Tax Discrimination - It's that time again

[Biggles]

And, after missing point after point so spectacularly, you still wonder why we tend to reduce things down to the harshest of logical principles. You argue in the same method my father used to: vehemently critical of something complete off to the side of the issue, and about which we actually agree.

What I see is that you are so blinded by your own ideological bias (& ironically, your "majority" position in the GTplanet Current Affairs forum) that you make the presumption that you can dictate the terms of discussion to others who do not share your ideological bias. You are ignoring the point because it doesn't suit your own purposes. You can't base a philosophy on the sanctity of "property rights' without addressing the origins of the property rights in question.

And Danoff, for your edification:

David Boaz addresses:

libertarians who hate slavery but seem to overlook its magnitude in their historical analysis.


http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery/

Of course, he still doesn't address the magnitude of the violations against the First Nations peoples - I guess they're now a small enough minority to completely ignore.

If this all seems like an irrelevant issue to you, perhaps you could address the very current & relevant issue of the Palestinian conflict from a libertarian perspective?

 

[Famine]

You can't base a philosophy on the sanctity of "property rights' without addressing the origins of the property rights in question.

And by that argument again, slavery would still exist.

 

[FoolKiller]

What I see is that you are so blinded by your own ideological bias (& ironically, your "majority" position in the GTplanet Current Affairs forum) that you make the presumption that you can dictate the terms of discussion to others who do not share your ideological bias. You are ignoring the point because it doesn't suit your own purposes.

He is ignoring the point? Let's map the conversation, or at least our part, shall we?

You make a claim that wealth redistribution is the result of the poor disenfranchised gaining voting power in the late 19th century and electing themselves equality.

So, I ask why we need to still create this equality over 100 years later in those same countries.

You respond by saying other parts of the world still have an imbalance equal to 19th century England.

I give you the benefit of the doubt, and clarify that I meant within the same countries that started wealth redistribution in the 19th century, even giving examples of how some of the richest families today are not the same families as there were then.

You tell me how rich those families were then, and fail to address the new rich families that are being taxed in the 21st century based on what you claim is a system designed to correct unjust riches of the 19th century. You even go so far as to attempt brushing it aside by saying the rich don't need sympathy.


Now, after all of this you want to claim that Duke is attempting to dictate the terms of the discussion and ignoring the point? I have asked you a very direct question in regards to a point you made, even rewording it to close out any side topic loopholes you are trying to use, and you still haven't answered it.


NOW, I am going off on a side tangent:

And of course, saying the rich don't need sympathy is the exact ideological opposite stance to Danoff's "We don't care." Danoff says we don't care about past abuses we didn't create or even partially cause, and you say you don't care if the rich are unequally taxed because they can afford it.

There you go, you have become the same thing you have tried to paint as a negative.


I don't get why you point out or ideological stance, as if it were some form of insult to accuse us of having unwavering principles (OH NOES!!!).

The world would get a lot more done, good or bad, if most people actually had unwavering principles.

You can't base a philosophy on the sanctity of "property rights' without addressing the origins of the property rights in question.

And you can't argue property rights origins without showing what that is. My mother was the first generation in her family to be born in the US. My father's side of the family were around from at least Lincoln's birth, but they were poor farmers who never owned any slaves and every piece of land in the family's name has an auction receipt tied to it on record. None of them live on inherited lands. Now, why should I feel any form of property rights origin guilt? My family has no known history of slavery and the land we all live on now was purchased a century after Native Americans were run off.

David Boaz addresses:

libertarians who hate slavery but seem to overlook its magnitude in their historical analysis.


http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery/

Of course, he still doesn't address the magnitude of the violations against the First Nations peoples - I guess they're now a small enough minority to completely ignore.

He doesn't address it because it wasn't the topic of the article, slavery was. He is addressing those who proclaim the early days of the country as a more free time period for its citizens.

Of course, Danoff has clarified for you before now (possibly in another thread) that there was a time when some had greater liberty and that today we would like to see that for all. Or did you forget that?

 

[Biggles]

And by that argument again, slavery would still exist.

That's a rebuttal?

In any case, there's now definitive proof that the Cato Institute is closely monitoring the GTPlanet forums.

