I am willing to pay my fair share, but everyone is paying more than their fair share right now, because the objects being spent on are unfair. Taxation is theft if the services paid for are unjust or completely out of the government's purview. If the government does not have the authority to do something, it does not have the authority to tax me for it, either. Our government is strictly limited by the Constitution. Tell me where the Constitution authorizes government control of education, of agriculture or other land use, of wildlife? How is spending on "art" or charity Constitutional? I object to paying for these things because we did not give government any authority in the Constitution to pay for them on our behalf. If I want art, I will commission it; if I want to help the poor, I will donate; if I want to help a dairy farmer, I will buy his milk. Government does not need to be doing these things! The inefficiency of centralized planning is a large part of what toppled the Soviet Union.
Complaining to representatives of the Democrat and Republican parties does no good, because neither party adheres to Constitutional limitations. They both willingly vote for anything that "sounds like a good idea", i.e. anything that gets them votes at the next election. Again, my gripe is not that I'm taxed too much or someone else too little, it's more that we are not taxed equally, or that we're getting unequal benefit from what we put in. Do you understand? I would complain just as loudly if I were getting off scot-free while others were carrying the tax burden for things I benefit from - there's a moral principle involved. I disagree with the definition of "equality" that is used today, that differs from the one the Founders would have understood. I simply desire the lawmakers of this country to stick to the Constitution as it was originally intended, as they've sworn an oath to do! If they no longer like what it means, amend it - it allows for that. But don't simply ignore it (or redefine the terms, which amounts to the same thing) because it's inconvenient.
Unfortunately we're stuck with a voting method that rewards incumbents and promotes a two-party system. I will continue to protest immoral tax schemes and vote for third parties just as I continue to advocate a better voting method. The people still hold the power, for the moment at least. They just need to have their eyes opened to the injustices of the current system and be educated about alternatives.
But, if you absolutely aren't willing to pay your taxes, your only legal alternative is to emigrate to a better country.
Or form my own new one with like-minded people. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." The South was right on this point. Secession was frequently threatened in Congress in the early parts of the 19th century, especially by New England states, and nobody argued that it wasn't a state's right to do so. This was the commonly held belief until Lincoln used federal force to scare people into a different belief.
So laws against theft are, for you, completely conditional on how much money the victim has to begin with. If he's rich, go ahead, it won't really "hurt" him as much as it will "help" you, a poor person. Thank you for making this clear. I cannot agree with any definition of compassion that violates someone's rights in the process, whether or not he can better "afford" to have them violated.
To liberals, "compassion" means giving less productive people the fruits of the efforts of more productive people. But real compassion means enabling less productive people to become more productive themselves. That way, the poor have not only more material things but also more self-respect, as well as more respect from others, and the society as a whole has a higher standard of living and less internal strife.
That's another reason why I can never agree that it's "fair" to tax the rich more. Having capital (money) increases productivity. Capital represents previous work spent acquiring it. Building on previous hard work enables one to be more productive with the same amount of work than building without that foundation.
Since capital represents time working, and all men are created equal, how can we legitimately say that gov't can take 20 minutes of this man's hour, but only 10 minutes of this man's hour? If men are equal, and they own themselves (and therefore their time), then we cannot lay claim to any more of one man's time than any other's. (Further, I would say we cannot rightfully claim any amount of any man's time; it is his time - we cannot steal from him. And that's what laying "first dibs" to a portion of a man's income, the fruit of his labor, is - theft.) Of course, some men are more talented than others, and have giftings and abilities that others don't, that make them more productive than others with what they have...but the inherent value of the man himself is equal to any other. Would you rob 20% of what the crippled leper has? Then why would you rob 20% of what the rich athlete has? These men are equal. To look at them only in terms of their earning capacity is denigrating their fundamental value as human beings.
Some people have physical/mental talents that make them more productive with their time. Others start out with financial/material assets that have the same basic result of greater productivity. Should we handicap the athletes, the scholars, the artists...for the sake of those that don't have those benefits starting out? The two things are equivalent, and if you favor handicapping the rich, why not handicap the talented? (Beginning to sound like Harrison Bergeron, which also had a warped idea of "equality for all".) Everyone hopes to pass on the benefits of their hard work (or dumb luck) to their children. Whether it's money on genetics. If we're going to handicap those that happened to have rich parents and "didn't work for what they have" should we also filter chromosomes to make sure nobody starts out with too large a head start over his peers? They didn't "work for it" either.
Redistributing money equally means you are not distributing human dignity equally. It means you value those you take more away from less than those you take less away from. Making some people more enslaved to government than others is not freedom, nor is it justice.
Not the only circumstance, but the tone of your post sure made it sound that way to me. I didn't respond to your points because I felt the book I recommended did a more thorough job that I could in the short amount of time I have.
Thank you for the recommendation. I'll take a look sometime. I've actually been looking for something like that for awhile, so having a recommendation is nice. Is the writing style fairly informal, or more scholarly?
