stores, basic utilities, housing, clothing, school and business supplies, things of that nature)
Luxuries- 10% (luxuries include cars, airline tickets, gasoline, food bought at restaurants, and unnecessary utilities)

Value-added Tax- 0%, unnecessary

Property taxes- all property owned that is worth less than $500,000 is not taxed; anything above that is taxed at 2.5%

Poll taxes- 0%, let the poor people vote

Excise taxes- 0%, unnecessary

Tariffs- usually unnecessary

Capital gains- taxed as ordinary income

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 16:32

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 16:43

I'm not saying, "Dubai rules!", I'm saying they don't have taxes and have a government, in order to disprove a false dichotomy. Please don't assume that I support any evil things they do.

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting you were.

'You need taxes to have a government' may be a false dichotomy, but 'you need taxes in order to have a government that isn't approprating funds from an alternative, much more immoral source' is not.

The Fleeing Oppressed

29-11-2006, 16:44

why not tax the food again?

Because you will get enough income from taxing other items. As basic foodstuffs is something that is necessary for the health of the populace, making that as cheap as possilbe is a good thing. People need to eat. Using the tax system to subsidise those at the poverty level is a godo thing.

People do not need to have a 50 ft yacht. If they want that, they can pay a bit more. Especially as the government built the roads that the boat owner drives his car and boat trailer to the harbour with. If his boat is stolen, police, paid for by the government, will try to retrieve his boat ( at no cost to the boat owner).

I've sort of gone and answered the all tax is theft question with that paragraph.

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 16:44

why not tax the food again?
If you're going down the sales tax route you may as well have tax on all goods and a monthly prebate as in the Fairtax.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 16:46

Because you will get enough income from taxing other items. As basic foodstuffs is something that is necessary for the health of the populace, making that as cheap as possilbe is a good thing. People need to eat. Using the tax system to subsidise those at the poverty level is a godo thing.

People do not need to have a 50 ft yacht. If they want that, they can pay a bit more. Especially as the government built the roads that the boat owner drives his car and boat trailer to the harbour with. If his boat is stolen, police, paid for by the government, will try to retrieve his boat ( at no cost to the boat owner).

I've sort of gone and answered the all tax is theft question with that paragraph.
so you are taxing what you consider to be luxuries?

If you're going down the sales tax route you may as well have tax on all goods and a monthly prebate as in the Fairtax.
I agree.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 16:51

That is probably the most consistent and niave argument I hear from right wing people.

Yeah.

You're right.

Better to just sit in front of the PSIII and let your brain melt while getting that welfare check from the state.

I assume when you were improving your skills mummy and daddy helped you get by. Or maybe you got a part time job that you could do at the same time as getting educated. If the only job you can get is subsustence wage for a 16 hour a day, 7 day a week job, when are you improving your skills?

One, "mummy and daddy" are family, not government.
Two, if that's the only job you can get, either live with it or improve your worth.
Three, your job example is ludicrous. One can get a job at KFC for about $8.00/hour frying chicken.

Yours is the naive left-wing argument.

Leave the land of ideology and look at the real world. I was going to say look outside your front door, but I assume you'd see the perfect picket fence, gated neighbourhood, to have such a myopic view of the world.

Nope. No fence, no gate. I've worked in amusement parks pulling beer, sports stadiums selling concessions, warehouses, office supply stores, driven school buses and gone to school while working part time to get a degree. I've never received a handout from the state, though I have received help from my family - as it SHOULD be.

And, now, I have my own house, two cars and a job with a good pension.

I lived my argument, have you lived yours?

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 16:52

Oh, and as an afterthought I may as well actually answer the OP.

There are two possible situations I could possibly envisage, although being no economist or tax expert I can hardly say for certain whether they would make enough revenue for the current expenditures for the UK, although I daresay much of it could be cut without too much hassle, mostly the PFI black holes this 'Labour' government seems to wank over.

Negative Income Tax
1. Flat Income Tax at around 40%-45%.
2. Monthly rebate at around the current poverty level.
3. Most benefits cut and replaced with the rebate.
4. No sales tax.

National Sales Tax
Basically, the Fairtax, but only if it would be enough to ensure UK expenditure like health/NHS and education could be met.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 16:54

I have doubts that 25% would be enough to cover what a lot of people expect from the government though...

Then, they need to lower their expectations.

Which means the government either has to up tax % or make cuts.

Definitely make cuts. The US government provide far too many services than are authorized by the US Constitution. Liberal forces in the government have twisted the words of our law into something that it is not and conservative elements have not done enough to negate their efforts.

Which I think a lot of people will be unhappy about if the cuts are in things that benefit them.

True. But, that's life.

How do they expect that money others have worked for belongs to them?

Brigligate

29-11-2006, 16:55

I prefer a gradual/progressive tax system, where those at the loser end of the income spectrum pay significantly less than those getting a larger slice of the pie.

So in other words... Socialism?

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 16:56

Definitely make cuts.
Where?
Defense?

How do they expect that money others have worked for belongs to them?

Any system that takes a portion of income rather than an absolute sum does this - even the flat tax system.

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 16:59

My perfect tax system would be a Goods and Services Tax. The biggest problem with any tax system is that people dodge it. Tax can be dodged by tax havens, fudging expenses, nested trusts, lots of funky accountancy, etc.

If you have a Goods and Services Tax, it is impossible to dodge. You want to buy something, you pay tax. But you have a progressive Goods and Services Tax. The necessities of life attract no tax. Basic staples such as bread, vegetables, fruits, meats, attract no tax.

Then, depending on the good or service a tax will be ascribed to it. An example. Houses below 80% of the median price attract no tax. Between 80% - 100% of median price 5% tax. 100 - 150% of median price. 15% tax Going all the way up to 60 % tax at 500% median price.

This concept would apply to all goods or services. You buy that $1000 bottle of wine. Pay heaps of tax on it. $400+.

To control the administration cost of this, you would need to keep it relatively simple. All goods would be put into certain groupings. Such as Cars; Alcohol; Performances; Meals; Desert Foods, Processed foods. So for all goods , the tax is based on how far above the median price the product is.

That wouldn't remove the possibility of tax evasion.

In your scenario a huge black market would spring up, selling goods and services that are off the Government's radar. People with the right connections would rather go out of their way to find someone to sell them something at a reduced price than pay inflated prices for something that they want/need.

Let's take your wine example. If Joe Moneybags wants his 1938 Chateau de Pomfleuf, he's much more likely to want to go to some black marketeer who can smuggle it in and pass the $400 saving onto his customer. This is just human nature, people would rather pay less. And trying to combat this behaviour would require a huge police force that would have to have eyes and ears in every backalley. But then, the black marketeers will always find away around Johnny Law (they always do), and your government would either have to consign itself to playing an eternal game of cat and mouse while bankrupting itself due to larger law and order costs and decreasing tax income - or admit failure in their tax policy.

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 17:02

So in other words... Socialism?
Ah, another n00b who throws the word socialist around like its an insult not knowing what it means. Try again.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 17:02

I'm not going to bother explaining anything to you because it is a waste of time,

In other words, you have no answer.

Impossible because with that argument everyone at the same skill level develops in the same way and negates the competition of the other person.

Certainly.

In a land of robots.

But, we are not robots. Some are more able to improve themselves than others and they will advance. It's called competition and it works very well. All a worker has to do is excel over his peers and he will go further than those peers. Let them remain in the morass of ineptitude, if they so wish.

I have a question for you. How is a democracy at any point altruistic? (Which is what you assert it is if you remove "people voting themselves largesse" from it.)

It should not be at any point. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is - except in your land of robots - once the electorate realizes it can vote itself the treasury, it will. And, then, the system collapses.

History proves that taxing the poor relatively higher than the wealthy are taxed will eventually fuck you over.

And, a flat tax does this how, again?

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 17:04

That wouldn't remove the possibility of tax evasion.

In your scenario a huge black market would spring up, selling goods and services that are off the Government's radar. People with the right connections would rather go out of their way to find someone to sell them something at a reduced price than pay inflated prices for something that they want/need.

Let's take your wine example. If Joe Moneybags wants his 1938 Chateau de Pomfleuf, he's much more likely to want to go to some black marketeer who can smuggle it in and pass the $400 saving onto his customer. This is just human nature, people would rather pay less. And trying to combat this behaviour would require a huge police force that would have to have eyes and ears in every backalley. But then, the black marketeers will always find away around Johnny Law (they always do), and your government would either have to consign itself to playing an eternal game of cat and mouse while bankrupting itself due to larger law and order costs and decreasing tax income - or admit failure in their tax policy.
There's plenty of tax evasion now. I don't think there would be more or less with a sales tax/VAT.

Oh, here's the answer from the FairTax FAQ. I haven't read it, so don't bite my head off is you disagree with it.

Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?

The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion in 2001 is beyond 2.6 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. This represents over 16 percent of taxes due. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.

The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system induces more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address noncompliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders are more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system.

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 17:07

<snip>

What if you don't have a family? Or what if your family are too poor to support you.

Admit it, you have been lucky. A significant portion of what you have acheived is thanks to outside influences. Influences that other people might not have. Do you really propose just saying 'tough' to them and forcing them and their children to stay in their place for generations?

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 17:08

Where?
Defense?

Social programs. They are unauthorized by the US Constitution and should be abolished.

Any system that takes a portion of income rather than an absolute sum does this - even the flat tax system.

Not if it goes solely towards the functioning of the government and not to otehr citizens, with the government acting as middle man.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 17:10

What if you don't have a family? Or what if your family are too poor to support you.

Then, you have to work harder.

Where is it written that life is fair?

Admit it, you have been lucky. A significant portion of what you have acheived is thanks to outside influences. Influences that other people might not have. Do you really propose just saying 'tough' to them and forcing them and their children to stay in their place for generations?

They won't stay in "their place" for generations, if they take some initiative and work to improve themselves.

How about those who stay on the government teat for generations? That's OK, huh?

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 17:28

Social programs. They are unauthorized by the US Constitution and should be abolished.
Unless you view social programs as preventative measures that, amoung other things, help prevent people going into crime.

Is it more economical to spend a few thousand/youth on a program to help disadvantaged youths get a good education and a sporting chance OR would it be better to lock them in jail for the majority of their life costing $30,000k a year and subtracting a worker from the nations workforce?

Not if it goes solely towards the functioning of the government and not to otehr citizens, with the government acting as middle man.
Roads? Education? Disaster Management?

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 17:37

Unless you view social programs as preventative measures that, amoung other things, help prevent people going into crime.

No clause in the US Constitution dictates this responsibility to the federal government.

Is it more economical to spend a few thousand/youth on a program to help disadvantaged youths get a good education and a sporting chance OR would it be better to lock them in jail for the majority of their life costing $30,000k a year and subtracting a worker from the nations workforce?

Irrelevant. The Constitution does not authorize any such program, so those that exist are unconstitutional.

If someone committs a crime, try them. If found guilty, assess a punishment and apply it.

End of story.

Roads? Education? Disaster Management?

Roads, if they are interstate, fall under federal purview. Otherwise, no federal money can be allotted to them.

Education is not in the purview of the federal government.

Disaster management is a federal responsibility only inasmuch as it affects interstate commerce. That which does not, is not the business of the feds.

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 17:48

No clause in the US Constitution dictates this responsibility to the federal government.
Irrelevant. The Constitution does not authorize any such program, so those that exist are unconstitutional.
If someone committs a crime, try them. If found guilty, assess a punishment and apply it.
End of story.
Roads, if they are interstate, fall under federal purview. Otherwise, no federal money can be allotted to them.
Education is not in the purview of the federal government.
Disaster management is a federal responsibility only inasmuch as it affects interstate commerce. That which does not, is not the business of the feds.

Wait - this is a whole new assumption - that the tax is a. in America and b. under the current American constitution...

Bit of a dodge seeing as we're arguing an ideal theoretical tax system, not the legaloities of a tax system constrained within a single nations possibly not ideal laws.

Assuming we are going to discuss the ideal tax system within the constraints of the current American constitution:

Do you not believe states should tax?

Jello Biafra

29-11-2006, 18:16

I oppose taxation and the state; my ideal system would be what Trotskylvania proposed. However, if I were to live in a capitalist system, I'd want something as follows, or similar to:

Personal income taxes
Lowest quintile- 0%
2nd quintile- 5%
3rd quintile- 10%
4th quintile- 15%
5th quintile- 20%

There would be no tax loopholes, but there may be an instant rebate.

Corporate taxes- 20%

Payroll taxes- 0%

Sales taxes
Necessities- 0%
Luxuries- 0%
Value-added Tax- 0%
Sales taxes are regressive in nature, thus I oppose them.

Property taxes- 5%

Poll taxes- 0%

Excise taxes- 0%

Tariffs- Fluctating, depending upon the good

Capital gains taxes - 5%

Every other tax imaginable- I might be able to think of other things that should be taxed, so I won't answer this one.

I do not argue that the government has legitimate responsibilities, but if these responsibilities are so worthy, why do they have to be funded by what is no less than theft (it's definitely not voluntary, and if you don't do it, you can expect them to make you do it).No, it's the opposite. If an individual benefits from society (and/or society's theoretical representative, the government), you should expect to pay for it. To get those benefits for free is theft. In this case, said individual should be removed from said society. However, other countries tend to frown upon criminals being deported to them...

Best argument against pure communism. What would any rational person do? Bugger all; no reason to. Some other prat does the work and I get the money. Bargain.Except of course, for the fact that there's nothing within the concept of communism that says people will not be working and still get paid...

I am of the minarchist tradition, I wish to give all people equal economic freedom, in my dream government there would be a system very similar to the fair tax where people chose how much of their money went to the governmentWhy should people choose how much money they give to the government? Shouldn't they be taxed by how much they benefit from the government?

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 18:18

Why should people choose how much money they give to the government? Shouldn't they be taxed by how much they benefit from the government?

how would you figure the amount they are taxed?

I like having more control over my own life than the government has, if the fairtax was used I would have more control.

Jello Biafra

29-11-2006, 18:21

how would you figure the amount they are taxed?

