Fair Taxation

[DuncanK]

Oh, right. Sorry DinoDoc. I tend to get upset when people steal from me too.

[MRT144]

im high on DXM right now so this might not come out right, but this all comes down to two opinions:

the self sufficent train of thought, where everyone be selfish should look out for themselves and the poor should look for the philanthropy of the rich to survive and the welfare state train of thought where the government should rob rich people of their hard earned money and distribute it to the poor.

i think neither alone is best solution to the problem of the poor, but if we take ideas from both maybe we can solve the problem of the working poor stagnating in progress of the class system.

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

No. So did the concept of police, rule of law ( in some monarchies), even the concept of RIGHTS. To which I don't adhere, btw.

The rule of law was the will of the dictator and the police existed to enforce his/her will. Rights did not originate with dictatorships, it was a product of the enlightenment that sought to end the arbitrary rule of dictators.

I am a consequentialist. To me, it CAN be moral.

So stealing went from being very moral to being moral when you decide it's moral? Gee, the dictator mentality is alive and well.

There are tens of millions of people around the globe sick of HIV including the US, and when their pathetic worthless governments do try and help them, they're being threatened on the ground of intellectual property, WHILE MILLIONS HUMAN LIVES ARE AT STAKE.

Then to be fair, you should get HIV too. How is it fair for them to have the disease and not you?

people dying from malnutrition, because their countrymen choose to plant coffee instread of food.

Coffee they sell for more money which allows them to buy more food. I know you statists would never admit this, but government has caused far more malnutrition/starvation/death than the marketplace could ever "cause".

Kids all around the planet forced to go to ****ty schools, and to be humiliated by their friends because their father, something they had nothing to do with.

Huh? Are you posting this from a little hut somewhere in Africa where you are feeding the poor and buying medicines for people with HIV? Does everyone in your village have a computer and internet access?

HOW DARE YOU CLAIM MORAL SUPERIORITY, while your basic law says "MINE IT'S ALL MINE", how dare you accuse of theft people that are trying to make more people happy.

Then you certainly won't complain if a street criminal mugs you, right? You won't call the cops, because if you did that would mean you have a moral claim to what belongs to you, God forbid. Yes, Azazel, people who don't steal are morally superior to people who do steal. And "government" cannot change that reality. How many people have been impoverished because of liberals taxing the lower middle class into poverty?

You and your kind are an abomination of humankind, a twisted caricature of the progress of our great species.

What progress? Look at the last century and all that progress achieved by you socialists.

Duncan -

Actually I agree with you all all of the above.

Then why do you support legalised theft?

In so far as people are born into different classes in our society they should have no legitimate claim to to the wealth that they are given at birth.

They don't, the people who have the wealth have the legitimate claim and if they decide to give you their money, their legitimate claim transfers to you.

Since this was unfair in the first place.

Why is it unfair for a parent to give money to their children?

And in so far that people 'steal' in the first place, they should have no legitimate claim to what they have stolen.

If in fact they've stolen, but you're talking about inheritance, not stealing.

Stealing occurs and people obtain wealth that they did not work for.

Which you whole-heartedly endorse when you are doing the stealing via government.

We should help the poor who have been placed in a position which grants them less opportinity to steal, and therefore have been less able to steal as priviledged people.

Now you're equating theft with keeping the fruits of one's labor in the marketplace. If I grow a lot of food and sell it creating wealth, that isn't theft.

Since opportunity is not equal the poor should have a right to have some things to help them survive.

Rights cease being rights when they conflict with other rights. My right to food is not a right to steal food. Why do you need to steal from others to feed a poor starving person?

You think you have a right to be part of an elite class.

If this "elite" class is people who don't believe in legalised stealing, then we all have that right, just don't steal.

But you are only able to be in that class by law.

Why? What "class" are you talking about?

We want to change that law, because we don't think you are better than us.

The law is on your side now, theft is legal if you hire a politician first.

You guys are sick for wanting to tax the poor the way you want to

The irony is that I would eliminate all forced taxation while you would still tax the poor, so I guess I'm not as sick as you.

Sava -

The Capitalist version of choice is: getting rid of the high paying jobs, and letting you choose between the low paying ones.

There are more millionaires in this country than any other, yet the US is among the most capitalistic. There are more people making $100,000 a year in the US than any other. These people didn't get that kind of money by choosing between low paying jobs.

LoA -

It was a market failure.

No, it was a product of federal reserve/monetary policies.