OK, true. It's not an issue of one man/branch not taking constitutional roles and responsibilities seriously, it's all of them. Congress is just as much at fault as the president.
Fortunately democracy allows you to remedy such matters by voting the higher taxing party out of government.
That's tough when the voting system itself has most people convinced that there are only two "real" choices - and either of those two is as bad as the other. I don't think people are happy with their taxes - I think they're completely frustrated but don't see any way out.
There is a way though. Support your principles and the third parties that stand for them. Support your principles even when you think principle can't win. You can't really lose (because you're not winning anything by putting someone you don't agree with in office), but you might win back your dignity. And push for Condorcet voting while you're at it.
You and whoever marked this insightful really have some kind of grudge against Christianity. That's sad. I've got a reading recommendation for you - and it covers the good and bad (including the tired old Inquisition and witch trials) in case you were going to object on those grounds.
Just because the government currently is working that way doesn't mean that's the way it was designed to work. It was designed, wisely, so that one man cannot commit an entire nation to war. That was the problem with kings...they get their egos wrapped up in it and get people killed as a result. If the people are going to fight and get killed, they deserve a say in it, and that's why Congress has to declare war. Once declared, action needs to be done quickly and decisively, so a single leader acting as commander is the wiser design. Hence the president is C-in-C. (Ever read the Federalist Papers?)
Of course, the fact that most members of Congress ignore principle in favor of keeping themselves in office, and most people are too locked in to the two-party lie to vote them out, is all beside the point.
Sales taxes aren't all that easy. Does a company pay sales taxes on the input for their goods? For example, if a contractor buys paint for a house he sells, does he pay sales taxes on the paint? I assume the customer pays sales taxes on the house, do they get a rebate for the taxes on the paint?
Sure they are. Yes. Yes. No, that's too complex already.
What about services? Should you pay taxes on a haircut? What about getting your car fixed? Is there tax on the labour or just on the parts? What about transfers within a company? If an IBM worker needs a computer, is there tax owing on the "purchase"? Is it on the wholesale or retail price?
What about them? Why not; you're selling something of value. Both. What about them? It's only reasonable that you should be able to produce things for your own use without being taxed - else I'd owe Uncle Sam for every action I did, because you have to assume there's value in it for me (else I wouldn't do it), thus I could have paid someone else to do it (and paid tax also) - and that's just ridiculous.
It becomes quite obvious that with too high a tax markup, it becomes impossible to be a small niche provider of some type of goods. It is much more profitable to own the entire supply chain, and manage it under one company. (Ford would own rubber tree farms to get their tires, pigmentation factories to make their paint, build their own electronics for radios, etc.) Whether this is good or bad, I don't know; I'm not an economist. But it seems it would drive small startup companies out of business, and America depends on small businesses starting up to fill new needs. High taxes kill business - period.
Finally, I seriously doubt 7% would be enough; I think it would need to be something more like 30%. Doesn't the army alone cost about 5% of GDP?
Maybe, maybe not. I think a 30% markup would make people think "holy CRAP! it costs THAT MUCH to pay for gov't???" But realize that since tax is paid every time something changes hands, and the cost is going to be passed on, you're paying tax on tax. You're not paying tax just once on the end result product. This will keep the rate lower - though that final price will still be very high.
As far as taxes go; the government supplies services and needs to pay for that. Surely you think that the government at least has to pay for the costs of enforcing laws and protecting the border.
Those are some legitimate functions, yes. But there are plenty of illegitimate ones, functions that would never have come about if the income tax and automatic withholding hadn't made it so darn easy to steal from citizens.
Everyone in the country benefits from what the government does, everyone should pay for it. Taxes aren't theft, they are payments for services rendered.
No, everyone does not benefit from all the things the gov't is currently doing. The (federal) government has constitutional authority to do a number of things (enumerated in A1S8) for the general welfare. But many things it does now are for the specific welfare of certain (special interest) groups.
Does Medicare/Medicaid benefit the entire citizenry? No, just those that draw benefits, primarily the elderly. The young are harmed by having their pockets picked.
Does the National Endowment for the Arts benefit us all? No, just the artists who create dung paintings and urinate on crucifixes, that can't find a buyer elsewhere. (Maybe because they have no marketable talent?) The rest of us pay for this (literal) crap that helps us not one whit.
Does federal education funding help everyone? No, just the kids that get the cash and their parents. The childless and those that don't make the cut must wonder why they still have to pay and don't get anything to show for it.
Does declaring Florida a federal disaster area after
I'd rather you not, as only having a sales tax is very unfair. Lets say I'm a single guy and I make $35k a year. My married friend with 4 kids also makes $35k a year. Now, which of us is going to have to spend more money? Why should he be forced to pay more in taxes because he has a family?
That's exactly why he should have to pay more. It was his choice to have a family and certainly his right to do so, and it is just as certainly his responsibility to provide for them. One could ask why you are responsible for shouldering the burden when you aren't getting any of the benefits of having a family? Personal responsibility, that's what it's about.
