Author Topic: The casual attitude towards income taxation  (Read 174432 times)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #350 on: April 12, 2016, 11:31:57 PM »
What do you think you proved here?  Benefits go up as income subject to the tax go up, until you hit a max.  That's the literal definition of proportional.  It's not linearly proportional as discussed above.

Well, I suppose that one woman who received 924 times her own contributions is literally proportional.  I made the mistake of interpreting your comments as "and the benefits have always been [based upon contributions]."  Sorry for giving your statements the benefit of the doubt.  I will try not to assume further.

And people who paid more got more per month.  So yes, it's proportional.

There are a lot of factors that play into this, including retirement income outside of SS. But, in a hypothetical situation where Person A has paid $100,000 into SS and receives $150,000 in benefits and Person B pays $500,000 and receives $300,000 in after-tax benefits?

That's literally not proportional. Person A and Person B are not receiving corresponding benefits based on contribution history.

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to spell out that the monthly payments were proportional.  There's no guarantee about the lifetime payments, because that's not the point of a pension – the point is to provide benefits for the rest of your life.

It still doesn't apply to the particular case I presented, because she received nearly as much every month as she contributed in total.  I presented it as evidence that, right from the start, benefits were not relative to contributions.  Thus, not a pension as we might presume, but an annuitized insurance payout.  Contributions were, right from the start, premiums towards an insured event; in this case either disability or living to 65.  The actual contributions that she paid in were immaterial, but only the fact that she a valid member of the insurance pool & she had attained the required payout conditions.  You can make the case that this is not so anymore, and that would be the other part of my point; that SS was not really intended to be a pension but insurance against disability, with the age of 65 being considered an automatic determination of benefit eligibility; and that it needs to return to that kind of system.  A means test would do that, so would many other reforms.  But SS, as presently funded, is not a workable pension program.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #351 on: April 12, 2016, 11:32:37 PM »
If we institute a use tax for things like roads, should we do the same for the military?  Or the police?  And can you opt out of those taxes, if you want to?  Serious question for winkeyman.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #352 on: April 12, 2016, 11:37:10 PM »
If we institute a use tax for things like roads, should we do the same for the military?  Or the police?  And can you opt out of those taxes, if you want to?  Serious question for winkeyman.

We actually already do have a use tax for public roads.  They are gasoline taxes.  Maintenance of the roads has long been the official reason for gas taxes.  Likewise, most states do function with a use tax for fire & police protection, in the form of county property taxes.  Thus, you contribute relative to the value of what property you have to protect.  This is not a perfect system, but nor is it accidental.  If you don't wish to pay for police or fire protection, you can actually do that; in a tent down by the riverfront.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #353 on: April 12, 2016, 11:42:29 PM »
Another of my analogies, and one that I would hope Mustachians will get: Look at one of many Native American cultures who held deeply respectful attitudes towards nature and the environment. They saw killing an animal as a necessary evil and something to be done as necessary and for good reason, using every part of it. As a result, they didn't go around wiping out animal populations for entertainment. When they killed an animal they might say a prayer and thank it for it's sacrifice.

Europeans came along with a totally different attitude towards nature and the environment. They wiped out animal populations for fun. It's just a buffalo, what's the big deal? Shoot it from the train and leave the carcass! There will always be more! Pass the whiskey and the rifle!

I would argue that the Native American example was the more ethical, healthier and better human-nature relationship.


Off topic but LOL at your 19th century view of the 'noble savage'. There are countless journals of explorers who described riding through waves of putrifying animals or complained of how some tribes would kill numerous buffalo just for their prized tongue.
The extinction of large mammals (horse, mountain deer, tapir, mastodons) were not killed by Europeans but by native americans. The same happened elsewhere wherever humans were present.

Some resources:
"There has also been a tendency to challenge the Pleistocene Overkill hypothesis by those who want to romanticize hunter-gatherers as living perfectly in balance with nature. But new data and discoveries by scientists increasingly confirm that the first Native Americans were indeed responsible for the extinction of these species...very similar patterns of extinction of megafauna occurred in Australia when humans first colonized that continent; this extinction event, however, did not coincide with a period of climate change"
source: http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/moyle/ch2/

http://www.uwyo.edu/surovell/pdfs/extinction%20encyclopedia.pdf Extinctions of Big Game

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/Supplement_1/11543.full Megafauna biomass tradeoff as a driver of Quaternary and future extinctions

Okay, back to your tax debate. I just succumbed to some race-baiting.
Maybe your analogy is better framed as you are proposing a system which, like historic conservation of large fauna, has not ever been demonstrated but is still subject to fanaticism.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 11:47:47 PM by JZinCO »

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #354 on: April 13, 2016, 06:03:15 AM »
There is a whole lot wrong with this post, but this part is just too wrong to gloss over...



Third, and perhaps most important, is that your fundamental assumptions here are inconsistent. Rights are in a very real sense are zero sum. The more rights made universal, the more rights I lose myself (however small the loss). Your example of murder - by making life a universal right, I remove someone's right to do whatever they want, in this case taking your life should I want. It seems obvious in this situation that it is a better result for society for everyone to give up their right to kill others in order to have a society which values their individual lives.


All that follows I ignored, because it's all based upon a flawed premise.  First, you can't make a 'right' universal, even with the consent of all people.  A right either is, or is not.   A right is discovered, not created.  This much should be self-evident (as stated as such in the Declaration of Independence), but even if it is not, it remains a fundamental founding principle of the United States, and by virtue of replication, much of the modern 'Western' nations.  It's also reflected in the Magna Carta, so it's not like the founders & framers were pulling this premise out of their asses.

Second, the benefits of liberty; i.e. the exercise of one's rights within the constraints of the rights of others, is not a zero sum game.  The social benefits of rights are in the exercising; but I can't enjoy my own liberties without respecting the liberties of my peers.  As the old saw goes, my right to swing a stick ends at my neighbor's nose.  At no point has there ever been a 'right' to murder, for my neighbor's right to life (because he own's himself, and I have no claim on his person) predates us both (even if it might not be an ancient & eternal right) and is equal to my own.  Likewise, such rights as they are, are also dependent upon reciprocity.  If I were to ignore my neighbor's right to life, and attempt to kill him (without just cause, let us assume); whether successful or not, I have no claim to a right to life myself.

No one has decreed life a right, it simply is.  And yes, it's pretty universal.

The fact that you are making this argument is precisely my point.

Some rights are so universally accepted in that it is completely understood that losing some individual freedom in order to facilitate those rights as a society is normal, good, and mutually beneficial. However that does not invalidate my premise, it merely affirms that in many cases it is completely ok to sacrifice some individual freedom/liberty for the sake of a cohesive society.

You can make the argument that you never had the freedom/liberty to kill your neighbor. But that also means that you have accepted that by entering into a society you lose some ability to do whatever you want and are accepting of the restriction on your ability to what you can do completely freely. Just because using this example essentially everyone would be willing to make the 'trade' does not mean it is not present.

Now if you want to argue semantics that sacrificing some "liberty" in order to claim a Right does not make Rights a zero sum game, sure. But I don't think this is what you are attempting to claim here.

And even so, if the Right to life is to be upheld above everything else, there are still times when that right will be forfeit in a government state. Situations such as armed robbery, or otherwise aggression. Is the Right to life so universal and self evident that no one (not even the police) should be able to shoot and kill an armed robber? What about a mass gunman? Clearly not. But that further supports what I am saying.

We can again argue semantics, but the bottom line is that any functioning society has determined times and situations where Rights/liberties are forfeit (regardless of how fundamental and self-evident they are or where they originate from), for the sake of societal cohesion.

And to top this all off the example being discussed in this thread (a Right to all the profit of your labor without taxation) does not fit the case where it is universally agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of people living in 2016 as being self-evident.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #355 on: April 13, 2016, 06:22:32 AM »
As to other comments justifying anything and everything with the "Democracy" and "Social Contract" arguments.

Government, including democracies, are created by people. Therefor, governments cannot rightfully have rights or powers that people do not have. Full Stop.

Lets take a look at those 10 people from our previous example. Lets say they decide to form an association of some kind. Let's call it a democratic government.

The reason they decide to do this is because they live in a loose-knit community of farmers. They have been experiencing a string of night time sheep thefts from people outside their community. They decide it would be easier to assign one volunteer per night to patrol the community on the look out for sheeptheives than it is for all 10 of them to stay up all night guarding their farms. For this purpose they create a Constabulary where volunteers patrol the community at night.

It is perfectly correct for them to make such an arrangement. Each individual in the group has the right prevent the theft of their sheep. Therefor, they have the right to assign that responsibility to the Government they have created. They have created a "social contract" of sorts. They could also have the Constable be on the look out for fires and other such things.

Now lets say they decide to hire a full-time Constable for this purpose. To pay for it, they get the idea of placing a small tax of 1 sheep per year on each member of the community. Of the 10 people, 6 of the people in the community (including the potential full-time Constable, naturally) are in favor, 4 are against.

It is not correct for them to create such a tax. No individual in the group has the right to confiscate any of their neighbor's property. Because no individual in the group has this right, they cannot assign this power to some Government they have created. How can a group of people assign a power to a Government if none of them have it to begin with? Creating an imaginary entity called Government does not and can not create new rights or powers that people do not possess.

