Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

National Sales Tax to Replace Income Tax

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 17
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 template Next
  • #211
    Originally posted by Ramo

    That seems to imply that high prices are coercive, which doesn't make sense.


    Every constraint (including the need of money for having a good) is by definition coercive. The question is, which constraint is greater than which.
    I am just going to disagree with this definition of coercion.

    For starters, it's too broad. Suppose you lose a leg, so now you are physically impossible to wear two shoes. Is this constraint coercive? It seems silly to construe it that way.

    Secondly, you assumed the primacy of freedom of choices, which certainly is debatable in itself.
    (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
    (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
    (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

    Comment

    • #212
      What makes them so special?

      Comment

      • #213
        They have less money to spend. Taking away money from them is a greater constraint on the people in general than taking away money from the rich.


        I am just going to disagree with this definition of coercion.

        For starters, it's too broad. Suppose you lose a leg, so now you are physically impossible to wear two shoes. Is this constraint coercive? It seems silly to construe it that way.

        Secondly, you assumed the primacy of freedom of choices, which certainly is debatable in itself.


        I'm using a generalized definition of coercion. But what's yours?
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #214
          They have less money to spend. Taking away money from them is a greater constraint on the people in general than taking away money from the rich.


          An income tax also takes money away from them, and they have less money to spend (unless, of course, it's a progressive tax). However, arranging taxes so as to minimize your coercion is kinda stupid. Either arrange them so as to be equitable (in which case a general tax on non-essential items is most equitable, as one can choose how much of them one consumes), arrange them so as to be fairest (flat % income tax), or arrange them so as to interfere the least with the economy and society. That last is close, but not quite, to what you're talking about.

          Comment

          • #215
            However, arranging taxes so as to minimize your coercion is kinda stupid.


            Why?

            And the way I want to arrange taxes (a progressive income tax, and that's it) is how I define the fairest and most equitable situation. Ethics are personal.
            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
            -Bokonon

            Comment

            • #216
              Why?


              Because it can be taken to ridiculous extremes. Allowing maximum "effective freedom" is what you're talking about, and it basically amounts to maximizing the number of possible choices a person can make at any given time

              Comment

              • #217
                It amounts to maximizing the net freedom of society. Why is this "kinda stupid?"

                And I don't know why you're quoting "effective freedom." I never wrote that term...
                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                -Bokonon

                Comment

                • #218
                  You're definition isn't a libertarian defition, but the "maximizing the number of choices" stuff, which is kinda odd, at least. I mean, I don't necessarily want more choices, but less coercion (by the definition used by libertarians).

                  Comment

                  • #219
                    Why does it matter if you don't want more choices? If you don't want to exercise to exercise a choice don't have to.
                    And I don't necessarily want to exercise countless freedoms that libertarians want, like owning a gun. Does that mean that the freedom isn't worth having?

                    Anyways, "maximizing the number of choices" isn't really what I want either. I consider certain freedoms (say to not starve) as more important than others (say, to have a private jet).
                    "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                    -Bokonon

                    Comment

                    • #220
                      What does starvation have to do with a sin tax?

                      Comment

                      • #221
                        Having enough to eat. Sin taxes take away from that capacity. But I wan't referring to sin taxes in that sentence. That was just an example in a more general discussion, which moved on from taxes.
                        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                        -Bokonon

                        Comment

                        • #222
                          Having enough to eat. Sin taxes take away from that capacity.


                          No they don't. They don't tax food.

                          Comment

                          • #223
                            They take away money from the poor, which can't go to food.
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #224
                              Originally posted by Urban Ranger


                              I don't think that's exactly coercion. Coercion exists only if there's no realistic alternate choices.

                              If your boss is going to fire you if you don't do overtime work, that's coercion. If your boss pays you 2x for overtime work, that's not coercion.
                              True. The latter is influence or motivate.
                              I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                              - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                              Comment

                              • #225
                                Originally posted by Ramo
                                They take away money from the poor, which can't go to food.
                                It can go to food.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 5 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 template Next
                                Working...
                                X