Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Azazel

So, Society as a whole would suffer for the Benefit of a few (because Inventions which these people would have made, if proper educated) couldn´t be made (because none of these rich, educated people was gifted enough, to invent them)

I think you're missing the point with Libertarians. They don't care.

And all communists are murderous Stalinists who only want to get power and keep it at any cost.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


You are free to not work- or to work for free and grow your own food and then barter for all your other needs. You are free, as it were, not to use the currency made by the US government. As The Mad Vking stated, currency is the creation of a state- you accept certain obligations by using it. Feel free to move out if you trully feel that this is too much, and you fail to convince the citizens of the polity to change the system

Advice all the liberterians here are free to take as well.

I'll remember that next time you whine, which should be about one post from now.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Great posts from The Msd Viking and NYE

You guys have far more patience than I would dealing with the liberterians.

And in short, pregressive taxes are better than recessive taxes, and as for a flat tax scheme, for that to work no income could be made excempt- including all gains from stock and so forth, which they are not today.

Err, aren't gains on investments indeed subject to a flat tax called capital gains tax?

[Berzerker]

DD -

as I tried to point out by taking your example to the next logical step.

You weren't really expecting him to follow in your steps, were you?

Sikander -

I'll remember that next time you whine, which should be about one post from now.

Yes, everytime a liberal complains about a policy, we can just tell them to "love it or leave it". But they don't react too nicely to such advice and are inclined to point out how vapid that response is.

Imran -

Yes. Basically asserted that they were put in place by people in power.

Was John Locke in power when he spoke of natural rights? I'd say the notion of rights in the early US, while not consistent, was far better than places where people had no rights.

Remember, a 'right' is something you can claim against someone else.

A moral claim, which raises the question of how morality is defined. But that's where natural rights enter the picture again. I suppose there are different ways to view rights, a moral claim to be left alone can be viewed as a moral claim against others to leave you alone. But effectively, a right is a moral claim to engage in a specific act as long as you don't involve others without their consent. Since murder, e.g., involves a (non-consenting) victim, murder cannot qualify as a right.

OB -

To most primitive tribes, ownership is not natural at all: the harvest is shared by the whole tribe. What seemed natural to men until 3,000 BC was that nature belonged to everyone, and that it was in everyone's interest that property be collective.

Those primitive peoples agreed to share. Voluntary cooperation is not prohibited by the natural rights doctrine, in fact, it relies heavily on it. You're confusing voluntary cooperation with communism. If the tribesmen didn't agree to share and could not resolve the matter, the tribe broke up.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

To all the liberterians- think it so imoral, then stand up and fight the system- stop paying your taxes..but be ready to deal with the results of your actions as well.

You mean we are required to sacrifice our lives while liberals who object to policies don't have to die for their beliefs? Hey, I suppose you would have told slaves to get over it or try to stand up and risk death. Like I said, vapid...

OB -

You still got to demonstrate what is property, and in what way it is a fundamental right. Then only you can define what is stealing, and when it is wrong.

It isn't hard, you own yourself - a "right" - a moral claim. You own your time on this planet - another "right". You can transform that time into labor which in turn can be transformed into wealth or value. This wealth is called "property" and rightfully - morally - belongs to you as long as you didn't acquire it from others without their permission.

You don't understand what is utilitarianism. J.S. Mill was almost libertarian.

I'm using the definition offered in this and other threads - increasing happiness even if doing so involves decreasing unhappiness for some people. Utilitarianism requires only that the net result is more happiness over all. If you have a different definition, post it instead of telling me the one I'm using is invalid.

No. Utilitarianism has never required that from anyone.

No kidding, I said that in my earlier post. But why hasn't utilitarianism ever required this? Because utilitarians place convenient limits on their ideology. They preach increased happiness and sacrifice to achieve this goal, but when it comes actually practicing what they preach, they create these limits so they don't have to make real sacrifices. So, if someone is going to die for lack of a kidney, why don't the utilitarians find a suitable donor among themselves? Both people will live, perhaps not to the same level as the donor would have lived with both his kidneys, but both will live nonetheless - increased happiness has been achieved with little or no cost to the utilitarian.

It shows that you are an idiot who doesn't understand a thing about utilitarianism.

And yet you have done nothing to clear up this paradox. Okay, what is utilitarianism?

No, they believe that the greater good is achieved when no one has to give too much.

And the greater good is not achieved when a person lives because of a donated kidney? You don't need both your kidneys, donate one. And if later something happens and you need a kidney, another utilitarian will donate one of his. Apparently utilitarianism is a "selfish" doctrine after all... Sure, we'll sacrifice what belongs to others but don't expect us to make meaningful sacrifices ourselves.

Keep voting for the libertarian party. It will help getting Bush out of office.

Wow! Not even I believe my vote will matter and you think I can actually get Bush un-elected? But why would you care? Kerry isn't a utilitarian...

[Az]

Say, Berzie, *I* haven't placed any limits on the theory. Expectation utilities are all nice, and fair, but they not universal, and aren't always paramount. They're just another thing to be taken into account.

I've explained to you, why is donating a kindey post mortem is better than killing yourself and donating one. You don't seem to listen.

[Berzerker]

You don't have to die to donate a kidney as I've repeatedly said. And I don't seem to listen?

Btw, that tax rate during the 50's and 60's included a wide variety of write offs, many of which have been eliminated since. I don't know if that tax rate is higher, or how much higher, in real terms compared to todays rates. The corporate tax was much larger too but business had more write offs back then too.