For the same reason, it is correct for people to create a Police force to prevent murder in their community. Each person in the community has the right to prevent murder. Therefor they can assign the responsibility to prevent murder to the Government. They still, however, retain the right to prevent murder as individuals. It is NOT correct for people to create a Police force and assign it the power to prevent the reading of the Koran. No individual has the right to prevent their fellow from reading the Koran, so how could they possibly assign a power they do not possess to a police force?

Let's say the 10 hypothetical people in the community voluntarily agree to institute a tax for one year, to support a full-time Constable for one year. This would be correct. However, it would not be correct for them to create a tax in perpetuity that would support a full time constable in perpetuity and hold all human beings that may ever inhabit the community to this "social contract" in perpetuity. A person can enter into a temporary agreement for themselves. A person can also enter into an agreement that lasts the rest of their life. They cannot, however enter into an agreement that their children and grandchildren must adhere to simply because they are born within an arbitrary geographical boundary.

You cannot vote to turn a wrong into a right. An imaginary social contract cannot make a wrong into a right. All the verbal ju-jitsu in the world cannot make income taxes voluntary. All I am proposing is that we try to look at things through a clear and unclouded ethical lens. You say that a world without income taxes would be worse than a world with them? Fine. You say that democracy is more practical and workable than a more ethical system of volunteerism? Fine. That's not my point. All I am asking is that we are to go forward with taxing incomes, and forcing people to bend to the tyranny of the majority, etc, because it is more PRACTICAL than the alternatives, we don't PRETEND that it is our entitled due because of invented concepts like democracy and social contracts.

Every time you pass a law, it is likely that the police will kill someone in the course of enforcing it.
Every time you levy a tax, you are laying claim to the labor of another free human being.

So please, is it too much to ask that people treat these concepts with a little more respect?


TLDL Version:

Democracy should rightly be viewed as an imaginary, created institution through which the majority UNRIGHTFULLY FORCES the minority to bend to their will. However, it may be the best system we can come up with so it needs to be done, a necessary evil. When viewed this way, it is my belief that people will treat the passing of laws and taxes with due caution and respect.

Modern people see democracy as a system whereby the majority have every right to force the minority to bend to their will because of mental gymnastics, social contracts, and doublespeak. Because of this, the majority feels empowered to do whatever the hell it wants, pas whatever taxes and laws it wants, and if you complain you are a degenerate who needs to sit down and shut up. Better luck next election cycle, losers.

First, no one here is arguing that there is any "entitlement" whereby a government can simply take whatever they want. That is a strawman argument you are rebutting.

If anything, people are suggesting that because some percentage of their income is directly derived from the presence of the society they live in that taxes on that income are fair. If income is created in a vacuum of society you are correct - it would be unethical to tax it directly. However income is not created in a vacuum, it is created within the framework of a society/government which overwhelmingly has provided a clear and direct influence on making that income have value.

If it was possible to separate your ability to create income from the framework provided by the government and society you live in, then I do agree with your premise - taxation at that point is not ethical. But the problem is that in your trivial examples, you can clearly separate the benefit from the cost. Your constable could simply only patrol the six flocks who have paid. The others could simply be "free for the taking" while they either decide to defend themselves separately (or contribute to paying the constable).

I cannot separate my income and properly attribute it to the various sources in order to make similar claims currently.

A second point is most countries are not technically democracies, but democratic republics. Arguing against the evils or perils of democracy is not technically correct. Keep in mind a democratic republic is different than democracy. Also, whether by intention or design, you are basically implying the only form of government which is moral is complete anarchy and/or a .

Third, and perhaps most important, is that your fundamental assumptions here are inconsistent. Rights are in a very real sense are zero sum. The more rights made universal, the more rights I lose myself (however small the loss). Your example of murder - by making life a universal right, I remove someone's right to do whatever they want, in this case taking your life should I want. It seems obvious in this situation that it is a better result for society for everyone to give up their right to kill others in order to have a society which values their individual lives.

You are emphatically basing this argument on how we have fundamental and inherent rights we have (whether a right to life or to the fruits of your labor). Your entire argument boils down to the following assumption:
  • A primary and fundamental right is the right to keep money you earn, above all else

Anyone who disagrees with this underlying premise will find your conclusions difficult to arrive at, particularly the bold claim that it is "unethical" to tax income. The reason it is inconsistent is because the justification for "why" we have various rights (right to property, right to life, etc) is completely because you have arbitrarily decided and assigned this to be the basis for society. What makes your interpretation more correct than mine, or someone else's?

Quote
Therefor, governments cannot rightfully have rights or powers that people do not have

This is simply not true and another fundamental assumption you are making which is incorrect. A simple example would be the ability to declare war. As an individual, I do not have the right to declare war (and in fact your argument is pretty clearly based on the right to life would affirm this). However many instances exist where it makes complete sense for a federal government to have this power, if only in self defense.

Another would be diplomatic relationships with other nationstates. As an individual, I cannot represent the nationstate I am a part of internationally pretty much by definition. Are diplomatic relationships unethical?

There are plenty of instances where a collective society/nationstate/government can have power that an individual does not have.

People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

People have the right to negotiate, discuss, and make deals with others. AKA diplomacy. Therefor they have the right to delegate this this work to a government to represent them collectively. AKA diplomacy. So no, on it's face diplomacy itself is not unethical. It could certainly be used in an unethical way, however.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #356 on: April 13, 2016, 07:02:35 AM »

People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

People have the right to negotiate, discuss, and make deals with others. AKA diplomacy. Therefor they have the right to delegate this this work to a government to represent them collectively. AKA diplomacy. So no, on it's face diplomacy itself is not unethical. It could certainly be used in an unethical way, however.
You make this sound simple, when in reality it rarely is. What happens when two groups of people lay claim to the same parcel of land?  Neither can be 'given' the land without it being 'stolen' from the other. What one side sees as defense of its natural borders another sees as oppression and hostility.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #357 on: April 13, 2016, 07:06:10 AM »

People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

People have the right to negotiate, discuss, and make deals with others. AKA diplomacy. Therefor they have the right to delegate this this work to a government to represent them collectively. AKA diplomacy. So no, on it's face diplomacy itself is not unethical. It could certainly be used in an unethical way, however.
You make this sound simple, when in reality it rarely is. What happens when two groups of people lay claim to the same parcel of land?  Neither can be 'given' the land without it being 'stolen' from the other. What one side sees as defense of its natural borders another sees as oppression and hostility.

Agreed. Also there is no ownership of tea property in a Hobbesian world. You can draw your borders or tell people it's yor property or kill them when they come on it, but you can't own real property without a government to recognize it.  Personal property seems different, although larger persona property might have similar issues.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #358 on: April 13, 2016, 07:11:08 AM »
What do you think you proved here?  Benefits go up as income subject to the tax go up, until you hit a max.  That's the literal definition of proportional.  It's not linearly proportional as discussed above.

Well, I suppose that one woman who received 924 times her own contributions is literally proportional.  I made the mistake of interpreting your comments as "and the benefits have always been [based upon contributions]."  Sorry for giving your statements the benefit of the doubt.  I will try not to assume further.

And people who paid more got more per month.  So yes, it's proportional.

There are a lot of factors that play into this, including retirement income outside of SS. But, in a hypothetical situation where Person A has paid $100,000 into SS and receives $150,000 in benefits and Person B pays $500,000 and receives $300,000 in after-tax benefits?

That's literally not proportional. Person A and Person B are not receiving corresponding benefits based on contribution history.

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to spell out that the monthly payments were proportional.  There's no guarantee about the lifetime payments, because that's not the point of a pension – the point is to provide benefits for the rest of your life.

It still doesn't apply to the particular case I presented, because she received nearly as much every month as she contributed in total. 

Sure it does.  People who retired after her who contributed more got higher (monthly) benefits.

Quote
I presented it as evidence that, right from the start, benefits were not relative to contributions.  Thus, not a pension as we might presume, but an annuitized insurance payout.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.  What's the difference between a pension and an annuitized insurance payout as you see it?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #359 on: April 13, 2016, 07:16:20 AM »

People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

People have the right to negotiate, discuss, and make deals with others. AKA diplomacy. Therefor they have the right to delegate this this work to a government to represent them collectively. AKA diplomacy. So no, on it's face diplomacy itself is not unethical. It could certainly be used in an unethical way, however.
You make this sound simple, when in reality it rarely is. What happens when two groups of people lay claim to the same parcel of land?  Neither can be 'given' the land without it being 'stolen' from the other. What one side sees as defense of its natural borders another sees as oppression and hostility.

When it is not simple, is when politics and diplomacy become important.

Let's say we have a scenario where two groups of people disagree over the ownership of land, or water rights, or whatever.

In version X of this scenario, both groups hold the deeply held belief that people have rights inherent rights and progress with that in mind.

In version Y, one or both parties don't believe that the other has any rights whatsoever, and they are entitled to take whatever they want as long as they can do so with force or arms or with 51 percent of a vote.

Which version, X or Y, do you think would result in better outcomes?

This is the problem we have here with taxation.