In a world without income tax, you are certainly free to help your friend out, invite him and the family over for dinner, help repair his car, etc. But you do that by choice, not because government is forcing you.
Are you under 18? [...]
The problem (as I explain in the other post linked above) is that the income taxes are arbitrarily set. They are not tied to financing any specific thing, as a sales/use tax is. (One can relatively safely assume it finances the infrastructure behind providing whatever you just bought.) With government's hand in your pocket, grabbing as much as it feels like, it feels free to finance whatever seems like a good idea at the time. I do not have the freedom to not pay the income tax...I would be thrown in jail. I do have the freedom to not pay the sales tax...I don't buy the item. This is a very salient and important distinction. (The 17th Amendment also conspires in weakening the protection of citizens from the central government, but that's another big issue of its own.)
Taxes aren't the problem, people who are self-centered and greedy are the problem. The government doesn't take money from you to hoard it for its own purposes, its for you and the society you live in.
Why do you consider me the greedy one, when all I want to do is keep (or spend as I choose) what I earned? Isn't that freedom? It is my property - why do you want to take it away, or justify gov't taking it away on your behalf? Rather, aren't you the greedy one (or conspiring with greedy people) to take what I have, something that doesn't belong to you?
And if the money is for me...why not just leave it in my pocket to begin with?! If you believe gov't isn't redistributing wealth to whom it thinks is more "worthy" of things they haven't earned, you're incredibly naive, I'm afraid. I don't trust gov't that much because I know human nature, and politicians and bureaucrats are just as human as the rest of us. That's why we have a limited government, (supposedly) exercising only the powers we have expressly given it, so that those in authority can't abuse that authority to the detriment of others (like you and me). Giving gov't the power to take whatever it wants is a huge risk which I can't state strongly enough. As long as it keeps 51% happy, it can rape the other 49%, and that's what happens.
This has been floating around the net for some years now, maybe you've seen it. It's a good illustration of exactly why a progressively graduated income tax is evil. It's driven by petty jealousy and greed,and those in power to perpetuate the system are masters at inciting class warfare.
Does this mean you agree that you have no inherent right to the benefits government provides?
I have the inherent right to provide those for myself. I have the right to join together with others to provide those benefits in common. This is a legitimate function of government.
I do not object to legitimate functions of government. I do object to illegitimate functions of government, and illegitimate financing of any function of government. Please do not confuse the issue.
No matter how you slice it, sales tax or income tax, progressive or flat, the rest of society as represented by the government has an inherent right to (some portion of) your money, because you couldn't have made even a hundredth of it without vast amounts of infrastructure built and maintained by the rest of society now and in the past.
I completely disagree with the rationale that I "owe" government something because without it I wouldn't have gotten to where I have. Baloney. I wasn't born into this world with a debt burden for simply existing. I willingly support those aspects of government that currently offer a benefit - many of which could be done just as well by the private sector. (For instance, private fire or security agencies that I would subscribe to, toll roads built by private companies, etc.) But I'm fine with these services being offered by government, as long as they are efficient. What I object to, and strenuously, is government doing things I do not support, things not for the general welfare but for the specific welfare of individuals or groups, and then compelling me to finance it.
An income tax, automatically deducted from my pay, is arbitrary, compulsory, and offers no accountability. A sales or use tax is voluntary (I decide to buy or use) and is accountable because it will be used to finance the infrastructure behind it.
But spare us the 'inherent rights' compaint.
So when I come over and drive away with your car, don't complain that I "stole" it. You have no "inherent right" to the things you claim to own - right?
I believe government has only the powers that we give it. That's the purpose of a constitutionally-limited government. The Constitution recognizes the fact that We the People are free and sovereign. We delegate government only the powers it needs to keep the peace. Therefore, any right/power that I do not have as an individual, government cannot have either. Since I cannot steal from you or you from me, government cannot steal from us either.
I'd go on but I've said most of what I wanted to elsewhere on this thread.
disagree that there should be a single rate, I think progressive taxes are fairer.
So you believe that the harder you work and the more successful you are, the less right you have to keep your own money. Interesting that the right to property diminishes with the amount of property possessed. I wasn't aware of that.
Or maybe you're just jealous, greedy, and resentful that others have more than you.
I'd agree that "the rich" should carry a larger portion of public responsibility by virtue of their ability to do so. But don't you think noblesse oblige should be voluntary? Or do you think it is just and right to force people to do things they don't want to, in a country that calls itself "free"? Charity compelled under threat of force is not charity.
The bigger flaw in your suggestion is that there is no way you can eliminate rules and loopholes.
How is there room for loopholes? "7% tax on every item sold, except food, clothing, medicine."
How would this system work for self-employed people?
