Thread: I owe income taxes?

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Vote Ron Paul, free candy for everyone!

No vote Vermin Supreme. He'll give you a free pony.

Taxes are necessary, but that does not mean income taxes are. Tennessee and Texas have no state income tax. It's all sales tax, and those states function very well. The federal government needs to switch to that system. Sales tax is about what people decide to spend, not what they own, and sales tax amounts are the same percentage for everybody. Also, they involve so much less bureaucracy than income tax, so they involve a whole lot less need for tax money.

I recently had to submit my yearly tax return as a self-employed businessman as a UK resident. The form can become incredibly complicated depending on the level of wealth you earn and capital you own. Fortunately for me I live a humble lifestyle and don't need the services of an accountant. I keep meticulous records of all my finances and was able to complete the form in twenty minutes. A thought keeps coming back to me concerning something I read about fifteen years ago that stated that approximately one in five people on the planet have to live on the equivalent of less than fourteen US dollars per week. At that time that amount equated to about seven English pounds. That amount would have meant guaranteed homelessness; one small meal per day and luxuries like clean clothes would have had to become a thing of the past. So when I look at the direct and indirect returns I get with regards to my standard of living for taxes paid I feel a sense of deep gratitude as I don't have to live in absolute poverty. This then also leads me to have the foresight to plan ahead and take into account the taxation of my wealth so that I don't live beyond my means and be very thankful for what I do have. This is in no way an attack on the moaners on this thread as I do understand your gripes and have been angry with my level of taxation before. Instead I am just highlighting that with a little perspective it isn't so bad.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Taxes are necessary,

There we go. Something UM and I disagree on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Taxes are necessary, but that does not mean income taxes are. Tennessee and Texas have no state income tax. It's all sales tax, and those states function very well. The federal government needs to switch to that system. Sales tax is about what people decide to spend, not what they own, and sales tax amounts are the same percentage for everybody. Also, they involve so much less bureaucracy than income tax, so they involve a whole lot less need for tax money.

Sales taxes put an unnecessary burden on the middle class, they're fine for local and state agencies to keep basic programs running but on the Federal Level, for the bulk of our National Expenses, a tax system is required which works on a scale to ease the burden on the middle class. Right now we need to reform the Bush Tax Cuts and get the 1% paying their fair share again.

Originally Posted by cmind

There we go. Something UM and I disagree on.

Then I guess we're not getting married after all.

What do you think the best alternative to taxes is?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Sales taxes put an unnecessary burden on the middle class, they're fine for local and state agencies to keep basic programs running but on the Federal Level, for the bulk of our National Expenses, a tax system is required which works on a scale to ease the burden on the middle class. Right now we need to reform the Bush Tax Cuts and get the 1% paying their fair share again.

How does it do that? The middle class pays sales tax in every state, or pretty much every state. If the federal government did the same thing, what would be so different? There would be an astronomical amount of bureuacracy out of the way, and the middle class would have less of a burden as would the upper class. There would also be practically no tax evasion.

The top 1% already gives away about 50% their income while do nothings take their money. What would be a "fair share?" Half of the money they spend their lives earning is already being taken away from them against their will.

The Bush Tax cuts enabled Mitt Romney to pay a smaller tax percentage than the average worker. It enabled GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes. That's the kind of unfair advantage I'm referring to.

A sales tax is the same as a flat tax and a flat tax places an unfair burden on the middle class because they earn less and cannot accumulate savings like the upper class can. A sales tax ensures the people spending the money receive the greatest tax burden while the people investing and saving money do not. A fair tax system taxes profit, not spending. Though I dislike the IRS and have been shafted by them before, a proper scale to place the greatest burden on those with the greatest foundation is the healthiest tax system our nation could have.

Let's be realistic. Sales tax already raises the price of everything around 6-7%. If it was raised another 9% on top of that like Hermain Cain wanted we're talking around 15% increase in everything you purchase: food, gasoline, services... the lower income bracket simply cannot afford that sort of price increase.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How does it do that? The middle class pays sales tax in every state, or pretty much every state. If the federal government did the same thing, what would be so different? There would be an astronomical amount of bureuacracy out of the way, and the middle class would have less of a burden as would the upper class. There would also be practically no tax evasion.

No, sales tax is regressive, which means that it puts the greatest burden on the people with the least money.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The top 1% already gives away about 50% their income while do nothings take their money. What would be a "fair share?" Half of the money they spend their lives earning is already being taken away from them against their will.

The highest income tax bracket is 35%, and the rate on capital gains is a mere 15%. I'll restate what Omnis just mentioned: income tax taxes income (of course), while sales tax taxes purchases. Sales tax puts a burden directly on spending (you know, that thing the midde class does that everyone was talking about during the recession) but not on saved (read: hoarded) money.