X scenario: If all parties agree that people rightly own themselves and the products of their labor, we can enter into politics and figure out who to tax and how much and for what. This scenario will likely lead to good, fair, and equitable outcomes.

Y scenario: If some parties DO NOT agree that people rightly own themselves and the products of their labor, and we enter into politics regarding taxation, we are likely to have bad, unfair, and inequitable outcomes.

We are currently living out the Y version, and it sucks. Many people (typically but not always on the Left) don't believe I truly own my own life or the fruits of my labor. This is evidenced by several statements in this thread. Statements by GiutarSTV stand out in this regard.

I would like people to re-evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and the relationships involved in order to have more of an X scenario in the future.

MandyM

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Location: Lexington, KY
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #360 on: April 13, 2016, 07:27:36 AM »
I would like people to re-evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and the relationships involved in order to have more of an X scenario in the future.

I have re-evaluated and I still don't agree with you. So...mission accomplished?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #361 on: April 13, 2016, 07:42:22 AM »

X scenario: If all parties agree that people rightly own themselves and the products of their labor, we can enter into politics and figure out who to tax and how much and for what. This scenario will likely lead to good, fair, and equitable outcomes.
...
I would like people to re-evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and the relationships involved in order to have more of an X scenario in the future.

Here's where I completely loose you winkeyman.  Several times I've asked you variations of the following question:
"Let's just make the assumption of X - what do you propose changing?"

Every time I've asked this you respond with some version of "that's not the point of this thread!!"  Yet you keep saying you want use to accept this assumption so that we can "figure out who to tax and how much and for what".



winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #362 on: April 13, 2016, 07:43:18 AM »
I would like people to re-evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and the relationships involved in order to have more of an X scenario in the future.

I have re-evaluated and I still don't agree with you. So...mission accomplished?

Fair enough. I promise not to try and force you to bend to my will. I would ask you not to try to force me to bend to yours, but I am assuming that won't do any good.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #363 on: April 13, 2016, 07:53:44 AM »

X scenario: If all parties agree that people rightly own themselves and the products of their labor, we can enter into politics and figure out who to tax and how much and for what. This scenario will likely lead to good, fair, and equitable outcomes.
...
I would like people to re-evaluate their attitudes towards taxation and the relationships involved in order to have more of an X scenario in the future.

Here's where I completely loose you winkeyman.  Several times I've asked you variations of the following question:
"Let's just make the assumption of X - what do you propose changing?"

Every time I've asked this you respond with some version of "that's not the point of this thread!!"  Yet you keep saying you want use to accept this assumption so that we can "figure out who to tax and how much and for what".

I have answered this question multiple times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change that fact. I have stated over, and over, and over again in this thread:

I think we should tax as little as possible, and then only for things that cannot be achieved in other ways.

I think we should apply use taxes whenever possible, such as tolls.

I think we should use income taxes only if absolutely necessary, and with regret, and with respect for the people we are wronging with this taxation.

What we have today is an atmosphere permeated with an attitude that income taxation is a good thing in its own right, for all kinds of reasons. To discourage behaviors, to promote behaviors, to punish people, to pay for every ridiculous program any crazy person can dream up. We are only limited in the amount of tax we levy by the votes we can get to raise them, rather than feeling constrained by any principles. There is an attitude that your life, and your labor and the fruits of it do not belong to you, they belong to Society, and that Society has first claim on them. Anything you get to keep is at the pleasure of Society and you should feel lucky to be allowed half of your income. Anyone who complains is labeled a whineypants degenerate who isn't willing to shoulder his fair share of the burden. Pay up and shut up, you privileged white heterosexual males!

This attitude has no room for the rights of individuals, and no respect for human dignity. It is truly terrible.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #364 on: April 13, 2016, 08:14:21 AM »
Here's where I completely loose you winkeyman.  Several times I've asked you variations of the following question:
"Let's just make the assumption of X - what do you propose changing?"

Every time I've asked this you respond with some version of "that's not the point of this thread!!"  Yet you keep saying you want use to accept this assumption so that we can "figure out who to tax and how much and for what".

I have answered this question multiple times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change that fact. I have stated over, and over, and over again in this thread:

I think we should tax as little as possible, and then only for things that cannot be achieved in other ways.

I think we should apply use taxes whenever possible, such as tolls.

I think we should use income taxes only if absolutely necessary, and with regret, and with respect for the people we are wronging with this taxation.


This is far more of an answer than you have been willing to give previously.  For example, here was our last exchange (one of at least three in this thread)

Thank you.

I am interested in and willing to have a conversation with you about how to best implement these ideals in the modern world and within nations of 10s or 100s of millions of people. I am not interested in talking about taxation with someone who thinks my life doesn't belong to me or who thinks I am only "allowed to keep" whatever portion of the fruits of my labor 51 percent of the population permits me.

I don't know how many different people have to ask you this in how many different ways, but...
If income taxes are off the table for you, what methods do you find to be acceptable?

Once again, that is not the point of this thread. The title says "The casual attitude towards income taxation." The point of my post was to try to get people who ( I presumed) believe that each person rightfully owns their own life and property to apply that attitude towards income taxes.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #365 on: April 13, 2016, 08:18:06 AM »
People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Since all property rights in the US are based on stealing the land from the original natives living in the area, are they null and void?

[Mod Edit: Quote tags.]
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 08:24:58 AM by arebelspy »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #366 on: April 13, 2016, 08:24:11 AM »
X scenario: If all parties agree that people rightly own themselves and the products of their labor, we can enter into politics and figure out who to tax and how much and for what. This scenario will likely lead to good, fair, and equitable outcomes.

I do agree with that underlined part.

Yet I don't find income taxes immoral, because even though people own themselves and their labor, they agree to give part of their labor as part of being in a society. And then we enter the politics part where they vote on deciding who to tax and how much and for what (the rest of the underlined sentence).

I agree with it, yet I still think taxes should be higher.

Now we can enter into the politics part of which taxes, where, and why.  But just believing your "people should own themselves" idea, it doesn't necessarily follow that income taxes are immoral.  Nor does it mean they're at too high of a level.

I don't think the government has a right to my labor, a priori.  But I do think they should get some, as a moral stance, in order to better society.  I should (and am) be willing to give some up, and anyone benefiting from the system should likewise, or they are the immoral ones.

Of course I want to minimize taxes, as much as possible.  But I also want the things they provide, most especially help for those that need it.  So within those conflicting things, I'm okay upping taxes, to the minimum amount we need to, in order to accomplish those things.

FWIW, I agree with all three of these:
Here's where I completely loose you winkeyman.  Several times I've asked you variations of the following question:
"Let's just make the assumption of X - what do you propose changing?"

Every time I've asked this you respond with some version of "that's not the point of this thread!!"  Yet you keep saying you want use to accept this assumption so that we can "figure out who to tax and how much and for what".

I have answered this question multiple times. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't change that fact. I have stated over, and over, and over again in this thread:

I think we should tax as little as possible, and then only for things that cannot be achieved in other ways.

I think we should apply use taxes whenever possible, such as tolls.

I think we should use income taxes only if absolutely necessary, and with regret, and with respect for the people we are wronging with this taxation.


Yet STILL think taxes should be higher.  Because it's a tradeoff, and I think we're BELOW the "tax as little as possible, only for things that can't be achieved other ways."  :)

There are benefits to society that are NOT being achieved in other ways (e.g. people are not "donating" to solve them), so we need to tax more, while keeping it as minimal as possible.

...and we're into the politics part.

But your beliefs don't follow from your premises--one can agree with your premises and come to different conclusions.  That's, as you say, politics.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 08:27:49 AM by arebelspy »
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #367 on: April 13, 2016, 10:32:39 AM »
Winkeyman,

Welcome back and thank you for your reply.

Your example regarding 10 people with 1 starving leads me to believe my summary or your position is correct;  that they are trying to select the least unethical behavior.  Please let me know if that is not correct. 

A disagree with you on the idea that those in this community do not  take the issue seriously or are being casual.  There are 8 pages that I feel prove that; more than I thought there would be, and many new approaches to the topic than I could have thought of before I read them all.  Thank you all.

At one point, you wrote:  “My whole point in my original post is that (seemingly) most people on this board and in the world at large DO NOT see taxation as unethical. As a result, they do not take the power to tax seriously. People have been conditioned to see taxation as Normal and Good in it's own right.”

This paragraph of yours made me think of the idea of freedom.  I equate taxation as a cost (or payment) for freedom.  I do not believe that freedom can or should come without responsibility.  That responsibility need be “paid” in some way.  We currently have chosen taxes to do that.  We used to have conscription, but no more.  We used to ration food to feed the troops.  We agree to follow rule of law (I know this one could spark debate by itself).
 
If you believe like I that with freedom comes responsibility, then how can freedom itself be ethical?  In other words, how is that obligation met.  Just being born in the US gives one a huge array of freedoms.  Many of these have been mentioned these past 8 pages.

If giving time is a degree of slavery, and money is time, then what else is there to pay the responsibility of freedom, and how can it be done ethically?  If freedom truly is a “debt”, how can it be ethically be paid?

