I want to be TAXED more, now.

... I really can't help but giggle at people who cry about taxes.. Taxes are not whats busting my ass.. But things like the ridiculous increases in tuition, health care, numerous other expensive services that are increasing far faster than any tax can ever do..

Thats not really communism. Acknowledging that you owe a debt to society is not communism. The Soviet Union wasnt communist. They claimed to be socialist (hell, its in the name) but most socialists wouldnt recognize what they did as socialismDemocratik

:| What debt do I "owe" to society? The government under which I live is constantly spending money they don't have, they're involved in two wars that can't be won, they're hiking up my tuition because they don't understand how to balance a budget without sacrificing the future of their state, and they consistently curb my rights in the name of national security. The society in which I live looks down upon me because I just so happen to be overweight, like anime and video games, prefer to spend my time reading a book to getting drunk in some bar, and am bisexual. If anything, society owes MEa debt.

To TC:

I understand what you're saying. I know where you're going with with this. It's just too bad that money is power in todays world now. And, the people in power aren't really in power.

You're voice is the beginning of the revolution of the free world.

Godspeed Comrade!

All the current methods of goverments are due to fail, especially if money is used in the society. To make a perfect society you need to think of something that is both a comibnation of all and at the same time completely different in other aspects.

To TC:

I understand what you're saying. I know where you're going with with this. It's just too bad that money is power in todays world now. And, the people in power aren't really in power.

You're voice is the beginning of the revolution of the free world.

Godspeed Comrade!

Mikey132

Money is the great corrupter. I am thinking that a state in which there is no money would be better. It would work like this:

All the property is classed and is owned by the government. The hardest working and/or most intelligent get access to the best property.

The direct form of "wealth transfer" are basically little computers which allow the consumer decided how much the state should "reward" the supplier. Example: say you had a bad haircut and you didn't feel like paying the hairdresser a lot, you would select the service that was given to you (aka: normal haircut) and decide from the lower end of the possible amount of (lets call them points for now) that the service provider should get.

So the consumer will-privately-decide how much the service or product provider should get. If the provider was a D-bag or if he was a friend the amount of "points" he gets would greatly differ.

People that worked in dangerous jobs, charity, teaching, government jobs would also have high rewards. It would encourage support from the mostly directly democratic state (using technology it will be possible for anyone who wants to to vote at any time on the big few matters the government is debating on.) Free speech and direct democracy will be the pillars of government. At last a "true" democracy instead of the failed representative democracy which gives you a choice between what is basically 2 people you don't want in government anyways...

Note: this is an extremely short and incomplete summary of how the economy would work in such a state. I just can't be bothered typing in thousand of words one here :( At least you have the gist of what I am saying.

Wouldn't it make more sense to relieve taxes on you, as well as relieve taxes on stores that provide food, and relieve taxes on property and heating that schools must provide? Instead, you want to raise taxes on yourself, and let the government spend money on pork and earmarks.

Yes it does follow. Most libertarians are minarchists. If they believe in providing services via taxation, they do not believe in property rights since a minarchist believes that a certain a mount of your property does not belong to you. All of which is decided by the state. There is no non sequitur. I understand libertarianism quite well. Well enough to know its hypocritical unless its anarcho capitalism.Democratik

No it doesn't. A minarchist would argue that government is both necessary and evil and that the only compromise between the two positions is the smallest amount of government possible. A minarchist consents to relinquish a portion of his property rights for the purpose of retaining the rest of the very same right. (I.E.he agrees to finance the government in return for the protection of his property and life.) Otherwise there is no reason to support a state through which he would be taxed. (For if the state consumes his entire right, then it no longer confers an advantage of security on him because, there is little left to protect. At that point he is either opted out of the state or ceases to consent and is deprived his property through force.) That level of consent by no means implies consent of the removal of the entire right. Rather, only the amount necessary to maintain the security of the rest of the right. There is no logical progression from what essentially is a compromise of an idealist position and a pragmatic one to the consumption of an individual's entire right by the state. Therefore, it does not follow.

As to the other non sequitur: The idea that the government is good at providing force as a measure of security does not necessarily imply that the government is good at providing services in general. One cannot assume that because the government runs police forces, that it would make an effective financier or health care provider. Those are issues that have to be looked upon separately. One cannot infer that varying services should be supported through taxation just because an anecdotal libertarian thinks that armies, one specific government service, should be supported through taxation. Again, it does not follow.