I like having more control over my own life than the government has, if the fairtax was used I would have more control.In imperfect, but fairly decent assumption, is that one way to measure the benefit they receive from the government is to look at their income.
Does being taxed intrude upon your life that much? Or do you just mean you want more control over how much you're taxed than the government has?

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 18:26

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 18:32

Wait - this is a whole new assumption - that the tax is a. in America and b. under the current American constitution...

Given that we have the 16th Amendment, we are stuck with income tax. Repeal it and we are free of them.

Bit of a dodge seeing as we're arguing an ideal theoretical tax system, not the legaloities of a tax system constrained within a single nations possibly not ideal laws.

My ideal would be a flat tax. 15% (kinda picked outta the air) with a $25,000 deduction (again, grabbed from the nebulous neverwhen of Arbitraria).

Assuming we are going to discuss the ideal tax system within the constraints of the current American constitution:

Do you not believe states should tax?

States should tax. Well, they have the authority, anyway, from the 10th Amendment.

Now, if the feds would adhere to the Constitution and tax only for that which is constitutionally authorized, our tax burden would drop like a rock.

Yes, some would be taken up by the states, but at differing levels according to the needs of the individual state and minus the bureaucratic leeching that is incumbent as the money meanders towards DC and then returns.

Jello Biafra

29-11-2006, 18:41

I always want more control over my life than the government has.

In the current system I have limited control over how much money they take, under the fairtax I have more control, so it's more appealing to me.I can understand wanting more control over your life than the government has, but I can't see how an effectively voluntary system of taxation would work out.

Slaughterhouse five

29-11-2006, 18:47

I don't think no taxes would work. The government, at several different levels, has got legitimate responsibilities. My suggestion for a national tax? A retail sales tax. The Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org) wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Neal Boortz listener?

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 18:53

I can understand wanting more control over your life than the government has, but I can't see how an effectively voluntary system of taxation would work out.

people have little to no self control. While I may be able to do without buying more goods than others, most will buy the same amount anyway, probably more since they will have more paycheck to get it with.

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 19:02

I can understand wanting more control over your life than the government has, but I can't see how an effectively voluntary system of taxation would work out.

The FairTax lobby would disagree with you, although it's probably biased:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Stability.jpg/414px-Stability.jpg

At least they think it's more stable...

Myrmidonisia

29-11-2006, 19:09

Neal Boortz listener?

John Linder constituent (http://johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=192).

Greyenivol Colony

29-11-2006, 19:10

Then, you have to work harder.

Where is it written that life is fair?

You are clearly stuck in the mental trap of thinking that economies are national things. They are not. There is but one single national economy, and everyone in it can be categorised into economic classes.

In America there is almost no Working Class, the only remaining fragments of an American Working Class are the habitually homeless, and illegal immigrants, i.e. people who are not on the Government's radar. As such I can see why you would be mistaken as thinking that no-one experiences any legitimate difficulty in improving their wealth, although it is short-sighted and ignorant.

To an extent I agree with you, people in America do have the oppurtunity to improve themselves, they can enroll in night-schools, learn new skills from new employments and so on. But where do you think these oppurtunities came from? I doubt you've even thought about that, so I'll tell you. These oppurtunities are stolen from those in the World who have no oppurtunities - the comfort we have in the West is a direct result of stealing from and pillaging third world nations. It is people in these nations who are the real Working Class, as they are the people who have the single choice of 'work until you drop' or 'starve'.

These people are the people I have been defending in this thread, not the beourgieous-in-denial playstation-owning unemployed white boys. They CANNOT work themselves out of poverty, because every red cent that they produce is stolen by you and I. Can you even understand that? That there are some people in the global economy who are unable to follow your stupid monosyllabic advice?

Doubtless by now you are planning of replying by saying that bringing in an international dimension to this is irrelevent. If so, let me stop you there, because you are wrong. The problems of the poorest of the poor are everyone's problems. There is no way of predicting how productive someone is based on their birth, just as there are people who are born into incredibly privileged families who are totally useless, there must therefore be untold millions of people who have been born into unprivileged families, who are totally useful, but have not been able to fulfill that use as they are stuck working in sweatshops untill their premature death.

For example, we agree that there probably is a cure for cancer. But only a tiny proportion of the people in the world who have the skills to investigate this disease and research its cure have actually been given the oppurtunity to do so. Think for a second of all the thousands of potential cancer researchers who have died in slums around the world without ever receiving any kind of education. Surely it is worth investing in these people just in case one of them has the next big idea.

Life is unfair, but where is it written that everyone must spend their every waking moment ensuring that it becomes increasingly UNfair? Nowhere, but that is what happens. People like you increasingly impliment Sadistic practices to ensure that you do not ever lose your dominance over other people. 'Life is unfair' is no more a justification for the status quo than 'the house is on fire' is justification for letting the house burn. It is either laziness or malice.

They won't stay in "their place" for generations, if they take some initiative and work to improve themselves.

How about those who stay on the government teat for generations? That's OK, huh?

This is just nonsense. All great endeavours need an initial investment, you cannot expect a person to crawl out of nothing... well, you can, as some people are extraordinarily motivated. But you will receive a lot more in return if you expect people to crawl out of something, as ordinary people need help, in the form of education, medical care, and yes, even just benefits. Some people have no other dream in life than to just subsist, if you would have their starvation on your conscience then fair enough. But even the fabled 'welfare mom' may give birth to the next Einstein, surely it is worth keeping her alive for that potential?

Myrmidonisia

29-11-2006, 19:16

In imperfect, but fairly decent assumption, is that one way to measure the benefit they receive from the government is to look at their income.
Does being taxed intrude upon your life that much? Or do you just mean you want more control over how much you're taxed than the government has?
Let's look at this another way. What business does the government have in forcing me to serve the purposes of another? At least two thirds of our budget goes to entitlement programs which do exactly that. Now before you accuse me of being uncaring, let me state that I'm not. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable.

Teh_pantless_hero

29-11-2006, 19:28

In a land of robots.

But, we are not robots. Some are more able to improve themselves than others and they will advance. It's called competition and it works very well.
If you pretend that there arn't hundreds or even thousands of people working at the company and statistical probability overrides your happy-go-lucky reality.

It should not be at any point. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is - except in your land of robots - once the electorate realizes it can vote itself the treasury, it will. And, then, the system collapses.
You know your last sentence contradicts your first right? If the electorate has not realized they can "vote themselves the treasury," ie vote in benefit of themselves, they are voting altruistically, but your first sentence states that is impossible. Nice try.

And, a flat tax does this how, again?
Look up relativity.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 19:40

You are clearly stuck in the mental trap of thinking that economies are national things. They are not. There is but one single national economy, and everyone in it can be categorised into economic classes.

Wait, first you say that it is a trap to think that economies are national things, then you say that there is only one national economy?

Norman, coordinate.

In America there is almost no Working Class, the only remaining fragments of an American Working Class are the habitually homeless, and illegal immigrants, i.e. people who are not on the Government's radar.

Ah. So, the entire working force at your typical Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. manufacturing plant are homeless or illegal?

Uh-huh.

Howevr, since you bring it up, I have no regard for illegals as they are criminals. As such, they should be apprehended and tossed from the country. If they return, lock'em up for a year or two and then throw'em out again. If they try a third time, shoot'em as invaders.

As such I can see why you would be mistaken as thinking that no-one experiences any legitimate difficulty in improving their wealth, although it is short-sighted and ignorant.

Ah, care to point out where I said, "no-one experiences any legitimate difficulty in improving their wealth?"

There can be substantial difficulty.

Big deal. That's the way the game is played. Take the hand you're dealt and do the best you can with it.

But where do you think these oppurtunities came from?

Existing employers. Become more valuable to your employer and he will reward you appropriately.
New employers. If your current employer doesn't see your worth, quit and go elsewhere.
Become an employer. Start your own business.

I doubt you've even thought about that, so I'll tell you. These oppurtunities are stolen from those in the World who have no oppurtunities - the comfort we have in the West is a direct result of stealing from and pillaging third world nations.

Pardon whilst I stifle a snort.

The "world" has no prior claim to US opportunity. If they think they do, I'll be more than happy to demonstrate my skill with my firearms to show them different, as they would be invading the US to assert said claim.

It is people in these nations who are the real Working Class, as they are the people who have the single choice of 'work until you drop' or 'starve'.

I have no concern for those in other nations. They are for their respective governments to addrss, not the US.

They CANNOT work themselves out of poverty,

Not my problem.

Not the US' problem.

because every red cent that they produce is stolen by you and I.

Pure unadulterated, prime, virgin bull malarky. I have stolen nothing.

That there are some people in the global economy who are unable to follow your stupid monosyllabic advice?

Their problem, not mine. By the way, I do believe that my advice comprised more than one syllable.

The US is not responsible for any "global economy" farce.

Doubtless by now you are planning of replying by saying that bringing in an international dimension to this is irrelevent.

Pretty much.

If so, let me stop you there, because you are wrong.

Your authority to dictate this is based upon what?

The problems of the poorest of the poor are everyone's problems.

Hardly.

You want to make them YOUR problem? Feel free. But, don't presume that you can assign them to others.

There is no way of predicting how productive someone is based on their birth, just as there are people who are born into incredibly privileged families who are totally useless, there must therefore be untold millions of people who have been born into unprivileged families, who are totally useful, but have not been able to fulfill that use as they are stuck working in sweatshops untill their premature death.

Maybe.

What of it?

Surely it is worth investing in these people just in case one of them has the next big idea.

Or, maybe the next Hitler.

I mean, if you're going to wander off into Hypotheticalia.

Life is unfair, but where is it written that everyone must spend their every waking moment ensuring that it becomes increasingly UNfair?

As you said, nowhere. But, it is up to the individual to bring themselves out of their predicament. It is not incumbent upon me to pay for someone else's improvement. By what right to they have prior claim to my effort?

Nowhere, but that is what happens. People like you increasingly impliment Sadistic practices to ensure that you do not ever lose your dominance over other people.

Yeah.

I'm just a dominant guy. Sheesh, give your imagination a rest.

All great endeavours need an initial investment, you cannot expect a person to crawl out of nothing... well, you can, as some people are extraordinarily motivated. But you will receive a lot more in return if you expect people to crawl out of something, as ordinary people need help, in the form of education, medical care, and yes, even just benefits.

Fine.

YOU motivate them.
YOU provide the benefits.
YOU provide the medical care.

Don't presume that you are, somehow, entitled to dictate to others that they must follow your moral example. Smacks of slavery.

But even the fabled 'welfare mom' may give birth to the next Einstein, surely it is worth keeping her alive for that potential?

Nah, because that baby is actually Hitler.

The example works both ways.

The blessed Chris

29-11-2006, 19:54

Flatrate of 10-20%, increasing below that of inflation, in the aspiration of reducing the state to the minimum requisite to effective and responsible government.

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 20:05

Flatrate of 10-20%, increasing below that of inflation, in the aspiration of reducing the state to the minimum requisite to effective and responsible government.

you would think that you and I would agree more often......I mean I mostly agree with that.

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 20:12

Flatrate of 10-20%, increasing below that of inflation, in the aspiration of reducing the state to the minimum requisite to effective and responsible government.
Do you mean the percentage increasing below the rate of inflation, or the tax revenue collected?

Greill

29-11-2006, 20:14

No, it's the opposite. If an individual benefits from society (and/or society's theoretical representative, the government), you should expect to pay for it. To get those benefits for free is theft. In this case, said individual should be removed from said society. However, other countries tend to frown upon criminals being deported to them...

First of all, there is no actual entity as society. It's all individuals. Second of all, if there are no taxes, there is no redistribution of wealth. If the government, without a forced redistribution of wealth, still performs its duties of protecting people, it has not done so without voluntary consent from someone who gave money. Ergo, it is not theft, because it is funded by voluntary acts.

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting you were.

'You need taxes to have a government' may be a false dichotomy, but 'you need taxes in order to have a government that isn't approprating funds from an alternative, much more immoral source' is not.

Why does it have to be an immoral source?

Dubai is an emirate within the UAE. The government also controls the only source of wealth in the nation. That's hardly a fair or desirable comparison. Without repeating myself, I think I pointed out that many of the services that government provides are too broadly scoped to be realistically funded by use fees.

First off, I never advocated use fees. This is because value is ultimately subjective, and the consumers of defense, not the producers, determine how much it is worth in that it satisfies some want of theirs. Dubai largely depends on real estate and tourism now, and it is able to fund itself through this as opposed to taxation.

This might look all nice, but how does your government with this tax structure operate?

Some tax is necessary, else government wouldn't be able to do its job. Unless, your ideal government is anarchy - in which case, it will fall to the first agressor who wants whatever resources your nation has. And, then, that government will be in place.

I am not an anarchist, though it may surprise you. I just do not believe in giving the government any powers over those of the people, and one of those powers is taxation. If there is supposed to be a government, it should be funded first through the donations of its leaders to set an example, then by those people who feel that the government is or will be doing a good job. Government should also be a voluntary association of people who wish to, out of their own free will and with no direct benefit of their own, protect others from force and fraud. If government cannot move to protect people without first plundering them via taxation, it should not exist, as it has automatically defeated its purpose.

Wow, so now government is nothing more than maffia?

It isn't?

You really would prefer anarchy, wouldn't you. I bet your uncle would love that too.

I'd really rather that nobody have the right to take from others without voluntary consent, actually. And no, I'm not an anarchist.

Goverment doesn't just "protect" a country, it de facto owns the country. The same can't be said for your mobster family. Nevermind that you also get to vote for your government.

If you can force people to do what you want to a person, whether through theft, enslavement, or murder, you effectively own part of their lives, because you get to use what is theirs. It doesn't matter if it's a common criminal, a guy in fancy robes and a big crown, or some politician who wears a flag pin on his coat. It all boils down to the same thing, in the end. Voting is hardly a constraint on government; done properly with an ignorant populace, it can give a veneer of legitimacy and volunteerism to what are ultimately criminal, coercive acts.

Say half the people (geographically spread out) want to pay for the protection of the Army, the other half don't want to pay for it. The half that do not pay benefit from the expense of the half that do - and the half that do have to spend more each to protect the half that don't (as they still have to protect the land they are on, if a large bomb drops on your neighbors house you are still fucked). The half that don't pay are stealing from the half that do.

