Ron Paul seeks to repeal Amendment VI (Income Tax)!

[shanek]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! There is one exception to the Gang of 535, and once again it proves to be Ron Paul.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr013003c.htm

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.

So there is one Republican willing to stand up for what the party pays lip service to. (Of course, he's actually a Libertarian...)

My prediction: This will be defeated 434-1.

I started to get all excited until I remembered that I don't pay taxes.

Except sales tax on bongs and such.

[corplinx]

I don't oppose taxation. I merely oppose income and real estate taxes. It's none of anyone's business how much money you make or how much your house is worth. Its a matter of A constitutionality and B common law e.g. the right to privacy. Now, anyone who stands up against these taxes immediately gets demagogued as being pro-rich, pro-this, anti-that.

In the past 20 years, your tax return has also become a judgement of how good a citizen you are. If you plan to run for public office, be sure to contribute to a wide range of charities since the press hounds will dog you to release your returns and if you don't reveal them you are "hiding" something.

Typo in the title? Amendment VI?

[bignickel]

I'd have to say this has zero chance of passing, thanks to the 10th Amendment (strangely enough)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#1


In McCulloch v. Maryland, 5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause 6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states' rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States. 7 Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word ''expressly'' as a qualification of granted powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question ''whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.'' 8

Translation: Because the framers left out the word 'expressly', the federal government naturally and automatically has all powers and authority to carry out any of the tasks or duties given to it by the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution would double it's length every few years every time the Federal government wanted to do things to achieve it's Constitutional powers, things not specifically listed in the Constitution.

I wasn't too happy with this myself, since I thought the 10th Amendment prevented the Feds from prosecuting victim-less crimes. But there ya go.

Well, shanek, I guess this is as good a place as any to discuss "user fees vs. income tax." Could you outline for us the Libertarian Party's thoughts on this, as well as your own?

Which taxes would remain, which would not, how would the government operate under this system?

How would they support unemployed, disabled, and so on?

What services would the government no longer provide?

If that is too many questions, do you have a link that answers them?

Originally posted by LukeT
Typo in the title? Amendment VI?
Typo in the title? RuPaul instead of Ron Paul?

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Typo in the title? Amendment VI?

Yeah, that was supposed to be XVI. Sorry.

(It wasn't my fault, my modem was just set to XOFF!!!)

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Well, shanek, I guess this is as good a place as any to discuss "user fees vs. income tax." Could you outline for us the Libertarian Party's thoughts on this, as well as your own?

As I said in the other thread, it's way too diverse an issue to be handled realistically; it always devolves into minutiae.

Which taxes would remain,

According to the most realistic Libertarian plans, excises and import duties. If you want details, read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne. (Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Nolan only last week expressed support for this same system.)

How would they support unemployed, disabled, and so on?

They wouldn't. The Federal government has no business doing that.

What services would the government no longer provide?

Anything not in the Constitution.

But if you're just talking about the elimination of the Income Tax (which is, after all, what this thread is about), then we could abolish that today and still support the government the size that it was at the height of the Cold War.

[corplinx]

Don't forget voluntary taxes. You should be able to send the government as much of your money as you want. Those hardcore socialists and communists can send 60 percent of their income straight to the government if they like.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Don't forget voluntary taxes. You should be able to send the government as much of your money as you want. Those hardcore socialists and communists can send 60 percent of their income straight to the government if they like.

I agree with this. By the way, a Libertarian (I forget his name, sorry) actually set up such a system where all of the liberal socialists who don't have a problem paying taxes and actually think we should pay more could go and put in however much of their own money they wanted. He got somewhere around $300.

[ceo_esq]

Queries for Shanek and Corplinx:

Do you think that income taxes (in theory, not necessarily any particular income tax regime) are less efficient than excise taxes for purposes of redistributing wealth? If so, why?

To what extent should a person's decision to consume income affect his contribution to the financing of things like national defense, highways and so forth?

In a general way, I guess, why is consumption necessarily a better tax base, overall, than income?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
In a general way, I guess, why is consumption necessarily a better tax base, overall, than income?

Income taxes are an invasion of your privacy.

I didn't say it was a better tax base. I am looking at what is allowed by the constitution _and_ common law.