I want to be TAXED more, now.Democratik

Hell no! Hell no!

How about everyone pay 10 percent Flat Tax and call it a day....I'd happily do that......but that will never happen...wird how those that don't actually pay taxes are all for raising them....Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="Democratik"]Thats not really communism. Acknowledging that you owe a debt to society is not communism. The Soviet Union wasnt communist. They claimed to be socialist (hell, its in the name) but most socialists wouldnt recognize what they did as socialismtycoonmike

:| What debt do I "owe" to society? The government under which I live is constantly spending money they don't have, they're involved in two wars that can't be won, they're hiking up my tuition because they don't understand how to balance a budget without sacrificing the future of their state, and they consistently curb my rights in the name of national security. The society in which I live looks down upon me because I just so happen to be overweight, like anime and video games, prefer to spend my time reading a book to getting drunk in some bar, and am bisexual. If anything, society owes MEa debt.

I know I'm late to this thread, but I will say what I have to say: I'm fine with paying taxes and so were the founding fathers. That's why the saying was "No taxation without representation." instead of "No taxation" But take it from a person who has actually had to go through the burden of paying taxes(Something I believe the TC has not done yet) Let me introduce you to the U.S. Tax Code

http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/contents.html

It contains more than 3.4 million words; printed 60 lines to the page and it would fill more than 7500 letter-size pages. Pure government bureaucratic confusion designed so that you'll never know without going through all that where and how your money is being spent and who is spending it. You seem to think the Tax system is flawless and only goes to people who need it the most, but it doesn't. I'm all for providing salaries for teachers, police and firefighters, but more of our money is going to waste full spending and special interest groups. Grow up and smell the coffee.

[QUOTE="Democratik"]

Yes it does follow. Most libertarians are minarchists. If they believe in providing services via taxation, they do not believe in property rights since a minarchist believes that a certain a mount of your property does not belong to you. All of which is decided by the state. There is no non sequitur. I understand libertarianism quite well. Well enough to know its hypocritical unless its anarcho capitalism.Frattracide

No it doesn't. A minarchist would argue that government is both necessary and evil and that the only compromise between the two positions is the smallest amount of government possible. A minarchist consents to relinquish a portion of his property rights for the purpose of retaining the rest of the very same right. (I.E.he agrees to finance the government in return for the protection of his property and life.) Otherwise there is no reason to support a state through which he would be taxed. (For if the state consumes his entire right, then it no longer confers an advantage of security on him because, there is little left to protect. At that point he is either opted out of the state or ceases to consent and is deprived his property through force.) That level of consent by no means implies consent of the removal of the entire right. Rather, only the amount necessary to maintain the security of the rest of the right. There is no logical progression from what essentially is a compromise of an idealist position and a pragmatic one to the consumption of an individual's entire right by the state. Therefore, it does not follow.

As to the other non sequitur: The idea that the government is good at providing force as a measure of security does not necessarily imply that the government is good at providing services in general. One cannot assume that because the government runs police forces, that it would make an effective financier or health care provider. Those are issues that have to be looked upon separately. One cannot infer that varying services should be supported through taxation just because an anecdotal libertarian thinks that armies, one specific government service, should be supported through taxation. Again, it does not follow.

mfp and Snipes, I'm glad that you guys think that a simple "work hard" is the answer to everything. If that were so, then our population and communities would be much more equal than it is, due to the fact that the people to work hard would be evenly interspersed with those that dont. However, that is not the case. We have areas of wealth, and areas that lack wealth. And it has gotten worse since the Reagan administration. Do you think that the declining middle class is the result of people not "working hard"?Engrish_Major

That's not true. Areas that lack wealth are areas of people that didn't get an education (Possibly Illegal Immigrants), or they didn't try hard enough to get themselves out of debt. The declining middle class is because of these taxes you want to increase.

Isn't that way too low? Here in Chicago, we already pay a flat 10.25% sales tax. Property taxes are high as well, and the low end of the income bracket is 20 to 25%.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Isn't that way too low? Here in Chicago, we already pay a flat 10.25% sales tax. Property taxes are high as well, and the low end of the income bracket is 20 to 25%.Omni-Slash

I actually pay 10% tax where I live now. Maybe a little more.

I don't know man, right now the taxes are killing my pay checks.