OK. I am assuming that in your childhood your mother and father gave you presents and other nice things. Obviously, you didn't pay for them. Does this mean you are stealing from your parents? No, because they paid for the gifts voluntarily.

Or - do poor people not deserve protection from crime? A completely private police force would I assume not protect people who did not pay for it - hence if someone can't afford to hire the services of the police you can do whatever you want to them. Under a completely private police force someone could go about raping and murdering low income children, but as their parents can't afford the police costs the killer will not even be looked for. While the rich would basically have their own private armies (bet THAT won't lead to any corruption or abuse of power of people with less protection...).

I am not advocating anarcho-capitalism. Poor people would not stand by and let someone run around raping and murdering, they would form a voluntary association to stop this criminal (like a militia). A good government would seek to integrate this voluntary association with other associations with the same end- protecting the people. There may be private police forces here and there, but there would almost certainly be voluntary cooperatives of citizens working together to protect one another, whether from the minimum level of a neighborhood to an entire country. Ultimately, if people value protecting themselves and one another, they will find a method of doing so, and do not need the burden of coercive taxation in order to do so.

Myseneum

29-11-2006, 20:55

You know your last sentence contradicts your first right? If the electorate has not realized they can "vote themselves the treasury," ie vote in benefit of themselves, they are voting altruistically, but your first sentence states that is impossible. Nice try.

Check the batteries in your ESP-ometer.

Nowhere did I say, "impossible."

Try again.

The blessed Chris

29-11-2006, 21:43

Do you mean the percentage increasing below the rate of inflation, or the tax revenue collected?

Essentially, the annual increase in tax is below that of inflation rates.

New Burmesia

29-11-2006, 22:01

Essentially, the annual increase in tax is below that of inflation rates.
So, essentially, a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights)) which they have in Colorado, I believe, but being a Brit I'm not too sure. Personally, I'm rather sceptical of the idea, since I strongly believe that, human rights aside, one Parliament should not be able to bind its successor to one set of policies.

:D

Trotskylvania

29-11-2006, 22:12

So, essentially, a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights)) which they have in Colorado, I believe, but being a Brit I'm not too sure. Personally, I'm rather sceptical of the idea, since I strongly believe that, human rights aside, one Parliament should not be able to bind its successor to one set of policies.

:D

They had to temporarily rescind TABoR in Colorado anyway. Government functions inflate faster than consumer goods.

Kraetd

29-11-2006, 22:17

Ah. So, the entire working force at your typical Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. manufacturing plant are homeless or illegal?

Uh-huh.

Actually a most of it is done with either robots, or by importing the parts from other countries.

Howevr, since you bring it up, I have no regard for illegals as they are criminals. As such, they should be apprehended and tossed from the country. If they return, lock'em up for a year or two and then throw'em out again. If they try a third time, shoot'em as invaders.

Yeah, shooting immigrants will go down very well with other countries... And i dont see why someone born in the US should get benifits that someone not born in the US doesnt, especially if the illegal is a more productive member of society? And you say people should be able to gid themselves out of whatever situation they're born into? how are they going to do this if you stop them getting jobs?

Ah, care to point out where I said, "no-one experiences any legitimate difficulty in improving their wealth?"

There can be substantial difficulty.

Big deal. That's the way the game is played. Take the hand you're dealt and do the best you can with it.

So life's just a game of chance? if you get born into a middle-class family then you're fine, but if you get born to a poor working class family in a foreign country then tough luck.

Existing employers. Become more valuable to your employer and he will reward you appropriately.
New employers. If your current employer doesn't see your worth, quit and go elsewhere.
Become an employer. Start your own business.

Yeah... you think people in foreign countries are gonna be rewarded for their hard work? not when the employer has nothing to gain. Even if you're born in america, or europe, if you dont get an education for whatever reason then you're probably never going to get a chance to work for a company with oppertunities.

I have no concern for those in other nations. They are for their respective governments to addrss, not the US.

Not my problem.

Not the US' problem.

Only at the minute, the US is completely dependant on other countries to sustain its economy, when people decide they've had enough of being extorted and refuse to work until they get a decent wage, then companies will lose an awful lot of profit

Pure unadulterated, prime, virgin bull malarky. I have stolen nothing.

No you havnt, technically its known as extortion. The working class may not want to do 12 hours work a day, for the pay of about 1 hour, but if they don't then they starve.

Their problem, not mine. By the way, I do believe that my advice comprised more than one syllable.

The US is not responsible for any "global economy" farce.

Because the US only has to worry about rich people living in america of course. Someday this type of thinking will cost the US....

Hardly.

You want to make them YOUR problem? Feel free. But, don't presume that you can assign them to others.

Considering we depend on them, yes, it is our problem.

Maybe.

What of it?

Well, for a start it would be a major benifit to the economy, if good minds wernt wasted

Or, maybe the next Hitler.

I mean, if you're going to wander off into Hypotheticalia.

Uh huh, hitler came to power because he capitalised on the incredible poverty that was in germany at the time...

As you said, nowhere. But, it is up to the individual to bring themselves out of their predicament. It is not incumbent upon me to pay for someone else's improvement. By what right to they have prior claim to my effort?

So, you make your money off of them, and somehow even think you have a right to, but they have no right to get what they deserve?

Yeah.

I'm just a dominant guy. Sheesh, give your imagination a rest.

Yeah, this is the kind of thinking and practices that caused the russian revolution, and you know what they say about history repeating itself...

Fine.

YOU motivate them.
YOU provide the benefits.
YOU provide the medical care.

Don't presume that you are, somehow, entitled to dictate to others that they must follow your moral example. Smacks of slavery.

And what? you are?

Nah, because that baby is actually Hitler.

The example works both ways.

As i said, poverty gives birth to extremism. And you forget that hitler was appointed chancellor for a reason, if germany wanted him in power then what right do we have to say he shouldnt be? A lot of people dont like bush in power, but unless we invade the US we cant do much about it.

Free Randomers

29-11-2006, 22:31

Given that we have the 16th Amendment, we are stuck with income tax. Repeal it and we are free of them.
Speak for yourself buddy.

No 16th Amendment here...

My ideal would be a flat tax. 15% (kinda picked outta the air) with a $25,000 deduction (again, grabbed from the nebulous neverwhen of Arbitraria).

States should tax. Well, they have the authority, anyway, from the 10th Amendment.

Now, if the feds would adhere to the Constitution and tax only for that which is constitutionally authorized, our tax burden would drop like a rock.

Yes, some would be taken up by the states, but at differing levels according to the needs of the individual state and minus the bureaucratic leeching that is incumbent as the money meanders towards DC and then returns.

Then your ideal tax system is only half complete without specifying how you think the states should tax.

Neu Leonstein

29-11-2006, 23:17

Is that still a government function? I've done some business with Dubai concerns and it's hard to tell if they're commercial or if they're government.
Even if it isn't...it's all the same people. :p

Teh_pantless_hero

29-11-2006, 23:44

Check the batteries in your ESP-ometer.

Nowhere did I say, "impossible."

Try again.

I wasn't quoting you, genius, I was making my own statement, at least make it look like you are actually paying attention to what I said.

Hard work and freedom

29-11-2006, 23:46

you would take more than half of someone's hard earned money?

Greetings

That´s quite normal here in Denmark

Smunkeeville

29-11-2006, 23:48

Greetings

That´s quite normal here in Denmark

glad I don't live there.

Hard work and freedom

29-11-2006, 23:51

Hard work and freedom

29-11-2006, 23:53

glad I don't live there.

Greetings

Na, it´s ok

We have free schools, uni, medical etc. etc.

Would have liked to have a bit more out of my hard earned money though

The Pictish Revival

30-11-2006, 00:18

Nah, because that baby is actually Hitler.

The example works both ways.

Does that mean it's okay to kill babies, because one of them might turn out to be Hitler? Or just that it's okay to stand by while babies die, because they might not have grown up to be worthwhile people?

Maraque

30-11-2006, 00:24

Greetings

That´s quite normal here in Denmarkwoot! Sweet. I must go to Denmark now.

Son Of Judah

30-11-2006, 00:36

This post i remedial, instead he should have asked you what the government should do for you. Education ? Healthcare? Defense etc...

Tech-gnosis

30-11-2006, 00:59

First of all, there is no actual entity as society. It's all individuals.

Saying isn't an actual entity is like saying government or the economy aren't actual entities. There are only individual government official and individual buyers and sellers.

I am not an anarchist, though it may surprise you. I just do not believe in giving the government any powers over those of the people, and one of those powers is taxation. If there is supposed to be a government, it should be funded first through the donations of its leaders to set an example, then by those people who feel that the government is or will be doing a good job. Government should also be a voluntary association of people who wish to, out of their own free will and with no direct benefit of their own, protect others from force and fraud. If government cannot move to protect people without first plundering them via taxation, it should not exist, as it has automatically defeated its purpose.

If goverment and voluntary associations can't protect people without taxation then should humanity exist? Why would a rational individualist go and help others while incurring no direct benefit?

If you can force people to do what you want to a person, whether through theft, enslavement, or murder, you effectively own part of their lives, because you get to use what is theirs. It doesn't matter if it's a common criminal, a guy in fancy robes and a big crown, or some politician who wears a flag pin on his coat. It all boils down to the same thing, in the end. Voting is hardly a constraint on government; done properly with an ignorant populace, it can give a veneer of legitimacy and volunteerism to what are ultimately criminal, coercive acts.

As stated before the government claims certain property rights over the entire country. Taxes are fees for the services government provide. Taxes are therefore voluntary as long as the country gives its citizens the negative right to emmigrate. To not pay taxes in such a country is theft.

I am not advocating anarcho-capitalism. Poor people would not stand by and let someone run around raping and murdering, they would form a voluntary association to stop this criminal (like a militia). A good government would seek to integrate this voluntary association with other associations with the same end- protecting the people. There may be private police forces here and there, but there would almost certainly be voluntary cooperatives of citizens working together to protect one another, whether from the minimum level of a neighborhood to an entire country. Ultimately, if people value protecting themselves and one another, they will find a method of doing so, and do not need the burden of coercive taxation in order to do so.

Voluntary associations could easily be coercive. What stops a Mafia like organization from forming? How could voluntary associations beat a bigger force with more funds? Voluntary association would have firearms and perhaps a few tanks but would it have nukes or stealth bombers?

Mythotic Kelkia

30-11-2006, 01:04

my ideal tax structure? simple:

Personal income taxes
Lowest quintile- 100%
2nd quintile- 100%
3rd quintile- 100%
4th quintile- 100%
5th quintile- 100%

Corporate taxes- 100%

Payroll taxes- 100%

Sales taxes
Necessities- 100%
Luxuries- 100%

Value-added Tax- 100%

Property taxes- 100%

Poll taxes- 100%

Excise taxes- 100%

Tariffs- 100%

Every other tax imaginable- 100%

Jello Biafra

30-11-2006, 01:48

people have little to no self control. While I may be able to do without buying more goods than others, most will buy the same amount anyway, probably more since they will have more paycheck to get it with.

The FairTax lobby would disagree with you, although it's probably biased:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Stability.jpg/414px-Stability.jpg

At least they think it's more stable...I'm fairly certain that the Fair Tax idea was conceived before the advent of internet shopping. Nowadays people can simply purchase goods directly from foreign countries and have them shipped to their doors. The Fair Tax provides no method for the taxation of these goods, as least not that I've seen.

Let's look at this another way. What business does the government have in forcing me to serve the purposes of another? At least two thirds of our budget goes to entitlement programs which do exactly that. Now before you accuse me of being uncaring, let me state that I'm not. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable.They have the right to use the fee they charge you in any way they like. Would you say that your cellphone company shouldn't have the right to invest in widgets?

First of all, there is no actual entity as society. It's all individuals.Tech-gnosis answered this fairly well, so I'll quote it:

Saying isn't an actual entity is like saying government or the economy aren't actual entities. There are only individual government official and individual buyers and sellers. Or actual entities such as corporations

Second of all, if there are no taxes, there is no redistribution of wealth. If the government, without a forced redistribution of wealth, still performs its duties of protecting people, it has not done so without voluntary consent from someone who gave money. Ergo, it is not theft, because it is funded by voluntary acts.And I'm saying that the people who do not give money voluntarily but still receive benefit that the government provides are stealing from the government.

Linus and Lucy

30-11-2006, 02:08

No taxes. No government.

Wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, proper means of funding government include:

Heavy punitive fines on (real) criminals
Business concerns run by government
etc.

Jello Biafra

30-11-2006, 02:10

Wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, proper means of funding government include:

Heavy punitive fines on (real) criminals
Business concerns run by government
etc.
Welcome back, Tangled Up In Blue.

Linus and Lucy

30-11-2006, 02:20

Yeah, got deleted for inactivity, and when it was recreated I discovered I wouldn't be able to access the forums because of "those issues", so I just created a new one...I'm a Peanuts fan, see?

Greill

30-11-2006, 03:48

Saying isn't an actual entity is like saying government or the economy aren't actual entities. There are only individual government official and individual buyers and sellers.

Well, yeah. Could you shake hands with the government, or write letters to the economy? As entities, they do not exist. As relationships between individuals, they do. But individuals are the only actors, in the end.

If goverment and voluntary associations can't protect people without taxation then should humanity exist? Why would a rational individualist go and help others while incurring no direct benefit?

You seem to confuse "rational individualist" with "selfish prick". They would help people because they see it as being a purpose worth acting for, which is not at all out of line with individualism. It is a far greater testament to liberty if people will defend it out of their own free-will, instead of being forced to be free.

As stated before the government claims certain property rights over the entire country. Taxes are fees for the services government provide. Taxes are therefore voluntary as long as the country gives its citizens the negative right to emmigrate. To not pay taxes in such a country is theft.

If taxes were a fee for government services, there would be an option not to pay them, like with everything else in the world. The government does not make any sort of contract with the people. It did not give you or I a contract to sign to accept the rules, it gives no promises as to how much it will tax but rather just does it, and it gives no promise on how it will spend but rather does so as it pleases. There is absolutely nothing voluntary about it, and the only theft that goes on is at the hands of the government that acts as it will with its citizens.

