«12. . .3,5253,5263,5273,5283,5293,5303,531. . .3,6073,608»
I dislike "sin" taxes as it attempts to create a government endorsed morality when clearly the government should have no say in the morality of it's citizens. Property taxes are fine on a utilitarian basis, but can add to housing bubbles if not reigned in. Income taxes are clearly extortion, and is the primary focal point of why I advocate a FairTax in the first place.
My biggest issue with the FairTax is that it is as far as any tax goes, anti-social. Where poor people have to pay the same fixed amount as a rich person, and not just in percentage but also in actual dollars. So that means poorer people have to use a bigger part of their salary to pay for government than what rich people have to. I am against all sorts of violent monopolies, but the FairTax just makes it even worse to begin with.
Something like the LVT seems a lot more FAIR.
Oh, Sibby. You decided to make a poll about that thing, as well. xD
3 people voted no? What a bunch of nonsense.
I applaud Maryginia for giving credit where credit is due, despite not enjoying the music.
I say it one more time: that musician hasn't done anything meaningful to me, so why should I think he is good?
That's not correct. Those that spend more, pay more.
Because he has accomplished great things, was a pioneer in rock and roll, is regarded as a legend by other legends of the genre and is due respect.
A rich or middle class person do not eat more than the lower classes, nor do they necessarily own a lot more stuff, as there is a reason they're rich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
And that would be relevant if food was the only thing taxed. I am not sure if it's taxed at all.
Goods are taxed. Of which the wealthy buy more of.
Rich people have very low propensities to consume. That's why we tax based on income, not consumption: a true "fairtax" would be a flat income tax. Consumption taxes are regressive because they take larger bites of poorer incomes. Say you have a marginal propensity to consume of 0.9 and earn $20k a year, comparing this Situation A with Situation B where you have a MPC of 0.5 and earn $100k. With a 10% consumption tax, that's an effective 9% tax on income for Situation A, and an effective 5% tax on income for Situation B.
I agree. But the comment I responded to claimed the rich and poor are taxed the same in actual dollars. Which is not correct.
In you example the tax payments were $1,800 and $5,000 respectively.
$1,800 < $5,000.
A homeless man's $1 and a millionaire's $1 are two different ways to look at the same thing. Here we see a disproportionate number of $1 bills taken from people to whom it is worth more, to whom every cent counts, instead of from those who do not have the need to pick up a $20 note they dropped on the floor, because by the time they realise it they'd have already made that amount back. In real terms, obviously, you're right, but a 0.0021% tax on billionaires yields the same conclusion as an 80% tax on those making $25,000.
And yet it hit one person harder than another, with different effective tax rates. Something that hits various people differently should not be defined as fair anyway.
There is only one fair tax.
I hope I do not have to elaborate, at least to you.
Hah! Yes, definitively not.
Post self-deleted by Pict-land.
"Sins" are unproductive, so taxing them hardly hurts the economy, and does make the place more productive and healthier. I don't really see a problem with sin taxes, seeing as they are just a fiscal strategy. How do property taxes cause housing bubbles? If they are proportional to land or rent value, then it really doesn't matter how high you price your house when you sell it because the taxes would still be proportional to that. Income taxes aren't extortion, either.
"Sin" taxes very much affect the economy. Let's ask the giant underground cigarette smuggling industry, shall we?
http://www.mackinac.org/19725?utm_source=Media+List&utm_campaign=2b03c09fbd-Smuggling_presser_2_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_272f205f74-2b03c09fbd-259481833
I never said property taxes cause housing bubbles.
Also, the last is BS. You stop paying taxes, the State shoots you. Income tax (or any tax) is the equivalent of me cutting your lawn for you, and then threatening to jail you if you do not pay for my service.
And of course, if you don't accept the moral argument, I am quite good at consequentialist ones:
http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1301/federal-income-tax-violating-your-rights-since-1913-battaile-politics-1357642384.jpeg
Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.
What do you think happens if you do not pay taxes?
FFS, NYPD killed a man over $6 in unpaid (sin) taxes.
I never said sin taxes didn't hurt the economy at all. I said that the "sins" taxed were unproductive, so as to not damage the productive economy. Your link also assumes I want to surtax sins, which I don't, thus rendering them functionally illegal as they are far too expensive. That defeats the purpose of the tax. I'd prefer consumption taxes on luxury goods and these same sins instead of on all consumption.
So what did you say?
Actually, no. You aren't looking at the bigger picture. What is your income but an entitlement to private property? Was private property always private, or was it once common property? If it was once common property, then you restricted people's rights to accumulate said property when you acquired this private property. If so, and your income is still very much an entitlement to the diminishment of others' rights, how can you claim that this is fair? Is this not a blatant contravention of everything you stand for-- protecting the rights of the people, standing up against those that diminish rights?
If you steal someone's motorbike, the state comes to your door and will probably try and arrest you, say. I don't see how this theft is any different to the action of homesteading-- and I'm not alone. Locke and Nozick based a lot of their assumptions on this very basic notion of propertarian justice. Rothbard is the only person to have very cleverly used "I don't like it", which says a lot about his attitude on the subject.
404 Not Found, but dodgy site nevertheless.
I agree, turning common property into private property was pretty gritty stuff. Diminishing the rights of those around you and getting away with it, without any rectifications of such injustice, is frankly an embarrassment to modern society. Not paying the taxes to cover the compensation required to rectify the injustices of owning private property or entitlements to it is blatant coercion. I'm glad deontological libertarianism tackles this issue head-on, though, suggesting rectifications of said injustices through compensation proportional to the injustices inflicted.
What are you talking about?
I dunno. I lost him.
He somehow thinks my income needs to be taxed because it's an entitlement to private property, somehow.
Well, I somehow think your income must not be taxed, because you deserve the full amount of your earnings.
«12. . .3,5253,5263,5273,5283,5293,5303,531. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