I find this a much different question than the “if not income, then how would you tax” opinions you and many others are tired of writing and reading.  I hope you agree.




winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #368 on: April 13, 2016, 11:23:19 AM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?

What if the majority said:

"Paying 99 percent income tax is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Converting to Christianity is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Serving a 10-year term as a conscript is the price you pay..."
"Working a year in forced labor camps is the price you pay..."

I know I am being somewhat hyperbolic, but seriously, what (or should) constrains the type and extent of sacrifices "society" can make of the individual?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #369 on: April 13, 2016, 11:31:32 AM »
People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Since all property rights in the US are based on stealing the land from the original natives living in the area, are they null and void?

Still curious about this, especially since you said it was so simple.  How do you define ownership of land?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #370 on: April 13, 2016, 11:43:00 AM »
People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Since all property rights in the US are based on stealing the land from the original natives living in the area, are they null and void?

Still curious about this, especially since you said it was so simple.  How do you define ownership of land?

Seriously? Let's say they are. Then are those property rights null and void because those "natives" stole the land from the previous "natives"?

This is just an attempt to de-rail. It is not an answerable question.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #371 on: April 13, 2016, 11:48:10 AM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?


I think the guiding principles SHOULD be "what kind of societal services do we want" and from there we determine how we can pay for those services in the most fair and low cost manner possible.

Unfortunately, I think this gets completely lost in most discussions on taxes from both sides.  For example, the constant refrain that "taxes must be lower" isn't useful in and of itself.  Suppose we cut taxes by 20% but we became even less efficient at spending the remaining revenue and we had a 50% reduction in services- most would not consider that a 'good' outcome.  on the other hand, calls to increase taxes on the rich or increase the tax base are similarly going about it wrong IMO.  "Who's paying taxes and in what proportion" is secondary to the question "what are our taxes for?" Likewise, 'how can we eliminate or reduce fraud' is simply a question about methods; it doesn't address the fundamental questions about taxation at all.

Currently we set all these various taxes at whatever level is politically appropriate and then try to fund out government with the revenue that comes in. This might mean state sales taxes at x%, tax brackets of A,B & C and sin taxes of ___. The budget is formed always with an eye to how much it will add or subtract from this amount (the deficit).   

A different approach would be to discuss which programs we were going to have and at what cost, and then attempt to generate tax rates that will give us as close to that amount of money as possible.  It would be a completely different approach and to my knowledge no modern government works this way.It's even backwards to the way most people think about budgeting.  Excluding micro-FIRE planners, very few people decide they want to spend $30k next year and then go out to earn about that much money.  Instead we, as humans, are given a salary, and typically we spend more or all of that salary (sometimes more, sometimes we're smart and save some $).

neo von retorch

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4918
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #372 on: April 13, 2016, 11:48:59 AM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?

What if the majority said:

"Paying 99 percent income tax is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Converting to Christianity is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Serving a 10-year term as a conscript is the price you pay..."
"Working a year in forced labor camps is the price you pay..."

I know I am being somewhat hyperbolic, but seriously, what (or should) constrains the type and extent of sacrifices "society" can make of the individual?

I'd like to fully understand the alternate, where there are no (or very little) taxes. Would anything be missing from that world that would affect individual productivity and individual wages?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #373 on: April 13, 2016, 11:51:18 AM »
People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Since all property rights in the US are based on stealing the land from the original natives living in the area, are they null and void?

Still curious about this, especially since you said it was so simple.  How do you define ownership of land?

Seriously? Let's say they are. Then are those property rights null and void because those "natives" stole the land from the previous "natives"?

This is just an attempt to de-rail. It is not an answerable question.

No, I'm trying to point out a fundamental problem with your initial assertion.  If "People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people" then either the current land owners do have the right to steal their land from the original owners (and are occupying their land wrongly), or the original owners should have some claim to the land.

Not so simple, is it?  How do you support current claims of property ownership when they're based on theft?  If you choose to support current claims, how many years after the land is stolen do we wait until it's not considered bad to steal any more?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #374 on: April 13, 2016, 12:03:49 PM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?


I think the guiding principles SHOULD be "what kind of societal services do we want" and from there we determine how we can pay for those services in the most fair and low cost manner possible.

Unfortunately, I think this gets completely lost in most discussions on taxes from both sides.  For example, the constant refrain that "taxes must be lower" isn't useful in and of itself.  Suppose we cut taxes by 20% but we became even less efficient at spending the remaining revenue and we had a 50% reduction in services- most would not consider that a 'good' outcome.  on the other hand, calls to increase taxes on the rich or increase the tax base are similarly going about it wrong IMO.  "Who's paying taxes and in what proportion" is secondary to the question "what are our taxes for?" Likewise, 'how can we eliminate or reduce fraud' is simply a question about methods; it doesn't address the fundamental questions about taxation at all.

Currently we set all these various taxes at whatever level is politically appropriate and then try to fund out government with the revenue that comes in. This might mean state sales taxes at x%, tax brackets of A,B & C and sin taxes of ___. The budget is formed always with an eye to how much it will add or subtract from this amount (the deficit).   

A different approach would be to discuss which programs we were going to have and at what cost, and then attempt to generate tax rates that will give us as close to that amount of money as possible.  It would be a completely different approach and to my knowledge no modern government works this way.It's even backwards to the way most people think about budgeting.  Excluding micro-FIRE planners, very few people decide they want to spend $30k next year and then go out to earn about that much money.  Instead we, as humans, are given a salary, and typically we spend more or all of that salary (sometimes more, sometimes we're smart and save some $).

I see what your saying. But I disagree that we should just go off of "what kind of services do we want."

If that is the guiding principle, then society is only constrained by what 51 percent of the population WANTS.

"We" want a large, strong, full-time professional military. Therefor we will institute conscription for all males.
"We" want an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave welfare system. Therefor we will tax "the rich" 75 percent.

This philosophy does not respect the individual at all. It leaves the individual at the mercy of the majority. The individual just has to hope and pray that the majority doesn't decide that "we" WANT something that will walk all over his life, liberty, and property.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #375 on: April 13, 2016, 12:09:01 PM »
This philosophy does not respect the individual at all. It leaves the individual at the mercy of the majority. The individual just has to hope and pray that the majority doesn't decide that "we" WANT something that will walk all over his life, liberty, and property.

This is exactly the argument the Kremlin made for decades about the evils of democracy and capitalism.  You're not a closet pinko, are you?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #376 on: April 13, 2016, 12:21:47 PM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?


I think the guiding principles SHOULD be "what kind of societal services do we want" and from there we determine how we can pay for those services in the most fair and low cost manner possible.

Unfortunately, I think this gets completely lost in most discussions on taxes from both sides.  For example, the constant refrain that "taxes must be lower" isn't useful in and of itself.  Suppose we cut taxes by 20% but we became even less efficient at spending the remaining revenue and we had a 50% reduction in services- most would not consider that a 'good' outcome.  on the other hand, calls to increase taxes on the rich or increase the tax base are similarly going about it wrong IMO.  "Who's paying taxes and in what proportion" is secondary to the question "what are our taxes for?" Likewise, 'how can we eliminate or reduce fraud' is simply a question about methods; it doesn't address the fundamental questions about taxation at all.

Currently we set all these various taxes at whatever level is politically appropriate and then try to fund out government with the revenue that comes in. This might mean state sales taxes at x%, tax brackets of A,B & C and sin taxes of ___. The budget is formed always with an eye to how much it will add or subtract from this amount (the deficit).   

A different approach would be to discuss which programs we were going to have and at what cost, and then attempt to generate tax rates that will give us as close to that amount of money as possible.  It would be a completely different approach and to my knowledge no modern government works this way.It's even backwards to the way most people think about budgeting.  Excluding micro-FIRE planners, very few people decide they want to spend $30k next year and then go out to earn about that much money.  Instead we, as humans, are given a salary, and typically we spend more or all of that salary (sometimes more, sometimes we're smart and save some $).

I see what your saying. But I disagree that we should just go off of "what kind of services do we want."

If that is the guiding principle, then society is only constrained by what 51 percent of the population WANTS.

"We" want a large, strong, full-time professional military. Therefor we will institute conscription for all males.
"We" want an all-encompassing cradle-to-grave welfare system. Therefor we will tax "the rich" 75 percent.

This philosophy does not respect the individual at all. It leaves the individual at the mercy of the majority. The individual just has to hope and pray that the majority doesn't decide that "we" WANT something that will walk all over his life, liberty, and property.

I don't think it's accurate to say that  it's constrained only by what 51% of the population wants - particularly when it comes to a representative democracy like ours. The entire strength of our government is that it also protects minority populations. As much as we hear otherwise, it's hard to get things passed simply down party lines - particularly since our '2-party system' means that even within the party there's a great variety of opinions and values.  Most legislation becomes compromises and bartered agreements.  "____ is really important to my people, so I'm willing to budget on ____ to get it".  etc. etc.

In sum - it isn't the will of 51%.  It's agreements that a much, much larger portion of society have decided they can live with.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #377 on: April 13, 2016, 12:23:36 PM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?

What if the majority said:

"Paying 99 percent income tax is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Converting to Christianity is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Serving a 10-year term as a conscript is the price you pay..."
"Working a year in forced labor camps is the price you pay..."