[bignickel]

Congress enacted the Income Tax because they thought sales taxes unfairly penalized the lower and middle classes. Why shouldn't those who got the most out of a free nation pay the most? When the Income Tax first appeared in the early 1900s, the base at which they started taxing you at was $5000.

Suffice it to say that alot of people didn't make $5000 a year back then. The wealthy did, of course.

Need I point out that while money has been inflating, Congress hasn't increased the starting point where income tax kicks in as much? To the point that pretty much everyone pays income tax now, instead of the wealthy, when it first arrived. I won't bother mentioning the all the tax write-offs, etc, that allow some wealthy people/corporations to avoid paying altogether.

But why go through the trouble of trying to repeal the Income Tax, when there's a much easier way to deal with the problem?

Just scale up the amount of money one has to make a year to get taxed to the amount that it was back when the Income Tax first appeared, adjusting for inflation.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by LukeT
Well, shanek, I guess this is as good a place as any to discuss "user fees vs. income tax." Could you outline for us the Libertarian Party's thoughts on this, as well as your own?

Which taxes would remain, which would not, how would the government operate under this system?

How would they support unemployed, disabled, and so on?

What services would the government no longer provide?

If that is too many questions, do you have a link that answers them? LPTNPLAT (http://www.lptn.net/platform/)

It's a freakin' cult. They hook you with individual sovereingty.
Taxes none! Charity! Goverment services? Hahaha..... Anarchy. :D

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by corplinx

Income taxes are an invasion of your privacy.

I didn't say it was a better tax base. I am looking at what is allowed by the constitution _and_ common law.
Income taxes diminish your privacy, no doubt about it.

But they're obviously permissible under the Constitution in its current form, and I'm not aware of any formulation of a common-law rule that would bar them. In any event, since even in a common-law system, constitutional and statutory law trump the common law, what's the point here?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by John Lockard
It's a freakin' cult. They hook you with individual sovereingty. Taxes none! Charity! Goverment services? Hahaha..... Anarchy.

I realize you're probably not expecting to be taken seriously here, but on the off-chance that you are, can you explain how it qualifies as a "cult"? Or, for that matter, how the word "anarchy" applies?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by bignickel
Congress enacted the Income Tax because they thought sales taxes unfairly penalized the lower and middle classes. Why shouldn't those who got the most out of a free nation pay the most?

Sounds like a good argument for user fees, not for penalizing the wealthy.


But why go through the trouble of trying to repeal the Income Tax, when there's a much easier way to deal with the problem?

Just scale up the amount of money one has to make a year to get taxed to the amount that it was back when the Income Tax first appeared, adjusting for inflation.

That's not dealing with the problem. You still have the income tax, it's just being applied more unfairly. So why stop there? Get rid of it altogether, and that way nobody gets unfairly penalized.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by bignickel
Just scale up the amount of money one has to make a year to get taxed to the amount that it was back when the Income Tax first appeared, adjusting for inflation.

A. its none of your business how much anyone else makes
B. its no business of the goverments
C. this amounts to outright confiscation

Does any group of people deserve to have the government point them out and say, "hey you have to pay more taxes than these people!"

Equal treatment and protection under the law, privacy, how many principles can you find that this violates?

Hey. Banks have lots of money. Lets just make a bank tax. They have lots of money so its not like they cant afford it. Challenge: find any logical or rational basis for taxation in this bank tax arguement.

[Mike B.]

I understand the Libretarians wish to do away with the income tax.

However what about FICA, the Social Security Tax?
It is an income tax on the first x thousand dollars of wages. I can't see anyone getting power nationally by advocating a reduction or elimination of these taxes.

Those senior citizens really vote...

[corplinx]

Social security tax should be eliminated. Social security should be combined with welfare. We need to eliminate payments to people who don't need the money. We should replace the current awful retirement program with a need based program.

However, I don't think any politician has the balls to do it.

[gnome]

Originally posted by shanek
I agree with this. By the way, a Libertarian (I forget his name, sorry) actually set up such a system where all of the liberal socialists who don't have a problem paying taxes and actually think we should pay more could go and put in however much of their own money they wanted. He got somewhere around $300.

I don't consider this result terribly significant. Make taxes 100% voluntary, and see how many people contribute. That doesn't mean they're hypocrites about wanting a government.