Originally Posted by cmind

There we go. Something UM and I disagree on.

How exactly do you intend to have a government without taxes?

Poor and middle class people, are the ones who need to save money the most. If you are saving money you are not hit by sales taxes, but you are hit by income taxes.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The Bush Tax cuts enabled Mitt Romney to pay a smaller tax percentage than the average worker. It enabled GE to pay 0 dollars in taxes. That's the kind of unfair advantage I'm referring to.

I don't agree with those provisions.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

A sales tax is the same as a flat tax and a flat tax places an unfair burden on the middle class because they earn less and cannot accumulate savings like the upper class can. A sales tax ensures the people spending the money receive the greatest tax burden while the people investing and saving money do not. A fair tax system taxes profit, not spending. Though I dislike the IRS and have been shafted by them before, a proper scale to place the greatest burden on those with the greatest foundation is the healthiest tax system our nation could have.

It's not the same as a flat income tax. It's not an "And I said how much you got?!!" tax. People who spend pay per spending, and it is the same percentage for everybody. That is fair. Punishing success and taking people's property just because they have it is not fair. It is true that giving a given percentage of spending to the government is harder the less wealthy a person is, but that is one of the advantages of being wealthy. Spending money doesn't suck as much. That doesn't mean taxing people should make spending equally painful for everybody. People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and strategic planning.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Let's be realistic. Sales tax already raises the price of everything around 6-7%. If it was raised another 9% on top of that like Hermain Cain wanted we're talking around 15% increase in everything you purchase: food, gasoline, services... the lower income bracket simply cannot afford that sort of price increase.

The economy would improve and make up for the increased amount of money people pay on items. Also, the rich would give even more to charity.

Originally Posted by Supernova

No, sales tax is regressive, which means that it puts the greatest burden on the people with the least money.

That's like saying buying groceries puts the greatest burden on the people with the least money. Of course it does. That's what the big deal is about having a lot of money. You can spend it with more ease.

Originally Posted by Supernova

The highest income tax bracket is 35%, and the rate on capital gains is a mere 15%. I'll restate what Omnis just mentioned: income tax taxes income (of course), while sales tax taxes purchases. Sales tax puts a burden directly on spending (you know, that thing the midde class does that everyone was talking about during the recession) but not on saved (read: hoarded) money.

It puts a burden on spending, but there is so much more to spend.

The 35% income tax bracket is for federal income taxes. There is also state tax (in most states), Social Security, etc. It ends up being about half of what a person makes. My father pays that much, and I watched him work like a mad dog to get where he is now. I have also watched bums brag about getting government checks. It is outrageously unfair.

So my big question to both of you is this... What is the percentage you have in mind as a "fair share" of what the top 1% should pay? Keep in mind that respecting another person's property is a virtue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then I guess we're not getting married after all.

What do you think the best alternative to taxes is?

Think of all the things in life that aren't paid for with taxes. Now imagine everything was like that. It's only as complicated as you make it.

Originally Posted by Supernova

No, sales tax is regressive, which means that it puts the greatest burden on the people with the least money.

To be fair, the 'sales tax only' schemes I've heard of use a progressive sales tax, which is where the sales tax on necessity items like food and clothing is small or zero, but the sales tax on luxury goods is high. Furthermore, the economic benefits of taxing consumption (sales tax) versus taxing production (income tax) are clear. IF you want taxes at all, sales taxes do work better.

Originally Posted by Supernova

How exactly do you intend to have a government without taxes?

I would have thought this would be clear; no taxes means no government.

Originally Posted by cmind

Think of all the things in life that aren't paid for with taxes. Now imagine everything was like that. It's only as complicated as you make it.

Okay, I agree with you to a major extent, and I should have mentioned in my posts that I think there is a whole universe of spending cuts we could make. I was focussing on how to handle taxes with spending remaining as it is, but now that you have opened the topic of spending cuts, I will say that I am close to being on your page.

We have waaaaaaaay too much government, and getting rid of the garbage that does not need to be there would make an enormous difference and save the economy in a hurry. However, there are two areas where I strongly believe government is necessary-- military and peace/justice enforcement, and I have not yet figured out how all roads can be private. I don't want to drive on a road and suddenly have it closed off because the owner of that part didn't feel like fixing it. The owner would not have a responsibility to create a detour. The government does.

I debated BLUELINE and Laughing Man on the issue of private militaries, courts, and police departments about two years ago, and it was one of the most interesting debates I have ever had here, aside from the fact that Laughing Man thinks debate = hateful confrontation. They both kept saying a military could be funded on a regular basis by people who want its protection and that it could be where only those people are protected. I could never get out of them exactly how that would work. If a military fights an invading military or a major threat, how exactly would they be protecting only the people who paid? I also could not get how cops and courts could ever have ultimate authority if they are competing with rival businesses. What decides whether a private court system is just in putting somebody in jail when a competing business would say otherwise? That is where I think anarchy would result in absolute chaos. For everything else, I am for complete privatization.

