Taxes?

[bigus_D]

It's the difference between giving and taking. You say you'd gladly give them 1%. You don't get the chance to, because they're taking it whether you like it or not. Once you accept that they have the supposed moral authority to take a little bit, you have no moral defense against them taking the whole thing. If a thief sticks a gun in your face and demands $20, but you would have given him $20 if he'd asked nicely, does that mean you weren't robbed?

I won't give a bum $20, no matter how nice he asks. Hell, I won't give $1 to somebody on the street (nor the change in my pocket). So, yes, he robbed me... I guess, that is, unless I grab his gun and smack him in the head with it.

I guess I see where you are coming from... but, as it currently stands, there is nothing I can do to keep 100% of my wages without breaking the law. If they want 100%, then it won't be worth my time to work anymore.

 

[jsgolfman]

That's right, you don't have an option if you want to stay out of jail. My point, as Fletch stated wonderfully, was by saying they can have a little because you think we need roads, for example, is no different from saying they have a right to all of it. The % is irrelevant.

 

[dross]

While I agree in principle that taxes are theft, I don't believe we'll change that in our lifetimes. It's a small minority who believes that a poor person and a rich person should pay the same amount for a government function.

Even if all taxes are theft, I don't get a chance to elect someone who believes the same. So, I'll throw my weight behind a theif who will take less, rather than take principled action that makes it likely I'll get a theif who takes more.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Also, do not forget that the CBO has reported that the costs of the Iraq/Afghan wars is over $1 Trillion now. That's defence spending and nothing else. Just because they don't lump it in doesn't make it any less a military item. They were the beneficiaries.

FOXNews.com - CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act

 

[jsgolfman]

While I agree in principle that taxes are theft, I don't believe we'll change that in our lifetimes. It's a small minority who believes that a poor person and a rich person should pay the same amount for a government function.

Even if all taxes are theft, I don't get a chance to elect someone who believes the same. So, I'll throw my weight behind a theif who will take less, rather than take principled action that makes it likely I'll get a theif who takes more.

I don't disagree. I honestly don't see it getting any better in the near future. My post was purely from a philosophical viewpoint.

 

[Fletch]

Never discount the value of the philosophical viewpoint. Arguing that taxation is theft, while perhaps unlikely to create concomitant change, is nonetheless important. We must never allow the survival of the notion that government has any sort of moral claim to our earnings or belongings, and even if all we do is fight the war of ideas, it is worthwhile. America began as an idea, and it can be rescued by the power of ideas. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but the stronger we make those ideas, the better off future generations will be when the opportunity arises for tangible, lasting change.

 

[jsgolfman]

Yep, that's why I'm still here.

 

[dross]

Yep, that's why I'm still here.

Also, gravity.

 

[spearheadersarge]

I'm all for paying my fair share but what is fair? Should it be a flat percentage for everyone? Why is it if I am a millionaire I pay more than someone making min wage? In the American ideal, we all have same socio-economic chance to succeed. Shouldn't we all share the gov'ts burden the same? I look at it like this...same tax rate for everyone. Then have a set sales tax for what each person buys. Poor people buy less = less additional tax; rich people buy a lot = more taxes. also would need a balanced budget ammendment. all funding would be based on monthly tax income recpts with a maximum overage of 5%. no borrowing over the limit. want to spend? cut somewhere else. also need to reign in entitlement programs...

 

[Fletch]

I'm all for paying my fair share but what is fair?

Zero percent is fair.

Should it be a flat percentage for everyone?

Yep, zero for everyone.

Why is it if I am a millionaire I pay more than someone making min wage?

The politics of envy.

In the American ideal, we all have same socio-economic chance to succeed.

No, equality of opportunity is a bull**** premise.

Shouldn't we all share the gov'ts burden the same? I look at it like this...same tax rate for everyone.

Me too. Zero.

Then have a set sales tax for what each person buys. Poor people buy less = less additional tax; rich people buy a lot = more taxes. also would need a balanced budget ammendment. all funding would be based on monthly tax income recpts with a maximum overage of 5%.