That's the beauty of it. It works the same for everyone. It's not an income tax. It's a sales tax. You pay tax on what you buy. You are in control of what you buy. Rich people tend to consume more, both because they have more to spend in the first place and also because a larger share of their income is "disposable", so they pay more. It's self-regulating, and the individual citizen is in control. You would have a direct say in how big your government gets. If you don't want to it to grow, buy on the essentials (food, clothing, medicine) which are exempt from the tax as a matter of principle. If you want democracy, this is it - the free market in action in the political realm.
The tax rate is the easiest part of the tax system: figure out what bracket you are in and use the specified rate.
It's also the most tyrannical. What right does government have to any of my money? I earned it; it is mine. Once you believe gov't has the right to some arbitrary amount of your assets, what prevents it from taking more? Nothing! The amount is at the whim of legislators. You are forced to give up something that by right belongs to you, and if you refuse you are thrown in jail.
Do you believe in private property? Could I walk into your garage and say "I need 5% of your car, so I'll take this tire"? If this sounds ludicrous and idiotic, that's because it is, and that's precisely why this country had no income tax for 140 years.
You cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. If you were my neighbor and you knocked on my door and asked me for $20 to help you pay for medicine (or whatever) you need but can't afford, I might (or might not) give it to you. This is fine. If you knocked on my door, put a gun in my face and demanded $20, you'd be an armed robber. You do not have the right to take my property by force, and neither does the government.
A sales tax sidesteps this issue. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy the goods. The tax is voluntary. Since food, clothing, and medicine are necessary for life, which is also an inherent right and government cannot take part in depriving you of, these items are exempt from the tax.
So ask yourself, what are your motives? What justifies seizing someone else's property? (Because a majority want want the minority has?) What justifies doing so progressively, in a manner that shows favoritism by damaging some more than others? (Because you can count on the votes of the 51% poor to support you giving them freebies?) People say my attitude is "greedy" for just wanting to keep (or dispensing as I choose) what I already have...I think it is truly greedy to want what someone else has.
I have to disagree strongly. Let's abolish all taxes and institute a flat rate sales tax that exempts food, clothing, and medicine. Government has no inherent right to seize my money (no income tax), we should be fair and treat everyone alike (flat rate), but we should simultaneously be humane to the poor (exempting the necessities of life from tax).
Yielding to God's authority and imposing self-control makes it much easier to create a libertarian nation. If control isn't imposed from within, it must be imposed from without, and that way likes authoritarianism. Combined with the fact that Christians believe 1) God gave free will, 2) becoming a Christian (accepting Christ as savior) must be a free choice and not forced conversion, 3) a high respect for human life (as its created in the image of God), and 4) "love your neighbor"/"do unto others..." means that Christianity is very close to the libertarian "live and let live in peace". That's what I was getting at.
Couldn't agree more. Personally I'd like to end automatic withholding (wasn't that supposed to be a temporary WWII measure?) and pay a monthly bill to government. Then people would wake up to how much Uncle Sam is siphoning out of their pockets!
Give me a break. "Corporate taxes" just get passed on in the form of higher prices. Shifting the tax burden to corporations just disguises the taxes. You still pay them in the end.
Better to abolish all income tax. Once you cede government the right to any portion of your income off the top, what stops it from grabbing a greater and greater share? Replace it with a sales tax that exempts necessities of life: food, clothing, medicine. Rationale: government (American anyway) affirms a basic right to life, so while it is not obligated to make life easy for you, it has no business making it harder either. And the exemption automatically takes care of the "but the poor can't afford taxes" argument, since presumably a greater share of their income goes toward necessities.
One simple rate, everybody pays the same. No bizarre rules, no loopholes. No reporting all your personal data to Big Brother every year. Millions of dollars and man-hours of tax preparation saved annually.
I don't think he's trolling, even though he claims he is. It's perfectly true: MA residents had the opportunity to boot the confiscatory income tax. Once you cede government the right to claim any portion of your income off the top, how can you argue when they want more and more of it?
If cutting programs is not an option (and it almost always is) that income could easily be replaced by a sales tax that exempted the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, medicine. Personally, I'd much rather pay a sales tax, as I am in charge of what I buy, than have an income forcibly taken from me with little accountability to how it is spent. The whole notion of withholding is devious, as people pay little attention to how big a chunk of their money the government is taking away. We're conditioned to think in terms of "take home pay" as if government really "deserves" the rest of what we earn. It would make a more honest (bigger) impact if every $10 purchase at the store rang up for $14.27 instead.
One simple rate. Nobody gets special treatment, no loopholes or tax shelters. No griping about corporations not paying "their fair share". It could all be very easy. (Internet sales apply the tax of where the business is located. If your state doesn't like the loss of revenue, adjust the sales tax to be comparable or less, and watch business move in to take advantage.)
I'm amused by people who are irked by "tax cheats". (Whether they are or not depends on the particular situation, but I'm convinced there would be far fewer of them if taxes weren't so burdensome in the first place.) It's like saying, "He's not getting screwed as bad as me!" If you know you're getting screwed, how about fixing things so that nobody gets screwed rather than trying to bring everybody down to your level of misery?