Originally Posted by cmind

I would have thought this would be clear; no taxes means no government.

Ok, so you're an anarchist; let's just be clear on that. Fact of the matter is, anarchy would be viable and beneficial in a perfect world, but there are many hurdles society would have to overcome to get to that point, i.e. human nature in 2012 does not prepare 99.9% of people for that.

Originally Posted by juroara

Feel free to use this thread to angst and whine about income tax

I think there's enough whining going on at DV already.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It's not the same as a flat income tax. It's not an "And I said how much you got?!!" tax. People who spend pay per spending, and it is the same percentage for everybody. That is fair. Punishing success and taking people's property just because they have it is not fair. It is true that giving a given percentage of spending to the government is harder the less wealthy a person is, but that is one of the advantages of being wealthy. Spending money doesn't suck as much. That doesn't mean taxing people should make spending equally painful for everybody. People should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and strategic planning.

This assumes that a rich person works harder than the working class. This simply isn't true. The Ownership class sits back and collects dividends off the work of the working class. Part of the purpose of government is to create a basic infrastructure to look out for the working class because that's just compensation for the parasitic ownership class.

The economy would improve and make up for the increased amount of money people pay on items. Also, the rich would give even more to charity.

In Adam Smith's perfect world, sure. In reality they hoard their money, they even call it their warchest for fuck's sake. Charity is a PR scheme and the wealthiest class of society didn't even give to charity until after the National Guard fired on striking workers in Colorado prompting the first recognized PR nightmare and motivating the Rockefellers to start the Rockefeller foundation as a means to change their image as greedy bastards.

That's like saying buying groceries puts the greatest burden on the people with the least money. Of course it does. That's what the big deal is about having a lot of money. You can spend it with more ease.

But it doesn't make any sense to increase this burden with greater sales tax rather than tax the people scoring the highest profit. You're right, the successful can spend with more ease, they can also support their federal government with greater ease. Your argument reminds me of Bill O'Reilly bitching if Obama kept increasing his taxes and punishing his success, he'd quit his job and join the lower income bracket. Own your success, be grateful that you aren't working for factory wages and choosing between making your car payment and sending your child to community college.

It puts a burden on spending, but there is so much more to spend.

Do I need to remind you that 20% of the people own 50% of the wealth? This extreme concentration of wealth needs to be brought into account when considering the tax system. When 80%-90% of your paycheck gets spent just to make ends meet, while 2% of a wealthier person's profit is spent back into the system, the tax system must be adjusted to address this disparity.

The 35% income tax bracket is for federal income taxes. There is also state tax (in most states), Social Security, etc. It ends up being about half of what a person makes. My father pays that much, and I watched him work like a mad dog to get where he is now. I have also watched bums brag about getting government checks. It is outrageously unfair.

The details of the system are not perfect, for every person that truly needs help you'll find plenty of people using the details to take advantage. A friend of mine with pereplegia holds a full time job and can't understand why some of this friends who are also handicapped and could work choose not to because they would have to give up their government paychecks. But just because some figure out ways not to give according to their ability, that doesn't mean I would opt to live in a society where no one receives according to their need. If you want address bums leeching from society, let's look at the top 1% not the bottom 9%.

So my big question to both of you is this... What is the percentage you have in mind as a "fair share" of what the top 1% should pay? Keep in mind that respecting another person's property is a virtue.

Only if you consider a virtuous system to be one that upholds our antiquated beliefs about what property is. Adam Smith's utopia failed, and the fact that the wealthy would move their industries off-shore is a testament of that. The last nail was hammered into the coffin when the Supreme Court ruled corporations were people.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

This assumes that a rich person works harder than the working class. This simply isn't true. The Ownership class sits back and collects dividends off the work of the working class. Part of the purpose of government is to create a basic infrastructure to look out for the working class because that's just compensation for the parasitic ownership class.

It is very often (not always) the case that rich people work harder than poor people and middle class people. I know lots of rich people, and they are all obsessed with work. Your generalization is false. It is not true that rich people just sit around and leech off workers. In most cases, the ones who do kick back spent years getting to the point where they can, and even that doesn't mean they are parasites. They make consentual deals with people who want to work. The rich are also the people who provide those people with jobs that would otherwise not exist.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

In Adam Smith's perfect world, sure. In reality they hoard their money, they even call it their warchest for fuck's sake. Charity is a PR scheme and the wealthiest class of society didn't even give to charity until after the National Guard fired on striking workers in Colorado prompting the first recognized PR nightmare and motivating the Rockefellers to start the Rockefeller foundation as a means to change their image as greedy bastards.

