Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Kidlicious]

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

Not forcing people to give kidneys is called justice. Utilitarian principles are always termpered with justice. Berzerker always makes these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with reality.

[chequita guevara]

The 2nd kidney is a spare, in case something goes wrong with the 1st.

[pchang]

Same deal with Libertarians. I really don't see why we need more than two.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Common currency is important... I guess you'd be welcome to print your own currency, but how would you guarantee it?

Who'd accept it?

Maybe people would accept it if they were able to avoid taxes. I'm not sure it's possible though. What if I were to pay you to work for gold that I mint myself? I'm sure that you would accept it if you could avoid taxes, but I doubt that it would be legal.

[MrBaggins]

The business would need to be totally separate from the government currency system... that is receive and distribute no currency whatsoever, otherwise, you agree to value any transfer in currency terms, for purposes of corporation tax and or income tax.

Then you get to the problem of valuation. Revaluation of paper and coin currencies were/are necessary, because

a) there aren't enough precious metals to cope with the value in the world economy (there are money multipliers)
b) you need expertise and equipment to valuate face-value currency

Essentially, you could cheat people by shaving gold currency, for instance.

And you STILL have the problem of getting every business that you deal with to accept that currency, otherwise you couldn't use those services, be they essential or non-essential.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
they should carve out a libertarian country somewhere and let us live there in peace.

That would be sweet. Seriously. If you guys got your own patch of land to set up a libertarian paradise, it would be one of the greatest social experiments in history. And if you were still an actual viable country after 10 years - never deviating from libertarianism, mind you - I'd move there.

[MrBaggins]

Why "SHOULD" they carve this piece of land out?

Since Libertarian principals partly involve freedom to own... shouldn't you be purchasing this land, outright, rather than being given it?

[pchang]

Such a place would devolve into armed camps fiercely defending their last mls of water from being unjustly appropriated by their like minded neighbors. However, the would revel in their depleted squalor because they do so in liberty and of their own free will.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The business would need to be totally separate from the government currency system... that is receive and distribute no currency whatsoever, otherwise, you agree to value any transfer in currency terms, for purposes of corporation tax and or income tax.

Then you get to the problem of valuation. Revaluation of paper and coin currencies were/are necessary, because

a) there aren't enough precious metals to cope with the value in the world economy (there are money multipliers)
b) you need expertise and equipment to valuate face-value currency

Essentially, you could cheat people by shaving gold currency, for instance.

And you STILL have the problem of getting every business that you deal with to accept that currency, otherwise you couldn't use those services, be they essential or non-essential.

I'm sure it's not legal. After all the US govt has been taxing us from the beginning and a national currency was not used until some time after the revolution. So if you can't avoid taxes by not using dollars, then it doesn't seem fair to me to say that the govt should have the right to tax us simply because we use their currency. The govt has the right to tax us because we have agreed to allow them to tax us, not because we use their currency.

[chequita guevara]

Antarctica is free. Go and build your libertarian paradise!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Why "SHOULD" they carve this piece of land out?

Since Libertarian principals partly involve freedom to own... shouldn't you be purchasing this land, outright, rather than being given it?

Because hopefully it would put an end to the libertarian whining. Let's face it, there aren't enough libertarians anywhere to ever get their policies implemented in a democratic society, so let's just give them someplace and let them sort it all out themselves.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Because hopefully it would put an end to the libertarian whining. Let's face it, there aren't enough libertarians anywhere to ever get their policies implemented in a democratic society, so let's just give them someplace and let them sort it all out themselves.

It already exists. Have you taken a close look at Northern Idaho lately? I've already described the place in a previous post.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm sure it's not legal. After all the US govt has been taxing us from the beginning and a national currency was not used until some time after the revolution. So if you can't avoid taxes by not using dollars, then it doesn't seem fair to me to say that the govt should have the right to tax us simply because we use their currency. The govt has the right to tax us because we have agreed to allow them to tax us, not because we use their currency.

Actually national currency predates income tax...

(History of the United States Mint)
On April 2, 1792, Congress passed The Coinage Act , which created the Mint and authorized construction of a Mint building in the nation's capitol, Philadelphia. This was the first federal building erected under the Constitution.

Income tax didn't exist until the civil war in 1861... and even then was a temporary emergency measure, which was repealled and not reinstituted until 1894

(EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING)
An income tax was first employed in the United States during the Civil War. Although many, including the secretary of the Treasury, desired longer retention of the Civil War income taxes, the taxes were widely viewed as emergency measures and were repealed in 1872. This was a time when even the commissioner of Internal Revenue recommended repeal of the income tax, writing to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee that he regarded the income tax as ``the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen'' (U.S. House 1871: 1). Such opinions provide a baseline against which to assess later changes in public sentiment.

Though proposed many times, income tax legislation was not enacted again until 1894. Consistent with a transaction-cost-manipulation model, Congress labeled the 1894 law ``An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.'' When challenged in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, the income tax law was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court because it established a ``direct'' tax on real property and invested personal property deemed unconstitutional without apportionment among the states according to population as mandated by the Constitution (157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, 1895).[f8]

While State taxation has always existed, all federal currency transferal charge taxes post-date institution of federal currency.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually national currency predates income tax...

Yes. So you are saying that the US govt established a national currency, taxed the other currency out of circulation, and that gives them the right to tax our income. What is the basis for this argument?

[Az]

Not forcing people to give kidneys is called justice. Utilitarian principles are always termpered with justice. Berzerker always makes these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with reality.

Nah. principles are principles. Either utility it's the ethic, or it's not. It's just like those annoying moderates, talking about rights. At least libertarians are consistent.

Utilitarian ideas are very in parallel with most people's "common sense". However, sometimes, there are deviations from the "common sense". In that case, it's the utilitarian principle that is more important, and the most correct, not the "common sense".