I don't know man, right now the taxes are killing my pay checks.

gago-gago

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Democratik"]Thats not really communism. Acknowledging that you owe a debt to society is not communism. The Soviet Union wasnt communist. They claimed to be socialist (hell, its in the name) but most socialists wouldnt recognize what they did as socialismDemocratik

:| What debt do I "owe" to society? The government under which I live is constantly spending money they don't have, they're involved in two wars that can't be won, they're hiking up my tuition because they don't understand how to balance a budget without sacrificing the future of their state, and they consistently curb my rights in the name of national security. The society in which I live looks down upon me because I just so happen to be overweight, like anime and video games, prefer to spend my time reading a book to getting drunk in some bar, and am bisexual. If anything, society owes MEa debt.

So then I should support a society that would destroy everything that makes me who I am? Absolutely not. I would rather be ridiculed because at least then I can fight against it. Like it or not, what you're proposing would destroy everything that makes people who they are, including yourself.

To take this argument to its extreme form, would you be willing to give up everything that makes you who you are simply to be fed by a begrudging master? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[QUOTE="gago-gago"]

I don't know man, right now the taxes are killing my pay checks.

Democratik

Then maybe what we need is tax reform, instead of a massive redistribution of wealth?

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Isn't that way too low? Here in Chicago, we already pay a flat 10.25% sales tax. Property taxes are high as well, and the low end of the income bracket is 20 to 25%.Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

:| What debt do I "owe" to society? The government under which I live is constantly spending money they don't have, they're involved in two wars that can't be won, they're hiking up my tuition because they don't understand how to balance a budget without sacrificing the future of their state, and they consistently curb my rights in the name of national security. The society in which I live looks down upon me because I just so happen to be overweight, like anime and video games, prefer to spend my time reading a book to getting drunk in some bar, and am bisexual. If anything, society owes MEa debt.

tycoonmike

So then I should support a society that would destroy everything that makes me who I am? Absolutely not. I would rather be ridiculed because at least then I can fight against it. Like it or not, what you're proposing would destroy everything that makes people who they are, including yourself.

To take this argument to its extreme form, would you be willing to give up everything that makes you who you are simply to be fed by a begrudging master? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="gago-gago"]

I don't know man, right now the taxes are killing my pay checks.

tycoonmike

Then maybe what we need is tax reform, instead of a massive redistribution of wealth?

Huh. I'm assuming you're talking about corporations, roughly 60% of which don't pay any taxes at all?mattbbpl

I actually pay 10% tax where I live now. Maybe a little more.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Democratik"] the original post answered all your questions, and statements.Democratik

So then I should support a society that would destroy everything that makes me who I am? Absolutely not. I would rather be ridiculed because at least then I can fight against it. Like it or not, what you're proposing would destroy everything that makes people who they are, including yourself.

To take this argument to its extreme form, would you be willing to give up everything that makes you who you are simply to be fed by a begrudging master? I sure as hell wouldn't.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Democratik"] the original post answered all your questions, and statements.Democratik

So then I should support a society that would destroy everything that makes me who I am? Absolutely not. I would rather be ridiculed because at least then I can fight against it. Like it or not, what you're proposing would destroy everything that makes people who they are, including yourself.

To take this argument to its extreme form, would you be willing to give up everything that makes you who you are simply to be fed by a begrudging master? I sure as hell wouldn't.

And you've yet to really answer my above statement. I owe society nothing more than I've already given it: I've paid my tuition to SUNY, I've paid to get my car inspected, and I've paid my income tax. They've gotten their twenty pounds of flesh from me, and all society's given me are politicians who listen to lobbyists over their constituents and peers who defame my name simply because I like things that they consider bad. Why should I have to invest any more time, energy, effort, and money into a society that obviously doesn't care than I already have to?

"A minarchist consents to relinquish a portion of his property rights for the purpose of retaining the rest of the very same right." theres a major logical flaw here. Taxes are not optional. If you are forced into taxation the entire idea of property rights being absolute fails. You either have property rights or you dont. If you dont have a right to some of it, to support a state you have none. you are a dog on a long leash. All I said is that it can provide services. Typically you hear people say government cant do anything. This proves that they can do things. This DOES leave the door open to test other things. Empirical evidence suggests that countries with state run healthcare tend to have it better.Democratik

Because we are referring to an ideology and not a specific person, we are assuming that that person consents to exist in that society. In other words we are assuming that this person has had the opportunity to choose to live in a society that incorporates taxation. I suppose I could have explicitly stated that. Though, obviously perfect ideologues don't exist.