You are stereotyping rich people. Some give a fuck about the poor, and some don't. For whatever reason the rich give to charity in mass numbers, the relevant fact is that they do.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But it doesn't make any sense to increase this burden with greater sales tax rather than tax the people scoring the highest profit. You're right, the successful can spend with more ease, they can also support their federal government with greater ease. Your argument reminds me of Bill O'Reilly bitching if Obama kept increasing his taxes and punishing his success, he'd quit his job and join the lower income bracket. Own your success, be grateful that you aren't working for factory wages and choosing between making your car payment and sending your child to community college.

Considering my philosophy on extreme spending cuts, I don't want to increase the burden. However, we both agree that taxes are necessary. That involves burdens. How much do you value property rights? Isn't there something to the fact that people own what they own and that it should be respected? Would you steal stuff out of a millionaire's house because he's rich and you don't respect his ownership of property? You can't just commit extreme robbery on the rich because it's easier for them to pay for stuff. It's THEIR stuff.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Do I need to remind you that 20% of the people own 50% of the wealth? This extreme concentration of wealth needs to be brought into account when considering the tax system. When 80%-90% of your paycheck gets spent just to make ends meet, while 2% of a wealthier person's profit is spent back into the system, the tax system must be adjusted to address this disparity.

If they stole the money, it needs to be given back to its rightful owners. However, in cases where they fairly earned the money, then they were just successful and their property needs to be respected. There are variations in success levels in all forms of competition, but that doesn't mean the winners need to have their successes forcibly taken away from them outside of the rules of fair competition. Some people are better looking than others, some can run faster than others, some people are better at sports than others, some people are smarter than others, and some people are better at business than others. How many of those areas should we force equality into?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The details of the system are not perfect, for every person that truly needs help you'll find plenty of people using the details to take advantage. A friend of mine with pereplegia holds a full time job and can't understand why some of this friends who are also handicapped and could work choose not to because they would have to give up their government paychecks. But just because some figure out ways not to give according to their ability, that doesn't mean I would opt to live in a society where no one receives according to their need. If you want address bums leeching from society, let's look at the top 1% not the bottom 9%.

I am all for disability income when it is properly given. I am against bum income. As for the top 1%, I am all for taking away anything any individual has stolen. As for what was not stolen, it belongs to the people who have it. The government has no business deciding to take it from them just because they were good enough at the game to get way ahead. Success should be respected just like property. Would you say that it's not fair that I suck at basketball? Should I get into the NBA any way because those greedy bastards who already play in it are being unfair?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Only if you consider a virtuous system to be one that upholds our antiquated beliefs about what property is. Adam Smith's utopia failed, and the fact that the wealthy would move their industries off-shore is a testament of that. The last nail was hammered into the coffin when the Supreme Court ruled corporations were people.

When did Adam Smith's utopia fail? I don't understand your point about property rights. Do people actually own stuff that is theirs? Do you? Would I be out of line if walked into your house and started taking things? And what is your answer to my question about what the "fair share" is?

There are zillions of rich people who don't move their industries off shore. Some expand beyond the U.S. yet keep business here too. Some go completely off shore. Some stay here completely. It's not all black and white.

Now once again, please give me a number on "fair share."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is very often (not always) the case that rich people work harder than poor people and middle class people. I know lots of rich people, and they are all obsessed with work. Your generalization is false. It is not true that rich people just sit around and leech off workers. In most cases, the ones who do kick back spent years getting to the point where they can, and even that doesn't mean they are parasites. They make consentual deals with people who want to work. The rich are also the people who provide those people with jobs that would otherwise not exist.

I disagree with this. I think just because someone has a higher paying job, that doesn't mean they're working any harder. Contrarily, it seems to work the opposite. I see the managers at factories sitting on their asses while the workers give themselves carpel tunnel so they can put food on their plate. As far as being job providers, this is the core argument of Adam Smith's ideal society and it requires the rich consider their wealth to be capital to reinvest back in the society they live in, rather than to store it all for their kids inheritance or move their funds off-shore.

You are stereotyping rich people. Some give a fuck about the poor, and some don't. For whatever reason the rich give to charity in mass numbers, the relevant fact is that they do.

"mass numbers" isn't an argument. I cited the key reason why the wealthiest individuals in this country give to charity. Carnegie believed it was the responsibility of the wealthy to uphold society. To avoid stereotyping I'll stick to the one family I can cite evidence on, the Rockefellers. They did not follow in Carnegie's footsteps, they did not support the arts based on some altruistic comprehension of the responsibility the wealthy have to the culture of their society, to the ladder between classes. They did it because their PR adviser told them to. In our modern society where companies spend fortunes on their image, it seems only rational that they're following in the Rockefeller's footsteps, not Carnegie's. And the reason is important, it's not as beneficial for society if you're more concerned with presenting an image that you care rather than purposely working toward the enrichment of the society at large. Contrarily, the way our society works is turning the common people into philistines.