Taxation is for services the government provide that benefit everyone, better than can be purchased individually, whether because they are nonseparable or other reasons. Both what services are bought, and how the bill should be divided, is inherently a group decision.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Do you think that income taxes (in theory, not necessarily any particular income tax regime) are less efficient than excise taxes for purposes of redistributing wealth? If so, why?

I don't really think redistributing wealth (i.e., Socialism) should enter the equation anywhere. The thing about excise taxes and import duties is that government can't rise them will-he nill-he with no limit the way they can with income taxes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bignickel
Congress enacted the Income Tax because they thought sales taxes unfairly penalized the lower and middle classes.

Uh, no, we didn't have a sales tax at the time, either. Both are forms of direct taxes, which up until the passage of the 16th Amendment were unconstitutional unless they were apportioned among the states.

Just scale up the amount of money one has to make a year to get taxed to the amount that it was back when the Income Tax first appeared, adjusting for inflation.

It won't work. They'll just keep raising it from there. People have tried this in the past, and that's what ended up happening.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
But they're obviously permissible under the Constitution in its current form, and I'm not aware of any formulation of a common-law rule that would bar them.

Were it not for the 16th Amendment, Income Taxes would be unconstitutional under Article I Section 2.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
A. its none of your business how much anyone else makes
B. its no business of the goverments
C. this amounts to outright confiscation

If not involuntary servitude.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
However what about FICA, the Social Security Tax?

Social Security is a Ponzi scam. Every time someone sets up a similar system in the private sector, they're thrown in jail for fraud.

It is an income tax on the first x thousand dollars of wages. I can't see anyone getting power nationally by advocating a reduction or elimination of these taxes.

Those senior citizens really vote...

The Libertarian proposal is to purchase individual retirement annuities for everyone currently dependent on Social Security or who will be retiring soon. A senior would have a retirement account in their name only, where no politician could touch it.

In the early 1980s, Galveston County, Texas took advantage of a loophole (quickly closed by Congress so no one else could take advantage of it) that allowed them to privatize Social Security. Now, someone there who would ordinarily be getting $17,000/year from Social Security is actually getting over $80,000/year!

Originally posted by shanek

According to the most realistic Libertarian plans, excises and import duties. If you want details, read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne. (Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Nolan only last week expressed support for this same system.)



A book is one thing, but aren't there any web sites that have this information, like everybody else?

I don't know if it is because I am not looking hard enough, or not using the right search terms, but I am having a hard time finding detailed position papers on the internet. That is kind of strange.

Originally posted by shanek


As I said in the other thread, it's way too diverse an issue to be handled realistically; it always devolves into minutiae.



Has it even been discussed on here? If it has, just point me to the topic, and I'll leave you alone while I read the minutiae.

And isn't minutiae the crux of any political policy? You know, "Looks good on paper" until you put it into practice.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I understand the Libretarians wish to do away with the income tax.

However what about FICA, the Social Security Tax?
It is an income tax on the first x thousand dollars of wages. I can't see anyone getting power nationally by advocating a reduction or elimination of these taxes.

Those senior citizens really vote...
Why do I bother posting links? :rolleyes:

Since we believe that all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights.

Specifically, we:
a. recognize the right of any individual to challenge the payment of taxes on moral, religious, legal, or constitutional grounds;
b. oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes;
c. support the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, and oppose any increase in existing tax rates and the imposition of any new taxes;
d. support the eventual repeal of all taxation; and
e. support a declaration of unconditional amnesty for all those individuals who have been convicted of, or who now stand accused of, tax resistance.

As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

We oppose as involuntary servitude any legal requirements forcing employers or business owners to serve as tax collectors for federal, state, or local tax agencies.

We oppose any and all increases in the rate of taxation or categories of taxpayers, including the elimination of deductions, exemptions, or credits in the spurious name of "fairness," "simplicity," or alleged "neutrality to the free market." No tax can ever be fair, simple, or neutral to the free market.

In the current fiscal crisis of states and municipalities, default is preferable to raising taxes or perpetual refinancing of growing public debt.

I think piont d might slightly hint at the matter at hand. :)

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by LukeT
A book is one thing, but aren't there any web sites that have this information, like everybody else?