Next week:

"Biggles was Right: The Case for Re-evaluating the American Indian Question."

 

[Danoff]

What I see is that you are so blinded by your own ideological bias (& ironically, your "majority" position in the GTplanet Current Affairs forum) that you make the presumption that you can dictate the terms of discussion to others who do not share your ideological bias.

Explain why it is relevant (for a change) and someone might actually be willing to allow it into the discussion.

You are ignoring the point because it doesn't suit your own purposes.

That's not why anyone is ignoring your point. Don't kid yourself. Oh, and ignoring would imply that it doesn't get responded to. I've personally responded to it every single time you've made this point and tried painfully to explain to you why it is irrelevant. That's not getting ignored, that's being told to think things through.

Ignoring is what you do to just about every substantive point that is made here. All I see over and over is you claiming that libertarians are close-minded idealogical nutjobs. And this is almost always in response to a reasoned, thoughtful philosophically sound statement.

You can't base a philosophy on the sanctity of "property rights' without addressing the origins of the property rights in question.

You don't want to talk about the origin of property rights. You want to talk about injustices from hundreds of years ago.

And Danoff, for your edification:

David Boaz addresses:

libertarians who hate slavery but seem to overlook its magnitude in their historical analysis.


http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery/

Of course, he still doesn't address the magnitude of the violations against the First Nations peoples - I guess they're now a small enough minority to completely ignore.

Ok, I read it (this is far more work than you will ever give any of my posts). It makes exactly the same point you made, and it misses the mark in exactly the same way. Foolkiller already explained why in his previous post, so I won't repeat his repetition of my previous repetition.

If this all seems like an irrelevant issue to you, perhaps you could address the very current & relevant issue of the Palestinian conflict from a libertarian perspective?

I will, just as soon as you explain to me why it is relevant to our discussion. You claim that it is relevant to what the US constitution prescribes for our tax code, but I don't see it. I also don't see how Iranian or North Korean treaty violations pertain to our constitution's stand on taxes. Likewise for volcanoes, kittens, vampires, and the tooth fairy.

Please show me the relevance, and I will happily address your question.

 

[Famine]

That's a rebuttal?

Well, it was the first time I mentioned it. At least this time you actually read it though.

 

[DK]

In any case, there's now definitive proof that the Cato Institute is closely monitoring the GTPlanet forums.

I think it's very un-libertarian for a libertarian organisation to monitor what people are saying...

 

[Danoff]

I thought it might be fun to figure out what the new number is now that our government is spending so much more.

Total 2009 US Budget: $3.1 Trillion
Percentage of Budget from Income Tax: 45%
Total Budget from Income Tax: $1.4 Trillion
Number of Adults in the US: ~220 Million
Number of Taxpayers in the US: ~165 Million

Tax Liability Per Adult: $6363
or
Tax Liability Per Taxpayer: $8484

So if you paid less than $8484 (by yourself, not including a spouse), someone else is paying part of your burden of the government. Keep in mind that the 2009 Budget is actually Bush's. It goes up farther for 2010.

Time to update these numbers
Total 2013 US Budget: $3.45 Trillion (this is 0.35 trillion less than they intended to spend)
Total 2013 US Revenue: $2.77T
Total Revenue from Income Tax: $1.4T, not including SS.
Percentage of Budget from Income Tax: 50.5%
Total Income Tax Needed for Balanced Budget (assuming no change in spending or revenue allocation): $1.74T
Number of Adults in the US: ~240 Million
Number of Taxpayers in the US: ~130 Million

Tax Liability Per Adult: $7250
or
Tax Liability Per Taxpayer: $13,384

So, if you think retirees and homeless should pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $7250. If you paid less than that you're not pulling your weight. If you think retirees and homeless should not pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $13,384, if you paid less than that (by yourself, not jointly), you're not pulling your weight. If you're married the numbers are $14,500 and $26,768 jointly.

 

[White & Nerdy]

And so the solution is to spend less, but that'll never happen. Politicians will only ever spend more money.

 

[DK]

It would also help if tax havens weren't so easy to use.

