Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's perfectly reasonable to demand a government that works on utilitarian principles whilst not giving away every spare organ you have.

Not forcing people to give kidneys is called justice. Utilitarian principles are always termpered with justice. Berzerker always makes these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with reality.

[chequita guevara]

The 2nd kidney is a spare, in case something goes wrong with the 1st.

[pchang]

Same deal with Libertarians. I really don't see why we need more than two.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Common currency is important... I guess you'd be welcome to print your own currency, but how would you guarantee it?

Who'd accept it?

Maybe people would accept it if they were able to avoid taxes. I'm not sure it's possible though. What if I were to pay you to work for gold that I mint myself? I'm sure that you would accept it if you could avoid taxes, but I doubt that it would be legal.

[MrBaggins]

The business would need to be totally separate from the government currency system... that is receive and distribute no currency whatsoever, otherwise, you agree to value any transfer in currency terms, for purposes of corporation tax and or income tax.

Then you get to the problem of valuation. Revaluation of paper and coin currencies were/are necessary, because

a) there aren't enough precious metals to cope with the value in the world economy (there are money multipliers)
b) you need expertise and equipment to valuate face-value currency

Essentially, you could cheat people by shaving gold currency, for instance.

And you STILL have the problem of getting every business that you deal with to accept that currency, otherwise you couldn't use those services, be they essential or non-essential.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
they should carve out a libertarian country somewhere and let us live there in peace.

That would be sweet. Seriously. If you guys got your own patch of land to set up a libertarian paradise, it would be one of the greatest social experiments in history. And if you were still an actual viable country after 10 years - never deviating from libertarianism, mind you - I'd move there.

[MrBaggins]

Why "SHOULD" they carve this piece of land out?

Since Libertarian principals partly involve freedom to own... shouldn't you be purchasing this land, outright, rather than being given it?

[pchang]

Such a place would devolve into armed camps fiercely defending their last mls of water from being unjustly appropriated by their like minded neighbors. However, the would revel in their depleted squalor because they do so in liberty and of their own free will.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The business would need to be totally separate from the government currency system... that is receive and distribute no currency whatsoever, otherwise, you agree to value any transfer in currency terms, for purposes of corporation tax and or income tax.

Then you get to the problem of valuation. Revaluation of paper and coin currencies were/are necessary, because

a) there aren't enough precious metals to cope with the value in the world economy (there are money multipliers)
b) you need expertise and equipment to valuate face-value currency

Essentially, you could cheat people by shaving gold currency, for instance.

And you STILL have the problem of getting every business that you deal with to accept that currency, otherwise you couldn't use those services, be they essential or non-essential.

I'm sure it's not legal. After all the US govt has been taxing us from the beginning and a national currency was not used until some time after the revolution. So if you can't avoid taxes by not using dollars, then it doesn't seem fair to me to say that the govt should have the right to tax us simply because we use their currency. The govt has the right to tax us because we have agreed to allow them to tax us, not because we use their currency.

[chequita guevara]

Antarctica is free. Go and build your libertarian paradise!

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Why "SHOULD" they carve this piece of land out?

Since Libertarian principals partly involve freedom to own... shouldn't you be purchasing this land, outright, rather than being given it?

Because hopefully it would put an end to the libertarian whining. Let's face it, there aren't enough libertarians anywhere to ever get their policies implemented in a democratic society, so let's just give them someplace and let them sort it all out themselves.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Because hopefully it would put an end to the libertarian whining. Let's face it, there aren't enough libertarians anywhere to ever get their policies implemented in a democratic society, so let's just give them someplace and let them sort it all out themselves.

It already exists. Have you taken a close look at Northern Idaho lately? I've already described the place in a previous post.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm sure it's not legal. After all the US govt has been taxing us from the beginning and a national currency was not used until some time after the revolution. So if you can't avoid taxes by not using dollars, then it doesn't seem fair to me to say that the govt should have the right to tax us simply because we use their currency. The govt has the right to tax us because we have agreed to allow them to tax us, not because we use their currency.

Actually national currency predates income tax...

(History of the United States Mint)
On April 2, 1792, Congress passed The Coinage Act , which created the Mint and authorized construction of a Mint building in the nation's capitol, Philadelphia. This was the first federal building erected under the Constitution.

Income tax didn't exist until the civil war in 1861... and even then was a temporary emergency measure, which was repealled and not reinstituted until 1894

(EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING)
An income tax was first employed in the United States during the Civil War. Although many, including the secretary of the Treasury, desired longer retention of the Civil War income taxes, the taxes were widely viewed as emergency measures and were repealed in 1872. This was a time when even the commissioner of Internal Revenue recommended repeal of the income tax, writing to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee that he regarded the income tax as ``the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen'' (U.S. House 1871: 1). Such opinions provide a baseline against which to assess later changes in public sentiment.