Also I think you are making the assumption that rights are endowed to individuals by governments. I doubt many Libertarians have adopted this position. Just because a government decided to initiate force against a person in the form of taxation that person does not lose the right to property. A person might choose to resist the force of taxation. It happens all the time.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Huh. I'm assuming you're talking about corporations, roughly 60% of which don't pay any taxes at all?Omni-Slash

Do you own a home or any other property?

Very interesting. If such a system would work and adequately cover what needs to be covered, I'd be all for that.mattbbpl

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Very interesting. If such a system would work and adequately cover what needs to be covered, I'd be all for that.Omni-Slash

[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

So then I should support a society that would destroy everything that makes me who I am? Absolutely not. I would rather be ridiculed because at least then I can fight against it. Like it or not, what you're proposing would destroy everything that makes people who they are, including yourself.

To take this argument to its extreme form, would you be willing to give up everything that makes you who you are simply to be fed by a begrudging master? I sure as hell wouldn't.

tycoonmike

And you've yet to really answer my above statement. I owe society nothing more than I've already given it: I've paid my tuition to SUNY, I've paid to get my car inspected, and I've paid my income tax. They've gotten their twenty pounds of flesh from me, and all society's given me are politicians who listen to lobbyists over their constituents and peers who defame my name simply because I like things that they consider bad. Why should I have to invest any more time, energy, effort, and money into a society that obviously doesn't care than I already have to?

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] Very interesting. If such a system would work and adequately cover what needs to be covered, I'd be all for that.Omni-Slash

If you had a federal sales tax, you could also have higher tax rates for luxury items. Though such a tax system would remove a lot of power from congress, so I don't think it will ever happen.

[QUOTE="Democratik"]

"A minarchist consents to relinquish a portion of his property rights for the purpose of retaining the rest of the very same right." theres a major logical flaw here. Taxes are not optional. If you are forced into taxation the entire idea of property rights being absolute fails. You either have property rights or you dont. If you dont have a right to some of it, to support a state you have none. you are a dog on a long leash. All I said is that it can provide services. Typically you hear people say government cant do anything. This proves that they can do things. This DOES leave the door open to test other things. Empirical evidence suggests that countries with state run healthcare tend to have it better.Frattracide

Because we are referring to an ideology and not a specific person, we are assuming that that person consents to exist in that society. In other words we are assuming that this person has had the opportunity to choose to live in a society that incorporates taxation. I suppose I could have explicitly stated that. Though, obviously perfect ideologues don't exist.

Also I think you are making the assumption that rights are endowed to individuals by governments. I doubt many Libertarians have adopted this position. Just because a government decided to initiate force against a person in the form of taxation that person does not lose the right to property. A person might choose to resist the force of taxation. It happens all the time.

I'm not collectivist enough, I guess. I want to keep my money so I can make myself happier. Elraptor

Me too.

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not collectivist enough, I guess. I want to keep my money so I can make myself happier. Snipes_2

Me too.

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not collectivist enough, I guess. I want to keep my money so I can make myself happier. Snipes_2

Me too.

I'm not collectivist enough, I guess. I want to keep my money so I can make myself happier. Elraptor

Me too.

Look, IF you want to be taxed to death, by all means, have fun with that. I for one do not want my taxes up to 15%.

That's not true. Areas that lack wealth are areas of people that didn't get an education (Possibly Illegal Immigrants), or they didn't try hard enough to get themselves out of debt. The declining middle class is because of these taxes you want to increase.

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Me too.

mattbbpl

I guess Libertarianism, but even that has some holes.

clubsammich91

[QUOTE="Democratik"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Me too. mattbbpl

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

That's not true. Areas that lack wealth are areas of people that didn't get an education (Possibly Illegal Immigrants), or they didn't try hard enough to get themselves out of debt. The declining middle class is because of these taxes you want to increase.

Engrish_Major

Possibly because the lower end of the "Middle Class" that were getting by, actually had to start working instead of leeching off of society.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Democratik"] Unless you are an anarcho capitalist, you really have no claim to the title individualist.clubsammich91

Look, IF you want to be taxed to death, by all means, have fun with that. I for one do not want my taxes up to 15%.

Snipes_2

Possibly because the lower end of the "Middle Class" that were getting by, actually had to start working instead of leeching off of society.

Snipes_2