Considering my philosophy on extreme spending cuts, I don't want to increase the burden. However, we both agree that taxes are necessary. That involves burdens. How much do you value property rights? Isn't there something to the fact that people own what they own and that it should be respected? Would you steal stuff out of a millionaire's house because he's rich and you don't respect his ownership of property? You can't just commit extreme robbery on the rich because it's easier for them to pay for stuff. It's THEIR stuff.

I do not believe someone's personal possessions is the same as the profit they make from someone else's hard work. I do not believe they deserve complete ownership over a product just because they own the material used to make the product and contracted someone to make it for them who had to choose between this contract and starvation. That is what we anarcho-syndicalists call wage-slavery.

If they stole the money, it needs to be given back to its rightful owners. However, in cases where they fairly earned the money, then they were just successful and their property needs to be respected. There are variations in success levels in all forms of competition, but that doesn't mean the winners need to have their successes forcibly taken away from them outside of the rules of fair competition. Some people are better looking than others, some can run faster than others, some people are better at sports than others, some people are smarter than others, and some people are better at business than others. How many of those areas should we force equality into?

These successful businessmen owe their success to those that made them successful. In the following picture, who's actually putting in the labor? Should the one being transported claim they walked because they were able to pay someone to walk for them?

I am all for disability income when it is properly given. I am against bum income. As for the top 1%, I am all for taking away anything any individual has stolen. As for what was not stolen, it belongs to the people who have it. The government has no business deciding to take it from them just because they were good enough at the game to get way ahead. Success should be respected just like property. Would you say that it's not fair that I suck at basketball? Should I get into the NBA any way because those greedy bastards who already play in it are being unfair?

What you are proposing is more like if we were trying to ship copper across a river and distributed it so the people with reed canoes had to ship just as much as the people with fiberglass yachts.

When did Adam Smith's utopia fail? I don't understand your point about property rights. Do people actually own stuff that is theirs? Do you? Would I be out of line if walked into your house and started taking things? And what is your answer to my question about what the "fair share" is?

There are zillions of rich people who don't move their industries off shore. Some expand beyond the U.S. yet keep business here too. Some go completely off shore. Some stay here completely. It's not all black and white.

Now once again, please give me a number on "fair share."

Adam Smith's utopia failed when capital got invested outside the society that labored to earn that capital. He wrote very clearly that one of the conditions of his ideal society was that the society itself needed to benefit from the fruit of their labor, the profit. Instead, the profit is drained from the society and the labor is exported. Whether or not its black and white, in Adam Smith's mind, any wealthy person who controls capital and does not use that capital on the society they live in is a parasite.

And I already already answered your question about ownership rights and what I consider fair share but to reiterate, owning profit is not the same thing as owning something you purchase like a car. You control your profit, but it is your company that earned you that profit. The laborers deserve fair compensation for their labor and that means putting the tax burden on the rich that is necessary to pay for our social infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I disagree with this. I think just because someone has a higher paying job, that doesn't mean they're working any harder. Contrarily, it seems to work the opposite. I see the managers at factories sitting on their asses while the workers give themselves carpel tunnel so they can put food on their plate. As far as being job providers, this is the core argument of Adam Smith's ideal society and it requires the rich consider their wealth to be capital to reinvent back in the society they live in, rather than to store it all for their kids inheritance or move their funds off-shore.

I don't think that having a higher paying job is proof of harder working either. I said it is usually proof of having worked harder at least in the past. More importantly, if it was fairly earned, what they make from it belongs to them. Also, rich people invest and spend. They do both.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

"mass numbers" isn't an argument. I cited the key reason why the wealthiest individuals in this country give to charity. Carnegie believed it was the responsibility of the wealthy to uphold society. To avoid stereotyping I'll stick to the one family I can cite evidence on, the Rockefellers. They did not follow in Carnegie's footsteps, they did not support the arts based on some altruistic comprehension of the responsibility the wealthy have to the culture of their society, to the ladder between classes. They did it because their PR adviser told them to. In our modern society where companies spend fortunes on their image, it seems only rational that they're following in the Rockefeller's footsteps, not Carnegie's. And the reason is important, it's not as beneficial for society if you're more concerned with presenting an image that you care rather than actually invest in enriching the culture en masse. Contrarily, the way our society works is turning the common people into philistines.

Again, that is some rich people, not all. This part of the conversation started when I said that rich people could give more to charity if they were taxed less. What you are saying does not counter that.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I
I do not believe someone's personal possessions is the same as the profit they make from someone else's hardwork. I do not believe they deserve complete ownership over a product just because they own the material used to make the product and contracted someone to make it for them who had to choose between this contract and starvation. That is what we anarcho-syndicalists call wage-slavery.