I know I am being somewhat hyperbolic, but seriously, what (or should) constrains the type and extent of sacrifices "society" can make of the individual?

Ah, now THIS is a conversation worth having.

Where you draw the line is, like you said, politics.  And why we have different political parties.

Unfortunately, right now we have two copies of the same party, when it comes to spending.

I wish we didn't have a two-party system.

However it may just be the case that in a democracy the majority eventually just votes themselves everyone else's money anyways, and a democracy is...less than ideal, for a Galt's Gulch type scenario.

It's the worst form of government, aside from all the others.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #378 on: April 13, 2016, 12:24:03 PM »

In sum - it isn't the will of 51%.  It's agreements that a much, much larger portion of society have decided they can live with.

Agreed.  That seems like a straw man argument.  It would work in a direct democracy that voted on everything every year, but we have never had that.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #379 on: April 13, 2016, 12:29:57 PM »
In response to the comments from arbelspy and radrem along the lines of "taxes are the price we pay to live in society."

Ok, fine, let's say we take this for granted.

My question is, where does it end?

In your opinion, what restrains or should restrain this idea that you must pay some price to live in a given society? Are there ANY principles that guide it or just what the majority votes for?

What if the majority said:

"Paying 99 percent income tax is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Converting to Christianity is the price you pay for living in this society."
"Serving a 10-year term as a conscript is the price you pay..."
"Working a year in forced labor camps is the price you pay..."

I know I am being somewhat hyperbolic, but seriously, what (or should) constrains the type and extent of sacrifices "society" can make of the individual?

I'd like to fully understand the alternate, where there are no (or very little) taxes. Would anything be missing from that world that would affect individual productivity and individual wages?

The alternate?

The alternative to forcing people to convert to Christianity is allowing them to practice their own religion. Inconvenient at times, perhaps,s but the right thing to do.
The alternative to forcing people to serve in a conscript military is enticing them to join voluntarily. Inconvenient at times, but still the right thing to do.
The alternative to forcing people to work in labor camps for free, against their will? Entice them to work voluntarily. Inconvenient, but the right thing to do.

In the past, societies had no problem with forced conversion, conscription, forced labor of various types. When people proposed ending those practices, status-quo types asked "Well what is the alternative!?" That's beside the point. Ending those practices was the right thing to do. End the bad practice and let the rest sort itself out.

Western societies tax the income of people at rates of 20, 40, 50 percent or even higher. This practice should end, because it is the right thing to do. The alternative is funding government services in other ways. Tolls, use taxes, voluntary contributions, etc. Or even cutting services if those more equitable methods won't fund certain services. Ending the practice is the important part, practical alternatives are secondary.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #380 on: April 13, 2016, 12:39:12 PM »

Western societies tax the income of people at rates of 20, 40, 50 percent or even higher. This practice should end, because it is the right thing to do.

Is that the 'right' thing to do?  I'm not convinced. I haven't bought into your argument that if 50% is "too much/wrong/oppressive" that 20% must also be, just to a lesser degree.

neo von retorch

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4918
  • Location: SE PA
    • Fi@retorch - personal finance tracking
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #381 on: April 13, 2016, 12:47:06 PM »
The alternative is funding government services in other ways. Tolls, use taxes, voluntary contributions, etc.

Are there any services that would suffer without "compulsory" taxes? For example, would our national defense be weakened to a dangerous level?

I can see things like education, infrastructure, retirement and health care working as private industries. Whether they'd work well and to our advantage, rather than being corrupted by being necessary services might be another debate.

But I do believe in our modern age, there is a high potential for issues if we give up on having a national defense. (Though I do believe ours may be considered both excessive and internally overreaching in nature.)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #382 on: April 13, 2016, 12:52:21 PM »

Western societies tax the income of people at rates of 20, 40, 50 percent or even higher. This practice should end, because it is the right thing to do.

Is that the 'right' thing to do?  I'm not convinced. I haven't bought into your argument that if 50% is "too much/wrong/oppressive" that 20% must also be, just to a lesser degree.

If 8 years of forced conscription is wrong, so is 4, so is 2. Period.
If 365 days a year of forced labor is so is 200, or 100. Period.
If 99 or 50 percent income tax is wrong, so is 20 percent. Period.

However, if you show evidence that without a temporary Conscription Act for 2 year periods, our society will be wiped out by invading hordes, we might conclude that it is the lesser of 2 evils. If you show evidence that without a short, temporary period of forced labor to fix the nearby dam, it will collapse and we will all drown, we might conclude it is the lesser of 2 evils.

But with taxation, people seem to not see it as wrong at all. So they feel no need to prove some overwhelming need for it. They feel no need to have any respect for the people paying the taxes. All they feel the need for is "I think we should pay for everyone to go to college for free. We can get the votes for it, rich people have lots of money they don't deserve, so why not?"

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #383 on: April 13, 2016, 12:58:00 PM »
The alternative is funding government services in other ways. Tolls, use taxes, voluntary contributions, etc.

Are there any services that would suffer without "compulsory" taxes? For example, would our national defense be weakened to a dangerous level?

I can see things like education, infrastructure, retirement and health care working as private industries. Whether they'd work well and to our advantage, rather than being corrupted by being necessary services might be another debate.

But I do believe in our modern age, there is a high potential for issues if we give up on having a national defense. (Though I do believe ours may be considered both excessive and internally overreaching in nature.)

Ok, you could make an argument for that. We put a flat 0.2 percent income tax on everyone in America to fund a small, professional, voluntary, strictly defensive force. Even though taxing income is wrong, the outcome of not having any national defense would likely be worse. So we levy a very small income tax earmarked for national DEFENSE (actual defense).

This is exactly the sort of compromise that would/should be made if we lived in a society that had a rational view on income taxes. Instead, we tax people as much as we can get away with and spend it on tons of ridiculous nonsense. Because people have a casual attitude towards income tax, hence the thread.

ETA: Seriously, none of this is even touching on the truth of what income taxation and government services really is: vote buying.

Step 1: Institute Social Security
Step 2: Using the monetary system, tax and legal code, encourage behaviors that will encourage people not to save.
Step 3: People reach retire with little/no savings, and dependent on SS.
Step 4: Whoever promises to maintain/increase SS benefits the most will win the election.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 01:17:00 PM by winkeyman »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #384 on: April 13, 2016, 01:17:22 PM »

Western societies tax the income of people at rates of 20, 40, 50 percent or even higher. This practice should end, because it is the right thing to do.

Is that the 'right' thing to do?  I'm not convinced. I haven't bought into your argument that if 50% is "too much/wrong/oppressive" that 20% must also be, just to a lesser degree.

If 8 years of forced conscription is wrong, so is 4, so is 2. Period.
If 365 days a year of forced labor is so is 200, or 100. Period.
If 99 or 50 percent income tax is wrong, so is 20 percent. Period.

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this, and I can't agree on the absoluteness of your statements.  Not everything that is bad at one level is bad, just to a lesser degree, at another level. I certainly don't agree that it is inherently wrong for a high earning individual to have to pay an income tax of 20%. This is basically the "dose makes the poison" argument (sola dosis facit venenum).
2g of ibuprofen will fry your liver, but 200mg will can alleviate swelling and pain
20 nights a month of socializing at bars can mean bankruptcy and alcoholism, but 2 nights yields social connections

Or you could make the converse arguments:
if 900µg of Vitamin A is good for you, 90,000µg must also be good (actually, it's toxic)
If making love to your partner once a day is good, making love 10x a day must be 10x as good (blisters, dehydration)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #385 on: April 13, 2016, 01:22:11 PM »

Western societies tax the income of people at rates of 20, 40, 50 percent or even higher. This practice should end, because it is the right thing to do.

Is that the 'right' thing to do?  I'm not convinced. I haven't bought into your argument that if 50% is "too much/wrong/oppressive" that 20% must also be, just to a lesser degree.

If 8 years of forced conscription is wrong, so is 4, so is 2. Period.
If 365 days a year of forced labor is so is 200, or 100. Period.
If 99 or 50 percent income tax is wrong, so is 20 percent. Period.

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this, and I can't agree on the absoluteness of your statements.  Not everything that is bad at one level is bad, just to a lesser degree, at another level. I certainly don't agree that it is inherently wrong for a high earning individual to have to pay an income tax of 20%. This is basically the "dose makes the poison" argument (sola dosis facit venenum).
2g of ibuprofen will fry your liver, but 200mg will can alleviate swelling and pain
20 nights a month of socializing at bars can mean bankruptcy and alcoholism, but 2 nights yields social connections

Or you could make the converse arguments:
if 900µg of Vitamin A is good for you, 90,000µg must also be good (actually, it's toxic)
If making love to your partner once a day is good, making love 10x a day must be 10x as good (blisters, dehydration)

Lol you paint a pretty gruesome picture there.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #386 on: April 13, 2016, 01:34:25 PM »
What if you made shoes for a living, and every time you sold a pair of shoes, you had to charge a 10% tax on the shoes? If not for this tax, you could receive 10% more, which would be an even higher percentage of profit. How is the morality of this, different than income tax?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #387 on: April 13, 2016, 01:35:33 PM »

Western societies tax the income of people at rates of 20, 40, 50 percent or even higher. This practice should end, because it is the right thing to do.