Voluntary associations could easily be coercive. What stops a Mafia like organization from forming? How could voluntary associations beat a bigger force with more funds? Voluntary association would have firearms and perhaps a few tanks but would it have nukes or stealth bombers?

These voluntary associations would not just be made up of you and me. They would include wealthy people who would give to the voluntary associations like they would with the various other charities they support. They would obviously have an interest in making sure that there is a stable business environment, at the very least, and, if Maslowe's hierarchy of needs is at all right, many of them would be acted to act philanthropically. Thus, we would have our nukes and stealth bombers provided.

And I'm saying that the people who do not give money voluntarily but still receive benefit that the government provides are stealing from the government.

Why? Should you pay your parents for having the benefit of getting gifts? Should the people who receive benefit from the Red Cross pay the Red Cross? If we follow this logic, that receiving a benefit and not paying for it is theft, this entirely destroys any possibility of altruism, philanthropy and charity.

Europa Maxima

30-11-2006, 03:58

They have the right to use the fee they charge you in any way they like. Would you say that your cellphone company shouldn't have the right to invest in widgets?
As long as I can withdraw my patronage, they may do with their profits as they please.

And I'm saying that the people who do not give money voluntarily but still receive benefit that the government provides are stealing from the government.
Agreed, unless we are speaking of gift-money, as Greill mentioned.

Wrong.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, proper means of funding government include:

Heavy punitive fines on (real) criminals
Business concerns run by government
etc.

Rand is not my cup of tea. I'll stick to Hoppe, Rothbard, and on occasion, D. Friedman, thank you very much.

Good response by the way Greill.

Helspotistan

30-11-2006, 05:15

I have no idea how the FairTax system could possibly work but then the whole income tax thing seems fairly unworkable so its probably not any worse.. and does seem inherently fairer.

On a side not I am surprised by the strong defence of people earning lots of money. There seems to be this idea that someone who isn’t making a lot of money is only in that position because they aren’t working hard enough.. and vice versa if you work hard then you will be rich… That’s crap…

In my personal experience the amount of money you earn tends to have very little to do with how hard you work and an awful lot to do with how morally flexible you are prepared to be. I have plenty of friends who are lawyers, they work hard, some of them very hard.. but their pay is directly linked to the kind of work they tend to do most. You work for cigarette companies or big oil.. bam here come the bucks. You work for the red cross.. forget about it.

Same with millionaire business owners. If they are prepared to be a little more vicious in their dealings with competitors and employees then they tend to make more money. Its not because they put in more hours or slave over business proposals.. though this helps, when it comes down to it its being in the right place at the right time and being flexible enough to capitalise on that.

I worked much harder on my PhD than I did as an IT consultant.. and yet I got paid 4 times as much in IT. It certainly wasn’t because my work was more valuable. I am helping to uncover the cause of multi drug resistant bacteria in hospitals in my PhD work and I wrote accounting and customer relations management software when I was making the most money in IT. I know what I value more in society….

I say tax the rich… but I do like the idea of the sales tax based model that enables you to tax their consumption rather than their wage… seems like it might be better linked to how much you value your money. It might even be tougher for the rich to avoid that kind of tax, as they seem to be doing a pretty good job of working the income tax model.

Alexandrian Ptolemais

30-11-2006, 05:58

Given that the New Zealand Government is sitting on a juicy $11 billion surplus (of which $4 billion is a cash surplus). My ideal tax system would involve much lower taxes than exists presently.

Bottom Rate (<$9,500) = 0 %
Lower Middle Rate ($9,500 - $38,000) = 19 %
Upper Middle Rate ($38,000 - $60,000) = 30 %
Top Individual Rate (>$60,000) = 39 %

Corporate Tax Rate (NZ owned companies) = 12.5 %
Corporate Tax Rate (Foreign owned companies) = 33 %

Payroll Taxes = 0 %

GST = 20 %

Property taxes (Central) = 0 %
Property taxes (Local) = it would vary from district to district

Poll taxes = 0 %

Excise taxes (Petrol) = 60 % of final price
Excise taxes (Tobacco) = 95 % of final price
Excise taxes (Alcohol) = 60 % of final price
Excise taxes (Gambling) = 60 % of final price

Tariffs = 0 %

Capital Gains Tax = 0 % unless it involves property speculation (classified as property resale within 24 months of original purchase price), in which case, it would be at the marginal tax rate plus 10 %

Every other tax imaginable = 0 %

Income from Dividends and Interest = 0 % (i.e. not classified as income)

This would only use up the present cash surplus, so the government would still be sitting on a $7 billion surplus, which it could use for capital expenditure and so on.

Tech-gnosis

30-11-2006, 07:16

Well, yeah. Could you shake hands with the government, or write letters to the economy? As entities, they do not exist. As relationships between individuals, they do. But individuals are the only actors, in the end.

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word "entity". Abstractions can also be entities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

[/QUOTE]You seem to confuse "rational individualist" with "selfish prick". They would help people because they see it as being a purpose worth acting for, which is not at all out of line with individualism. It is a far greater testament to liberty if people will defend it out of their own free-will, instead of being forced to be free.[/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is that you ignore incentives, much like communists do. You implied that the defenders will defend other out of altruistic impulses. I find it more likely that payment will be needed to get people to defend others in any meaningful numbers.

If taxes were a fee for government services, there would be an option not to pay them, like with everything else in the world. The government does not make any sort of contract with the people. It did not give you or I a contract to sign to accept the rules, it gives no promises as to how much it will tax but rather just does it, and it gives no promise on how it will spend but rather does so as it pleases. There is absolutely nothing voluntary about it, and the only theft that goes on is at the hands of the government that acts as it will with its citizens.

You do have an option not to pay taxes. You can move to another country. As I said the government has claimed certain property rights. Written contracts are only one form of contract. If I go to a restaurant and order food but made no explicit written or verbal contract, i.e. someone asked me what I wanted and I told them, should I get away with not paying? The government will tax and spend as it pleases but then it reserved that right, and you could always move to Dubai.

These voluntary associations would not just be made up of you and me. They would include wealthy people who would give to the voluntary associations like they would with the various other charities they support. They would obviously have an interest in making sure that there is a stable business environment, at the very least, and, if Maslowe's hierarchy of needs is at all right, many of them would be acted to act philanthropically. Thus, we would have our nukes and stealth bombers provided.

So you think that these armed associations wouldn't abuse their power?

Greill

30-11-2006, 08:47

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word "entity". Abstractions can also be entities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

Seeing as how Wikipedia says that an entity has a "distinct, separate existence", I will say I am still correct. These things (Society, economy, etc.) do not have a distinct, separate existence, because they are merely the description of people's relations and not an actual thing in unto itself.

What I'm saying is that you ignore incentives, much like communists do. You implied that the defenders will defend other out of altruistic impulses. I find it more likely that payment will be needed to get people to defend others in any meaningful numbers.

Then I guess charity and patriotism are make-believe, uh? (You still seem to contend that "individualism" means "selfish-prickism". A purpose doesn't have to have a mercenary benefit for people to pursue it; charity is the rather obvious example.)

You do have an option not to pay taxes. You can move to another country. As I said the government has claimed certain property rights. Written contracts are only one form of contract. If I go to a restaurant and order food but made no explicit written or verbal contract, i.e. someone asked me what I wanted and I told them, should I get away with not paying? The government will tax and spend as it pleases but then it reserved that right, and you could always move to Dubai.

I do believe in implicit contract; however, this does not excuse theft. If government was a restaurant, you'd be forced in, seated down at gunpoint, made to max out your credit cards and then be given some scraps (of their choice) to keep you happy, if even that. (You'd probably have to wait in a long line, too, and be attended by surly people who have no interest in helping you). The difference between a restaurant and a government is that you choose what you want to get from the restaurant at a price you agree to. With government, they choose what they get from you and they get to do what they feel like with your money regardless of what you want. In the former, there is choice, freedom, and mutual benefit; in the latter, theft, oppression, and parasitism.

This coercion aside, government does not have the same right of association that a restaurant does to make your answer of emigration valid, because government cannot claim any rights, seeing as the abstraction "government" is not an actor; only individuals can act, and are thus the only ones with rights. And if only individuals can have rights, what gives certain individuals the power to do things that are prohibited for others to do (i.e. take whatever amount of money from others without consent, implicit or explicit)? If we are to take this stance of privileging certain people with power over others, then we take the stance of creating a system of masters and slaves and not free men.

So you think that these armed associations wouldn't abuse their power?

If you have a vertical system of checks and balances, and take away their powers of theft, enslavement, and murder, then no, they wouldn't even have the opportunity to abuse their power.

Aequilibritas

30-11-2006, 11:04

You seem to confuse "rational individualist" with "selfish prick".

A lot of people do...

Jello Biafra

30-11-2006, 14:13

The government does not make any sort of contract with the people. It did not give you or I a contract to sign to accept the rules, it gives no promises as to how much it will tax but rather just does it, and it gives no promise on how it will spend but rather does so as it pleases. There is absolutely nothing voluntary about it, and the only theft that goes on is at the hands of the government that acts as it will with its citizens.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theory

Why? Should you pay your parents for having the benefit of getting gifts? Should the people who receive benefit from the Red Cross pay the Red Cross? If we follow this logic, that receiving a benefit and not paying for it is theft, this entirely destroys any possibility of altruism, philanthropy and charity.Neither the government nor society is an altruistic entity, or at the very least are not such by default.

As long as I can withdraw my patronage, they may do with their profits as they please.You can withdraw your patronage of a government, by emigrating.

Agreed, unless we are speaking of gift-money, as Greill mentioned.We are not.

Europa Maxima

30-11-2006, 23:11

You can withdraw your patronage of a government, by emigrating.
Or a community can by seceding. Or, even better, you can just refuse to pay for something and consequently lose right of access to the service (whilst retaining access to those you are willing to pay for). Up to here no coercion. Until, of course, you're informed by the police/military that imprisonment is the penalty for not consuming. Even a monopoly has no such power - the option is to either consume or not to consume. The analogy of what is being suggested is a woman being raped against her will, but because she was silent the whole time through and did not fight back she was thought to have agreed implicitly, even though she had no desire of being raped. Such is nonsense. No means no, quite clearly.

Linus and Lucy

30-11-2006, 23:23

Yes, Social Contract Theory is incorrect.

Get used to it.

Smunkeeville

30-11-2006, 23:25

I'm fairly certain that the Fair Tax idea was conceived before the advent of internet shopping. Nowadays people can simply purchase goods directly from foreign countries and have them shipped to their doors. The Fair Tax provides no method for the taxation of these goods, as least not that I've seen.

I guess if you have the time/money/patience to purchase everything you ever buy online.....food etc.

Myrmidonisia

30-11-2006, 23:32

Let's look at this another way. What business does the government have in forcing me to serve the purposes of another? At least two thirds of our budget goes to entitlement programs which do exactly that. Now before you accuse me of being uncaring, let me state that I'm not. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable.

They have the right to use the fee they charge you in any way they like. Would you say that your cellphone company shouldn't have the right to invest in widgets?

That's a silly comparison. No commercial entity has the same power of force that the government does. Show me where the government derives its power to force me to serve the purposes of another?

Greill

30-11-2006, 23:33

A lot of people do...

I know, and it makes me rather sad, actually. I try to be as good to other people as I can, and to some that would seem to be opposed to being an individualist; to me, it's quite the opposite, for if individualism is to survive it must stand upon mutual respect between individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract_theory

Ick, Rousseau. A contract that can change however one party feels like and does not depend upon voluntary agreement isn't. Ergo, the idea of this type of social contract is a logical contradiction, and thus invalid.

Neither the government nor society is an altruistic entity, or at the very least are not such by default.

By default, no. But if it is an altruistic entity, then it is an altruistic entity, and thus should be expected to act as such, as fits its essence.

You can withdraw your patronage of a government, by emigrating.

You can withdraw your "patronage" to a local gang by moving away. But your choice of staying does not justify their criminal acts.

Aequilibritas

30-11-2006, 23:39

I know, and it makes me rather sad, actually. I try to be as good to other people as I can, and to some that would seem to be opposed to being an individualist; to me, it's quite the opposite, for if individualism is to survive it must stand upon mutual respect between individuals..

Preaching to the converted, my friend, preaching to the converted.

Jello Biafra

30-11-2006, 23:46

Or a community can by seceding. Or, even better, you can just refuse to pay for something and consequently lose right of access to the service (whilst retaining access to those you are willing to pay for). Up to here no coercion. Until, of course, you're informed by the police/military that imprisonment is the penalty for not consuming. Even a monopoly has no such power - the option is to either consume or not to consume. Being sent to jail for not paying your taxes is the equivalent of having your electricity shut off for not paying your electric bills. In both cases you are shut off from receiving benefit from something you are not paying for.

Yes, Social Contract Theory is incorrect.

Get used to it.Given that there is no objectively proven set of rights, the social contract is the only way that we can, without such proof, arrive at a set of rights.

I guess if you have the time/money/patience to purchase everything you ever buy online.....food etc.Well, food will, at least in part, be rebated back to you.
Also, if you're rich enough, you could pay somebody to do that for you.

That's a silly comparison. No commercial entity has the same power of force that the government does. Show me where the government derives its power to force me to serve the purposes of another?I don't see how it's silly at all. You wouldn't tell a company you pay your money to that it doesn't have the right to do what it wants with the money you pay it. You might tell the government to do something else with its money, but it certain has the right to do anything it wants (outside of breaking a constitution) with the money it receives from taxes.

Ick, Rousseau. A contract that can change however one party feels like and does not depend upon voluntary agreement isn't. Ergo, the idea of this type of social contract is a logical contradiction, and thus invalid.Not at all. The contract covers certain things; such things that are not covered in the contract are not considered changing the contract.
(A constitution is a form of a social contract.)

By default, no. But if it is an altruistic entity, then it is an altruistic entity, and thus should be expected to act as such, as fits its essence.Certainly. Of course, this begs the question as to why someone would consider the government to be, or expect it to be an altruistic entity.