On the contrary, I think "God is watching" translated to "...so government doesn't have to" for many if not most early Americans. Christianity and libertarianism are closely related.
Depends on how good the UA filter on the site is. Opera does something just like that. If the IE test is shoddy, then Opera (spoofing) will look like IE, but it still says "Opera" somewhere in the string.
Another variation that doesn't have either of these problems is to request a non-existent page (www.somesite.com/I_USE_A_COMPLIANT_BROWSER/IT_WOR KS_FINE/PLEASE_LET_ME_IN) so it reports in the 404 log. A decent webmaster ought to be reviewing those, checking for broken links and such.
A(nother) curse on Microsoft for starting the trend of UA spoofing in the first place!
True, sometimes you just need to access an "inaccessible" site, and UA spoofing is a godsend in those cases. However, whenever I'm forced to go to these extremes, I put complaint=I_AM_USING_A_STANDARDS-COMPLIANT_BROWSER _PLEASE_FIX_YOUR_SITE (or something similar) in the query string of my first request.
Re:How does FreeBSD compare to Linux 2.6?
on
FreeBSD 5.2 Review
·
· Score: 4, Funny
5.2 is twice as good as 2.6!!!
And they say BSD is dying...ha! Guess we showed them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I got Samba 3.0 running on my SE/30 this weekend. It makes a great little PDC for my single client home network.
Especially if it could be programmed to pull in your favorite local radio station. There are radios that size of a cell phone...why not combine them?
I am willing to pay my fair share, but everyone is paying more than their fair share right now, because the objects being spent on are unfair. Taxation is theft if the services paid for are unjust or completely out of the government's purview. If the government does not have the authority to do something, it does not have the authority to tax me for it, either. Our government is strictly limited by the Constitution. Tell me where the Constitution authorizes government control of education, of agriculture or other land use, of wildlife? How is spending on "art" or charity Constitutional? I object to paying for these things because we did not give government any authority in the Constitution to pay for them on our behalf. If I want art, I will commission it; if I want to help the poor, I will donate; if I want to help a dairy farmer, I will buy his milk. Government does not need to be doing these things! The inefficiency of centralized planning is a large part of what toppled the Soviet Union.
Complaining to representatives of the Democrat and Republican parties does no good, because neither party adheres to Constitutional limitations. They both willingly vote for anything that "sounds like a good idea", i.e. anything that gets them votes at the next election. Again, my gripe is not that I'm taxed too much or someone else too little, it's more that we are not taxed equally, or that we're getting unequal benefit from what we put in. Do you understand? I would complain just as loudly if I were getting off scot-free while others were carrying the tax burden for things I benefit from - there's a moral principle involved. I disagree with the definition of "equality" that is used today, that differs from the one the Founders would have understood. I simply desire the lawmakers of this country to stick to the Constitution as it was originally intended, as they've sworn an oath to do! If they no longer like what it means, amend it - it allows for that. But don't simply ignore it (or redefine the terms, which amounts to the same thing) because it's inconvenient.
Unfortunately we're stuck with a voting method that rewards incumbents and promotes a two-party system. I will continue to protest immoral tax schemes and vote for third parties just as I continue to advocate a better voting method. The people still hold the power, for the moment at least. They just need to have their eyes opened to the injustices of the current system and be educated about alternatives.
Or form my own new one with like-minded people. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." The South was right on this point. Secession was frequently threatened in Congress in the early parts of the 19th century, especially by New England states, and nobody argued that it wasn't a state's right to do so. This was the commonly held belief until Lincoln used federal force to scare people into a different belief.
What is the sign for lizard? That diagram is horrible.
So laws against theft are, for you, completely conditional on how much money the victim has to begin with. If he's rich, go ahead, it won't really "hurt" him as much as it will "help" you, a poor person. Thank you for making this clear. I cannot agree with any definition of compassion that violates someone's rights in the process, whether or not he can better "afford" to have them violated.
Something a friend pointed out to me, from Thomas Sowell.
That's another reason why I can never agree that it's "fair" to tax the rich more. Having capital (money) increases productivity. Capital represents previous work spent acquiring it. Building on previous hard work enables one to be more productive with the same amount of work than building without that foundation.
Since capital represents time working, and all men are created equal, how can we legitimately say that gov't can take 20 minutes of this man's hour, but only 10 minutes of this man's hour? If men are equal, and they own themselves (and therefore their time), then we cannot lay claim to any more of one man's time than any other's. (Further, I would say we cannot rightfully claim any amount of any man's time; it is his time - we cannot steal from him. And that's what laying "first dibs" to a portion of a man's income, the fruit of his labor, is - theft.) Of course, some men are more talented than others, and have giftings and abilities that others don't, that make them more productive than others with what they have...but the inherent value of the man himself is equal to any other. Would you rob 20% of what the crippled leper has? Then why would you rob 20% of what the rich athlete has? These men are equal. To look at them only in terms of their earning capacity is denigrating their fundamental value as human beings.