What about the money people make without breaking any laws? Is it theirs? Is it somehow yours too?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

These successful businessmen owe their success to those that made them successful. Which of these people are the ones actually putting in work?

At that moment, the servants are working for the person who employs them. However, most people who get to where they can afford such service got their by working hard. People often do that. I know lots who have gotten rich. My parents and many of their friends went from rags to riches by working hard. I watched it happen. My father's best friend is a multi-millionaire now. When I was a kid, he was going to law school full time while working full time and raising two kids. About thirty years later, he is a major success story because of his hard work and determination. Does he deserve to have his earnings taken from him if he didn't break any laws?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What you are proposing is more like if we were trying to ship copper across a river and distributed it so the people with reed canoes had to ship just as much as the people with fiberglass yachts.

What?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Adam Smith's utopia failed when capital got invested outside the society that labored to earn that capital. He wrote very clearly that one of the conditions of his ideal society was that the society itself needed to benefit from the fruit of their labor, the profit. Instead, the profit is drained from the society and the labor is exported. Whether or not its black and white, in Adam Smith's mind, any wealthy person who controls capital and does not use that capital on the society they live in is a parasite.

I'm glad we agree that it's not all black and white. I don't agree with Adam Smith on everything. I see the world as one big society. I don't care more about a person than another just because the first one lives in my country. People are people.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And I already already answered your question about ownership rights and what I consider fair share but to reiterate, owning profit is not the same thing as owning something you purchase like a car. You control your profit, but it is your company that earned you that profit. The laborers deserve fair compensation for their labor and that means putting the tax burden on the rich that is necessary to pay for our social infrastructure.

You yourself also owned your profit, and because it is your profit, you own it.

As for the "fair share" question, I am looking for a percentage. Can you give me a number?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Okay, I agree with you to a major extent, and I should have mentioned in my posts that I think there is a whole universe of spending cuts we could make. I was focussing on how to handle taxes with spending remaining as it is, but now that you have opened the topic of spending cuts, I will say that I am close to being on your page.

We have waaaaaaaay too much government, and getting rid of the garbage that does not need to be there would make an enormous difference and save the economy in a hurry. However, there are two areas where I strongly believe government is necessary-- military and peace/justice enforcement, and I have not yet figured out how all roads can be private. I don't want to drive on a road and suddenly have it closed off because the owner of that part didn't feel like fixing it. The owner would not have a responsibility to create a detour. The government does.

Keeping in mind that I believe a legal order is totally possible in a stateless society (and may be more accessible to the common man than the court system we have now, by the way), this kind of stuff with roads can be handled with contract law. That's if you believe in stateless law, which is another issue. But what legal recourse do you have if the government fucks up with the roads? None.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I debated BLUELINE and Laughing Man on the issue of private militaries, courts, and police departments about two years ago, and it was one of the most interesting debates I have ever had here, aside from the fact that Laughing Man thinks debate = hateful confrontation. They both kept saying a military could be funded on a regular basis by people who want its protection and that it could be where only those people are protected. I could never get out of them exactly how that would work. If a military fights an invading military or a major threat, how exactly would they be protecting only the people who paid?

I also don't like debates so I don't want to get into one. I'm just putting my personal views out there to see what makes sense to people.

I was going to go into a detailed explanation of how it could work using DROs, but really the information is out there already. I suggest reading some of the free books at mises.org or freedomainradio.com if you want to see examples of how defense could work. I'm being slightly unhelpful here because no one really learns by being told things by other people and if you're not ready to give up on the idea of institutionalized violence then I'm not going to persuade you.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Ok, so you're an anarchist; let's just be clear on that. Fact of the matter is, anarchy would be viable and beneficial in a perfect world, but there are many hurdles society would have to overcome to get to that point, i.e. human nature in 2012 does not prepare 99.9% of people for that.

I don't call myself an anarchist due to the fact that the word has lost all meaning with people. If you look in the dictionary, the first definition of anarchy is "disorder". Nope, I believe in spontaneous order, not disorder. The second definition is usually something like "communism". Nope, I believe in freedom of the individual and property rights. If you're lucky, there may be a third definition having to do with "without government".

So I would rather call myself an anti-statist, libertarian, etc.

As far as human nature goes, if humans are so damned evil, why do you trust them to rule you? The government isn't made of gods or supermen, it's made of normal people...with armies. It seems like the only way to neutralize that threat is to give no one the legal power to initiate violence and coercion.

I mean, what's the difference between the President and the King, really? They both have power that I did not give them.

