Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Dauphin]

Re: Re: Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

Originally posted by Kidicious


No, it's discrimination against the poor.

Is the justification for that that you have to pay taxes?

[The Mad Viking]

Deity Dude

I take out some money. It has a picture of Abe on it. It says, "The United States of America" . It says, Federal Reserve Note.

That is who made it. That is who OWNS it. They are only lending it to me, under terms and conditions. If I made one just like it, they would arrest me. If I used a bunch of them to place an illegal wager, they would confiscate it.

Once you agree to use the government's notes, you agree implicity to abide by their rules. If you don't want to, you are entirely free not to use their notes. There is not coercion, no stealing. You are free to choose. When you choose currency, you are making a convenant with your state.

You are free to disagree with the state, but to suggest that universal principles somehow give you a natural right to an unnatural construct is pure fallacy.

The people who make the currency of the state govern financial matters of the state.

One can just as easily make the argument that taxation is not discriminatory, in that it leaves many people with much more than they need. Why not tax everybody to a flat income level?

No tax method is right or wrong. They are all attempts to balance wealth creation and wealth distribution.

We have had hundreds of experiments in this balancing act. I think it has been found that progressive taxation strikes the best balance, and that is why virtually every country uses it.

Barter = taxable transaction - why? Well for one reason, because the rule of law applies. If the transaction goes awry, the legal system adjudicates the dispute, and also has to deal with any self-justice that a party may decide to mete out. Trade in a state is subject to the states governance. Unless you choose black market, in which dispute resolution is mafia-style.

However, you still have the option of not using currency, and not engaging in trade. And in reality, you can choose to do a lot of bartering without getting the attention of the IRS.

It would be interesting to debate the constitutionality of taxing a barter between individuals who had no currency. Would the government take payment in grain or furs?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by 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.

LOL - you are real good at telling other people what to do. First if I didn't agree with you I was supposed to leave the country. Now I am supposed to break the law.

Just because I choose to pay taxes as opposed to being put in a cage doesn't prove that the taxes are OK.

I think sex between consenting adults should be legal. That doesn't mean Im gonna pick up a hooker in front of the police station to prove a point.

I think adults should be allowed to ingest whatever they want. That doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot up heroin in front of a DEA officer to prove a point.

The highest moral obligation a father can have is to the family he supports. It would be silly and immoral for me to make them destitute and go sit in a cage because I find the tax law immoral.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
LOL - you are real good at telling other people what to do. First if I didn't agree with you I was supposed to leave the country. Now I am supposed to break the law.

You are the one calling taxation a form of quasi-slavery..
I guess if you had lived in the slave holding south, you would have gone along with the system becuase while you say you find it horribly immoral, heck, its the law...

The highest moral obligation a father can have is to the family he supports. It would be silly and immoral for me to make them destitute and go sit in a cage because I find the tax law immoral.

Are we to assume you gained these views after becoming a father? (since if you got them before, this excuse would no apply).

IN the end, money is nothing but a socially accepted method of transaction- everything in your bankaccount is worth a damn only becuase the government of the uS is stable- if tommorrow the government fell, all that money, "your money", would be worthless regardless of your actions. If the government started printing money indescrimnately, your savings would become worhtless. This is only there to point to the obvious fact that money (as opposed to goods) is a social convetion whose value changes and in tied to the actions of the government-thus to state you have any intrinsic right to it is absurd.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by David Floyd
because no one has yet demonstrated how taking my money against my will and taking a body part against my will are fundamentally different.

Are you literate? Have you ever read political philosophy?

[Az]

quick post before bedtime.

How do you know they're wrong? I didn't even offer their rationale and you just assume you're right and they aren't?

I was sorta thinking robbers, and stuff. Maybe I didn't understand your argument.

But utilitarians want us to sacrifice when it comes to our money, i.e., the time we used up from our lives laboring to accumulate wealth (a 40% tax is a 40% deduction from the time we worked, roughly 16 hours a week not including the extra time we have to work to make up some of the time lost to taxes). Calling yourself a utilitarian and citing post-mortem organ donations makes no sacrifice, therefore it doesn't test the utilitarian principle. It's when you do have to make a sacrifice - actions, not words - that utilitarianism is supposed to matter.

where do you get this stuff?
The fact that a sertain sacrifice is utilitarian doesn't mean that utilitarianism is about sacrifice.

Why is what wrong? You asked me for a definition of the word "right" and I gave it. Are you asking why it's wrong to force another person to attend or build you a church?

Yes.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by David Floyd
poor people benefit from a police and court system, and poor people benefit from roads. Arguing that the rich benefit more than the poor is kinda silly, because without rich people, poor people would be ****ed.

Anyone said 'fvcking dumbas'?

Without the police, the RICH would be ****ed. The Court system was made by the rich, for the rich. Do you know how much it costs to go to Court?

I am currently in Civil court against someone, and even with a lawyer who is doing near-free work (he believes in my cause) it'll cost me at least $4,000.

Property is a benefit of the rich, for the rich. If it wasn't protected by the law and the police, the mobs would pillage the rich.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Re: Re: Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

Originally posted by Big Crunch


Is the justification for that that you have to pay taxes?

I don't understand?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If it wasn't protected by the law and the police, the mobs would pillage the rich.

No, they would hire mercenary armies.