Some people have physical/mental talents that make them more productive with their time. Others start out with financial/material assets that have the same basic result of greater productivity. Should we handicap the athletes, the scholars, the artists...for the sake of those that don't have those benefits starting out? The two things are equivalent, and if you favor handicapping the rich, why not handicap the talented? (Beginning to sound like Harrison Bergeron, which also had a warped idea of "equality for all".) Everyone hopes to pass on the benefits of their hard work (or dumb luck) to their children. Whether it's money on genetics. If we're going to handicap those that happened to have rich parents and "didn't work for what they have" should we also filter chromosomes to make sure nobody starts out with too large a head start over his peers? They didn't "work for it" either.
Redistributing money equally means you are not distributing human dignity equally. It means you value those you take more away from less than those you take less away from. Making some people more enslaved to government than others is not freedom, nor is it justice.
Not the only circumstance, but the tone of your post sure made it sound that way to me. I didn't respond to your points because I felt the book I recommended did a more thorough job that I could in the short amount of time I have.
Thank you for the recommendation. I'll take a look sometime. I've actually been looking for something like that for awhile, so having a recommendation is nice. Is the writing style fairly informal, or more scholarly?
OK, true. It's not an issue of one man/branch not taking constitutional roles and responsibilities seriously, it's all of them. Congress is just as much at fault as the president.
That's tough when the voting system itself has most people convinced that there are only two "real" choices - and either of those two is as bad as the other. I don't think people are happy with their taxes - I think they're completely frustrated but don't see any way out.
There is a way though. Support your principles and the third parties that stand for them. Support your principles even when you think principle can't win. You can't really lose (because you're not winning anything by putting someone you don't agree with in office), but you might win back your dignity. And push for Condorcet voting while you're at it.
You and whoever marked this insightful really have some kind of grudge against Christianity. That's sad. I've got a reading recommendation for you - and it covers the good and bad (including the tired old Inquisition and witch trials) in case you were going to object on those grounds.
Keep 'em poor and ingratiated to you for the little they do have.
Slavery by another name...
Just because the government currently is working that way doesn't mean that's the way it was designed to work. It was designed, wisely, so that one man cannot commit an entire nation to war. That was the problem with kings...they get their egos wrapped up in it and get people killed as a result. If the people are going to fight and get killed, they deserve a say in it, and that's why Congress has to declare war. Once declared, action needs to be done quickly and decisively, so a single leader acting as commander is the wiser design. Hence the president is C-in-C. (Ever read the Federalist Papers?)
Of course, the fact that most members of Congress ignore principle in favor of keeping themselves in office, and most people are too locked in to the two-party lie to vote them out, is all beside the point.
Sure they are. Yes. Yes. No, that's too complex already.
What about them? Why not; you're selling something of value. Both. What about them? It's only reasonable that you should be able to produce things for your own use without being taxed - else I'd owe Uncle Sam for every action I did, because you have to assume there's value in it for me (else I wouldn't do it), thus I could have paid someone else to do it (and paid tax also) - and that's just ridiculous.
It becomes quite obvious that with too high a tax markup, it becomes impossible to be a small niche provider of some type of goods. It is much more profitable to own the entire supply chain, and manage it under one company. (Ford would own rubber tree farms to get their tires, pigmentation factories to make their paint, build their own electronics for radios, etc.) Whether this is good or bad, I don't know; I'm not an economist. But it seems it would drive small startup companies out of business, and America depends on small businesses starting up to fill new needs. High taxes kill business - period.
Maybe, maybe not. I think a 30% markup would make people think "holy CRAP! it costs THAT MUCH to pay for gov't???" But realize that since tax is paid every time something changes hands, and the cost is going to be passed on, you're paying tax on tax. You're not paying tax just once on the end result product. This will keep the rate lower - though that final price will still be very high.
Those are some legitimate functions, yes. But there are plenty of illegitimate ones, functions that would never have come about if the income tax and automatic withholding hadn't made it so darn easy to steal from citizens.
No, everyone does not benefit from all the things the gov't is currently doing. The (federal) government has constitutional authority to do a number of things (enumerated in A1S8) for the general welfare. But many things it does now are for the specific welfare of certain (special interest) groups.
You can state that, but with no rationale I'm not buying into it. Rationale against income tax.
That's exactly why he should have to pay more. It was his choice to have a family and certainly his right to do so, and it is just as certainly his responsibility to provide for them. One could ask why you are responsible for shouldering the burden when you aren't getting any of the benefits of having a family? Personal responsibility, that's what it's about.
In a world without income tax, you are certainly free to help your friend out, invite him and the family over for dinner, help repair his car, etc. But you do that by choice, not because government is forcing you.