Though proposed many times, income tax legislation was not enacted again until 1894. Consistent with a transaction-cost-manipulation model, Congress labeled the 1894 law ``An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.'' When challenged in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, the income tax law was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court because it established a ``direct'' tax on real property and invested personal property deemed unconstitutional without apportionment among the states according to population as mandated by the Constitution (157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, 1895).[f8]

While State taxation has always existed, all federal currency transferal charge taxes post-date institution of federal currency.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually national currency predates income tax...

Yes. So you are saying that the US govt established a national currency, taxed the other currency out of circulation, and that gives them the right to tax our income. What is the basis for this argument?

[Az]

Not forcing people to give kidneys is called justice. Utilitarian principles are always termpered with justice. Berzerker always makes these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with reality.

Nah. principles are principles. Either utility it's the ethic, or it's not. It's just like those annoying moderates, talking about rights. At least libertarians are consistent.

Utilitarian ideas are very in parallel with most people's "common sense". However, sometimes, there are deviations from the "common sense". In that case, it's the utilitarian principle that is more important, and the most correct, not the "common sense".

[MrBaggins]

The argument is that the government retains ownership of it's currency (and you should note that the "other" currencies fell into disuse, because of their disadvantages and inferior guarantees) and that it can charge fees for its use and transaction... just like a modern licensing fee, for example.

If you don't like it... then you need to utterly opt out of the system, which is impractical for most any individual living in that country... therefore the other opt-out method would be to leave.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Not forcing people to give kidneys is called justice. Utilitarian principles are always termpered with justice. Berzerker always makes these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with reality.

Nah. principles are principles. Either utility it's the ethic, or it's not. It's just like those annoying moderates, talking about rights. At least libertarians are consistent.

Utilitarian ideas are very in parallel with most people's "common sense". However, sometimes, there are deviations from the "common sense". In that case, it's the utilitarian principle that is more important, and the most correct, not the "common sense".

I meant that people know what is fair, and maybe there are no utilitarian 'principles' only principles of justice, but in general people want to do the most good for the most people

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The argument is that the government retains ownership of it's currency (and you should note that the "other" currencies fell into disuse, because of their disadvantages and inferior guarantees) and that it can charge fees for its use and transaction... just like a modern licensing fee, for example.

If you don't like it... then you need to utterly opt out of the system, which is impractical for most any individual living in that country... therefore the other opt-out method would be to leave.

It wouldn't be just a matter of opting out. The federal govt used it's power to establish the national currency. It coerced the banks and the people to use its currency only. It imposed a tax on the state currencies for the purpose of forcing them out of circulation. The govt can't just retain ownership of it's currency without the approval of the people. The people give the govt its authority, not the national currency.

[Az]

Nah. the concept that "the people" know what is fair, is false. "The people" in the middle ages would support horrific acts, for example. This is only one of many, of course.

The utilitarian principle is derived from the basic human desire of happiness. That's what all people want, happiness. Therefore, the more happy the people, the better. Bentham distanced from the importance of the number of people involved, probably due to prevalent thinking of his time. I say that the number of people is extremely important, since if everyone's happiness is equally improtant, therefor, the happiness of the few is less important than the happiness of the many. Of course, there are also varying degrees of happiness, so it adds up well to represent the many, and the few, respectively.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It wouldn't be just a matter of opting out. The federal govt used it's power to establish the national currency. It coerced the banks and the people to use its currency only. It imposed a tax on the state currencies for the purpose of forcing them out of circulation. The govt can't just retain ownership of it's currency without the approval of the people. The people give the govt its authority, not the national currency.

The coersion wasn't being forced, but was based in advocacy for a superior product: a superior guarantee, and a universal acceptance, without exchange deviation.

People choose to use the national currency because it was superior, and the people also chose to institute an income tax through a consititutional amendment, which met with almost universal support.

Government ownership of currency is implicit, because the currency isn't valuable in and of itself, but is a promisary note, to pay the bearer. The federal government is the guarentor and owner of that note.

"People" don't own currency, they are the current bearers of currency.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Just to make something clear:

I didn't say taxation is theft. I said Income Tax was theft.

An Income Tax takes your wealth or labor aginst your will (i.e. theft or slavery)

A Sales Tax, Use Tax, Fee etc. on non-essential items merely changes the price of an item or service that one voluntarily decides to purchase or not.

People have a right to to the fruits of thier labor. They don't have a right to a tax-free price on non-essential goods.

You are not being consistent.

