Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Glad you agree with me Berzerker... that was a silly argument you made.

[Berzerker]

"legal" and "tax" need no quotes... they are real enough terms for the discussion at hand.

If they were real enough, some people would understand that a "legal tax" is a euphemism for (legalised) stealing.

As for who set these terms? That would be the States, who did and do have the moral authority to demand a sales tax (notice the lack of quotes) for the commercial activities of others...

The "States"? What is that? Oh, CITIZENS? More specifically, a minority of citizens (am I getting real enough for ya? So a minority of citizens who are 3rd parties to my commercial transaction have the moral authority to walk up and demand money from me. How is that "morally" different than a Mafioso demanding my money?

in their state, because those businesses and their patrons utilize the amenities, facilities and roads of that state. A simple quid pro quo.

Then the moral approach would be to charge a user fee for using these amenities, e.g., a gas or vehicle tax for using public facilities for transportation that covers the cost of road construction and maintenance. If you want to mail a letter, buy the stamp to pay for delivery - a moral user fee.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If they were real enough, some people would understand that a "legal tax" is a euphemism for (legalised) stealing.

Maybe if you're myopic

The "States"? What is that? Oh, CITIZENS? More specifically, a minority of citizens (am I getting real enough for ya? So a minority of citizens who are 3rd parties to my commercial transaction have the moral authority to walk up and demand money from me. How is that "morally" different than a Mafioso demanding my money?

Nope... States are represented...

Obviously, you couldn't have states run by the entire populace of the state, since the logistics of informing millions of people about each decision that needed to be made, and dealing with voting would ensure that nothing ever got done, and the whole system devolved into anarchy.

Then the moral approach would be to charge a user fee for using these amenities, e.g., a gas or vehicle tax for using public facilities for transportation that covers the cost of road construction and maintenance. If you want to mail a letter, buy the stamp to pay for delivery - a moral user fee.

What sounds a nice idea in practice sucks in reality, since tax collection isn't cost free. Administrating dozens/hundreds of different use taxes for each facility and amenity would wipe out billions of tax income, and increase the tax burden.

Abstracted taxation works... K.I.S.S.

[Berzerker]

Maybe if you're myopic

Or liberal

Nope... States are represented...

And a minority of voters determine that representation.

Obviously, you couldn't have states run by the entire populace of the state, since the logistics of informing millions of people about each decision that needed to be made, and dealing with voting would ensure that nothing ever got done, and the whole system devolved into anarchy.

Even if it was logistically possible, it still wouldn't be moral. It's still one group of people demanding money from another group based solely on the desire of the former for the latter's money. The only difference between this group and the Mafia is it's "legal" for them to steal...

What sounds a nice idea in practice sucks in reality, since tax collection isn't cost free. Administrating dozens/hundreds of different use taxes for each facility and amenity would wipe out billions of tax income, and increase the tax burden.

How do you think a sales tax is collected? We buy stamps to have our letters delivered. We pay a gas tax, ostensibly for road construction and maintenance which makes it a user fee.
I pay a tax for water consumption, that too is a user fee. Waste disposal? Another user fee... Right now we pay a sales tax on virtually every legal transaction, so why would eliminating that and replacing it with a user fee on only those services we want and use increase collection costs? Sure, if we simply had an income tax to cover all these user fees (and sales taxes) and did away with all other taxes that currently serve as user fees, we could avoid some costs (although the cost of government would dramatically increase since taxes are no longer linked to paying for what we want and use), but then we'd be taxing people for services they don't use in addition to services they do use and that becomes legalised stealing. What you're saying (real enough) is that logistics prevent us from being moral... Fine, at least admit our current tax system is immoral...

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Or liberal

Or myopic

And a minority of voters determine that representation.

Thats the fault of the voters... not the system. Everyone has the opportunity to vote.

Even if it was logistically possible, it still wouldn't be moral. It's still one group of people demanding money from another group based solely on the desire of the former for the latter's money. The only difference between this group and the Mafia is it's "legal" for them to steal...

What? One group of... everybody... demanding money from... themselves.

Run how that isn't equitable by me again.

How do you think a sales tax is collected? We buy stamps to have our letters delivered. We pay a gas tax, ostensibly for road construction and maintenance which makes it a user fee.
I pay a tax for water consumption, that too is a user fee. Waste disposal? Another user fee... Sure, if we simply had an income tax to cover all these user fees and did away with all other taxes that currently serve as user fees, we could avoid some costs (although the cost of government would dramatically increase since taxes are no longer linked to paying for what we want and use), but then we'd be taxing people for services they don't use in addition to services they do use and that becomes legalised stealing. What you're saying (real enough) is that logistics prevent us from being moral... Fine, at least admit our current tax system is immoral...

No... because even when you get past the impossible logistics, not every system works well from a usage standpoint.

Case in point... healthcare.

Not everyone gets sick, but generally when you do, it gets expensive...

Therefore you either...

a) deny healthcare to that person on the basis that they can't afford it. They die... Thats tremendously moral... having the poor die.

b) spread the cost amongst the community to deal with the issue... E.G. Sales tax.