[Az]

You don't have to die to donate a kidney as I've repeatedly said. And I don't seem to listen?

The same. My quality of life would decrease. It wouldn't if I were dead, obviously.

[Berzerker]

It isn't the same, you don't need both kidneys to live. So any loss in quality of life would result from the remaining kidney going, not because of the first donated kidney. Of course, if utilitarians practiced what they preach, there wouldn't be a shortage of kidneys so if your second one went you'd have plenty still available.

So, how do utiltarians justify "selfishly" keeping both their kidneys when others are in need of just one to live?

[Az]

What we have here, is a problem to communicate, it seems.

*sigh*

let's do it step by step:

Let's divide the transplanation into parts, and analize each part's utility.

-giving a kidney to someone carries positive utility.

-taking a kindey from someone who's alive, carries negative utility. If it's his only kindey, he'll die, so it's a whole lot of a negative utility.

-If it's one of his two kidneys, it carries negative utility, as well, due to the uncomfortability of passing through a difficult operation, as well as somewhat reduced quality of life afterwards.

Therefore, since by donating my kidney only after my death, I spare myself from passing the operation and suffering it's consequences ( negative utility ), while still getting to create the same positive utility, by saving a person's life through a kidney transplant?

do you understand now?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Do people really have such a hard time understanding the concept that, a person can find a problem with a country and still not want to leave it. Especially when the exact same problem exists in most countries.

Taxation is indeed a requirement of most countries...

Go to the country having the least punitive taxation. Or start your own. Or run for government office.

You've got the opportunity to change how you're taxed, not doing that is accepting that its not a significant problem.

You can't have the benefits of one nation without the downside of that taxation, because that nation wouldn't have the same benefits without that taxation.

If I live in a high crime area because I like other things about the area, and get my car stolen, isn't it still a theft even if I had the chance to leave but I didn't?

This argument that taking people's goods against thier will isn't theft because they could theoretically uproot thier entire existance and leave the country makes no sense to me.

Utter hogwash. Having your car stolen would mean some form of surprise.

There is no suprise in taxation. You know its coming. They even publish the rules. You can read the rules and decide whether you like them or not. If you believe that the system is unreasonable, you CAN move...

That is your method for opting out of taxation. There is no partial opt-out method.

Taxation is either a problem enough for you to leave, or its not.

[Sandman]

It's perfectly reasonable to demand a government that works on utilitarian principles whilst not giving away every spare organ you have.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Well i think we hit a wall here. If you think people don't have natural rights because dogs can only possess and not own in a legal sense, I tend to disagree. Humans and dogs are different.

Yes, they are, humans make things up while dogs are stuck living in reality.

The notion of "rights" is a human invention, so first of, it is not natural. Second, "rights" exist as social conventions-rules made up by society. You have a right not to have your property stolen-but taxation does not count as theft, so calling taxation theft if it's done in a manner consistent with the law of the land is simply wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


I'll remember that next time you whine, which should be about one post from now.

Oh, little Siki, but what I am trying to do is convince the POlity, not simply calling the basics of my society akin to slavery. Do keep up-your concern is touching though.

Err, aren't gains on investments indeed subject to a flat tax called capital gains tax?

The question Siki was about a single flat tax system on people's incomes. For that to work, it would seem to me the fair way would be to end all these different taxation rates of different forms of income and simply take all income as one and then tax at one rate accross the board. Personally I think progressive taxes are better, but the question was one of new systems of taxation.

[Fake Boris]

Imran (and GePap)-

If a person has a right to nothing then he can't be wrong in taking what he has because he isn't stealing from anyone. He simply takes. Rights implies that someone else can't impinge... and it isn't 'law'.

No, they don't have a RIGHT because a right must be enforced and cannot be violated.

How can it be enforced if it isn't law?

Let's say every human has a 'conatus', which is the natural desire for survival- which includes the fear of others.

Your conatus dictates you to do ANYTHING for your own good, which basically means massacring before others kill you, harvesting resources before they take them, etc. Your conatus obviously believes that you have a right to everything. That conception is in turn necessarily incompatible with the other's conatuses.

That a right is something you can't be stripped off, doesn't mean others won't. In fact, the knowledge you have of exterior conatuses, if you are reasonable in the least way, will urge you to find a compromise with them- the Leviathan.

The problem with your conception, Imran, is that its logical conclusion can only be that rights don't exist, and that the State creates them- while in fact, humans hold the rights, and take them back individually when the state disappears.


GePap--

Again, as Imran stated: the very word "right" implies a framework of relations. In the case you descrivbe, to men might very well start to fight for the fish, just like two creatures would fight for the fish-why, becuase both want it and the one who keeps it will be the stronger or smarter- it won;t be a matter of rights, only of superiority.

Then, it becomes a matter of individually enforced rights. When someone wins the fight, he doesn't gain the right, he merely gains 'possession'. Both still retain the right, but one had it enforced.

You were the one to say "right to everything", not imran. And there is no such thing as right to everything.

Actually, I think you are confusing "the right to everything" and its consequence, which is "the right to nothing".

You are confusing Liberty to License, just as Deity Dude was confusing Possesion to property.

Liberty and Property imply relationships and limits in those relationships- license (as in licentious) and possesion do not- a dog can posses- the can not own. A cat my be free or licentious, but does not have liberty.

Well, I did say that the better word would be 'arightful'- which is appropriate to describe the concept of license.
I like the idea: the right of everything is licentious, it merely works with 'possession'. Once property appears, it is obviously because there is a State.