Sales taxes are often absorbed by the seller, unless the product being sold is extremely price inelastic. Therefore people making the product or service are in essence being taxed on the fruit of their labour by placing sales taxes on them.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Azazel
Nah. the concept that "the people" know what is fair, is false. "The people" in the middle ages would support horrific acts, for example. This is only one of many, of course.

People always know what is fair, but their ethics differ. Fairness does not mean ethical. Fortunately, justice is the dominate model for ethics in most modern societies. Moral rights and utilitarian principles are secondary models.

Originally posted by Azazel
The utilitarian principle is derived from the basic human desire of happiness. That's what all people want, happiness. Therefore, the more happy the people, the better. Bentham distanced from the importance of the number of people involved, probably due to prevalent thinking of his time. I say that the number of people is extremely important, since if everyone's happiness is equally improtant, therefor, the happiness of the few is less important than the happiness of the many. Of course, there are also varying degrees of happiness, so it adds up well to represent the many, and the few, respectively.

It depends on what kind of happiness you are talking about. Why should some be happier than others? Maybe a little, but to some extent the few shouldn't have to pay for the many to be happy.

[Az]

People always know what is fair, but their ethics differ. Fairness does not mean ethical. Fortunately, justice is the dominate model for ethics in most modern societies. Moral rights and utilitarian principles are secondary models.

Why is that fortunate? what is this "justice" ethic you talk about. what's the rule?

It depends on what kind of happiness you are talking about. Why should some be happier than others? Maybe a little, but to some extent the few shouldn't have to pay for the many to be happy.

Because one's person's happiness isn't more important than anothers. You can't make them all equally happy, but that ain't the point. you strive to make as many of them as happy as possible.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
The coersion wasn't being forced, but was based in advocacy for a superior product: a superior guarantee, and a universal acceptance, without exchange deviation.

It was the group who advocated it, but individuals had to be coerced into using the national currency.

Originally posted by MrBaggins
People choose to use the national currency because it was superior, and the people also chose to institute an income tax through a consititutional amendment, which met with almost universal support.

True, but 'people' is the group, not individuals. Individuals are forced to use dollars and pay income tax by the group (people).

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Government ownership of currency is implicit, because the currency isn't valuable in and of itself, but is a promisary note, to pay the bearer. The federal government is the guarentor and owner of that note.

"People" don't own currency, they are the current bearers of currency.

I don't know what this argument is for. The govt has the power and authority to tax based on the constitution created by our representatives. The govt derives its power from the people, not the currency that it issues.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

People always know what is fair, but their ethics differ. Fairness does not mean ethical. Fortunately, justice is the dominate model for ethics in most modern societies. Moral rights and utilitarian principles are secondary models.

Why is that fortunate? what is this "justice" ethic you talk about. what's the rule?

The rule is that all people should be treated equally.

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

It depends on what kind of happiness you are talking about. Why should some be happier than others? Maybe a little, but to some extent the few shouldn't have to pay for the many to be happy.

Because one's person's happiness isn't more important than anothers. You can't make them all equally happy, but that ain't the point. you strive to make as many of them as happy as possible.

I think you can make all of them happy.

[Az]

The rule is that all people should be treated equally.

what do you mean by "treated"? there are many things that are utilitarian, but aren't completely egalitarian. Like different paychecks for different professions, different goods for different amounts of money paid, etc.

I think you can make all of them happy.

So do I. I don't think that they must be COMPLETELY EQUALLY HAPPY, though. The important thing is that as much people would be as happy as possible. equality is only in the importance of the happiness of different individuals.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kidicious

The rule is that all people should be treated equally.

I think you can make all of them happy.

u can't make everyone happy anymore than u can make everyone rich.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


You are not being consistent.

Sales taxes are often absorbed by the seller, unless the product being sold is extremely price inelastic. Therefore people making the product or service are in essence being taxed on the fruit of their labour by placing sales taxes on them.

I am being consistant. The seller determines his price based on his cost. If he chooses to absorb sales tax - he chooses. The government doesn't set the price.

[Ramo]

I didn't say taxation is theft. I said Income Tax was theft.

An Income Tax takes your wealth or labor aginst your will (i.e. theft or slavery)

A Sales Tax, Use Tax, Fee etc. on non-essential items merely changes the price of an item or service that one voluntarily decides to purchase or not.

Using the same logic, an income tax isn't "theft or slavery" because people voluntarily decide to have a taxable income, and voluntarily decide to live in this country.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Ramo


Using the same logic, an income tax isn't "theft or slavery" because people voluntarily decide to have a taxable income, and voluntarily decide to live in this country.

Again, I say see Northern Idaho.