Originally Posted by cmind

Keeping in mind that I believe a legal order is totally possible in a stateless society (and may be more accessible to the common man than the court system we have now, by the way), this kind of stuff with roads can be handled with contract law. That's if you believe in stateless law, which is another issue. But what legal recourse do you have if the government fucks up with the roads? None.

We have the recourse of firing the politicains who won't fix the roads. Please tell me how contract law would get around the detour problem I mentioned. If there is a way to do it, I am all for it. I am not a huge fan of government, obviously.

Originally Posted by cmind

I also don't like debates so I don't want to get into one. I'm just putting my personal views out there to see what makes sense to people.

That is all I am asking for.

Originally Posted by cmind

I was going to go into a detailed explanation of how it could work using DROs, but really the information is out there already. I suggest reading some of the free books at mises.org or freedomainradio.com if you want to see examples of how defense could work. I'm being slightly unhelpful here because no one really learns by being told things by other people and if you're not ready to give up on the idea of institutionalized violence then I'm not going to persuade you.

You can't sum it up for me here? I am open to new ideas, and I like privatization where it can work. Please tell me your ideas on it. You are posting on a discussion board, so I assumed you are interested in discussing what you mentioned.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We have the recourse of firing the politicains who won't fix the roads. Please tell me how contract law would get around the detour problem I mentioned. If there is a way to do it, I am all for it. I am not a huge fan of government, obviously.

You can't fire a politician. You can only "not elect" him next time, and only IF everyone else in the voting area agrees with you. Hardly a way to get your road fixed.

Private roads would most likely be paid for with monthly tolls or something like that. In the toll agreement would be a clause saying that if the road ever closes without a detour then you're entitled to some sort of breach of contract settlement. Done. Simple.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You can't sum it up for me here? I am open to new ideas, and I like privatization where it can work. Please tell me your ideas on it. You are posting on a discussion board, so I assumed you are interested in discussing what you mentioned.

This particular issue is a pain in the ass for me because it can't be explained without first explaining a whole bunch of other things, like DROs. Aside from giving me finger cramps, an opus on the ins and outs of polycentric law would also give you the false impression that there's one answer to the question, and I know it. But that would be a strong argument FOR the state, because it would imply that a single person could run things if only they had the right ideas. The fact is, if there's demand for something, the market will provide. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have faith in freedom than guys with guns.

You are claiming that higher taxes on the rich is punishment for success, I am claiming that it is merely distributing the necessary burdens of society on those members of society most capable of lifting the burden. My view on a fair share relates to my metaphor of trying to distribute a product on boats of various durability. You would not put an equally large share of the weight on a boat that's less durable than another. You would balance out the weight based upon the ability of each boat.

Under a pure sales tax, the burden is distributed equally among the consumers based on how much they consume, not how much they earn. This means that those with a weaker foundation are carrying a disproportionate burden. It's not like grocery stores charge you more if you're wealthy and can afford to pay more. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

At that moment, the servants are working for the person who employs them. However, most people who get to where they can afford such service got their by working hard. People often do that. I know lots who have gotten rich. My parents and many of their friends went from rags to riches by working hard. I watched it happen. My father's best friend is a multi-millionaire now. When I was a kid, he was going to law school full time while working full time and raising two kids. About thirty years later, he is a major success story because of his hard work and determination. Does he deserve to have his earnings taken from him if he didn't break any laws?

How did your friend afford law school? Upward mobility, the way its sold in this country, is a myth. If you work hard enough, you might, just might, be able to send your kid to community college so they can afford to send their kid to a real college so they can become wealthy. We're talking three generations of hard workers, not just one.

That is why I talk about proper compensation for the working class, so this upward mobility myth can become real. Socialized Education so anyone can go to college if they work hard, not just those who can afford it; Socialized medicine so that no one has to choose between starting a business and taking care of their sick child; Social Security so that whether someone works for a company with a 401k or freelances as a Teamster they still get their retirement fund. This is the kind of compensation we need and right now the middle-upper class are supporting themselves within this system while the 1% is isolated from the compensation they owe the people that made them successful.

The fact is, not EVERYONE in society can become rich. If everyone went to law school, who would run the factories? As much as you'd like to imagine that the servants will one day sit in the lectica and have their own servants pull them around, if everyone just sat in lecticas because they could afford servants, there would be no one to lift the damned things and carry them around. One must compete to be successful, and they must win and therefore others must lose. The least they could do is pay a higher amount of taxes so the losing team's kids can get to college and the next generation will get a fair shot at winning.

And for the record I don't agree with Adam Smith either, nor do I consider a system where we compensate labor with wage-slavery and social program to be a utopia, I just think as long as people cite him to justify Capitalism they ought to at least understand the conditions he laid out for a successful capitalist society.