The problem (as I explain in the other post linked above) is that the income taxes are arbitrarily set. They are not tied to financing any specific thing, as a sales/use tax is. (One can relatively safely assume it finances the infrastructure behind providing whatever you just bought.) With government's hand in your pocket, grabbing as much as it feels like, it feels free to finance whatever seems like a good idea at the time. I do not have the freedom to not pay the income tax...I would be thrown in jail. I do have the freedom to not pay the sales tax...I don't buy the item. This is a very salient and important distinction. (The 17th Amendment also conspires in weakening the protection of citizens from the central government, but that's another big issue of its own.)
Why do you consider me the greedy one, when all I want to do is keep (or spend as I choose) what I earned? Isn't that freedom? It is my property - why do you want to take it away, or justify gov't taking it away on your behalf? Rather, aren't you the greedy one (or conspiring with greedy people) to take what I have, something that doesn't belong to you?
And if the money is for me...why not just leave it in my pocket to begin with?! If you believe gov't isn't redistributing wealth to whom it thinks is more "worthy" of things they haven't earned, you're incredibly naive, I'm afraid. I don't trust gov't that much because I know human nature, and politicians and bureaucrats are just as human as the rest of us. That's why we have a limited government, (supposedly) exercising only the powers we have expressly given it, so that those in authority can't abuse that authority to the detriment of others (like you and me). Giving gov't the power to take whatever it wants is a huge risk which I can't state strongly enough. As long as it keeps 51% happy, it can rape the other 49%, and that's what happens.
This has been floating around the net for some years now, maybe you've seen it. It's a good illustration of exactly why a progressively graduated income tax is evil. It's driven by petty jealousy and greed,and those in power to perpetuate the system are masters at inciting class warfare.
I have the inherent right to provide those for myself. I have the right to join together with others to provide those benefits in common. This is a legitimate function of government.
I do not object to legitimate functions of government. I do object to illegitimate functions of government, and illegitimate financing of any function of government. Please do not confuse the issue.
I completely disagree with the rationale that I "owe" government something because without it I wouldn't have gotten to where I have. Baloney. I wasn't born into this world with a debt burden for simply existing. I willingly support those aspects of government that currently offer a benefit - many of which could be done just as well by the private sector. (For instance, private fire or security agencies that I would subscribe to, toll roads built by private companies, etc.) But I'm fine with these services being offered by government, as long as they are efficient. What I object to, and strenuously, is government doing things I do not support, things not for the general welfare but for the specific welfare of individuals or groups, and then compelling me to finance it.
An income tax, automatically deducted from my pay, is arbitrary, compulsory, and offers no accountability. A sales or use tax is voluntary (I decide to buy or use) and is accountable because it will be used to finance the infrastructure behind it.
So when I come over and drive away with your car, don't complain that I "stole" it. You have no "inherent right" to the things you claim to own - right?
I believe government has only the powers that we give it. That's the purpose of a constitutionally-limited government. The Constitution recognizes the fact that We the People are free and sovereign. We delegate government only the powers it needs to keep the peace. Therefore, any right/power that I do not have as an individual, government cannot have either. Since I cannot steal from you or you from me, government cannot steal from us either.
I'd go on but I've said most of what I wanted to elsewhere on this thread.
So you believe that the harder you work and the more successful you are, the less right you have to keep your own money. Interesting that the right to property diminishes with the amount of property possessed. I wasn't aware of that.
Or maybe you're just jealous, greedy, and resentful that others have more than you.
I'd agree that "the rich" should carry a larger portion of public responsibility by virtue of their ability to do so. But don't you think noblesse oblige should be voluntary? Or do you think it is just and right to force people to do things they don't want to, in a country that calls itself "free"? Charity compelled under threat of force is not charity.
How is there room for loopholes? "7% tax on every item sold, except food, clothing, medicine."
That's the beauty of it. It works the same for everyone. It's not an income tax. It's a sales tax. You pay tax on what you buy. You are in control of what you buy. Rich people tend to consume more, both because they have more to spend in the first place and also because a larger share of their income is "disposable", so they pay more. It's self-regulating, and the individual citizen is in control. You would have a direct say in how big your government gets. If you don't want to it to grow, buy on the essentials (food, clothing, medicine) which are exempt from the tax as a matter of principle. If you want democracy, this is it - the free market in action in the political realm.
It's also the most tyrannical. What right does government have to any of my money? I earned it; it is mine. Once you believe gov't has the right to some arbitrary amount of your assets, what prevents it from taking more? Nothing! The amount is at the whim of legislators. You are forced to give up something that by right belongs to you, and if you refuse you are thrown in jail.
Do you believe in private property? Could I walk into your garage and say "I need 5% of your car, so I'll take this tire"? If this sounds ludicrous and idiotic, that's because it is, and that's precisely why this country had no income tax for 140 years.
You cannot give a right to government that you yourself do not possess. If you were my neighbor and you knocked on my door and asked me for $20 to help you pay for medicine (or whatever) you need but can't afford, I might (or might not) give it to you. This is fine. If you knocked on my door, put a gun in my face and demanded $20, you'd be an armed robber. You do not have the right to take my property by force, and neither does the government.