You can withdraw your "patronage" to a local gang by moving away. But your choice of staying does not justify their criminal acts.What a government does is not inherently criminal; in this case, requiring taxation is not criminal.

Neu Leonstein

30-11-2006, 23:47

Jello Biafra

30-11-2006, 23:50

So we are paying taxes to buy our freedom?No, you are paying taxes to buy protection of/ the right to your freedom. (You can have freedom without having the right to freedom.)

Tech-gnosis

01-12-2006, 00:01

Seeing as how Wikipedia says that an entity has a "distinct, separate existence", I will say I am still correct. These things (Society, economy, etc.) do not have a distinct, separate existence, because they are merely the description of people's relations and not an actual thing in unto itself.

Using that line of reasoning individuals aren't enities. Individuals are just the relations of various cells, chemicals, and electric voltatge. As these relations comprise and create individuals are not actual things unto themselves. They have no distinct and seperate existence from various cells, chemicals, and eletricity.

Then I guess charity and patriotism are make-believe, uh? (You still seem to contend that "individualism" means "selfish-prickism". A purpose doesn't have to have a mercenary benefit for people to pursue it; charity is the rather obvious example.)

Patriotism is the love of one's country. Since countrie's don't actually exist patriots are just collectivists.
I never said altruism doesn't exist just that it wouldn't get the job done.
You have a weird idea of what a selfish prick is. If someone makes a good living working rather than a subsitence living with some savings for emergencies while working at a charity then they're a selfish prick according to what you consider a selfish prick.
Randians would say rational individualists are selfish pricks, more or less. I do not.

I do believe in implicit contract; however, this does not excuse theft. If government was a restaurant, you'd be forced in, seated down at gunpoint, made to max out your credit cards and then be given some scraps (of their choice) to keep you happy, if even that. (You'd probably have to wait in a long line, too, and be attended by surly people who have no interest in helping you). The difference between a restaurant and a government is that you choose what you want to get from the restaurant at a price you agree to. With government, they choose what they get from you and they get to do what they feel like with your money regardless of what you want. In the former, there is choice, freedom, and mutual benefit; in the latter, theft, oppression, and parasitism.

You choose what what you get and at what price by choosing to living in a country. If you don't want to pay then vote with your feet and leave.

This coercion aside, government does not have the same right of association that a restaurant does to make your answer of emigration valid, because government cannot claim any rights, seeing as the abstraction "government" is not an actor; only individuals can act, and are thus the only ones with rights. And if only individuals can have rights, what gives certain individuals the power to do things that are prohibited for others to do (i.e. take whatever amount of money from others without consent, implicit or explicit)? If we are to take this stance of privileging certain people with power over others, then we take the stance of creating a system of masters and slaves and not free men.

If true then any associations can't have rights or act. Contracts between businesses, private clubs, or any other association aren't valid. Yet companies and other associations contract all the time. Odd. Property rights give power over others creating a system of masters and slave. Let's all become commies. :P

If you have a vertical system of checks and balances, and take away their powers of theft, enslavement, and murder, then no, they wouldn't even have the opportunity to abuse their power.

With so many checks and balances I'd be surprised if they could do anything.

Neu Leonstein

01-12-2006, 00:02

No, you are paying taxes to buy protection of/ the right to your freedom. (You can have freedom without having the right to freedom.)
We pay taxes so we are protected from crime, for example. That's true.

But I don't pay taxes so I can leave my house when I want.

You could say that being sent to jail would be to keep me from using government services (apart from the issue of my living arrangements now being paid for with tax money ;) ) - but even then it's going beyond that. I can leave my house without using government services (keeping in mind that passively using police and national defense in this case would be virtually free, simply the fixed costs of providing the service divided by the population).

Being sent to jail for tax evasion goes above and beyond a "just" way of making sure I don't free-ride, because it takes away things that I don't pay for when I pay taxes.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 00:11

We pay taxes so we are protected from crime, for example. That's true.

But I don't pay taxes so I can leave my house when I want.I don't see a difference; if there were no protection from crime someone could barricade you in your house without recourse.

You could say that being sent to jail would be to keep me from using government services (apart from the issue of my living arrangements now being paid for with tax money ;) ) - but even then it's going beyond that. I can leave my house without using government services (keeping in mind that passively using police and national defense in this case would be virtually free, simply the fixed costs of providing the service divided by the population).Being sent to jail also limits the social services that you can receive - some of the benefits that you receive from paying taxes include having the ability to conduct a business transaction.

Being sent to jail for tax evasion goes above and beyond a "just" way of making sure I don't free-ride, because it takes away things that I don't pay for when I pay taxes.Anything that involves another person (outside of your family) is something that you pay for when you pay taxes.

Greill

01-12-2006, 00:13

Preaching to the converted, my friend, preaching to the converted.

At least someone agrees with me. :)

Being sent to jail for not paying your taxes is the equivalent of having your electricity shut off for not paying your electric bills. In both cases you are shut off from receiving benefit from something you are not paying for.

But there is a very distinct difference between having your electricity cut off, which is the other people ceasing to perform an action for you, and being hauled off to a penitentiary, which is a forceful attack on your person. Also, you decide how much you are willing to pay for electricity, what you want to get for it, who you want to supply it for you, and if none of your requisites are not met nothing happens to you other than that you don't receive a service. You do not decide how much you are willing to pay for government, you do not decide what you get in return, you cannot opt for a new government to provide services to you other than the exile you continually recommend, and if you don't comply with the government's demands they get to do what they want with you as if you were their possession.

Given that there is no objectively proven set of rights, the social contract is the only way that we can, without such proof, arrive at a set of rights.

If rights are subjective, as you put forth, then it would follow that the individual people should decide what their rights are, seeing as how it would all be a matter of subjectivity. This would be as opposed to having some people impose their conceptions onto others, which is what you are advocating. In this, subjectivity of rights does not give any validity to social contract; in fact, it disproves it.

Not at all. The contract covers certain things; such things that are not covered in the contract are not considered changing the contract.
(A constitution is a form of a social contract.)

If a constitution is an actual contract between government and people (which it isn't; I don't seem to recall signing the Constitution), then, like every other contract, it would rely on consent. A government does not politely ask people for 33% of their income with the possibility of being refused; it just takes what it wants. The people do not get to choose what they receive in exchange for their tax money; they just have their belongings taken away. There is no consent, but rather, only force to the benefit of one in these transactions. Therefore, without consent, there is no contract between the people and the government.

Certainly. Of course, this begs the question as to why someone would consider the government to be, or expect it to be an altruistic entity.

I don't expect the government to be altruistic, and I most certainly don't consider it to be altruistic. However, if there was a government that was based upon doing its operations altruistically, then one could at least expect it to follow these parameters, as fits its essence.

What a government does is not inherently criminal; in this case, requiring taxation is not criminal.

Again, there is no consent in the exchanges between people and their government. Like muggings and burglary, this is theft. Theft is criminal. Ergo, taxation is criminal.

Unabashed Greed

01-12-2006, 00:15

Snip

Greill, you ignorant slut!:p

Linus and Lucy

01-12-2006, 00:16

Again, there is no consent in the exchanges between people and their government. Like muggings and burglary, this is theft. Theft is criminal. Ergo, taxation is criminal.

Amen.

What, exactly, is the difference between a government that collects taxes and a protection racket, besides scale?

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 00:22

But there is a very distinct difference between having your electricity cut off, which is the other people ceasing to perform an action for you, and being hauled off to a penitentiary, which is a forceful attack on your person. Since what you pay for is (in part) to not have forceful attacks on your person, in both cases the effect is the same.

You do not decide how much you are willing to pay for government, you do not decide what you get in return, you cannot opt for a new government to provide services to you Again, emigration. (Though I do not oppose, and in fact support, the idea of secession.)

If rights are subjective, as you put forth, then it would follow that the individual people should decide what their rights are, seeing as how it would all be a matter of subjectivity. This would be as opposed to having some people impose their conceptions onto others, which is what you are advocating. In this, subjectivity of rights does not give any validity to social contract; in fact, it disproves it.False. You cannot say that someone has the right to do something unless said right is protected. The only way to get someone to agree to protect a right is to enter into a (social) contract with them.

If a constitution is an actual contract between government and people (which it isn't; I don't seem to recall signing the Constitution), There are other types of contracts, such as verbal contracts.

then, like every other contract, it would rely on consent. Which you give by not emigrating.

I don't expect the government to be altruistic, and I most certainly don't consider it to be altruistic. However, if there was a government that was based upon doing its operations altruistically, then one could at least expect it to follow these parameters, as fits its essence.That's fine, but I don't see how such a government would come about, and since none exists as yet, to not pat taxes to an already existing government is theft.

Neu Leonstein

01-12-2006, 00:25

I don't see a difference; if there were no protection from crime someone could barricade you in your house without recourse.
And I could shoot them, for example. Not exactly ideal, but the government isn't paying for my ability to leave the house unless you only limit yourself to the government-sponsored way of living together.

Being sent to jail also limits the social services that you can receive - some of the benefits that you receive from paying taxes include having the ability to conduct a business transaction.
You mean the ability to conduct a business transaction sanctioned by the government.
Again, I could make a business transaction with someone without the government ever hearing about it or having to do anything. Hell, I could even exchange material goods instead of money if you wanted to argue that the cost of printing and maintaining money is really all that significant to the taxpayer.

Anything that involves another person (outside of your family) is something that you pay for when you pay taxes.
I disagree.

Just because there may be a potential that the government has to pay for resolving issues I may have through the legal system doesn't mean that it actually is paying all that much.

Think about it: How much would it cost to keep up a legal system and police force if there were no crimes committed in a year? Only the fixed costs, so to speak.
And then divide that number by the number of taxpayers in the country. That's how much I owe the government for legal services and protection from crime, unless something happens to me and I need their help. And I would argue that this is a very small amount and can hardly be judged equivalent to spending that time in jail, ergo jail sentences go beyond a just measure.

That is, unless you start going into collective ideas about me rightfully having to pay for resolving other people's issues, but then you're really arguing something else entirely.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 00:30

And I could shoot them, for example. Certainly. Therefore, in addition to paying for someone not barricading you in, you also pay for not having to resort to a system of vigilante justice.

You mean the ability to conduct a business transaction sanctioned by the government.No, I mean any business transaction. You are mistaken if you think that things that are only made possible by the services the government provides (directly or indirectly) are somehow separate from those services, in that you don't also pay for them when you pay for those services.

Again, I could make a business transaction with someone without the government ever hearing about it or having to do anything. Hell, I could even exchange material goods instead of money if you wanted to argue that the cost of printing and maintaining money is really all that significant to the taxpayer.But you could not do so without the infrastructure that the government provides.

/snipI snipped this because it would be a rehash of points I've made above.

Neu Leonstein

01-12-2006, 00:40

Certainly. Therefore, in addition to paying for someone not barricading you in, you also pay for not having to resort to a system of vigilante justice.
You're saying it like it's a bad thing if I get to shoot people who barricade me in...

It's like saying that the Iranians are paying for protection from internet sites that spread the wrong message. If you make everything the government does as a good thing, of course it's gonna look like taxation is a good thing.

No, I mean any business transaction. You are mistaken if you think that things that are only made possible by the services the government provides (directly or indirectly) are somehow separate from those services, in that you don't also pay for them when you pay for those services.
So how far do you want to take that chain? And in particular: how much extra is the government paying for putting in place a system that eventually after a billion stages results in me buying a steak from someone?

Is that really worth 50% of my income, for example? And is me avoiding paying the 50% of my income in return for 50c worth of government fixed costs a just reason for throwing me in jail?

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 00:47

You're saying it like it's a bad thing if I get to shoot people who barricade me in...I'd rather they be deterred by the thought that other people might shoot them as opposed to myself; I suppose other people might feel differently.

It's like saying that the Iranians are paying for protection from internet sites that spread the wrong message. If you make everything the government does as a good thing, of course it's gonna look like taxation is a good thing.Not at all, not everything that a government does is a good thing. If the government breaks the social contract, that is not a good thing.
So, the question, in the Iran case, is if the social contract involves being protected from objectional messages or not.

So how far do you want to take that chain? And in particular: how much extra is the government paying for putting in place a system that eventually after a billion stages results in me buying a steak from someone?Well, since I said that you pay for any type of involvement with another person, it could be pretty far, although I would say that this is the initial payment, which only manifests itself in police protection.

Is that really worth 50% of my income, for example? That depends; if a person continues to live in such a place then they would appear to believe that it is worth it.

And is me avoiding paying the 50% of my income in return for 50c worth of government fixed costs a just reason for throwing me in jail?Would you rather be deported?

Neu Leonstein

01-12-2006, 01:02

I'd rather they be deterred by the thought that other people might shoot them as opposed to myself; I suppose other people might feel differently.
They certainly do. But you're telling me that it doesn't matter, because your idea about what you'd prefer is the one that needs to be enforced by threat of jail terms.

Not at all, not everything that a government does is a good thing. If the government breaks the social contract, that is not a good thing.
I didn't agree to a contract. Certainly not one that lets them use the tax money they press out of me to lock up immigrants in detention centres.

Well, since I said that you pay for any type of involvement with another person, it could be pretty far, although I would say that this is the initial payment, which only manifests itself in police protection.
And I said that I disagree. You haven't convinced me otherwise - even if for me to buy a computer I might have to approach a company that at some point took advantage of the legal system to form, that doesn't mean that any involvement with another person is government-sponsored.

That depends; if a person continues to live in such a place then they would appear to believe that it is worth it.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
Now, one objection that’s sometimes raised isn’t so much an objection to anarchism as an objection to the moral argument for anarchism: well, look, it’s not really a coercive monopoly. It’s not as though people haven’t consented to this because there’s a certain sense in which people have consented to the existing system – by living within the borders of a particular territory, by accepting the benefits the government offers, and so forth, they have, in effect, consented. Just as if you walk into a restaurant and sit down and say, “I’ll have a steak,” you don’t have to explicitly mention that you are agreeing to pay for it; it’s just sort of understood. By sitting down in the restaurant and asking for the steak, you are agreeing to pay for it. Likewise, the argument goes, if you sit down in the territory of this given state, and you accept benefits of police protection or something, then you’ve implicitly agreed to abide by its requirements. Now, notice that even if this argument works, it doesn’t settle the pragmatic question of whether this is the best working system.