Here are the two elements of market failure

1. Monopolies
2. Externalities

What monopoly caused this alleged market failure? Oh yeah, the Federal Reserve!

The government did not prevent monopolies from forming.

Ever hear of the anti-trust laws?

This led to increased costs for everyone. People were spending more and getting less. They cut back consumption, which led to a decrease in supply. Since people were speculating like crazy, when the stock market crashed, everyone who was playing it on credit lost it all. They couldnt pay back the creditors, so they went bankrupt. The creditors couldnt pay back the banks so they went bankrupt. The banks couldnt pay back its lendors, so they went bankrupt. the money supply was constricted and the Fed forgot to drop the interest rates.
Market Failure

All wrong, the Fed had a loose money supply policy in the 1920's and tightened that money supply near the end of the decade. Some of the econs here have thorough explanations for the Depression and they involve policy.

Now lets see what happens when you buy something and you dont pay for it. You go to jail. Same with the government. You 'buy' services from the government and if you dont pay you go to jail. Sounds fair to me. And its equal because everyone who doesnt pay goes to jail.

You ignored my point, the plumber asks me if I want his service, government forces me to take it whether or not I want it. And most of these "services" are not services, they are handouts to people who didn't earn the money, so even your comment about going to jail for getting something without paying for it is bogus.

Why isn't a 23% flat tax fair? First of all, total income is a bad way toview this situation. We must look at how much money this person has left after tax. THis is called disposable income. Now, lets say that Timmy makes $100 a year. At the end of being taxed, he has $77 left. Now lets compare Timmy to Bruce, who makes $1000 a year. At 23%, Bruce is left with $770.

Then why not just advocate confiscating all the money in the country and handing out equal amounts to us all? Even with "progressive" taxation, there are still plenty of rich people. How is that "fair"?

Well thats fair, you say. Each of them have paid the same percentage, but Bruce has paid more absolutly.

It isn't fair, I don't believe in a flat tax, if we are going to have forced taxation, we should all pay the same amount in taxes. If I have to pay $1,000, then everyone else pays the same amount - that's fair.

I'm still not getting an answer to a question I have for you guys, should I be allowed to kill people who are 80 years old If I will only live to 60? If a child will die of leukemia at the age of 12, should we all kill each other when we surpass that age? Why is it fair for you to outlive other people since it's unfair for one person to make more money than someone else?

[Berzerker]

Odin -

Libertarians are so dense and naive. They say, "don't steal our money," yet they are too greedy to help those poor people in Africa.

No, we say "don't steal other people's money and don't ask us to help you steal." How many people in Africa have you fed today?

The assumption that "you'll get rich if you work hard" is a bunch of capitalist propaganda used to keep thier workers under control.

Right, in your world, people get rich by not working hard. Oh yeah, there won't be rich people if you have your way. Yup, everyone can work for the government...

Most poor people work hard all thier lives, and retire poor; while the rich kid inherits some of his/her parent's money (Thank heavans of a death tax) and is rich without even working.

Most poor people who do work hard will live a comfortable life unless they live in a despotic regime that shares your opinion that the state owns us and what we produce.

I say we make inheritance of money ILLEGAL

And I say it should be legal for people to shoot leftists when they come knocking on our doors demanding our money.

everybody should work just as hard to get as far. Let the rich kid work in a factory, or a bar (like my mom), or a sugar beet processing facillity (like my my dad)!

How unfair for your parents to have those jobs while so many poor people are in the world.

Sava -

LIbertarians simply feel that the wealthy's right to their money is more important than a child born in to poverty's right to education and health care.

Our belief in property rights is not limited to the rich, it's based on everyone's freedom and a hatred of hypocrisy. If I can steal from you whenever I decide the theft is warranted, then you can steal from me. Do you really want other people stealing your property? Of course not, you just want stealing legalised when YOU want to steal. I know this may seem counter-intuitive, but when you subsidise things like education, the cost of education goes up causing the problem you seek to amend even worse. Why do you think the cost of health care has skyrocketed since the 1960's? Medicare? Medicaid? When did the cost of higher education skyrocket? With government subsidies?

[Skanky Burns]

/me is glad people here aren't responsible for making policy.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then why do you support legalised theft?

I don't, you're the libertarian.

[David Floyd]

Look, you little *****. one BILLION on this planet lives in on less than a dollar per day.

Cry me a ****ing river, but this has nothing to do with me.

There are tens of millions of people around the globe sick of HIV including the US, and when their pathetic worthless governments do try and help them, they're being threatened on the ground of intellectual property, WHILE MILLIONS HUMAN LIVES ARE AT STAKE. people dying from malnutrition, because their countrymen choose to plant coffee instread of food.