Is that the 'right' thing to do?  I'm not convinced. I haven't bought into your argument that if 50% is "too much/wrong/oppressive" that 20% must also be, just to a lesser degree.

If 8 years of forced conscription is wrong, so is 4, so is 2. Period.
If 365 days a year of forced labor is so is 200, or 100. Period.
If 99 or 50 percent income tax is wrong, so is 20 percent. Period.

Sorry, I don't agree with you on this, and I can't agree on the absoluteness of your statements.  Not everything that is bad at one level is bad, just to a lesser degree, at another level. I certainly don't agree that it is inherently wrong for a high earning individual to have to pay an income tax of 20%. This is basically the "dose makes the poison" argument (sola dosis facit venenum).
2g of ibuprofen will fry your liver, but 200mg will can alleviate swelling and pain
20 nights a month of socializing at bars can mean bankruptcy and alcoholism, but 2 nights yields social connections

Or you could make the converse arguments:
if 900µg of Vitamin A is good for you, 90,000µg must also be good (actually, it's toxic)
If making love to your partner once a day is good, making love 10x a day must be 10x as good (blisters, dehydration)

Lol you paint a pretty gruesome picture there.
well, disagreements aside I"m trying to keep this as lighthearted as possible.
Point is - many things that are harmful or wrong at high levels are helpful at low levels.  It can be unethical at one extreme but just at another.

Papa bear

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1838
  • Location: Ohio
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #388 on: April 13, 2016, 01:46:51 PM »
The alternative is funding government services in other ways. Tolls, use taxes, voluntary contributions, etc.

Are there any services that would suffer without "compulsory" taxes? For example, would our national defense be weakened to a dangerous level?

I can see things like education, infrastructure, retirement and health care working as private industries. Whether they'd work well and to our advantage, rather than being corrupted by being necessary services might be another debate.

But I do believe in our modern age, there is a high potential for issues if we give up on having a national defense. (Though I do believe ours may be considered both excessive and internally overreaching in nature.)

Ok, you could make an argument for that. We put a flat 0.2 percent income tax on everyone in America to fund a small, professional, voluntary, strictly defensive force. Even though taxing income is wrong, the outcome of not having any national defense would likely be worse. So we levy a very small income tax earmarked for national DEFENSE (actual defense).

This is exactly the sort of compromise that would/should be made if we lived in a society that had a rational view on income taxes. Instead, we tax people as much as we can get away with and spend it on tons of ridiculous nonsense. Because people have a casual attitude towards income tax, hence the thread.

ETA: Seriously, none of this is even touching on the truth of what income taxation and government services really is: vote buying.

Step 1: Institute Social Security
Step 2: Using the monetary system, tax and legal code, encourage behaviors that will encourage people not to save.
Step 3: People reach retire with little/no savings, and dependent on SS.
Step 4: Whoever promises to maintain/increase SS benefits the most will win the election.


I dislike the use of the word "rational" to define your thinking on taxation.  As if anyone that doesn't think your way has defied logic and is irrational.  I think most of these arguments have been carefully thought out and have used logic and reasoning to base their conclusions. 

Argue the morality or ethics of the tax, but not the rationality of ones thinking.  Everyone can use logic and reasoning to come to their own conclusions, even with identical inputs. They will still be "rational."

Claiming that your viewpoint is the rational one will not help your cause to have civil discourse on the subject. 

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #389 on: April 13, 2016, 01:59:27 PM »
...
ETA: Seriously, none of this is even touching on the truth of what income taxation and government services really is: vote buying.

Step 1: Institute Social Security
Step 2: Using the monetary system, tax and legal code, encourage behaviors that will encourage people not to save.
Step 3: People reach retire with little/no savings, and dependent on SS.
Step 4: Whoever promises to maintain/increase SS benefits the most will win the election.

If you are claiming that people vote based at least on part for which levels of taxation and services they agree with, I concur...and I'd add that's how a democracy is supposed to work.

If you're trying to make the point that proposals to increase taxes yield more votes - that seems to contradict the election rhetoric for the last 30+ years.   "No new taxes" and arguments to "privatize SS" or "eliminate every word of Obamacare" or "lower everyone's tax rate" etc. etc.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #390 on: April 13, 2016, 02:01:58 PM »
There is a whole lot wrong with this post, but this part is just too wrong to gloss over...



Third, and perhaps most important, is that your fundamental assumptions here are inconsistent. Rights are in a very real sense are zero sum. The more rights made universal, the more rights I lose myself (however small the loss). Your example of murder - by making life a universal right, I remove someone's right to do whatever they want, in this case taking your life should I want. It seems obvious in this situation that it is a better result for society for everyone to give up their right to kill others in order to have a society which values their individual lives.


All that follows I ignored, because it's all based upon a flawed premise.  First, you can't make a 'right' universal, even with the consent of all people.  A right either is, or is not.   A right is discovered, not created.  This much should be self-evident (as stated as such in the Declaration of Independence), but even if it is not, it remains a fundamental founding principle of the United States, and by virtue of replication, much of the modern 'Western' nations.  It's also reflected in the Magna Carta, so it's not like the founders & framers were pulling this premise out of their asses.

Second, the benefits of liberty; i.e. the exercise of one's rights within the constraints of the rights of others, is not a zero sum game.  The social benefits of rights are in the exercising; but I can't enjoy my own liberties without respecting the liberties of my peers.  As the old saw goes, my right to swing a stick ends at my neighbor's nose.  At no point has there ever been a 'right' to murder, for my neighbor's right to life (because he own's himself, and I have no claim on his person) predates us both (even if it might not be an ancient & eternal right) and is equal to my own.  Likewise, such rights as they are, are also dependent upon reciprocity.  If I were to ignore my neighbor's right to life, and attempt to kill him (without just cause, let us assume); whether successful or not, I have no claim to a right to life myself.

No one has decreed life a right, it simply is.  And yes, it's pretty universal.

The fact that you are making this argument is precisely my point.


If you believe that is remotely true, then you really don't know what I'm talking about, and all of this must sound entirely foreign to your mind.

Quote
Some rights are so universally accepted in that it is completely understood that losing some individual freedom in order to facilitate those rights as a society is normal, good, and mutually beneficial. However that does not invalidate my premise, it merely affirms that in many cases it is completely ok to sacrifice some individual freedom/liberty for the sake of a cohesive society.


You misunderstand.  Whatever liberties that I must surrender to live within a free society that respects my rights, were never rights to begin with.  For example, you might be "free" to jump up on the deli counter and piss on the food, as in physically capable of doing so, but you never had the right.

Quote
Now if you want to argue semantics that sacrificing some "liberty" in order to claim a Right does not make Rights a zero sum game, sure. But I don't think this is what you are attempting to claim here.
"Rights" require their mutual recognition.   When that generally occurs, it's not zero sum; it's net positive sum.  For thousands of years, such rights were not mutually recognized, and humanity got what it deserved out of that.
Quote
During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. ]To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues. No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.


-Thomas Hobbes


Quote
And even so, if the Right to life is to be upheld above everything else, there are still times when that right will be forfeit in a government state. Situations such as armed robbery, or otherwise aggression. Is the Right to life so universal and self evident that no one (not even the police) should be able to shoot and kill an armed robber? What about a mass gunman? Clearly not. But that further supports what I am saying.
No.  It further supports what I have been saying.  The free man only has his rights so long as he is willing & able to respect the rights of others.  The police officer doesn't shoot the armed robber as punishment; he does so in defense of his own right to life when threatened, because the armed robber has, and continues to, display a lack of respect for the rights of others unmolested, including life.  Your view of how societies actually work isn't wrong, your understanding of why it is that way is flawed.  You will find, should you endeavor to correct your misunderstandings, that the concept of rights flows from the premise that true law, as opposed to political law or statue, is universal and discoverable. In an ideal world, statues simply reflect true law, and define details about how society will respond to violations.  This change in worldview will affect how you see everything.

Quote

We can again argue semantics, but the bottom line is that any functioning society has determined times and situations where Rights/liberties are forfeit (regardless of how fundamental and self-evident they are or where they originate from), for the sake of societal cohesion.

Society cannot make such a determination for me.  It can, at most, offer me concessions in return for my voluntary compliance; but such an agreement is always conditional & temporal.  The passing of regulations & statues does not change this.

Quote
And to top this all off the example being discussed in this thread (a Right to all the profit of your labor without taxation) does not fit the case where it is universally agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of people living in 2016 as being self-evident.

Again, you misunderstand.  Rights exist whether or not the majority agrees with them or not.  Rights may be regularly violated by a society, and many often are even in many nations today; but life is not always fair, and even that doesn't necesarily mean your rights are being violated.  If you would like to have a deeper discussion about what rights actually are, I'm willing.  But I get the impression that there are many in this thread for whom the concept is foreign to them; and they, instead, have come to believe that privileges and/or courtesies are rights.  Such a side topic would be lengthy, and likely difficult for many here to grok.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #391 on: April 13, 2016, 02:23:58 PM »
There is a whole lot wrong with this post, but this part is just too wrong to gloss over...