But I think there is something dubious about this argument. It’s certainly true that if I go onto someone else’s property, then it seems like there’s an expectation that as long as I’m on their property I have to do as they say. I have to follow their rules. If I don’t want to follow their rules, then I’ve got to leave. So, I invite you over to my house, and when you come in I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “What’s this?” And I say, “Well, that’s the way it works in my house. Everyone has to wear the funny hat. Those are my rules.” Well, you can’t say, “I won’t wear the hat but I’m staying anyway.” These are my rules – they may be dumb rules, but I can do it.

Now suppose that you’re at home having dinner, and I’m your next-door-neighbor, and I come and knock on your door. You open the door, and I come in and I say, “You have to wear the funny hat.” And you say, “Why is this?” And I say, “Well, you moved in next door to me, didn’t you? By doing that, you sort of agreed.” And you say, “Well, wait a second! When did I agree to this?”

I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it’s not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I’ve got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don’t know, but here I am in my property and they don’t own it – at least they haven’t given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in “this country” means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.

Another thing is, one of the problems with these implicit social contract arguments is that it’s not clear what the contract is. In the case of ordering food in a restaurant, everyone pretty much knows what the contract is. So you could run an implicit consent argument there. But no one would suggest that you could buy a house the same way.

There are all these rules and things like that. When it’s something complicated no one says, “You just sort of agreed by nodding your head at some point,” or something. You have to find out what it is that’s actually in the contract; what are you agreeing to? It’s not clear if no one knows what exactly the details of the contract are. It’s not that persuasive.

Would you rather be deported?
I most certainly would rather be deported than go to jail, yes.

Greill

01-12-2006, 01:05

Since what you pay for is (in part) to not have forceful attacks on your person, in both cases the effect is the same.

Pay the government money so that they don't attack you? That sounds like the mafia.

Again, emigration. (Though I do not oppose, and in fact support, the idea of secession.)

Why should people have to exile themselves, instead of having to be forced to pay taxes? This is like justifying a protection racket in saying that people should either pay up involuntarily or leave; it would be better that the protection racket be gotten rid of so that their crimes can stop.

False. You cannot say that someone has the right to do something unless said right is protected. The only way to get someone to agree to protect a right is to enter into a (social) contract with them.

OK. So let's say a country doesn't protect free speech; do people not have a right to it then, by your logic? The people who want to exercise free speech would say they have a right to it, and you cannot disprove them by your rationale because you don't believe rights can be objectively ascertained. So who is right, the government or those who wish to exercise free speech? The only acceptable answer to your logic is that both are right, because rights, being subjective, are ultimately a construct of perception, which is what individuals have. It is therefore incorrect to impose any sort of "social contract" that would falsely objectify what is a subjective matter.

There are other types of contracts, such as verbal contracts.

Well, I didn't say "Yes" to the Constitution, either.

Which you give by not emigrating.

Do you consent when you're getting mugged by not trying to walk away?

That's fine, but I don't see how such a government would come about, and since none exists as yet, to not pay taxes to an already existing government is theft.

Again, taxes are not consensual. If they are not consensual, then they do not comprise a valid contract. If they do not comprise a valid contract, you do not have to follow it. Therefore, it is not theft; the only theft is that of the government taxation which is not consensual but rather coercive.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 01:14

They certainly do. But you're telling me that it doesn't matter, because your idea about what you'd prefer is the one that needs to be enforced by threat of jail terms.No, as an anarchist, I am against the idea of jail terms at all, but I don't object to the idea of the neighborhood watch protecting me.

I didn't agree to a contract. Certainly not one that lets them use the tax money they press out of me to lock up immigrants in detention centres.As I said to another poster, you wouldn't tell your cellphone company that they didn't have the right to use the fee you pay them in any way you wished. As long as what the government does doesn't violate the social contract (constitution) they can do it.

And I said that I disagree. You haven't convinced me otherwise - even if for me to buy a computer I might have to approach a company that at some point took advantage of the legal system to form, that doesn't mean that any involvement with another person is government-sponsored.It isn't government-sponsored, it's socially sponsored. How are you going to have a relationship with another person without other people?
Since the government is the theoretical reprentative of the society, by paying for what the government provides, you also pay for what the society provides.

I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory.The legitimacy of the jurisdiction is granted by the people living within the jurisdiction. Typically in these issues, most of the people within the jurisdiction agree to it, so, naturally the assumption that there is legitimate jurisdiction would be made.

I most certainly would rather be deported than go to jail, yes.Well, I don't know if another country would have you or not, but I suppose they could find a nice deserted island, at least for a while.
If not, there's always Antarctica.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 01:15

Being sent to jail for not paying your taxes is the equivalent of having your electricity shut off for not paying your electric bills. In both cases you are shut off from receiving benefit from something you are not paying for.
Nonsense. That is the most absurd analogy I have yet to see. Not paying your taxes means you lose usage of a specific good, just like not paying your electric bills would imply. Being sent to jail for it is over and above losing access to the service.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 01:22

Pay the government money so that they don't attack you? That sounds like the mafia.Pay the government money so that other people don't attack you.

Why should people have to exile themselves, instead of having to be forced to pay taxes? This is like justifying a protection racket in saying that people should either pay up involuntarily or leave; it would be better that the protection racket be gotten rid of so that their crimes can stop.No, it would be like people agreeing to receive what the protection racket provides and then saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it. This is what happens when people receive what the government/society provides but don't want to pay taxes for it.

OK. So let's say a country doesn't protect free speech; do people not have a right to it then, by your logic? If the social contract does not say so, then no, they don't, as repugnant as that idea would be to me. I'd say it would be silly for people to live in such a place, though, but I suppose the benefits of doing so, to them, are worth it.

The people who want to exercise free speech would say they have a right to it, and you cannot disprove them by your rationale because you don't believe rights can be objectively ascertained. Given that the right doesn't exist without the protection of it, I can disprove them by not agreeing to protect their right to free speech in the first place.

So who is right, the government or those who wish to exercise free speech? It depends on the terms of the social contract and how modifications would be made to it. Typically, social contracts require the majority of people to agree for them to be changed. If enough people want the social contract to be changed, and it does change, then they are correct.

Well, I didn't say "Yes" to the Constitution, either.But you do say 'yes' to the things the Constitution provides, by exercising your right to free speech. If you don't pay for this, it is theft.

Do you consent when you're getting mugged by not trying to walk away?If you agreed to pay for something and did not do so, you would consent to having the repo man take it back from you.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 01:28

Pay the government money so that other people don't attack you.
Or it will...

No, it would be like people agreeing to receive what the protection racket provides and then saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it. This is what happens when people receive what the government/society provides but don't want to pay taxes for it.
People who opt out of paying for it should receive no services. As long as they use the service, they pay for it. Government can deny them access if they refuse to do so.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 01:30

Nonsense. That is the most absurd analogy I have yet to see. Not paying your taxes means you lose usage of a specific good, just like not paying your electric bills would imply. Being sent to jail for it is over and above losing access to the service.Not paying taxes means you lose the benefit of society. Since deportation is not something that other countries tend to accept, jail is one of the few other alternatives possible.

People who opt out of paying for it should receive no services. As long as they use the service, they pay for it. Government can deny them access if they refuse to do so.Ah, you are also making the error of believing that there's a difference between government-provided services and socially-provided services. There isn't, you pay for all of them or you receive none of them.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 01:40

Not paying taxes means you lose the benefit of society. Since deportation is not something that other countries tend to accept, jail is one of the few other alternatives possible.
A group of individuals can choose to organise itself as it sees fit. Government is not a prerequisite for the existence of society. If people wish to associate themselves in a different fashion to what the mainstream does, and are willing to pay the price for it, they should do so, especially in a so-called democracy. There is no one set method of forming a society. If a majority, or even a substantial portion of a country withdraw their assent, its legitimacy over them is ended - that is the nature of democracy.

Ah, you are also making the error of believing that there's a difference between government-provided services and socially-provided services. There isn't, you pay for all of them or you receive none of them.
No, actually you don't. The legal system and all the rights it confers and such is one entity indeed, yes. Roads are another. Healthcare yet another. Education another. And so on, and so forth. You may pay for what you actually use. If government then wants to use its profits to subsidise certain consumers, or even in another way, to price-discriminate, that is its prerogative, so long as you can opt out. If no one opts for government, it is clear it is no longer desired. Those who want it may band together and reinstate it for themselves alone.

Linus and Lucy

01-12-2006, 01:41

As I said to another poster, you wouldn't tell your cellphone company that they didn't have the right to use the fee you pay them in any way you wished. As long as what the government does doesn't violate the social contract (constitution) they can do it.
The notion of a "social contract" is bogus, as has been pointed out several times on this thread. That you continue to adhere to this backwards and debunked theory is a sure sign of your insanity.

How are you going to have a relationship with another person without other people?
The key here is "another person". When I make an agreement with someone else (or with several others), that is solely between he (or they) and I. "Society" is not party to the agreement, so "Society" does not get to have a say in it.

The legitimacy of the jurisdiction is granted by the people living within the jurisdiction.
Wrong. The legitimacy of a government is determined by what it does, not by how it got into power or who supports it. An elected tyranny that "swings the niggers" and censors the press is illegitimate, while a military junta that, after seizing power in a coup, actually respects individual rights is legitimate.

Linus and Lucy

01-12-2006, 01:44

But you do say 'yes' to the things the Constitution provides, by exercising your right to free speech. If you don't pay for this, it is theft.

The Constitution does not "provide" my right to free speech--it merely ensures that Congress may not infringe upon that right, which is assumed to already exist by the mere fact of the individual's existence. I am not obligated to pay the government to respect my rights any more than I am obligated to pay the mugger to keep from beating me upside the head--just like the mugger is obligated to refrain from beating me upside the head, so is the government obligated to refrain from violating my rights.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 01:49

A group of individuals can choose to organise itself as it sees fit. Government is not a prerequisite for the existence of society. If people wish to associate themselves in a different fashion to what the mainstream does, and are willing to pay the price for it, they should do so, especially in a so-called democracy. There is no one set method of forming a society. I agree with this. Clearly, however, people within these societies wish to have governments. If someone in said society does not wish to, they either need to convince other people that they are right, leave, or bite the bullet and stay. I am fine with all three options.

No, actually you don't. The legal system and all the rights it confers and such is one entity indeed, yes. Roads are another. Healthcare yet another. Education another. And so on, and so forth. You may pay for what you actually use. If government then wants to use its profits to subsidise certain consumers, or even in another way, to price-discriminate, that is its prerogative, so long as you can opt out. If no one opts for government, it is clear it is no longer desired. Those who want it may band together and reinstate it for themselves alone.This is only if society arranges itself in this manner. I know of very few that do. If you wish that society would, you are welcome to try to convince me, and other that it should, but starting from the assumption that it already does is not the way to do it.

The notion of a "social contract" is bogus, as has been pointed out several times on this thread. That you continue to adhere to this backwards and debunked theory is a sure sign of your insanity.No, it's been asserted that there is no social contract. This assertion seems to be based upon the erroneous assumption that you have to sign something for it to be a contract.

The key here is "another person". When I make an agreement with someone else (or with several others), that is solely between he (or they) and I. "Society" is not party to the agreement, so "Society" does not get to have a say in it.If the arrangement is only made possible by the existence of said society, then the society does have the right to have a say in it, though society could choose to opt out of this right. The only way I can think of this scenario being possible is if you are on an island alone with the other person or living alone as hermits in the woods.

Wrong. The legitimacy of a government is determined by what it does, not by how it got into power or who supports it. An elected tyranny that "swings the niggers" and censors the press is illegitimate, while a military junta that, after seizing power in a coup, actually respects individual rights is legitimate.Wrong. The legitimacy of a government is determined solely by what its constituents authorize it to do. Only if the government does something that it is specifically not authorized to do, or does not do something that it is specifically authorized to do, does it become illegitimate.

The Constitution does not "provide" my right to free speech--it merely ensures that Congress may not infringe upon that right, which is assumed to already exist by the mere fact of the individual's existence. This is the basis for the social contract that the Constitution is based on. This does not mean that this social contract is objectively true.

I am not obligated to pay the government to respect my rights any more than I am obligated to pay the mugger to keep from beating me upside the head--just like the mugger is obligated to refrain from beating me upside the head, so is the government obligated to refrain from violating my rights.You are obligated to pay the government to protect your rights if the social contract states that you are. It does. You are.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 01:56

Linus and Lucy

01-12-2006, 02:01

I agree with this. Clearly, however, people within these societies wish to have governments. If someone in said society does not wish to, they either need to convince other people that they are right, leave, or bite the bullet and stay. I am fine with all three options.

This is only if society arranges itself in this manner. I know of very few that do. If you wish that society would, you are welcome to try to convince me, and other that it should, but starting from the assumption that it already does is not the way to do it.

No, it's been asserted that there is no social contract. This assertion seems to be based upon the erroneous assumption that you have to sign something for it to be a contract.
No one's arguing anything about a physical "signature" being required. The mechanics of it are totally irrelevant. Check the arguments again.

If the arrangement is only made possible by the existence of said society, then the society does have the right to have a say in it, though society could choose to opt out of this right. The only way I can think of this scenario being possible is if you are on an island alone with the other person or living alone as hermits in the woods.
That's absurd! "Society", as an entity in and of itself, does not exist.

Think about it for a second:
Let's say you and I are alone on a landmass of sufficient size and abundance to support, say, the entire present population of the United States. We make an agreement, and we stick to it. Now, a third person comes in. The third person decides he doesn't want to participate in our agreement. Person four comes in and decides he does, so we negotiate terms with him. We are unable to come to an agreement, so he's left out. Person five is able to negotiate an agreement with us, so he participates--and he also makes a separate, completely unrelated agreement with Three for completely different purposes. This continues, people making or not making agreements, until the number of people in this little web reaches, say, three hundred million.

Tell me: At what point are the people not actually party to any given agreement entitled to have a say in it regardless?