 

[homeforsummer]

Just got my own tax reminder letter through the post. Now I'm working as a sole trader I've newfound respect for you guys in the U.S. having to do your own taxes each year.

Most big employers in the UK use the "Pay As You Earn" system and everything gets calculated automatically. Every single employer I've worked for used it and although it didn't make the money going out any less of a sting (it just sort of disappears into the ether with each paycheck*), it at least took the legwork and bill-keeping out of it.

Now as a freelancer it's all up to me. Luckily it's reasonably simple for my particular business - I have income, I have expenses, I plug both into a web-based form, answer a few other questions and I'm done. But the disorganized me isn't used to keeping bills and invoices in a neat system so they're ready each year.


* Probably literally, in the case of our government

 

[Danoff]

@homeforsummer

The UK has a much simpler tax code than the US based on my understanding. There is no way an employer could figure out your tax liability here. They'd have to know whether you took a depreciation on the basis for your house... our tax code is beyond messed up.

 

[FoolKiller]

It would also help if tax havens weren't so easy to use.

You know the best way to reduce tax haven use?

 

[DK]

You know the best way to reduce tax haven use?

To be honest, no I don't. I'm just fed up of seeing multi-billion dollar companies get away with using tax havens (the "Double Irish" being a prime example) to pay perhaps a few million in taxes each year.

 

[FoolKiller]

To be honest, no I don't. I'm just fed up of seeing multi-billion dollar companies get away with using tax havens (the "Double Irish" being a prime example) to pay perhaps a few million in taxes each year.

Lower your taxes so they don't feel almost punitive to success.

Here, with different states having their own things, you will see Hollywood studios film and bank outside California to avoid the ridiculously high state taxes.

Did you know Breaking Bad was supposed to be set in Bakersfield, CA, but they moved it to Albuquerque, NM for tax purposes. The crew would even live there while filming.

We do it within the US, and then national firms will keep their international earning international. And why wouldn't they? If they bring that money home it gets taxed at a higher rate on top of what it was taxed in the country where it was earned. And that makes no sense to allow if you are investing in those foreign parts of your business. Rich investors are the same. We try to get nearly 50% of their income! But trade in foreign markets, using foreign banks and it gets taxed at a lower rate.

See, tax havens don't prevent taxation. They just create competion in the tax system between countries.

And I know people see tax haven users as someone thinking they are better than us and use that to their advantage. So what?

That article acts as if the government had that money taken from it. It was not the government's money to begin with. It was earned by a person or company. It's their money to do with as they please. Government does not lose money it can't tax because they don't own it. Until the taxes are spud, government owns none of any money in the market, but they act like we are privileged to be allowed to keep it.

And when the top 50% of the population pay for all taxes who do they hurt the most? It surely isn't the poor who get a refund larger than their entire income.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Time to update these numbers
Total 2013 US Budget: $3.45 Trillion (this is 0.35 trillion less than they intended to spend)
Total 2013 US Revenue: $2.77T
Total Revenue from Income Tax: $1.4T, not including SS.
Percentage of Budget from Income Tax: 50.5%
Total Income Tax Needed for Balanced Budget (assuming no change in spending or revenue allocation): $1.74T
Number of Adults in the US: ~240 Million
Number of Taxpayers in the US: ~130 Million

Tax Liability Per Adult: $7250
or
Tax Liability Per Taxpayer: $13,384

So, if you think retirees and homeless should pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $7250. If you paid less than that you're not pulling your weight. If you think retirees and homeless should not pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $13,384, if you paid less than that (by yourself, not jointly), you're not pulling your weight. If you're married the numbers are $14,500 and $26,768 jointly.

Let me see if I get this right. If the national debt increases at a rate of $34,907.53 (as of 4/18) per second, it is virtually impossible to even negate the debt (even with a conservative income tax income of $1.4T) even if we cut all mandatory spending.

At best we will only be able to pay down our interest on the debt. If we look at it as a business, and considering the rate of Federal spending, the United States would collapse as a country by the Civil War.

 

[Danoff]

Let me see if I get this right. If the national debt increases at a rate of $34,907.53 (as of 4/18) per second, it is virtually impossible to even negate the debt (even with a conservative income tax income of $1.4T) even if we cut all mandatory spending.