Third, and perhaps most important, is that your fundamental assumptions here are inconsistent. Rights are in a very real sense are zero sum. The more rights made universal, the more rights I lose myself (however small the loss). Your example of murder - by making life a universal right, I remove someone's right to do whatever they want, in this case taking your life should I want. It seems obvious in this situation that it is a better result for society for everyone to give up their right to kill others in order to have a society which values their individual lives.


All that follows I ignored, because it's all based upon a flawed premise.  First, you can't make a 'right' universal, even with the consent of all people.  A right either is, or is not.   A right is discovered, not created.  This much should be self-evident (as stated as such in the Declaration of Independence), but even if it is not, it remains a fundamental founding principle of the United States, and by virtue of replication, much of the modern 'Western' nations.  It's also reflected in the Magna Carta, so it's not like the founders & framers were pulling this premise out of their asses.

Second, the benefits of liberty; i.e. the exercise of one's rights within the constraints of the rights of others, is not a zero sum game.  The social benefits of rights are in the exercising; but I can't enjoy my own liberties without respecting the liberties of my peers.  As the old saw goes, my right to swing a stick ends at my neighbor's nose.  At no point has there ever been a 'right' to murder, for my neighbor's right to life (because he own's himself, and I have no claim on his person) predates us both (even if it might not be an ancient & eternal right) and is equal to my own.  Likewise, such rights as they are, are also dependent upon reciprocity.  If I were to ignore my neighbor's right to life, and attempt to kill him (without just cause, let us assume); whether successful or not, I have no claim to a right to life myself.

No one has decreed life a right, it simply is.  And yes, it's pretty universal.

The fact that you are making this argument is precisely my point.


If you believe that is remotely true, then you really don't know what I'm talking about, and all of this must sound entirely foreign to your mind.

Quote
Some rights are so universally accepted in that it is completely understood that losing some individual freedom in order to facilitate those rights as a society is normal, good, and mutually beneficial. However that does not invalidate my premise, it merely affirms that in many cases it is completely ok to sacrifice some individual freedom/liberty for the sake of a cohesive society.


You misunderstand.  Whatever liberties that I must surrender to live within a free society that respects my rights, were never rights to begin with.  For example, you might be "free" to jump up on the deli counter and piss on the food, as in physically capable of doing so, but you never had the right.

Quote
Now if you want to argue semantics that sacrificing some "liberty" in order to claim a Right does not make Rights a zero sum game, sure. But I don't think this is what you are attempting to claim here.
"Rights" require their mutual recognition.   When that generally occurs, it's not zero sum; it's net positive sum.  For thousands of years, such rights were not mutually recognized, and humanity got what it deserved out of that.
Quote
During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. ]To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues. No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.


-Thomas Hobbes


Quote
And even so, if the Right to life is to be upheld above everything else, there are still times when that right will be forfeit in a government state. Situations such as armed robbery, or otherwise aggression. Is the Right to life so universal and self evident that no one (not even the police) should be able to shoot and kill an armed robber? What about a mass gunman? Clearly not. But that further supports what I am saying.
No.  It further supports what I have been saying.  The free man only has his rights so long as he is willing & able to respect the rights of others.  The police officer doesn't shoot the armed robber as punishment; he does so in defense of his own right to life when threatened, because the armed robber has, and continues to, display a lack of respect for the rights of others unmolested, including life.  Your view of how societies actually work isn't wrong, your understanding of why it is that way is flawed.  You will find, should you endeavor to correct your misunderstandings, that the concept of rights flows from the premise that true law, as opposed to political law or statue, is universal and discoverable. In an ideal world, statues simply reflect true law, and define details about how society will respond to violations.  This change in worldview will affect how you see everything.

Quote

We can again argue semantics, but the bottom line is that any functioning society has determined times and situations where Rights/liberties are forfeit (regardless of how fundamental and self-evident they are or where they originate from), for the sake of societal cohesion.

Society cannot make such a determination for me.  It can, at most, offer me concessions in return for my voluntary compliance; but such an agreement is always conditional & temporal.  The passing of regulations & statues does not change this.

Quote
And to top this all off the example being discussed in this thread (a Right to all the profit of your labor without taxation) does not fit the case where it is universally agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of people living in 2016 as being self-evident.

Again, you misunderstand.  Rights exist whether or not the majority agrees with them or not.  Rights may be regularly violated by a society, and many often are even in many nations today; but life is not always fair, and even that doesn't necesarily mean your rights are being violated.  If you would like to have a deeper discussion about what rights actually are, I'm willing.  But I get the impression that there are many in this thread for whom the concept is foreign to them; and they, instead, have come to believe that privileges and/or courtesies are rights.  Such a side topic would be lengthy, and likely difficult for many here to grok.

+1

I think we are mostly on the same wavelength.

My purpose here was not to convince people to stop violating the rights of their fellows. I know that's not a winning battle. My purpose here was to try to get people to understand that a lot of the things society does (income taxes, conscription, etc) are in fact violations of rights, and therefor are wrong. Maybe if people consider at least the POSSIBILITY that income taxes are violating people's rights, they would be less ready to impose them and spend the proceeds frivolously.

In past eras, conscription was used often and frivolously because society did not see anything wrong with conscription. The conscripts had no inherent rights, so there was no reason not to conscript them as often as society wanted, other than practical considerations (farms need tending after all).

In more modern eras, people took a new attitude towards conscription. Society started viewing prospective conscripts as having inherent rights of their own. So conscription was seen as distasteful, imposed less, and then only at great need.

I think it is appropriate to view taxation the same way. Society should see it as distasteful, imposed less, and only at great need. I honestly expect people to be more receptive to that angle. But apparently they aren't either because they don't seem to believe taxpayers have rights, or they have convinced themselves that they are paying taxes voluntarily, or because of some social contract or another.

"I'm fine with paying income taxes, therefor there is nothing wrong with income taxes" seems to be the general attitude here.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #392 on: April 13, 2016, 02:39:10 PM »


It still doesn't apply to the particular case I presented, because she received nearly as much every month as she contributed in total. 

Sure it does.  People who retired after her who contributed more got higher (monthly) benefits.


In some cases (not all, and not most for some years) , but they did not receive higher monthly benefits because they had a higher total contribution.  Those who closely followed Ada, did not receive higher monthly benefits as a rule, and those that managed a non-negligible higher monthly benefit did so for reasons unrelated to their total contributions.  Therefore, those early SS payouts were not proportional to contributions, but (at best, loosely) proportional to their regular premium rate; i.e. what we would today call their FICA.  It was simply membership in good standing that mattered, not an individual's contributions.
Quote
Quote
I presented it as evidence that, right from the start, benefits were not relative to contributions.  Thus, not a pension as we might presume, but an annuitized insurance payout.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.  What's the difference between a pension and an annuitized insurance payout as you see it?

A pension is designed from the start, primarily, as delayed compensation for labor; and typically has some process for crediting the member for their many years of labor, that is being compensated for.  Most pensions try to increase member benefits through savings & investing, but we can ignore that part for now.  This is pretty much what the bulk of the non-disability portion of SS does today, ignoring any form of effective investment or growth process.

An insurance product seeks to protect the member from the downside risks of one (or more) specific events.  In the case of SS in 1940; that specific event was loss of the ability to continue in current work, by either due to a disabling event/accident or simply due to old age, wherein the standard qualifying event was living to 65 years of age.  At that time, no one could simultanously work past 65 and claim SS; it was one or the other.

My claim is that SS originally protected against poverty as a direct consequences of loss of the (reasonable & practical) ability to work, in a time & place that paid work usually referred to actual labor, not work that a typical 65 year old could reasonably be expected to perform for 40 hours each week.  The SS system at that time, as far as I know, did not really take into consideration the means of members as they reached 65; but the rate was also very low. According to the inflation calculator at savings.org, Ada's monthly benefits would only be worth about $390 today.  I'm not sure that you could qualify for a rate this low today at all, but if you could, it would be because you worked not much more than the required 10 years, and probably at minimum wage the entire time.  I'm sure that there is a calculator somewhere that would tell us how little work would work out to $390 per month. 

We could return to this state in a number of ways; we could add a means test, thus considering the net worth of the member and/or pension income; we could reduce both the 'cap' and the payout rate, so that the current system of qualifying simply protected against poverty for everyone over a certain age (i.e. elderly minimum income); or we could raise the qualifying age to one more appropriate to the modern health expectations of seniors as well as the modern nature of paid work.  Or we could do some combination of these things.  But SS cannot survive in it's current state, whether you might think you are entitled or not.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #393 on: April 13, 2016, 02:54:35 PM »
People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Since all property rights in the US are based on stealing the land from the original natives living in the area, are they null and void?


I'm not going to claim that this kind of thing never happened.  It did.  But for the most part, it's a myth.  There were very distinct cultural differences between the American Native 'Indians' East of the Mississippi River from those tribes West of the Plains.  Those West of the Plains didn't have a compatible belief in land ownership, while those along the Eastern coast mostly did.  The Iroquois nations were farmers, not nomadic hunter/gatherers.  However, the populations of the Eastern tribes were also rather sparse; so there were whole swaths of unclaimed country that early European settlers could homestead without conflicts, and later for which they traded for.  This is how the vast majority of real property was acquired by settlers of the original 13 colonies, not by conquest.