I don't know if it is because I am not looking hard enough, or not using the right search terms, but I am having a hard time finding detailed position papers on the internet. That is kind of strange.
Books? It's all vids now. (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/tglo.htm) :cool:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek


Social Security is a Ponzi scam. Every time someone sets up a similar system in the private sector, they're thrown in jail for fraud.



The Libertarian proposal is to purchase individual retirement annuities for everyone currently dependent on Social Security or who will be retiring soon. A senior would have a retirement account in their name only, where no politician could touch it.

In the early 1980s, Galveston County, Texas took advantage of a loophole (quickly closed by Congress so no one else could take advantage of it) that allowed them to privatize Social Security. Now, someone there who would ordinarily be getting $17,000/year from Social Security is actually getting over $80,000/year!

It may indeed be a Ponzi scheme, but it is considered sacrosent by many seniors.
I have many problems with the current system, but I am just talking politics here. Anyone advocating replacing current benefits with something else, would face hell from the AARP and other groups, no matter the pluses or lack thereof of a new plan.

BTW...How would the governement get money for individual retirement annuities for all those currently on social security except through taxation of some form?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Were it not for the 16th Amendment, Income Taxes would be unconstitutional under Article I Section 2.

That simply isn't true, and it was explained in great detail in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=320400#post320400). Also see the relevant item in the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct)

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
A book is one thing, but aren't there any web sites that have this information, like everybody else?

I don't know if it is because I am not looking hard enough, or not using the right search terms, but I am having a hard time finding detailed position papers on the internet. That is kind of strange.

Well, here's one (duh):

http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security.html

The libertarian National Center for Policy Analysis has a website http://www.mysocialsecurity.org/ where you can get information on privatization plans complete with a calculator where you can compare your benefits under Social Security with the benefits you'd get from a private account.

[shanek]

Originally posted by LukeT
Has it even been discussed on here?

We discussed points of it back when I was running for County Commissioner, IIRC we talked about a fee-for-service model for fire departments. There have been other times, but I can't recall many specifics.

And isn't minutiae the crux of any political policy?

The thing is, in this case you're talking about the minutae of about 100 different policies. It just works better to talk about the services themselves, and talk about fee-for-service for those individual services, rather than the other way around.

[shanek]

Originally posted by John Lockard

Books? It's all vids now. (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/tglo.htm) :cool:

Actually, the book is much more indepth. The video's his 30-minute campaign infomercial.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
It may indeed be a Ponzi scheme, but it is considered sacrosent by many seniors.

The idea is to show how they would actually be much better off without it. The current system is a scam, plain and simple.

BTW...How would the governement get money for individual retirement annuities for all those currently on social security except through taxation of some form?

Harry Browne suggested that the funds from selling off unneeded/unused government assets would yield more than enough money (although he admits no one really knows how much of this stuff the government owns). His book details plans to sell of these assets over five years and he detailed a budgetary plan with numbers from 2002 to 2008, ending up with a deficit of $0, a national debt of $0, and revenues of $100 billion. It's in the chapter "Getting from Here to There."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
That simply isn't true, and it was explained in great detail in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=320400#post320400).

I participated in that thread and refuted all the points that were brought up, so don't just throw it out here like it's new information I haven't considered; that's blatantly dishonest of you. I actually cited cases that predated the 16th Amendment; as opposed to the other cites which came after its passage, along with the insane notion that Congress already had the power without the 16th Amendment (in which case, why the need for an amendment? That question was never answered).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Social Security is a Ponzi scam. Every time someone sets up a similar system in the private sector, they're thrown in jail for fraud.



no, it's not. each generation pays for the previous generation.




The Libertarian proposal is to purchase individual retirement annuities for everyone currently dependent on Social Security or who will be retiring soon. A senior would have a retirement account in their name only, where no politician could touch it.

In the early 1980s, Galveston County, Texas took advantage of a loophole (quickly closed by Congress so no one else could take advantage of it) that allowed them to privatize Social Security. Now, someone there who would ordinarily be getting $17,000/year from Social Security is actually getting over $80,000/year!

they picked a good time, when a stock market boom was about to kick off. all the private superannuation schemes are currently returning 0, but no pensions have gone down.

retirement schemes that assume there will always be growth in share prices are more like a ponzi scheme.

[swellman]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


no, it's not. each generation pays for the previous generation.





Isn't that the essence of a Ponzi scheme? http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
no, it's not. each generation pays for the previous generation.