Another problematic system with no direct usage correlation would be the police...

Education would also be a thorny issue, since society requires that children be educated. You'd have to remove this requirement, if a usage tax was instituted, and almost certainly see literacy rates plummet, and ultimately total income fall.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

ahhh, mrbaggins, you just lost the arugment.

[Deity Dude]

I'd like to make the point one more time that my argument wasn't a libertarian one, it was a moral one.

Unless you are an anarchist, you realize thier must be some government. As a libertarian, I'd estimate about 5%-20% of the current budget would be appropriate. Socialists might say the government should be funding more things and need more taxes. I wasn't arguing either point.

My point is that, even a Libertarian realizes that the government needs to raise some money. How should they do it?

Sales tax was used as an example superior to the income tax. While it has coercive elements to it, it is still voluntary. The Income Tax is not voluntary. Sales Tax, however, was only one of 3 or 4 examples I threw out as options.

Speaking now, and for the rest of the post, as a Libertarian, I actually prefer use taxes and fees that directly relate to the service being performed. If possible, I prefer that other free market options also be available.

For example, if you want to go to a public school, it should fund itself thru fees. Theoretically, since it doesn't need to make a profit it should be cheaper then a private school, but we all know about government inefficiency. Therefore, private schools should also be made available. Citizens should then be free to choose to pay the government fee or go to a private school and pay thier fee.

Continuing with the school example for a second, the other thing the government never seems to realize is that this is not a "one size fits all' world. I may want to send my child to a private school that specializes in something geared towards my child as opposed to a generic public school. Price is not the issue with Libertarians, choice is. Price will figure itself out on its own in a free market system.

Let's look at roads for a second. If you want to use a govt road you should be required to pay a fee that relates only to the cost of the road. If someone in the private sector wants to build a road and offer it as an alternative that should be allowed. I could envision a lower priced road that wasn't as well maintained or perhaps was partially paid for by billboard advertising. Perhaps a higher priced road would be more scenic or allow for a faster speed limit. I wouldn't even mind if the governemt set a standard for roads and private roads had to report how the compared to that standard. But in the end the government standard was a suggestion and you as an individual had the right to choose which road you drove on.

But lets face it, in every society there are gonna be a certain percent of the people that are criminals, even considering the limited laws libertarians would have. Murderers, pedophiles, thieves etc. will exist in any society and need to be dealt with. Here is where government serves a purpose. Society needs to be protected from these people. In addition, when one is accused of these crimes they need a fair trial. Afterall, they could very well be innocent.

Now I can't see a system that guarantees everyone's rights are adhered to that does not involve a government. If everyone had thier own police force it would be costly and could eventually lead to conflicts between the forces. Obviously a court system needs to be impartial, therefore we need a government to administer it. When someone is found guilty of a crime, some sort of system has to enforce the finding of the court. In addition, to protect this free society, we need some sort of national defense. It would be cut back significantly, because its role would be diminshed to its valid function only. But we still need it.

We also need to make sure that "in the name of personal freedom" someone doesn't pollute the air, poison the water supply, sell contaminated food or commit other frauds against the public.

Those things do cost money. Unfortunately things like national defense, local defense (police/fire) court systems etc have no direct way for citizens pay for them. Fees and Use Taxes do not apply. Thus, some general money would have to be raised.

To fund these sorts of limited activities, I prefer tariffs and a sales tax on non-essentials, as opposed to an income tax. I say this because ultimately no one is forced to purchase a non-essential. Nor are they forced to import/export goods. Therfore noone's property is taken from them involuntarily. Even if a cost is added to the final price, the consumer still makes a voluntary purchase decision.

On the other hand, everyone must earn a living. Taxing income and essential purchases forces someone to pay a tax.

Taking someone's money involuntarily is stealing. Adding to the price of a voluntary purchase is not.

I know this is getting long, but there are a few other things that people knock Libertarians about that I want to dispel. Libertarians don't think that everyone has the right to own a nuclear weapon, develop small pox, set up a factory in the middle of a neighborhood, sell crack to school children or the hundreds of other bogus arguments I've heard used to try and make the Libertarian cause seem silly and unworkable. All most Libertarians are after is personal and economic freedom to the extent that it does not trespass on someone elses rights.

Maybe what I am proposing is Libertarian Lite, but the Libertarian party is way more in line with my beliefs then any other party. Hopefully, people will look at this sort of approach to personal freedon open-mindedly and disregard the extremist claims by non-Libertarians. Maybe a few of you will even change your mind.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you agree to live in our country and partpate in our society, there are certain rules you have to abide by. Income tax is one of those rules. You have defacto agreed to abide by these rules by remaining in our society. If you chose not to abide by these rules you must leave. You are free to try and convince us to change the rules, but until you succeed, you must abide by them. Taxation is not theft. It is the price of living here.

You don't believe this for a minute. We have rules about speeding, crossing the street, spitting on the sidewalk, sodomy, marijuana, alchohol, ad nauseum. Do we all have to leave the country?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava


btw even the BIBLE says taxation is not theft "give unto caesar"...