Wrong. The legitimacy of a government is determined solely by what its constituents authorize it to do. Only if the government does something that it is specifically not authorized to do, or does not do something that it is specifically authorized to do, does it become illegitimate.

That would mean that, if the populace at large authorized government to masturbate my girlfriend whether she wanted it or not, it would legitimately get to masturbate my girlfriend.

However, that is not the case.

Each individual has certain rights--these rights come not from government (or popular) dictate, and their existence is not by prescription but by right--that is why they are called "rights", after all. No one is entitled to violate these rights, whatever the reason, and regardless of many people want it to.

You are obligated to pay the government to protect your rights if the social contract states that you are. It does. You are.

No, it doesn't, because (a) no such "contract" exists, and (b) I have no inherent moral obligation to pay someone else to protect my rights; others are simply obligated to refrain from abridging them--and if they refuse to abide by that obligation, I am entitled to defend myself against them--either by myself, or by entering in agreement with someone else to act as my proxy, for whatever terms he and I can agree on AMONG OURSELVES.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 02:03

My biggest problem with it is that it directly contravenes the very notion of authorship in a democracy; namely, that each individual confers their power to an agent who acts on their behalf, and likewise can withdraw this power. Representative democracies end up acting as though they were oligarchies though.Well, if the majority of people withdrew that power (assuming that this is how the social contract is altered), it would not be legitimate for the government to remain in power.

No, I am aware that it currently doesn't. Ideally, if there must be something like government, I would prefer it to be corporations of a sort that are oriented to providing low cost services to certain consumers that would benefit from these (ie price-discrimination). I would even prefer it furthermore that these corporations, as much as possible, be formed as joint ventures in the community itself rather than by a few individuals - in a sense it is to reformulate government into a free-market entity. Corporations of a different nature and structure would go on existing and competing (unless their models failed vis-a-vis the newer one), of course, and indeed some may be of a charitable nature. This would at least insure that one can consume or not at their choosing, and would have the characteristic of a genuine democracy, as opposed to one which can incarcerate you for not consuming its services... It is essentially market anarchism with a notion of public ownership included in it - that is to say, individuals, at their will, may collectively own and run a business.Oh, that's fine, then. My objection was to the notion that the social contract indicated that there was a difference. I have no problem with there being a difference, in theory, though I would not want to live in society as you described.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 02:07

Well, if the majority of people withdrew that power (assuming that this is how the social contract is altered), it would not be legitimate for the government to remain in power.
Given the notion of authorship of power, the minute anyone withdraws their power from their representative they regain it. This is highly theoretical, but it would mean that if a democracy (or verily any sort of institution) loses this assent, its legitimacy over that person is gone. Otherwise there is no notion of authorship of power, and the ruler is more or less a pure tyrant.

Oh, that's fine, then. My objection was to the notion that the social contract indicated that there was a difference. I have no problem with there being a difference, in theory, though I would not want to live in society as you described.
I certainly wouldn't force you to. :) Whether or not the Social Contract indicates it must be so is irrelevant to me; I'd like to see it done away with altogether.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 02:12

No one's arguing anything about a physical "signature" being required. The mechanics of it are totally irrelevant. Check the arguments again.They are arguing that they haven't given consent when they clearly have.

That's absurd! "Society", as an entity in and of itself, does not exist.Groups of people do exist, and do make decisions, and do authorize things. I fail to see your point.

Think about it for a second:
Let's say you and I are alone on a landmass of sufficient size and abundance to support, say, the entire present population of the United States. We make an agreement, and we stick to it. Now, a third person comes in. The third person decides he doesn't want to participate in our agreement. Person four comes in and decides he does, so we negotiate terms with him. We are unable to come to an agreement, so he's left out. Person five is able to negotiate an agreement with us, so he participates--and he also makes a separate, completely unrelated agreement with Three for completely different purposes. This continues, people making or not making agreements, until the number of people in this little web reaches, say, three hundred million.

Tell me: At what point are the people not actually party to any given agreement entitled to have a say in it regardless?If the agreement in question is only made possible by the prior agreements made by these people you're talking about, then they do have the right to have a say in it regardless.

That would mean that, if the populace at large authorized government to masturbate my girlfriend whether she wanted it or not, it would legitimately get to masturbate my girlfriend.

However, that is not the case.This probably wouldn't be the case, because it would likely violate some other right that she has. If it did not violate some other right, then it would be the case.

Each individual has certain rights--these rights come not from government (or popular) dictate, and their existence is not by prescription but by right--that is why they are called "rights", after all. No one is entitled to violate these rights, whatever the reason, and regardless of many people want it to.Since these rights have not (yet) been objectively determined, the default position is that they must come from popular dictate.

No, it doesn't, because (a) no such "contract" exists, Except that it does.

and (b) I have no inherent moral obligation to pay someone else to protect my rights; True, but you also have no right to receive such protection for free. If you receive such protection, you are obligated to pay for it.

others are simply obligated to refrain from abridging them--and if they refuse to abide by that obligation, I am entitled to defend myself against themYou certainly have the ability of self-defense, that's true.

either by myself, or by entering in agreement with someone else to act as my proxy, for whatever terms he and I can agree on AMONG OURSELVES.In which case said protection of the right would be socially determined, in this case the social group would be you and this other person.
This other person would have the right to object if you made a disagreeable, but separate arrangment with someone else.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 02:17

Given the notion of authorship of power, the minute anyone withdraws their power from their representative they regain it. This is highly theoretical, but it would mean that if a democracy (or verily any sort of institution) loses this assent, its legitimacy over that person is gone. Otherwise there is no notion of authorship of power, and the ruler is more or less a pure tyrant.Ah, I see. I suppose that this would mean that they become an outlaw, in the Ancient Greek meaning of the word. That's fine.

I certainly wouldn't force you to. :) Whether or not the Social Contract indicates it must be so is irrelevant to me; I'd like to see it done away with altogether.Well, I'd like to see the state done away with, too, but, alas, it seems most people are fine with it.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 02:22

Ah, I see. I suppose that this would mean that they become an outlaw, in the Ancient Greek meaning of the word. That's fine.
More or less. Bertrand de Jouvenel goes into an extensive analysis on the notions of Sovereignty and authorship of power - I have not read much of his work yet, but he does an excellent job of demonstrating just how the concepts work.

Well, I'd like to see the state done away with, too, but, alas, it seems most people are fine with it.
Perhaps because they are too idle, or should I say - if I am feeling somewhat pessimistic - too idiotic, to examine the workings of democracy as it is. I believe most people, unless they are actually suffering, grow comfortable, and resist change. Having the government laud itself at every turn for every action it takes is not much help either...

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 02:28

More or less. Bertrand de Jouvenel goes into an extensive analysis on the notions of Sovereignty and authorship of power - I have not read much of his work yet, but he does an excellent job of demonstrating just how the concepts work.Sounds interesting. An anarchic social contract would work in this same way, or at least my conception of it would, so I think I'll check it out.

Perhaps because they are too idle, or should I say - if I am feeling somewhat pessimistic - too idiotic, to examine the workings of democracy as it is. I believe most people, unless they are actually suffering, grow comfortable, and resist change. Having the government laud itself at every turn for every action it takes is not much help either...Yes, perhaps not, but it wouldn't be just to make decisions for someone else just because you think they're too stupid. ;) The solution is to educate them.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 02:32

Sounds interesting. An anarchic social contract would work in this same way, or at least my conception of it would, so I think I'll check it out.
I should say de Jouvenel is ultimately a liberal in favour of democracy, but his arguments are some of the most sophisticated out there if you wish to undermine the theoretical structure of the status quo.

Yes, perhaps not, but it wouldn't be just to make decisions for someone else just because you think they're too stupid. ;) The solution is to educate them.
I agree. Forcing people by the hand is not what I want to do either. Government propaganda is potent, but if its rivals can produce rational, consistent counter-arguments they may in the end win the day.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 02:38

I should say de Jouvenel is ultimately a liberal in favour of democracy, but his arguments are some of the most sophisticated out there if you wish to undermine the theoretical structure of the status quo.It seems to me that democracy is a reasonably effective way of determining and implementing the social contract, or direct democracy is, anyway.

I agree. Forcing people by the hand is not what I want to do either. Government propaganda is potent, but if its rivals can produce rational, consistent counter-arguments they may in the end win the day.I agree, and have hope that this is the case.

Greill

01-12-2006, 03:14

Pay the government money so that other people don't attack you.

Or the government will attack you instead.

No, it would be like people agreeing to receive what the protection racket provides and then saying that they shouldn't have to pay for it. This is what happens when people receive what the government/society provides but don't want to pay taxes for it.

But the protection racket forces its "services" (extortion) onto people, much as government forces its services onto people (which are what they choose to give). How can you charge someone for what they do not want in the first place? Worse yet, how can you punish someone for not following rules that they didn't even agree to in the first place?

If the social contract does not say so, then no, they don't, as repugnant as that idea would be to me. I'd say it would be silly for people to live in such a place, though, but I suppose the benefits of doing so, to them, are worth it.

Then I suppose we have a lot of "silly" people in Sudan/Iran/North Korea/Zimbabwe/elsewhere, seeing as how "they" (i.e. their leaders) didn't choose to include these in their social contract.

Given that the right doesn't exist without the protection of it, I can disprove them by not agreeing to protect their right to free speech in the first place.

How does not protecting something make it not exist? If I see a car being vandalized, and I do nothing to stop it, does that mean the car does not exist? No; it means it's being vandalized. The same with rights; just because you are abrogating rights does not mean they don't exist.

It depends on the terms of the social contract and how modifications would be made to it. Typically, social contracts require the majority of people to agree for them to be changed. If enough people want the social contract to be changed, and it does change, then they are correct.

But the people don't even assent to the contract in the first place; it is forced onto them. What if the 51 decide that the 49 must die? This would be acceptable in this social contract, but in any other contract it would not, because the 49 would almost certainly not consent to being killed.

But you do say 'yes' to the things the Constitution provides, by exercising your right to free speech. If you don't pay for this, it is theft.

How can you possibly call yourself an anarchist and endorse charging people for exercising rights that bring no positive obligations from others, such as free-speech? It costs no one anything at all if I exercise free speech, especially if they have the right of association. I did not agree to any social contract; I am merely exercising my rights which are innate to me and not dependent on some government. To say otherwise is to make me a slave and dependent on the state.

If you agreed to pay for something and did not do so, you would consent to having the repo man take it back from you.

1. You avoided the question.
2. The repo man cannot take from you unless part of a contract that you agreed to; the government can take from you in a social contract in which only it agreed to. There is no comparison.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 03:25

Or the government will attack you instead.I suppose being taken to jail could be construed as an attack, but there isn't any other way of ensuring that people don't receive the benefits of society without paying for them.

But the protection racket forces its "services" (extortion) onto people, much as government forces its services onto people (which are what they choose to give). How can you charge someone for what they do not want in the first place? If you exercise your right to free speech, how can you say that you don't want it?

Worse yet, how can you punish someone for not following rules that they didn't even agree to in the first place?If you know that exercising your right to free speech means that you have to pay for it, you agree to paying for it.

Then I suppose we have a lot of "silly" people in Sudan/Iran/North Korea/Zimbabwe/elsewhere, seeing as how "they" (i.e. their leaders) didn't choose to include these in their social contract.And they would be, and are right if they try to form their own social contract to protect themselves from the government.

How does not protecting something make it not exist? If I see a car being vandalized, and I do nothing to stop it, does that mean the car does not exist? No; it means it's being vandalized. The same with rights; just because you are abrogating rights does not mean they don't exist.Yes, it does, since the existence of rights is contigent upon an agreement that they will be protected. If there is no agreement to the protection of a right, then the right does not exist.

But the people don't even assent to the contract in the first place; it is forced onto them. What if the 51 decide that the 49 must die? This would be acceptable in this social contract, but in any other contract it would not, because the 49 would almost certainly not consent to being killed.If they continue to stay and have the opportunity to leave, then they do consent to it.

How can you possibly call yourself an anarchist and endorse charging people for exercising rights that bring no positive obligations from others, such as free-speech? Again, they are not being charged for the ability to speak freely, they are being charged for the protection of this ability (the right to free speech).

It costs no one anything at all if I exercise free speech, Of course it does, if I wish to talk at the same time as you do, I either have to wait, which costs me time, or speak louder.

I did not agree to any social contract; I am merely exercising my rights which are innate to me and not dependent on some government. There's no such thing as a right that's innate to you and not dependent upon others, since the agreement of others is required for there to be a right in the first place.

To say otherwise is to make me a slave and dependent on the state.To say otherwise is to assert that there is an objective set of rights, which would require you to prove it.

1. You avoided the question.The question isn't valid.

2. The repo man cannot take from you unless part of a contract that you agreed to; the government can take from you in a social contract in which only it agreed to. There is no comparison.There is a comparison, since you do agree to the social contract.

Xanthal

01-12-2006, 03:38

Personal income taxes: 100% pays for all essentials (food, clothing, a modest living space, utilities, transportation, education, health care, and maybe some stuf not occuring to me right now); refunds of "spending money" allocated based upon contributions to the society.

Capital gains tax- Varies from 0 to 50% based on amount and type.

Dividends tax- 0%

Interest tax- 0%

Inheritance tax- 100% beyond $10,000 2005 dollars.

Corporate taxes- Something like 95%, minus certain types of capital investment.

Payroll taxes- 0%

Sales taxes
Necessities- 0%
Luxuries- 0%

Value-added Tax- 0%

Property taxes- 0%

Poll taxes- 0%

Tariffs- 0% for goods not available domestically or an amount to bring the price over par of domestic goods.

Greill

01-12-2006, 03:50

I suppose being taken to jail could be construed as an attack, but there isn't any other way of ensuring that people don't receive the benefits of society without paying for them.

Why are you so deadset on forcing people to pay for every benefit they receive? If someone receives a benefit from me which they don't agree to in the first place, i.e. if I painted my house beautifully and that made the neighborhood look better, should I be able to punish everyone in the neighborhood?

If you exercise your right to free speech, how can you say that you don't want it?