Duh, that's what a Ponzi scam is! You take money from current investors to pay off your previous investors!

they picked a good time, when a stock market boom was about to kick off. all the private superannuation schemes are currently returning 0, but no pensions have gone down.

No, we're talking long-term, over a period of decades. You always come in here talking like you know everything, but nothing you ever say is correct.

retirement schemes that assume there will always be growth in share prices are more like a ponzi scheme.

Can you in any way at all defend this?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Duh, that's what a Ponzi scam is! You take money from current investors to pay off your previous investors!



No, we're talking long-term, over a period of decades. You always come in here talking like you know everything, but nothing you ever say is correct.



Can you in any way at all defend this?

i don't call decades long term. The pension schemes have been around for generations. The current stock market bubble has ruined many private pension schemes.

The ponzi scheme fails becuase it runs out of the next log of investors. if there are no more children, then the pension scheme fails. I can't see that happening.

[Suspected Idiot]

Its a potenital problem in the UK and other parts of Europe, such as Germany. Inreased life expectancy and falling brthratres means that a larger and larger proportion of the population are receiving pensions. The UK government has started hinting that people may have to work after the current retirement age to ensure a sufficient pension income.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't really think redistributing wealth (i.e., Socialism) should enter the equation anywhere. The thing about excise taxes and import duties is that government can't rise them will-he nill-he with no limit the way they can with income taxes.
Redistributing wealth hardly constitutes Socialism. All taxes, levies, tariffs and duties of any kind, including excise taxes, redistribute wealth. The system of private tort law is a major redistributor of wealth. So are criminal fines. Are you really against it as a matter of principle?

By the way, any thoughts as to why level of consumption (under an excise tax regime) is the best determinant of contributions to things like national defense?
Originally posted by shanek
Were it not for the 16th Amendment, Income Taxes would be unconstitutional under Article I Section 2.
Assuming for the moment that this is true, what are you getting at here? Were it not for the 21st Amendment, it would be unconstitutional to brew beer. The point of arguing about what would be lawful or unlawful if the laws were different than they presently are is unclear to me.
Originally posted by shanek
Social Security is a Ponzi scam. Every time someone sets up a similar system in the private sector, they're thrown in jail for fraud.
It’s reductive to say that the essence of Ponzi schemes is simply that they use money from later investors to pay off earlier investers, and that Social Security is thus a Ponzi scheme. The essentially objectionable feature of Ponzi schemes is that they are predestined to fail because it rapidly becomes impossible to recruit enough new investors. While there is always a risk that this can happen with Social Security (due to demographic shifts), it’s much lower, simpler to forecast, and more feasible to take measures to mitigate the danger, and society as whole has by and large concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks. Social Security thus differs in fundamental respects from Ponzi schemes, and it’s misleading to suggest the contrary.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
i don't call decades long term.

Economists do. And people save for retirement over the long term.

If you knew anything at all about the subject, you'd know that they only recommend the more agressive stocks for long-term investments. As you get closer to retirement age, you move funds from the high risk/high return investments to lower risk/lower return investments like money markets and CDs.

The current stock market bubble has ruined many private pension schemes.

Bullsh*t. For reasons I mentioned above, people close to retirement age move funds into lower risk money markets and other accounts which were largely unaffected by the stock prices.

The ponzi scheme fails becuase it runs out of the next log of investors. if there are no more children, then the pension scheme fails. I can't see that happening.

It's happening already with Social Security! That's why they have to keep raising the Social Security tax while cutting benefits and raising the retirement age!

NO ONE would be allowed to get away with this scam in the private sector!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Redistributing wealth hardly constitutes Socialism. All taxes, levies, tariffs and duties of any kind, including excise taxes, redistribute wealth.

No, taxes and other forms of government revenue pay for government programs. Only some of those programs redistribute wealth. Paying for a national defense doesn't redistribute wealth, nor does paying for a justice system, the salaries of Congress, etc.

The system of private tort law is a major redistributor of wealth. So are criminal fines.

That's a load of crap! Civil law is a means of forcing someone to compensate a victim for damages. Criminal fines are a punishment for crimes.

Assuming for the moment that this is true, what are you getting at here? Were it not for the 21st Amendment, it would be unconstitutional to brew beer.