A sales tax sidesteps this issue. If you don't want to pay it, don't buy the goods. The tax is voluntary. Since food, clothing, and medicine are necessary for life, which is also an inherent right and government cannot take part in depriving you of, these items are exempt from the tax.
So ask yourself, what are your motives? What justifies seizing someone else's property? (Because a majority want want the minority has?) What justifies doing so progressively, in a manner that shows favoritism by damaging some more than others? (Because you can count on the votes of the 51% poor to support you giving them freebies?) People say my attitude is "greedy" for just wanting to keep (or dispensing as I choose) what I already have...I think it is truly greedy to want what someone else has.
I have to disagree strongly. Let's abolish all taxes and institute a flat rate sales tax that exempts food, clothing, and medicine. Government has no inherent right to seize my money (no income tax), we should be fair and treat everyone alike (flat rate), but we should simultaneously be humane to the poor (exempting the necessities of life from tax).
Yielding to God's authority and imposing self-control makes it much easier to create a libertarian nation. If control isn't imposed from within, it must be imposed from without, and that way likes authoritarianism. Combined with the fact that Christians believe 1) God gave free will, 2) becoming a Christian (accepting Christ as savior) must be a free choice and not forced conversion, 3) a high respect for human life (as its created in the image of God), and 4) "love your neighbor"/"do unto others..." means that Christianity is very close to the libertarian "live and let live in peace". That's what I was getting at.
Couldn't agree more. Personally I'd like to end automatic withholding (wasn't that supposed to be a temporary WWII measure?) and pay a monthly bill to government. Then people would wake up to how much Uncle Sam is siphoning out of their pockets!
Give me a break. "Corporate taxes" just get passed on in the form of higher prices. Shifting the tax burden to corporations just disguises the taxes. You still pay them in the end.
Better to abolish all income tax. Once you cede government the right to any portion of your income off the top, what stops it from grabbing a greater and greater share? Replace it with a sales tax that exempts necessities of life: food, clothing, medicine. Rationale: government (American anyway) affirms a basic right to life, so while it is not obligated to make life easy for you, it has no business making it harder either. And the exemption automatically takes care of the "but the poor can't afford taxes" argument, since presumably a greater share of their income goes toward necessities.
One simple rate, everybody pays the same. No bizarre rules, no loopholes. No reporting all your personal data to Big Brother every year. Millions of dollars and man-hours of tax preparation saved annually.
I don't think he's trolling, even though he claims he is. It's perfectly true: MA residents had the opportunity to boot the confiscatory income tax. Once you cede government the right to claim any portion of your income off the top, how can you argue when they want more and more of it?
If cutting programs is not an option (and it almost always is) that income could easily be replaced by a sales tax that exempted the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, medicine. Personally, I'd much rather pay a sales tax, as I am in charge of what I buy, than have an income forcibly taken from me with little accountability to how it is spent. The whole notion of withholding is devious, as people pay little attention to how big a chunk of their money the government is taking away. We're conditioned to think in terms of "take home pay" as if government really "deserves" the rest of what we earn. It would make a more honest (bigger) impact if every $10 purchase at the store rang up for $14.27 instead.
One simple rate. Nobody gets special treatment, no loopholes or tax shelters. No griping about corporations not paying "their fair share". It could all be very easy. (Internet sales apply the tax of where the business is located. If your state doesn't like the loss of revenue, adjust the sales tax to be comparable or less, and watch business move in to take advantage.)
I'm amused by people who are irked by "tax cheats". (Whether they are or not depends on the particular situation, but I'm convinced there would be far fewer of them if taxes weren't so burdensome in the first place.) It's like saying, "He's not getting screwed as bad as me!" If you know you're getting screwed, how about fixing things so that nobody gets screwed rather than trying to bring everybody down to your level of misery?
On the contrary, I think "God is watching" translated to "...so government doesn't have to" for many if not most early Americans. Christianity and libertarianism are closely related.
Depends on how good the UA filter on the site is. Opera does something just like that. If the IE test is shoddy, then Opera (spoofing) will look like IE, but it still says "Opera" somewhere in the string.
Another variation that doesn't have either of these problems is to request a non-existent page (www.somesite.com/I_USE_A_COMPLIANT_BROWSER/IT_WOR KS_FINE/PLEASE_LET_ME_IN) so it reports in the 404 log. A decent webmaster ought to be reviewing those, checking for broken links and such.
A(nother) curse on Microsoft for starting the trend of UA spoofing in the first place!
True, sometimes you just need to access an "inaccessible" site, and UA spoofing is a godsend in those cases. However, whenever I'm forced to go to these extremes, I put complaint=I_AM_USING_A_STANDARDS-COMPLIANT_BROWSER _PLEASE_FIX_YOUR_SITE (or something similar) in the query string of my first request.
5.2 is twice as good as 2.6!!!
And they say BSD is dying...ha! Guess we showed them.