And don't forget, GuitarStv, we've had similar conversations about this before.  I have a greater claim to all of Ottawa, if it simply comes down to whomever's ancestors got to this continent first.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #394 on: April 13, 2016, 02:56:50 PM »
What if you made shoes for a living, and every time you sold a pair of shoes, you had to charge a 10% tax on the shoes? If not for this tax, you could receive 10% more, which would be an even higher percentage of profit. How is the morality of this, different than income tax?

Could you?  Are you certain?  This is not an established economic fact.  Be careful how you argue this point.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #395 on: April 13, 2016, 03:09:50 PM »
People have the right to defend themselves. So they have the right to delegate the power and responsibility for fighting a self-defensive war to a government that represents them

People do not have the right to steal land owned by other people. Therefor a government representing them has no right to wage a war to conquer and annex territory.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Since all property rights in the US are based on stealing the land from the original natives living in the area, are they null and void?


I'm not going to claim that this kind of thing never happened.  It did.  But for the most part, it's a myth.  There were very distinct cultural differences between the American Native 'Indians' East of the Mississippi River from those tribes West of the Plains.  Those West of the Plains didn't have a compatible belief in land ownership, while those along the Eastern coast mostly did.  The Iroquois nations were farmers, not nomadic hunter/gatherers.  However, the populations of the Eastern tribes were also rather sparse; so there were whole swaths of unclaimed country that early European settlers could homestead without conflicts, and later for which they traded for.  This is how the vast majority of real property was acquired by settlers of the original 13 colonies, not by conquest.

And don't forget, GuitarStv, we've had similar conversations about this before.  I have a greater claim to all of Ottawa, if it simply comes down to whomever's ancestors got to this continent first.
Um... I'm going to let someone else touch the "native American land taking thing is mostly a myth" rail.

I've got a question about the taking of land much more recently in Quebec. Since the french were defeated by the British in 1760 Quebec was populated by largely french speaking individuals but ruled predominately by the english speaking british.  This continued through the formation of Canada up until the silent revolution of the 1960s & 70s. For roughly 200 years the government and church had been taking money from poor french citizens and using it to reward the largely english speaking middle class. Then with the silent revolution land and assets were taken and given 'back' to the (largely) french speaking individauls and communities.  Problem was, several generations had passed, and what was given 'back' to the french canadians was being taken from the english canadians who's parents and grandparents had been born, lived and died there.

I have no idea how that situation should have been handled, but I know that it left a lot of people feeling cheated from the whole arrangement.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #396 on: April 13, 2016, 03:25:23 PM »

I have no idea how that situation should have been handled, but I know that it left a lot of people feeling cheated from the whole arrangement.

I don't know, either.  Sometimes there simply isn't a good solution.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #397 on: April 13, 2016, 03:52:34 PM »


It still doesn't apply to the particular case I presented, because she received nearly as much every month as she contributed in total. 

Sure it does.  People who retired after her who contributed more got higher (monthly) benefits.


In some cases (not all, and not most for some years) , but they did not receive higher monthly benefits because they had a higher total contribution.  Those who closely followed Ada, did not receive higher monthly benefits as a rule, and those that managed a non-negligible higher monthly benefit did so for reasons unrelated to their total contributions.  Therefore, those early SS payouts were not proportional to contributions, but (at best, loosely) proportional to their regular premium rate; i.e. what we would today call their FICA.  It was simply membership in good standing that mattered, not an individual's contributions.

If you're saying that the first few years of beneficiaries did not need 10 years of contributions to receive benefits, then I agree with you.  But benefits were always increased in wages earned after 1936 up to the cap: https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/crsleghist2.html

Quote
Quote
Quote
I presented it as evidence that, right from the start, benefits were not relative to contributions.  Thus, not a pension as we might presume, but an annuitized insurance payout.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here.  What's the difference between a pension and an annuitized insurance payout as you see it?

A pension is designed from the start, primarily, as delayed compensation for labor; and typically has some process for crediting the member for their many years of labor, that is being compensated for.  Most pensions try to increase member benefits through savings & investing, but we can ignore that part for now.  This is pretty much what the bulk of the non-disability portion of SS does today, ignoring any form of effective investment or growth process.

An insurance product seeks to protect the member from the downside risks of one (or more) specific events.  In the case of SS in 1940; that specific event was loss of the ability to continue in current work, by either due to a disabling event/accident or simply due to old age, wherein the standard qualifying event was living to 65 years of age.  At that time, no one could simultanously work past 65 and claim SS; it was one or the other.

My claim is that SS originally protected against poverty as a direct consequences of loss of the (reasonable & practical) ability to work, in a time & place that paid work usually referred to actual labor, not work that a typical 65 year old could reasonably be expected to perform for 40 hours each week.  The SS system at that time, as far as I know, did not really take into consideration the means of members as they reached 65; but the rate was also very low. According to the inflation calculator at savings.org, Ada's monthly benefits would only be worth about $390 today.  I'm not sure that you could qualify for a rate this low today at all, but if you could, it would be because you worked not much more than the required 10 years, and probably at minimum wage the entire time.  I'm sure that there is a calculator somewhere that would tell us how little work would work out to $390 per month. 

Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying.  You're arguing that because Social Security now pays out benefits at full retirement age even if you have wages, it's a pension whereas if you didn't have wages it would be an insurance benefit, because you weren't able to work.  Is that right? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to argue for the sake of arguing)

Quote
We could return to this state in a number of ways; we could add a means test, thus considering the net worth of the member and/or pension income; we could reduce both the 'cap' and the payout rate, so that the current system of qualifying simply protected against poverty for everyone over a certain age (i.e. elderly minimum income); or we could raise the qualifying age to one more appropriate to the modern health expectations of seniors as well as the modern nature of paid work.  Or we could do some combination of these things.  But SS cannot survive in it's current state, whether you might think you are entitled or not.

Social Security can also survive by increasing the taxes (increasing the benefits can be incorporated as well if desired).  I think that's more socially desirable than making it a "welfare" program for those unable to provide a retirement otherwise.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #398 on: April 13, 2016, 04:38:43 PM »

Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying.  You're arguing that because Social Security now pays out benefits at full retirement age even if you have wages, it's a pension whereas if you didn't have wages it would be an insurance benefit, because you weren't able to work.  Is that right? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to argue for the sake of arguing)


Close enough.

Quote
Quote
We could return to this state in a number of ways; we could add a means test, thus considering the net worth of the member and/or pension income; we could reduce both the 'cap' and the payout rate, so that the current system of qualifying simply protected against poverty for everyone over a certain age (i.e. elderly minimum income); or we could raise the qualifying age to one more appropriate to the modern health expectations of seniors as well as the modern nature of paid work.  Or we could do some combination of these things.  But SS cannot survive in it's current state, whether you might think you are entitled or not.

Social Security can also survive by increasing the taxes (increasing the benefits can be incorporated as well if desired).  I think that's more socially desirable than making it a "welfare" program for those unable to provide a retirement otherwise.

This part is a maybe in my opinion.  It's true mathematically, but not necessarily true practically.  Between the tax burdens of both the employer & employee (a mental trick anyway, it all comes from the employee), it sums up to be about 14% of gross wages (give or take due to particulars, such as exempt benefits such as health care insurance premiums or HSA contributions).  For most people working today, it's the largest single tax they pay, and it's largely unavoidable.  Even if increases in this rate prove to be politically palatable, the economic harm may yet prove to be too much for the economy to bear.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: The casual attitude towards income taxation
« Reply #399 on: April 13, 2016, 06:35:39 PM »
Again, you misunderstand.  Rights exist whether or not the majority agrees with them or not.  Rights may be regularly violated by a society, and many often are even in many nations today; but life is not always fair, and even that doesn't necesarily mean your rights are being violated.  If you would like to have a deeper discussion about what rights actually are, I'm willing.  But I get the impression that there are many in this thread for whom the concept is foreign to them; and they, instead, have come to believe that privileges and/or courtesies are rights.  Such a side topic would be lengthy, and likely difficult for many here to grok.

The missing link is that you (and winkeyman) keep failing to make is explaining why the right to your income (in dollars) is equally as unalienable/universal as something such as the right to live.

Right now, taxation on income occurs if you earn income with value reflected in a currency provided by some government. Currency has value because of a government and society. By choosing to accept payment in dollars you are accepting that your income is backed by the ability of the United States to maintain its value. You cannot separate your "earnings" from the fact that those earnings have meaningful value because of the society you live in. If I paid you 100,000 MMM bucks for a yearly salary, you would pay no taxes. But that would have no value, either...

This causes me to find it at the very least allow that it is ethical to tax income. The value of the labor I generate by definition does not exist outside the society where I live, when I am paid in dollars.

Normally the above will not apply when you generate value which has meaning separate from that currency too. If I, for example, garden intensively and grow $1,000 worth of vegetables and fruit for my family from $10 worth of supplies - I pay no income taxes on this. Nearly all DIY activities allow me to directly benefit from my labor without paying taxes, normally because this value is generated separate from the medium of dollars.