Screw the IRS.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, then that argument can be just as easily applied to those who don't have anything. You're starving? Sorry, life ain't fair.

That's a silly argument - of course life isn't fair, but that doesn't oblige me to help those less fortunate than myself.

What I am saying is that whilst you are not obliged to help others, the fact that you are being co-erced into it through taxes is not really high on my list of unfair actions in this world - because on balance you have a better deal than the vast majority.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're either with us or against us.

I wonder if any other Western country gets these flat tax wackos?

[Kontiki]

How can a libertarian like DF think a flat tax rate is "fair"? It still has the same problem as progressive taxes for them - if you make more money, you pay more in taxes. Hell, the same thing goes for any form of taxation, including sales taxes.

[Arrian]

It's less unfair than the progressive tax, I suppose. The lesser of two "evils" for the Libs.

Hey, at one point I thought the flat tax was a good idea. I was 16, but hey...

-Arrian

[Dauphin]

Its a step towards the goal of abolition of taxes:

If a flat tax was introduced many of those with the "Why should I pay a higher rate?" reasoning will start on the "Why should I pay more?" reasoning and demand a flat poll tax. Final objective of course, "Why should I pay anything?".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
How can a libertarian like DF think a flat tax rate is "fair"? It still has the same problem as progressive taxes for them - if you make more money, you pay more in taxes. Hell, the same thing goes for any form of taxation, including sales taxes.

I too wonder why DF still advocates a flat tax rate. A flat tax is much fairer by his definitions: everybody pays the same absolute value to the State, like the Poll-tax did

Since everybody has obviously the same opportunities to become rich, the ones who won't be able to afford such a tax will be suckers, and should do something about it rather than whining
Whatever they do, it's certainly not his problem anyway, and fairness is defended better than ever. Hooray!

[David Floyd]

Arrian,

Consider this: by paying a higher rate, and thus more taxes than your family would under a flat tax, you are effectively paying off the undermensch so they don't go and have a revolution.

But that's simply extortion on the part of the poor. **** 'em. If that's their attitude, I say let them try to revolt, and then when they try to commit violent crimes crush them.

GePap,

There is no "fair" in the universe-the faster you get that fact into your head, the better you will be.

In that case, let's apply your argument against those who say a flat tax is "unfair" to the poor. World isn't fair, live with it.

That only makes those individual enemies, making this more difficult. Oh, and what ou think is wrong- the long span of human history is against you.

If you want to talk about the long span of human history, then societies didn't force the strong to go out of their way to support the weak - the weak just died.

Otherwise, accept the reality that humanity is a social species and that you have to live within the construct

I do accept that, which is why I'm willing to pay for prisons to incarcerate those who try to rob me.

Dauphin,

What I am saying is that whilst you are not obliged to help others, the fact that you are being co-erced into it through taxes is not really high on my list of unfair actions in this world - because on balance you have a better deal than the vast majority.

Sure I'm obliged to help others - taxes. Whether or not I'm morally obliged is a different question, and you seem to be saying that I'm not. If that's the case, then the taxes that create that obligation are contrary to my moral rights, so even though I have a better deal than the majority, that isn't relevant as to whether or not my rights are being violated.

Kontiki,

How can a libertarian like DF think a flat tax rate is "fair"? It still has the same problem as progressive taxes for them - if you make more money, you pay more in taxes.

You're absolutely right - I'd prefer NO income tax. However, a flat tax is a step in the right direction because it stops punishing the rich and upper middle class.

Spiffor,

I too wonder why DF still advocates a flat tax rate. A flat tax is much fairer by his definitions: everybody pays the same absolute value to the State, like the Poll-tax did

Spiffor, I don't advocate a flat tax, I advocate reducing the tax burden on my income - actually, on everyone's income - and a flat tax is just a step in the right direction.

Whatever they do, it's certainly not his problem anyway

That part is certainly true, and no one has ever really argued conclusively as to WHY it should be my problem. The closest and most recent attempts have centered around the concept that if I don't do it, people will rob me and I'll lose it anyway. My response is a)that still doesn't create a moral obligation, and b)we have laws against violent crimes that should be enforced if someone tries to rob me.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sure I'm obliged to help others - taxes. Whether or not I'm morally obliged is a different question, and you seem to be saying that I'm not. If that's the case, then the taxes that create that obligation are contrary to my moral rights, so even though I have a better deal than the majority, that isn't relevant as to whether or not my rights are being violated.

Yes, of course everyone's moral rights are violated by taxation. Everyone has a moral right to keep all their earnings. It is however a necessary evil as we need taxes for various purposes and reasons.

I believe that everyone has the moral right to earn enough to acheive a certain standard of living if they can do so by avoiding taxation. I believe this is more morally important than allowing a richer person to increase their disposable income by avoiding taxation. Therefore I believe that a progressive tax system acheives a more desirable moral position than a flat tax.

I sympathise with your stance, and see the logic, I just disagree with it.

[David Floyd]

I believe that everyone has the moral right to earn enough to acheive a certain standard of living

I agree, but where we may differ is that I don't think they have a moral right to those earnings, just a moral right to the potential to earn.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you want to talk about the long span of human history, then societies didn't force the strong to go out of their way to support the weak - the weak just died.

Actually, for 99% of human history, the strong helped the weak in their own groups. It's only these last ten thousands years things have gotten a little inhuman, and even there there has been strong social pressure on the strong to aid the weak. Libertyrany is not only inhumane, it is completely contrary to human nature.

[David Floyd]

Actually, for 99% of human history, the strong helped the weak in their own groups.

Yes, and all that history is largely irrelevant to our discussion, because it occured before the invention of law and government and numerous other concepts.

I'm not concerned with what human nature is, and in fact, if you are saying that in the absence of law government, human nature compels us to help others, you are simply making my point for me, now aren't you?

Libertyrany is not only inhumane,

If you want to have a discussion, don't use your communist buzzwords like "libertyrany" - not only is it stupid, we both know that my system is the opposite of tyranny. You may choose to redefine the word tyranny to suit your purposes, but that doesn't change facts.

it is completely contrary to human nature.

Oh bull****. You can't have it both ways - if, in the absence of law and government, human nature compelled the strong to help the weak, then the same would be true today. Alternatively, if you don't think the strong would be compelled by their nature to help the weak, then it's NOT part of human nature, and your argument falls apart in the other direction.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you want to have a discussion, don't use your communist buzzwords like "libertyrany" - not only is it stupid, we both know that my system is the opposite of tyranny.

I thought you hated democracy? This must mean you consider political decisions must be taken by a minority, i.e that most people are disenfranchised into deciding their collective fate.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I agree, but where we may differ is that I don't think they have a moral right to those earnings, just a moral right to the potential to earn.

If they earn the money and then it is taxed such that they no longer acheive those earnings in take-home, does that make those earnings potential or actual?

By that logic you could say you are not having your moral rights being infringed by being taxed as you can potentially earn as much as you like, the fact that you won't in reality means it is not unfair to tax you.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kontiki,

You're absolutely right - I'd prefer NO income tax. However, a flat tax is a step in the right direction because it stops punishing the rich and upper middle class.

I don't see how it does that. I've never seen a flat tax proposal (not a serious one, anyway) that didn't include a certain income level below which there is no tax. So, a person making, say, $20,000 would still be paying less in both percentage and absolute terms than someone making $100,000. And regardless, at the end of the day, you'd still have the same situation where the middle and upper class are paying ~85% (or whatever supermajority) of the total taxes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
If you want to have a discussion,