I don't know where these libertarian dopes come up with this ****

And you aren't even intelligent enough to come up with your own stupid thing to say, but simply give a thumbs up to Che's worst post of the year.

[Berzerker]

Baggins -

Thats the fault of the voters... not the system. Everyone has the opportunity to vote.

The opportunity to vote does not mean we are represented, it may mean the winners are represented and even that's dubious given corruption. And no, even the candidate who wins with %55 still only got %55 of those who voted. That leaves the %45 they didn't get and all the other people who can't vote or won't because the 2 major candidates suck. Throw in more than 2 candidates and you lessen the over all percentage. Look at the last 3 Presidential elections, Clinton got pluralities and Bush won with fewer votes than his primary opponent. But let's assume you can find an election where the winner got %50+ of everyone, why does that make it moral for these people to forcibly take what belongs to the minority? Does slavery become a moral institution if the slaves were shackled after a vote via majority rule? Nope...

What? One group of... everybody... demanding money from... themselves.

Those who oppose the sales tax are not demanding others pay a sales tax.

No... because even when you get past the impossible logistics, not every system works well from a usage standpoint.

You haven't even proven the logistics are impossible, you just assumed it. This country relied mainly on tariffs and sales taxes for much of it's history, these taxes required collection mechanisms no different than user fees.

Case in point... healthcare.

Health care isn't a user fee wrt government under libertarianism.

Not everyone gets sick, but generally when you do, it gets expensive...

Therefore you either...

a) deny healthcare to that person on the basis that they can't afford it. They die... Thats tremendously moral... having the poor die.

b) spread the cost amongst the community to deal with the issue... E.G. Sales tax.

There are other options, health care providers can let the destitute off without paying or set up payment plans tailored to the patient's ability to pay over time. They can shift the user fees of those who can't pay to those who can... Charities can be set up to offset these fees, etc... Much of this happens now and we have pay per service within the private sector...

Another problematic system with no direct usage correlation would be the police...

You want police protection, you pay a user fee... That's direct...
Right now many people (communities) and businesses pay user fees for private security/protection in addition to paying for police.

Education would also be a thorny issue, since society requires that children be educated.

Can we get "real enough"? You keep using mis-leading language... "Society" doesn't require this, some people require this and they force others to help pay for it... Now, people who send their kids to private schools pay a "user" fee. Why don't these impossible logistics you claim prevents user fees also prevent private tuition?

You'd have to remove this requirement, if a usage tax was instituted, and almost certainly see literacy rates plummet, and ultimately total income fall.

You mean if people had to pay for their kid's education they would refuse? But they pay now thru taxes, it's just that some of the money they pay gets siphoned off by politicians in Washington, their state capital, then politicians at the local level. Do you think this is more efficient than parents paying tuition directly to the people educating their kids?

[Berzerker]

btw even the BIBLE says taxation is not theft "give unto caesar"...

I don't know where these libertarian dopes come up with this ****

Wow! Does this mean Sava (and Che?) now believes homosexuals are an abomination and should be executed? When did libertarians take a pledge to live by what the Bible says? Btw Sava, the people portrayed on our currency are dead so we can't render unto them... Furthermore, Jesus didn't say it wasn't theft. He (or Paul) may have just wanted to avoid getting people killed for not paying taxes.

If you agree to live in our country and partpate in our society, there are certain rules you have to abide by. Income tax is one of those rules. You have defacto agreed to abide by these rules by remaining in our society. If you chose not to abide by these rules you must leave. You are free to try and convince us to change the rules, but until you succeed, you must abide by them. Taxation is not theft. It is the price of living here.

Was this from Che? So if the Mafia comes up and demands money to "protect" your business, it isn't stealing if you can leave? It's just the price of living with the Mafia around? Why do you get to decide what price the rest of us have to pay to live on our land and in our homes? Even assuming you have this power is arrogant enough, but to suggest we owe you in order to exist is morally bankrupt. Did you acquire your POV from Henry the VIIIth (I am, I am)?

[notyoueither]

Still on that mafia nonsense?

[Berzerker]

Would that be the nonsense you guys keep avoiding?

[notyoueither]

Outside of Sicily and some parts of the US, most of us avoid the mafia just fine.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


What if the customer thought $413.60 ($424.00 price minus $10.60 shipping expense) was a fair price. Does that mean the shipper has lost me a customer?

Without the shipping you wouldn't have a customer at all. The cost of shipping is a necessary cost of business that allows you to make sales. Taxation is not a necessary cost and its presence does nothing but impinge on your ability to make sales.

No one ever said business was easy. No one ever said earning a living was easy. The only thing I said was that no one should be allowed to take your property against your will. The above example was a voluntary transaction that still raised revenue for the government. No one was forced to do anything.

I will also file my sales tax return. Here I will be forced to give the government ITS money that I collected on its behalf thru voluntary transactions.

If no one is forced to do anything, would you please voluntarily raise me some money by adding a Big Crunch tax. The customer is paying the money to me thru you, so there is no reason for you to object to it - its not coming out of your pocket.