At best we will only be able to pay down our interest on the debt. If we look at it as a business, and considering the rate of Federal spending, the United States would collapse as a country by the Civil War.

Well the interest on the debt is included in the numbers I quoted. If we cut all spending for one year and used all federal government revenue to pay down debt, we would still not pay it off. The debt problem will eventually become a currency problem.

 

[Sanji Himura]

It already is, @Danoff. The only real stable economies right now is China and Russia, two places that are willing to tap for natural resources.

If you put it this way, if it wasn't for Nixon's move to give the tech to the Arabs to drill their own oil, and in turn create OPEC, by forcing all past and present oil transactions to be in USD, the Dollar would have been shot a long time ago.

 

[eran0004]

Time to update these numbers
Total 2013 US Budget: $3.45 Trillion (this is 0.35 trillion less than they intended to spend)
Total 2013 US Revenue: $2.77T
Total Revenue from Income Tax: $1.4T, not including SS.
Percentage of Budget from Income Tax: 50.5%
Total Income Tax Needed for Balanced Budget (assuming no change in spending or revenue allocation): $1.74T
Number of Adults in the US: ~240 Million
Number of Taxpayers in the US: ~130 Million

Tax Liability Per Adult: $7250
or
Tax Liability Per Taxpayer: $13,384

So, if you think retirees and homeless should pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $7250. If you paid less than that you're not pulling your weight. If you think retirees and homeless should not pay their fair share of taxes, your number is $13,384, if you paid less than that (by yourself, not jointly), you're not pulling your weight. If you're married the numbers are $14,500 and $26,768 jointly.

Are you saying that everyone should pay the same amount of tax, regardless of income? All you'll get is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Of course, after a while you've created so much homelessness (poor people are unlikely to have a lot of money hidden away) that only the rich remain to pay taxes, and then we're back where we started, with the only difference that half of the population is sleeping under the stars.

 

[Danoff]

Are you saying that everyone should pay the same amount of tax, regardless of income?

Only if they use the same amount of government.

All you'll get is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

I don't follow. Instead what you'd get is a much smaller government.

 

[eran0004]

Only if they use the same amount of government.

I don't follow. Instead what you'd get is a much smaller government.

Well, what is use of government? Is government something you subscribe to? Is it optional to have a citizenship?

 

[Danoff]

Well, what is use of government? Is government something you subscribe to? Is it optional to have a citizenship?

Government's proper role is the protection of human rights - which is not something you opt into or out of.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are you saying that everyone should pay the same amount of tax, regardless of income?

Are you saying we should punish those who have reached greater financial success? From each according to their ability,to each according to their need?

 

[eran0004]

Are you saying we should punish those who have reached greater financial success? From each according to their ability,to each according to their need?

Since when is it a punishment to contribute to the wealth and welfare of a nation?

Imagine a country that has two cities: One in a desert and one by a lake.

If the government would need to collect water, would it be fair to collect just as much from those who live in the desert as from those who live by the lake? Or can (and should) those who live by the lake contribute with more water than those who live in the desert?

Or should we simply treat everyone the same and the people living in the desert has only got themselves to blame for not living by the lake? What if there's a 1000 households in the country, but only room for 200 houses by the lake? Can we then blame those who live in the desert for their choice of residence? Is it even a choice when it's in fact impossible for everyone to live by the lake?

Hint: If it's hard for anyone out there to understand the allegory above, simply replace water with money.

For reference:

 

[Famine]

Since when is it a punishment to contribute to the wealth and welfare of a nation?

Since when is it 'contribution' for someone to unilaterally decide how much of your work belongs to them and enforce it with weapons and loss of liberty?!

Imagine a country that has two cities: One in a desert and one by a lake.

If the government would need to collect water

Why?

 

[FoolKiller]

Since when is it a punishment to contribute to the wealth and welfare of a nation?

When it is done by force. Tax is not voluntary or charity. It is taken, ultimately at gun point. In a very coincidental turn, this video was in my news feed this morning.

If the government would need to collect water, would it be fair to collect just as much from those who live in the desert as from those who live by the lake?