Cry me a ****ing river, this has nothing to do with me.

Kids all around the planet forced to go to ****ty schools, and to be humiliated by their friends because their father, something they had nothing to do with.

Cry me a ****ing river, this has nothing to do with me.

HOW DARE YOU CLAIM MORAL SUPERIORITY, while your basic law says "MINE IT'S ALL MINE",

No, I claim moral superiority because my basic law says, "Don't kill people, don't steal from them, and don't take away their liberty."

how dare you accuse of theft people that are trying to make more people happy.

Apparently your basic law is to "Make people happy." I think it's obvious where the moral superiority lies, and it isn't with Captain Bleeding Heart here.

You and your kind are an abomination of humankind, a twisted caricature of the progress of our great species.

At least we don't rob people at gunpoint. If that's twisted and an abomination, then I wouldn't want to be "normal."

[David Floyd]

They say, "don't steal our money," yet they are too greedy to help those poor people in Africa.

That's a crock of ****. I refer you back a couple of months where I offered to help chegitz out.

I say we make inheritance of money ILLEGAL;

Nice plan. Well, it's a nice plan if "nice" means "stupidest thing I've ever heard". Seriously, now - do you REALLY support that level of theft? If you do, that is grossly immoral.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

LIbertarians simply feel that the wealthy's right to their money is more important than a child born in to poverty's right to education and health care.

There you go again, confusing rights with entitlements. Rights are certainly more important than entitlement programs.

Maybe people that are lucky enough to get born into wealth, go to rich suburban schools, and get sent to ivy league schools; but not people born to poverty. They don't even have decent public education, so by 17-18, they don't have the education to even get into college if they wanted to. And many times, people have to quit school and work so their family can have enough money to eat or have a roof over their heads.

Even if that's true, I honestly don't see what that has to do with me, and why my rights should be infringed upon because of it. It's not my problem unless I choose to make it mine, by donating to charity.

Why do you think, that of the pool of people that understand the Sociology of America, the vast majority support Socialist programs?

Mostly because they are either stupid, or selfish and greedy, or immoral. Or, more likely, a combination of the three.

[Odin]

Yep, give us some more reactionary, libertarian (=capitalist greedy pig) BS. My family lives on US$30,000 per year, do you call that living comfortably. We barely make ends meet working our buts off while a corperate bigwig just talks his mouth off to investors and makes $300,000 per year. If all the wealth was distributed equally I bet we would all get $70,000 dollars per year. Don't say that if you want that much income go to college, not everybody has that brainpower. If you give a person less money just because he is not as smart as the guy from Harvard, that is discrimination my friends.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Cry me a ****ing river, but this has nothing to do with me.

DF, I think you might be antisocial.

[David Floyd]

My family lives on US$30,000 per year, do you call that living comfortably.

Well, that certainly depends on where you live, doesn't it? Move to Africa and you'll be rich. Move to Japan and you'll be poor. In any case, I don't really care what you call it, but if you're worried about money, why don't YOU get a job and help out, at least pay for your own stuff?

Oh, but you couldn't do that - that might mean personal responsibility, mightn't it?

We barely make ends meet working our buts off while a corperate bigwig just talks his mouth off to investors and makes $300,000 per year.

Yes, and if you had to do his job you'd probably lose $300,000 a day. No offense against you, but most people, including both of us, have no idea how to run a corporation. The guy makes $300,000 because he can turn a profit for the investors, and that is what they are willing to pay him.

If all the wealth was distributed equally I bet we would all get $70,000 dollars per year.

Probably. So?

Don't say that if you want that much income go to college, not everybody has that brainpower.

Good point. So if you don't have the brainpower to BE a doctor, why should you MAKE as much as a doctor?

If you give a person less money just because he is not as smart as the guy from Harvard, that is discrimination my friends.

Yes, and in what we call the "REAL WORLD", skills such as medicine, law, business, and the like are in what we call "DEMAND". If you can "SUPPLY" those skills, you're likely to make what I like to call "ASS LOADS OF MONEY". Understand?

[David Floyd]

DF, I think you might be antisocial

Nah, not really.

[Odin]

These capitalist pigs are annoying.

[David Floyd]

No, what's annoying is you socialist types not adequately responding to my points. Leads me to believe that you really have no argument. Which doesn't necessarily mean an argument couldn't be made, just that you don't know how to make it.

At least, that's what it looks like.