[Az]

Imran, I hope you don't mind I use your quote in my new signature.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So stealing becomes moral if the thieves put the money to a better use (as determined by the thieves) than the rightful owner? Fascinating...

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.

After you don't need them any more, gee, that's mighty utilitarian of you. Why not commit suicide at 50 so younger people in need of those organs can live? Btw, you have 2 kidneys and some people need just 1...

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

But utiltarianism is based on the notion that the greater good matters more than your good, so if someone is going to die for lack of a kidney, utilitarianism requires they get a kidney from someone who has two.

No. Utilitarianism has never required that from anyone.

This question merely shows that most utilitarians are full of sh*t.

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

That's why they introduce "limits" on their desire to achieve the greater good, i.e., they only want the greater good when they don't have to give up much.

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

I can forgive a truly needy thief who steals from me, but I cannot morally consent to helping them steal from others. That is what liberals expect of me, my consent and my help to steal from others...

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

[Kidlicious]

It's not just about the greatest good for the greatest number. It's about justice.

[Az]

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

oh my.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Deity Dude

I take out some money. It has a picture of Abe on it. It says, "The United States of America" . It says, Federal Reserve Note.

That is who made it. That is who OWNS it. They are only lending it to me, under terms and conditions. If I made one just like it, they would arrest me. If I used a bunch of them to place an illegal wager, they would confiscate it.

Once you agree to use the government's notes, you agree implicity to abide by their rules. If you don't want to, you are entirely free not to use their notes. There is not coercion, no stealing. You are free to choose. When you choose currency, you are making a convenant with your state.

I disagree with the whole premise of this argument. First of all a Federal Reserve Note is basically a promissary note from the Federal Reserve (a non-government institution) guaranteeing the value of the note so that it is liquid. The Government also guarantees that these private bank notes are to be considered legal tender for all transactions within the United States.

It is a bearer note, which means whoever possesses it owns it and owns the value it represents.

But that is besides the point. In the US, all income is taxable regardless of source derived. Whether or not it is a bank transfer, a check, currency or barter. This isn't because I use currency and thus have implicitly agreed to all fiscal laws. It is because the government passed the law, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with currency.

My probelm is that we live in a society where the government can pass a law that amounts to slavery or theft by the government and we are forced to obey it or go to jail.

You are free to disagree with the state, but to suggest that universal principles somehow give you a natural right to an unnatural construct is pure fallacy.

The people who make the currency of the state govern financial matters of the state.

The people who make the money, the mint, do not govern the financial matters. A multitude of government and private agencies govern the financial matters of the country. Congress, IRS, Federal Reserve etc etc govern the financial matters of the country, even if Abe Lincoln's picture is on it.

One can just as easily make the argument that taxation is not discriminatory, in that it leaves many people with much more than they need. Why not tax everybody to a flat income level?

Those arguments can be made. I would just disagree with them.

No tax method is right or wrong. They are all attempts to balance wealth creation and wealth distribution.

There 2 seperate issues here. 1) Type of tax 2) Amount and use of tax.

1) ALL INCOME TAXES ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY FORCE THE TAXPAYER TO GIVE UP HIS PROPERTY (theft) OR LABOR (slavery) INVOLUNTARILY. If the government needs to raise revenue they should do so thru use taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, fees etc. And these taxes should only be on non-essential items. Then no one is forced to give up their property or labor in order to survive or avoid incarceration. Instead, they would be making a choice as to whether or not to buy something at the price offered which includes a tax.

One could still have a socialist society under this scenario.

2) Amounts and uses of tax revenue can be debated forever. I personally like to have as little money in the govt's hands and as much as possible in the people's hands. Then I would like to take my tax savings and buy whatever goods and services I choose thru all the competing parties offering them.

Other might think we should have government health care, public education, snow removal etc etc etc. But those debates are a different issue.

We have had hundreds of experiments in this balancing act. I think it has been found that progressive taxation strikes the best balance, and that is why virtually every country uses it.

Yeah and just about every society had a monarch, chief or some form of dictator until we realized that might not be the best system of governing. That argument really doesn't prove anything.

Barter = taxable transaction - why? Well for one reason, because the rule of law applies. If the transaction goes awry, the legal system adjudicates the dispute, and also has to deal with any self-justice that a party may decide to mete out. Trade in a state is subject to the states governance. Unless you choose black market, in which dispute resolution is mafia-style.

However, you still have the option of not using currency, and not engaging in trade. And in reality, you can choose to do a lot of bartering without getting the attention of the IRS.

Whether or not you can avoid or break an immoral law without getting caught has nothing to do with the morality of the law itself.

It would be interesting to debate the constitutionality of taxing a barter between individuals who had no currency. Would the government take payment in grain or furs?

Its already been adjudicated. The difference in the fair market value of the good or service received minus the cost of the good or service given up is considered income and subject to tax.

So back to the original question. Is a progressive income tax system discriminatory? Of course, anytime any 2 things are treated differently from each other a discrimination has been made. That doesn't in and of itself mean it is bad or good.

The important question is: Is it immoral for the government to require individuals to give up thier property or labor against thier will or risk incarceration?

And if it is immoral, what is a moral way to raise the necessary revenues to run the government?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Azazel

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

oh my.

What's funny? Haven't you heard about the Mill limit?