Yes, and the founding fathers didn't want a direct Income Tax any more than they wanted a ban on alcohol.

It�s reductive to say that the essence of Ponzi schemes is simply that they use money from later investors to pay off earlier investers, and that Social Security is thus a Ponzi scheme. The essentially objectionable feature of Ponzi schemes is that they are predestined to fail because it rapidly becomes impossible to recruit enough new investors.

And this is true of Social Security, too, as evidenced by the already deteriorating rate of returns. You could take that money and put it in even a standard savings account and come out better than you would under Social Security.

Social Security thus differs in fundamental respects from Ponzi schemes, and it�s misleading to suggest the contrary.

I completely disagree. The problems we're seeing with Social Security are exactly the problems you have with a Ponzi scheme, and exactly the reason why Ponzi schemes are considered fraudulent.

You also need to consider the fact that Congress routinely pilfers Social Security funds to pay for boondoggles in the regular budget (while moving other items off-budget). People talk about the budget frauds committed by executives of Enron and WorldCom, but they're rank amateurs compared to the government.

[shanek]

From http://skepdic.com/pyramid.html:

A Ponzi scheme, named after Charles Ponzi who defrauded people in the 1920s using the method, involves getting people to invest in something for a guaranteed rate of return and using the money of later investors to pay off the earlier ones. Who will make money from such a scheme? Those who start it and those who get in early....If I start the scheme, I just skim off the top and pay off enough people to make it look like it's working, even if that means buying in again at the bottom....I can try to get money quickly by some other scheme. For example, I can take a big chunk of money and go to Las Vegas and hope to hit it big.[/b]

Government does all of this with Social Security. It skims money to pay for other boondoggles, uses money from new investors to pay the old investors, and gets additional money from new taxes or a bailout from the general budget when it appears there'll be a crisis.

http://www.mark-knutson.com/thescheme.html

The engine of Ponzi's postal coupon fraud was a simple accounting mis-classification. Money paid to investors, described as income, was actually distribution of capital. One need not, however, invoke accounting terminology to describe the fraud. Bankruptcy Referee Olmstead observed: "It was another instance of robbing Peter to pay Paul, of which the past affords examples"....Circuit Judge Anderson explained: "His scheme was simply the old fraud of paying the earlier comers out of the contributions of the later comers" [Lowell v. Brown, 280 F. 193, 196 (1922)].

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in their Fraud Manual describe Ponzi schemes thusly:

A pyramid is a form of fraud which operates on the assumption that the individuals at the top will earn money from the efforts of those below them. As time progresses, more and more people are needed to support the persons in the upper levels.

"There are two types of pyramid schemes: one legitimate and the other illegitimate. The legitimate pyramid structure is often called a multi-level marketing (MLM) organization. Its primary purpose of an MLM is to sell a product. There are many successful MLMs which sell encyclopedias, soaps and cosmetics, among other items.. The return or earnings to the upper levels of the pyramid are from both the sale of the product and the recruiting of new salespersons. The return is generated from both one's own commission sales and also the commissions on sales of those one recruits.

"In an illegitimate pyramid, the primary return to the upper level individuals is from recruiting of new levels rather than from the sale of a product. In this structure, the return is derived from recruiting others and not from commissions on the sale of any product. The illegitimate pyramid is often referred to as a Ponzi scheme, named after Charles Ponzi, an immigrant to Boston in 1919.

[...]

The distinguishing feature of a Ponzi-type pyramid is that old victims are paid back with funds received from new victims. As long as the fraud continues to grow, the investors are not usually aware that their money has been misappropriated.

Social Security IS a Ponzi scheme, it IS a fraud, and it DOESN'T WORK!

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by shanek
No, taxes and other forms of government revenue pay for government programs. Only some of those programs redistribute wealth. Paying for a national defense doesn't redistribute wealth, nor does paying for a justice system, the salaries of Congress, etc.
If Uncle Sam uses part of your fellow citizens' tax dollars (particularly those wealthier than you, regardless of the kind of tax) to provide some direct or indirect service of value to you, wealth redistribution is taking place - regardless of whether the value comes from building a highway that you can use, guaranteeing your safety in the event of an invasion, paying your Congressman's salary, or giving you a handout if you don't have a job.

The following descriptions may help explain how this works.