I like my free speech, but I don't get it from anyone; I get it from myself, because my body does not belong to the state or society or anyone but me. To say otherwise is to make me nothing but a slave.

If you know that exercising your right to free speech means that you have to pay for it, you agree to paying for it.

But I don't believe, nor have I consented to paying for a right to free speech. Therefore, I don't agree to pay for it.

And they would be, and are right if they try to form their own social contract to protect themselves from the government.

Except that they can't, because their government already has claims on them that it is quite willing to assert. They did not agree to be oppressed; ergo, they should not be oppressed.

Yes, it does, since the existence of rights is contigent upon them being protected. If there is no agreement to the protection of a right, then the right does not exist.

So if someone murders me, do they not agree to my right to my life and thus make it non-existent, or are they abrogating my right to life, which is not being protected? If the former, then it makes the concept of rights utterly pointless, seeing how readily they become meaningless. If the latter, then there is no need for protection of a right to make it exist.

If they continue to stay and have the opportunity to leave, then they do consent to it.

So it's those Kurdish people's fault that they wouldn't move out of Turkey and Iraq, and thus they agreed to be exterminated?

Again, they are not being charged for the ability to speak freely, they are being charged for the protection of this ability (the right to free speech).

OK, but they still didn't agree for the government to be the one to protect their ability. Why won't you let them actually choose one agency themselves?

Of course it does, if I wish to talk at the same time as you do, I either have to wait, which costs me time, or speak louder.

You might want to speak louder, or wait (if you're polite). You don't have to.

To say otherwise is to assert that there is an objective set of rights, which would require you to prove it.

No. To say otherwise means that people, not government, should be the ones to decide their contracts.

The question isn't valid.

How so?

There is a comparison, since you do agree to the social contract.

No, you don't agree to a contract unless you agree to a contract. I did not ask for the protection services of a government, and they should not be able to force their terms on me.

Jello Biafra

01-12-2006, 04:15

Why are you so deadset on forcing people to pay for every benefit they receive? If someone receives a benefit from me which they don't agree to in the first place, i.e. if I painted my house beautifully and that made the neighborhood look better, should I be able to punish everyone in the neighborhood?No, since the benefit isn't given with the intention that it be paid for. If they expect the paint to look fresh all the time, they should pay for it.
Again, your painting was done altruistically, the benefits society and the government gives are not.

I like my free speech, but I don't get it from anyone; I get it from myself, because my body does not belong to the state or society or anyone but me. ...if there is a socially established right to self-ownership, that is. You do have the ability to speak freely and don't need anyone else to grant that ability, but abilities =!= rights.

But I don't believe, nor have I consented to paying for a right to free speech. Therefore, I don't agree to pay for it.Again, by exercising the right, you agree to pay for it.

Except that they can't, because their government already has claims on them that it is quite willing to assert. They did not agree to be oppressed; ergo, they should not be oppressed.Which would be a different situation than one we are talking about now, where there is the right of emigration.

So if someone murders me, do they not agree to my right to my life and thus make it non-existent, or are they abrogating my right to life, which is not being protected? If the former, then it makes the concept of rights utterly pointless, seeing how readily they become meaningless. If the latter, then there is no need for protection of a right to make it exist.It's neither, but closer to the former. Obviously if they murder you, they are disagreeing with your right to life, but you could still have some arrangement with other people to have the right to life. If you are murdered by someone who has made this arrangement with you, in this case, it would be a violation of your right to life. If it is not someone who made this arrangement, then the people who you made the arrangement with failed in their duties, but that is a separate issue.
If there is no arrangement, then you don't have the right to life, and therefore to kill you is not a violation of your rights.

So it's those Kurdish people's fault that they wouldn't move out of Turkey and Iraq, and thus they agreed to be exterminated?I'm not entirely certain that they have the opportunity to move out. Having the opportunity to move and not moving is the agreement, not moving out and not having the opportunity is not the agreement.

OK, but they still didn't agree for the government to be the one to protect their ability. Why won't you let them actually choose one agency themselves?Most people do agree for the government to be the one to protect their ability. I have no objection to the idea of a social contract which lets people choose their own agency, but I do have an objection to the idea that a contract as you mention it should be forced upon people who don't want it.
If you wish to have such a contract, try to convince people that you should have the right of secession. I would agree with you, for different reasons.

You might want to speak louder, or wait (if you're polite). You don't have to.Either way, I am inconvenienced, and so your exercising your right would inconvenience me.

No. To say otherwise means that people, not government, should be the ones to decide their contracts.People are the ones to decide their contracts. Any change to the U.S. Constitution, at least, requires the consent of a hypermajority of the electorate.

How so?Because to mug someone presumably violates their right to whatever it is you took when you mugged them. Taxation does not violate anybody's rights unless the social contract states that there will be no taxation.

No, you don't agree to a contract unless you agree to a contract. I did not ask for the protection services of a government, and they should not be able to force their terms on me.Then don't exercise any of the rights which are granted by society.

The Imperiator

01-12-2006, 05:34

I'd go with a progressive tax system copied off of the US, but without any tax breaks or itemized exemptions. At the risk of being flamed, I feel I must point out that "Fair Tax" and flat tax rates are both scams to give the rich a massive tax break.

First, look at Flat tax. Under progressive taxation/staggered tax bracketting, the rich can be directly targetted for higher taxation. Under Flat Tax, the only way to increase taxes for the wealthy is to increase tax for everyone. Furthermore, when it was proposed in the US, the rate was 27.5% (I am referring to that from memory) which was an immediate tax cut for everyone above the middle class. How does it serve the poor to squeeze them dry in the process of trying to get needed funds from the rich? Logistically it works, but it's a far better deal for the rich than the poor.

Fair Tax is even more blatantly obvious about its favoritism for the wealthy. The "plan" for Fair Tax consists in its entirety of one statement that wiping out all taxes besides sales tax will somehow make everything even and remove corruption. This idea sounds good until you consider the logistics of eliminating all of the various taxes that pay for roads, schools, police, etc and replacing them with sales taxes massive enough to suppliment the lost income. This taxation would hit people who spend most of their money in retail stores (remember it's a sales tax).

You know which things don't have sales tax on them? Some fine examples are real estate, investment interest, stock trading, stock payouts (I forget the exact term for when a corp pays money out to stock holders instead of reinvesting) and home equity. The wealthy pay the gross majority of taxes (at least here in the US), and most of their income is derived from investments, real estate dealings, accrued interest, stock ownership, and inheritance. How on Earth can a sales tax possibly replace all of the many, many taxes upon the rich that we have now?

Perhaps you're not convinced that the logistics are impossible. Still, it's a bit hard to ignore the glaring pro-wealth points of Fair Tax. Despite not being able to find anything resembling a real plan, I did find half a dozen PDFs that paraphrase the same points repeatedly. Among those points are the elimination of the payroll taxes, capital gains tax, estate tax, and gift tax. Payroll taxes are not just funds withheld from waged employees for income and Social Security, they're also taxes employers must pay towards Social Security (and something else I can't recall). Capital gains tax comes from profits on the sale of property that has appreciated in value, such as precious metals, stocks, and a few other things that are virtually unheard of below the upper-middle class. Estate tax is applied to inheritance, and gift tax is basically to keep rich people from evading estate tax by simply giving family members their money before they die.

How can Fair Tax be anything but a massive tax cut for the rich when it single-handedly annihilates taxes that they bear the gross majority of the burden on? Besides, the idea of taxation based solely on retail sales is insane because during economic downturns the government would go broke.

On the contrary, our current tax model in the US is decent at distributing the tax burden. The tax system is only confusing or complicated if you try itemizing. If you just stuck with normal exemptions on your W-4, you would basically spend 5 minutes on your taxes every year. Yes, there are a lot of loopholes. However, the easiest way to make taxation transparent and eliminate loopholes is to simply remove virtually all exemptions. While everyone would pay a little more for taxes, the rich could no longer get a tax break by jacking up the rent on commercial property so nobody wants to have a store there, then claim it as a loss come April.

Europa Maxima

01-12-2006, 06:55

You know which things don't have sales tax on them? Some fine examples are real estate, investment interest, stock trading, stock payouts (I forget the exact term for when a corp pays money out to stock holders instead of reinvesting) and home equity. The wealthy pay the gross majority of taxes (at least here in the US), and most of their income is derived from investments, real estate dealings, accrued interest, stock ownership, and inheritance. How on Earth can a sales tax possibly replace all of the many, many taxes upon the rich that we have now?
In which case sales taxation could be extended to these items.

As for the poor, often what I hear suggested is offering tax-exemptions, especially on necessities. Others suggest that the tax be supplemented by a negative-income tax. Personally, I think the abovementioned extension of taxation plus said exemptions would help make this tax practical.

Linus and Lucy

01-12-2006, 23:56

Europa Maxima

02-12-2006, 00:40

Until Jello Biafra comes to understand the true nature of an individual's rights, I suggest that those of us who already understand not waste any more time on his subhuman mind.
Beat you to that, although I wouldn't quite evoke such harsh characterisations simply because his views do not coincide with ours.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it.
I am sure by now all know who Ayn Rand was. The characterisations are unnecessary - her very name implies them.

Tech-gnosis

02-12-2006, 03:12

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it.

Ayn Rand was fairly nutty.

For she [Rand] further holds that objective reality is readily accessible by solitary individuals using words and logic alone. This proposition -- rejected by nearly all modern scientists -- is essentially a restatement of the Platonic worldview, a fundamental axiom of which is that the universe is made up of ideal essences or 'values' (the term Rand preferred) that can be discovered, dispassionately examined, and _objectively_ analyzed by those few bold minds who are able to finally free themselves from hoary assumptions of the past. Once freed, any truly rational individual must, by simply applying verbal reasoning, independently reach the same set of fundamental conclusions about life, justice and the universe. (Naturally, any mind that fails to do so must, by definition, not yet be free.)
David Brin, September 2000 issue of Liberty magazine

Jello Biafra

02-12-2006, 03:39

Until Jello Biafra comes to understand the true nature of an individual's rights, I suggest that those of us who already understand not waste any more time on his subhuman mind.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it.It is unreasonable to act as though there is an objective set of individual rights until such a thing can be logically proven. Since such a thing has not been logically proven, the only recourse is that they're subjective, and derived from a type of social contract.

Or should I take this as your realization that you cannot prove such a thing and are conceding the point?

Soheran

02-12-2006, 03:43

It is unreasonable to act as though there is an objective set of individual rights until such a thing can be logically proven. Since such a thing has not been logically proven, the only recourse is that they're subjective, and derived from a type of social contract.

I agree with the first part, and I accept the first half of the conclusion that follows, but why is the social contract the only possible model?

Jello Biafra

02-12-2006, 03:45

I agree with the first part, and I accept the first half of the conclusion that follows, but why is the social contract the only possible model?What other models would you propose?

Soheran

02-12-2006, 03:49

What other models would you propose?

I deny that the meta-ethical dispute over the nature or existence of ethical truth is at all relevant to the proper content of ethics. At most, all it determines is whether or not it is reasonable to declare an argument unresolvable for reasons other than the intellectual stubbornness of the participants.

As for what moral theory I subscribe to, it is a highly modified form of preference utilitarianism that may no longer even deserve that label.

Jello Biafra

02-12-2006, 03:56

I deny that the meta-ethical dispute over the nature or existence of ethical truth is at all relevant to the proper content of ethics. At most, all it determines is whether or not it is reasonable to declare an argument unresolvable for reasons other than the intellectual stubbornness of the participants.I would say that this can be the case, but isn't necessarily; it's entirely possible for two opposing sets of values to come from the same beginning concept. Europa Maxima and I both (seem to) believe in the idea of social contract theory.

As for what moral theory I subscribe to, it is a highly modified form of preference utilitarianism that may no longer even deserve that label.How would you get people to accept your system of rights without agreeing to it?

Actually, with all of this said, I've realized that it's entirely possible that a group of powerful people could have their own subjective set of human rights and impose them upon other people. With that said, I would argue that in my subjective opinion, they don't consider their subjects to be human at all.
I suppose if somebody was okay with this scenario, that's fine, but I'd say it's worse than social contract theory. So I suppose I should've said 'the best recourse' instead of 'the only recourse'.

Allemonde

02-12-2006, 04:05

My tax structure is simple but is difficult to explain. Basically there is no real taxes. Basically it's kind of like this:

Corporations: A1 to Ax each have $1,000,000,000 each corporation is taxed at 100% so if the government needs say $100 billion it taxes these companies that are created. The corporations really don't exist, there is no real money. It's kinda of like Monopoly(game) money. Eventually the whole pretense will be eliminated and money the become exctinct and we will be based on need.

Soheran

02-12-2006, 04:07

I would say that this can be the case, but isn't necessarily; it's entirely possible for two opposing sets of values to come from the same beginning concept. Europa Maxima and I both (seem to) believe in the idea of social contract theory.

Indeed. This is too often ignored by those who prefer to resort to relativism as opposed to arguing something out.

How would you get people to accept your system of rights without agreeing to it?

How would you get people to accept yours? Even contracts need enforcement, especially ones with such ambiguous bases.

Why should I care about the implicit contract I allegedly enter into as a member of society?

Actually, with all of this said, I've realized that it's entirely possible that a group of powerful people could have their own subjective set of human rights and impose them upon other people.

"Subjective" does not imply "minority." I think basic human moral intuitions are very similar; achieving the sort of partial moral consensus necessary for society is not very hard. With such a consensus, repressive imposition is, for the most part, not necessary.

Of course, there will be exceptions - there always are, just as there are immoral people in our society who view the acts they commit as justified. Those must be dealt with if they violate the rules, by force if necessary.

With that said, I would argue that in my subjective opinion, they don't consider their subjects to be human at all.

Quite possibly they very much consider their subjects to be human. In fact, they accept their subjects' humanity, and the moral worth of such humanity, to such a degree that they are willing to defend them from people who would seek to abuse them - even if the attackers believe that they are in the right.

I suppose if somebody was okay with this scenario, that's fine, but I'd say it's worse than social contract theory.

Social contract theory is exactly the same way. It does not solve this problem at all. You will still have to impose the value system upon which your version of it is based upon those who reject that value system.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Your ideal tax structure?