The people should ask why the government needs that much water. Of course, since many more live away from the lake a way government prevents this argument by taking even more from the lake-side residents and giving it to the people who don't Suddenly, the voting public will vote to continue getting water, without thinking, or caring, about where it came from and how.

Or can (and should) those who live by the lake contribute with more water than those who live in the desert?

They can, and maybe they would feel an ethical obligation to give it to those in the desert, but they don't have a choice, so can or should has become must. And if they refuse they risk having more water taken, prison, and possibly even death, if they chose to fight for what they believe is theirs.

Or should we simply treat everyone the same and the people living in the desert has only got themselves to blame for not living by the lake? What if there's a 1000 households in the country, but only room for 200 houses by the lake? Can we then blame those who live in the desert for their choice of residence? Is it even a choice when it's in fact impossible for everyone to live by the lake?

So, are you claiming that everyone who doesn't live by the lake got there by no fault of their own, whatsoever? What about those who grew up in the desert and made the choices and effort that allowed them to move by the lake? There is no argument that they did not earn every milliliter of water they have. You're assumption here is that those by water didn't earn that, and has no rights to it, and that those in the desert just woke up in the desert one day with no other choices.

For reference:

Yeah, we had a yer of this 99% crowd protesting. Sitting on the street for the better part of a year, demanding to know why they don't have more money. First guess: Because at 3:00 on a Thursday you are sitting on a sidewalk for your hundredth day while you yell at guys going to work that they should share their paycheck with you.

I'm not in the 1%. I'm somewhere in the 80%. I have medical issues that affect my ability to work certain kinds of jobs and greatly affects my finances. When I see a guy in the 1% I do not say he owes me a thing. I ask how I can reach that 1%, or even the top 5%-10%. Ask not what you can take from others, but how you can become like them.

Here is a question: What is a fair share of taxes? I can only laugh when I hear people say a guy paying over $1 million in taxes needs to pay his fair share. It's even funnier when those complaining get more in tax returns than they earned that year, and get even more money from government handouts.

 

[eran0004]

Since when is it 'contribution' for someone to unilaterally decide how much of your work belongs to them and enforce it with weapons and loss of liberty?!

Since always.

Why?

Why not?

When it is done by force. Tax is not voluntary or charity. It is taken, ultimately at gun point.

I don't know what kind of tax system you've got, but I've never heard of a tax system that involves guns.

So, are you claiming that everyone who doesn't live by the lake got there by no fault of their own, whatsoever? What about those who grew up in the desert and made the choices and effort that allowed them to move by the lake? There is no argument that they did not earn every milliliter of water they have. You're assumption here is that those by water didn't earn that, and has no rights to it, and that those in the desert just woke up in the desert one day with no other choices.

If there's not enough space by the lake, most people will have to live in the desert. That's a fact. No matter what choices the people make, there will always have to be some who live in the desert. Or to take it out of the allegory, there's no way that everyone, or even a majority, of the people in a country can be rich at the same time. Such a system doesn't exist.

And where you're born and what parents you've got plays a bigger role in your chances of becoming rich or poor than any choices that you make. Did some people deserve to be born into poverty while others deserved to be born rich?

 

[Famine]

Since always.

So slavery and mugging are somehow donation now?

Why not?

It's not a valid function of government.

If you could support your views when questioned rather than just questioning the questions, that'd be great.

I don't know what kind of tax system you've got, but I've never heard of a tax system that involves guns.

Stop paying. You'll see them soon enough.

 

[eran0004]

So slavery and mugging are somehow donation now?

Slavery and mugging is not tax paying. So no.

It's not a valid function of government.

If you could support your views when questioned rather than just questioning the questions, that'd be great.

If you could specify your question you'd get a specified answer. You just said "why?" Why what?

Stop paying. You'll see them soon enough.

No you won't. You'll be arrested. If you resist arrest in a violent manner you'll probably see them though, but that's another felony.

 

[Tornado]

I don't want to make any assumptions, but since Famine deliberately quoted the part where you said "If the government would need to collect water" and responded to that; I'd have to say that the obvious answer is that he's asking why the government needs to collect water.


Of course, that basic forum functionality sure is misleading.