"A tax system's redistributional function is inextricably tied to its revenue raising function. Taxation is primarily about the redistribution of wealth--from the private sector or the middle and upper class to the government or the lower class, respectively. And there are essentially two ways this can be accomplished: The government can collect and redistribute the revenue; or it can skip this last step and simply encourage the private sector to directly redistribute its own wealth.

In fact, the U.S. income tax system uses both of these approaches. By only taxing a taxpayer's net income, the government not only collects revenue; it is also subsidizes many of those activities for which a deduction is permitted. A deductible expense, after all, only costs the taxpayer one minus the taxpayer's marginal rate times the cost incurred. So if the deductibility of a particular cost creates a substitution effect in either kind or degree, it is economically no different than if the government disallowed the deduction, collected the additional tax, and then at least partially redistributed it to the affected recipient."

- Mitchell B. Weiss, “International Tax Competition: An Efficient or Inefficient Phenomenon?”, 16 AKRON TAX J. 99, 115 (2001).

“The goals [of any system of taxation] include the redistribution of wealth indirectly through transfer payments or directly through the tax system, the stimulation or deflation of the economy by manipulating tax rates, the promotion of socially desirable objectives, the promotion of economic and investment objectives, and the deterrence of certain activities.”

-- Barry M. Freiman, “The Japanese Consumption Tax: Value-Added Model or Administrative Nightmare?” 40 AM. U.L. REV. 1265, 1284 (1991).

Originally posted by shanek
That's a load of crap! Civil law is a means of forcing someone to compensate a victim for damages. Criminal fines are a punishment for crimes.
You're mistaken about the redistributive effect of civil tort liability and criminal economic penalties. In economic terms, their deterrent effect is part and parcel of their redistributive function. The risk of liability under personal injury or other laws is essentially an excise or use tax on the risky activity (such as operating a polluting factory or driving drunk).
Originally posted by shanek
Yes, and the founding fathers didn't want a direct Income Tax any more than they wanted a ban on alcohol.
Or a ban on slavery. But they definitely wanted to leave the possibility of such things up to future legislators, because they provided an explicit mechanism for amending the Constitution (and they used it a few times themselves).

At bottom, though, I guess I'm still missing your point, and my response to the above is "So what?" "Original intent" is a respectable constitutional jurisprudence in general, but it's just not relevant with respect to matters addressed in constitutional amendments. So why does it matter what the Founders thought or didn't think here? Arguing that a tax on income is bad policy is worth the effort. Arguing that it used to be illegal under a prior version of the law is pointless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

If Uncle Sam uses part of your fellow citizens' tax dollars (particularly those wealthier than you, regardless of the kind of tax) to provide some direct or indirect service of value to you, wealth redistribution is taking place

You're ignoring the difference I just pointed out, like a justice system or a national defence, where everyone pays in and everyone gets the benefits. Also, a fee-for-service model can hardly be called "redistribution of wealth."

No more so than an insurance company "redistributes wealth" when it collects money from its customers and then provides coverage when they're sick, or in a traffic accident, or whatever the insurance covers.

You're mistaken about the redistributive effect of civil tort liability and criminal economic penalties. In economic terms, their deterrent effect is part and parcel of their redistributive function. The risk of liability under personal injury or other laws is essentially an excise or use tax on the risky activity (such as operating a polluting factory or driving drunk).

That's a load of crap. Someone forced to pay under this system has been found guilty in a court of law and required to compensate for damages that they personally caused. What crime did I commit that forces me to pay an Income Tax? And what damages did I cause to others that necessitates me paying an Income Tax?

Or a ban on slavery. But they definitely wanted to leave the possibility of such things up to future legislators, because they provided an explicit mechanism for amending the Constitution (and they used it a few times themselves).

Yes, and that same system can also be used to repeal those amendments, which happened once. That's what we're talking about here. Were they wrong to pass a Constitutional amendment repealing Prohibition because at the time Prohibition was admissible under the Constitution?

Do you realize how much sense you're not making?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by shanek
I agree with this. By the way, a Libertarian (I forget his name, sorry) actually set up such a system where all of the liberal socialists who don't have a problem paying taxes and actually think we should pay more could go and put in however much of their own money they wanted. He got somewhere around $300.

Originally posted by gnome
I don't consider this result terribly significant. Make taxes 100% voluntary, and see how many people contribute.