Originally Posted by cmind

You can't fire a politician. You can only "not elect" him next time, and only IF everyone else in the voting area agrees with you. Hardly a way to get your road fixed.

That is what I meant by "firing." Use of that threat has been getting roads fixed for ages. As it is now, I can drive to any city in the country. Can I count on that if all roads become private?

Originally Posted by cmind

Private roads would most likely be paid for with monthly tolls or something like that. In the toll agreement would be a clause saying that if the road ever closes without a detour then you're entitled to some sort of breach of contract settlement. Done. Simple.

Who is the contract with, and who gets to force the road owner into signing such a contract?

Originally Posted by cmind

This particular issue is a pain in the ass for me because it can't be explained without first explaining a whole bunch of other things, like DROs. Aside from giving me finger cramps, an opus on the ins and outs of polycentric law would also give you the false impression that there's one answer to the question, and I know it. But that would be a strong argument FOR the state, because it would imply that a single person could run things if only they had the right ideas.

Well, I am definitely interested in learning about it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You are claiming that higher taxes on the rich is punishment for success, I am claiming that it is merely distributing the necessary burdens of society on those members of society most capable of lifting the burden. My view on a fair share relates to my metaphor of trying to distribute a product on boats of various durability. You would not put an equally large share of the wight on a boat that's less durable than another. You would balance out the weight based upon the ability of each boat.

Does it involve taking away people's property? I am still interested in knowing what percentage of income you think that fair share is.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Under a pure sales tax, the burden is distributed equally among the consumers based on how much they consume, not how much they earn. This means that those with a weaker foundation are carrying a disproportionate burden. It's not like grocery stores charge you more if you're wealthy and can afford to pay more. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

I wasn't saying grocery stores work like modern income tax. I was saying that paying for things is easier if you are rich. That's the appeal of it.

Are you a socialist? Your last sentence is a Marx quote. Do you think equal distribution of grades in schools would be effective?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

How did your friend afford law school? Upward mobility, the way its sold in this country, is a myth. If you work hard enough, you might, just might, be able to send your kid to community college so they can afford to send their kid to a real college so they can become wealthy. We're talking three generations of hard workers, not just one.

He got good grades in college by earning them, got good loans because he was a promising law student, and worked full time. His parents had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

That is why I talk about proper compensation for the working class, so this upward mobility myth can become real. Socialized Education so anyone can go to college if they work hard, not just those who can afford it; Socialized medicine so that no one has to choose between starting a business and taking care of their sick child; Social Security so that whether someone works for a company with a 401k or freelances as a Teamster they still get their retirement fund. This is the kind of compensation we need and right now the middle-upper class are supporting themselves within this system while the 1% is isolated from the compensation they owe the people that made them successful.

Social Security is about to vanish unless something drastic happens, socialized medicine is resulting in banned drugs that save lives and in years without dying people getting medical help. Socialized education in the United States has resulted in our education being Western civilization's laughing stock. The people who "made" the 1% rich just took job deals to help themselves to the wages/salaries they signed up for and of course deserve.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The fact is, not EVERYONE in society can become rich. If everyone went to law school, who would run the factories? As much as you'd like to imagine that the servants will one day sit in the lectica and have their own servants pull them around, if everyone just sat in lectica's because they could afford servants, there would be no one to lift the damned things and carry them around. One must compete to be successful, and they must win and therefore others must lose. The least they could do is pay a higher amount of taxes so the losing team's kids can get to college and the next generation will get a fair shot at winning.

Everyone has access to becoming rich. Not everybody has the intelligence or the skills for it. The people who don't succeed as much as others get paid less than others. That is the only way the system can work. That does not mean the winners should have their winnings taken from them. Should A students have points taken away and given to F students? Imagine what effect that would have on the effort level of every student. Grades have a lot to do with financial futures.

Just my few thoughts...I'm not gonna quote anyone.

I live in Texas. Natural (not processed) food carries no sales tax. This is good. There is no state income tax. This is also good...for me.

I think that someone making 25,000 per year with a 28% tax rate ($7,000 in taxes) is suffering a whole lot more than someone making $250,000 annually at a 17% tax rate (42,000 in taxes), especially if they have a family. I have kids and there is no way I could live on $18,000 per year feeding my kids, clothing them, and keeping them healthy with insurance. I could very easily get by on $208,000 annually, as used in my example, and even have money left for saving to retire on.

My dad makes close to a million annually and does nothing for it. It's all in royalties. He pays a tax rate much lower than I paid when I was employed. He didn't have to work hard to get where he is, and I can't say I'm not envious. He worked hard when he had to but now that he doesn't...he enjoys life.

I would enjoy life and the people I'm surrounded by more if I could afford life for my family. I have to pay for my own family health insurance at $21,888 per year, and that is a lot of money.

Living in the real world sucks sometimes.