This just guarantees a minimum overage of 5%.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Fletch, you don't get invited to many political big-wigs' dinner parties, do you?

 

[Fletch]

Fletch, you don't get invited to many political big-wigs' dinner parties, do you?

No, and I cry myself to sleep over it every night.

 

[bigus_D]

Zero percent is fair.


Yep, zero for everyone.

...

Me too. Zero.

So, do you believe there should be absolutely no government?

Anarchy, really?

Or is it your opinion that the government should be run on charitable donations?

 

[Fletch]

So, do you believe there should be absolutely no government?

I have never advocated this.

Anarchy, really?

No, not really.

Or is it your opinion that the government should be run on charitable donations?

The vast majority, perhaps even all, of government services can be provided through the free market, cheaper, better, and more efficiently. Anything people think is important, they will voluntarily pay for. If you have to force them to pay for it, they obviously don't want it.

 

[bigus_D]

Anything people think is important, they will voluntarily pay for. If you have to force them to pay for it, they obviously don't want it.

So... you believe the government should be run on charitable donation alone.

That is an interesting stance... not a practical one, in my opinion, but interesting non-the-less.

 

[Fletch]

So... you believe the government should be run on charitable donation alone.

I didn't say that. It's an option I would accept, but it is not the only option.

That is an interesting stance... not a practical one, in my opinion, but interesting non-the-less.

Morality is often impractical.

 

[bigus_D]

I didn't say that. It's an option I would accept, but it is not the only option.


Morality is often impractical.

I'm confused.

--------------------------
You say that MORALLY, we should only pay ZERO to fund the government.

It is clear that the government can not function without money.

That leaves only two options: no government, or a government funded by donation.
--------------------------

What am I missing???

 

[Fletch]

I'm confused.

--------------------------
You say that MORALLY, we should only pay ZERO to fund the government.

No, I say that morally, we should not be taxed. There's a difference.

It is clear that the government can not function without money.

That leaves only two options: no government, or a government funded by donation.
--------------------------

What am I missing???

You're missing the fact that "government" is an ambiguous word that can mean several things which need to be differentiated. When you say or type "government", you seem to mean an institution that claims and exercises a territorial monopoly on force. When I say or type "government", I'm referring to a set of social constructs that serve to protect individual rights. These are not the same thing. Your institution proposes to provide my constructs, but the institution primarily serves itself and pays lip service to the constructs. You claim the institution is necessary, else the constructs cannot exist. I say the constructs have no need whatsoever of the institution's existence.

 

[bigus_D]

No, I say that morally, we should not be taxed. There's a difference.


You're missing the fact that "government" is an ambiguous word that can mean several things which need to be differentiated. When you say or type "government", you seem to mean an institution that claims and exercises a territorial monopoly on force. When I say or type "government", I'm referring to a set of social constructs that serve to protect individual rights. These are not the same thing. Your institution proposes to provide my constructs, but the institution primarily serves itself and pays lip service to the constructs. You claim the institution is necessary, else the constructs cannot exist. I say the constructs have no need whatsoever of the institution's existence.

You claim to know what I mean when I say government... then you go on to blah blah blah about constructs.

You don't know what I mean. You don't know me.

Back to reality, man. What about national defense (is that specific enough for you)? Do you REALLY think this is neccessary? I do. Do you REALLY think people will freely donate to fund it? I don't.

We live in the real world. No matter how you try to construct a frame for your 'reality'...

 

[bigus_D]

When you say or type "government", you seem to mean an institution that claims and exercises a territorial monopoly on force.

Please advise me where I've made such a statement.

When I say or type "government", I'm referring to a set of social constructs that serve to protect individual rights.

That's nice... but we live in the real world

Your institution proposes to provide my constructs, but the institution primarily serves itself and pays lip service to the constructs. You claim the institution is necessary, else the constructs cannot exist.

Again, this isn't what I'm talking about.

I say the constructs have no need whatsoever of the institution's existence.

This is where the constructs blah blah blah reaches its peak.


I go back, once again, to a basic function of our national government. National defense. How do you think this will be funded if there are no taxes???