Probably however many want to receive government services. If you simply withhold services from those who do not contribute, and nobody contributes anyway, how important could those services be?


That doesn't mean they're hypocrites about wanting a government.

Sure, but "wanting a government" isn't where the hypocrisy is. Believing we should pay more, and then passing up the opportunity to do so - that's where the hypocrisy is.


Taxation is for services the government provide that benefit everyone,

If a service truly benefits everyone, then you shouldn't need to tax them for it. Just offer the service, and if everyone agrees that it sufficiently benefits them, then everyone will be willing to pay so they can receive it. If they aren't, then maybe the benefit isn't all it's cracked up to be. And admittedly, some of us wouldn't be particularly interested in paying for some of the "services", like the war on drugs.



better than can be purchased individually, whether because they are nonseparable or other reasons.

And who says government is the only alternative to purchasing things individually?


Both what services are bought, and how the bill should be divided, is inherently a group decision

How is it inherently so? Why not just have individuals pay for the services they decide are important enough for them to receive, rather than making everyone pay for the whole package, whether they want it or not?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
That simply isn't true, and it was explained in great detail in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=320400#post320400). Also see the relevant item in the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct)
Originally posted by shanek
I participated in that thread and refuted all the points that were brought up, so don't just throw it out here like it's new information I haven't considered; that's blatantly dishonest of you.
Hmmm. I spoiled my nefarious plan by including a link directly to the thread. Drat! :rolleyes:
I actually cited cases that predated the 16th Amendment; as opposed to the other cites which came after its passage, along with the insane notion that Congress already had the power without the 16th Amendment
Citing cases and having them support your argument do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct)
The U.S. Supreme Court adopted this narrow view of "Capitation, or other direct, Tax," when it decided the case of Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Four separate opinions were written by the justices who heard the case (separate opinions were the common practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).

The precise question of whether an income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
(in which case, why the need for an amendment? That question was never answered).
Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct)
Because of the Pollock decisions, Congress was limited in its ability to impose a tax on incomes, because it was necessary to determine the source of the income. Wages, salaries, and other earned incomes could be taxed, and income from manufacturing and other business activities could be taxed, but rents, interest, dividends, and other incomes from property could not be taxed without apportionment (a very awkward process). The 16th Amendment was therefore proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states, so that Congress could tax incomes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[bignickel]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bignickel
Congress enacted the Income Tax because they thought sales taxes unfairly penalized the lower and middle classes. Why shouldn't those who got the most out of a free nation pay the most?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by WMT1


Sounds like a good argument for user fees, not for penalizing the wealthy.

It's not penalizing the wealthy; it's billing approapriately for services rendered. If you make make millions because you live in the Land of the Free (as opposed to China), then you are billed more than the fast-food worker who has benefitted the least. Sounds fair to me.

I did incorrectly identify 'sales tax': what I was referencing are duties and tariffs, which eventually get passed down to the consumers to pay.

That's not dealing with the problem. You still have the income tax, it's just being applied more unfairly. So why stop there? Get rid of it altogether, and that way nobody gets unfairly penalized.

If the problem is the one mentioned at the top of the thread (stopping the Feds from exercising powers not listed in the Constitution), then this bill is not going to do it, because it will never get voted in, thanks to the 10th Amendment. You would need a change to the 10th Amendment inserting the word "expressly."

If you believe the problem is the existance of the Income Tax inself, then you'll probably need an additional Amendment to the Constitution repealing it.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled pro/anti Income Tax thread.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Hmmm. I spoiled my nefarious plan by including a link directly to the thread. Drat! :rolleyes:

You know exactly how you meant it to appear. You're fooling no one.

Citing cases and having them support your argument do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Well, I guess some people have to told seventeen times...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=157&page=429

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

The bill charged that the provisions in respect of said alleged income tax incorporated in the act of congress were unconstututional, null, and void, in that the tax was a direct tax in respect of the real estate held and owned by the company in its own right and in its fiduciary capacity as aforesaid, by being imposed upon the rents, issues, and profits os said real estate, and was likewise a direct tax in respect of its personal property and the personal property held by it for others for whom it acted in its fiduciary capacity as aforesaid, which direct taxes were not, in and by said act, apportioned among the several states, as required by section 2 of article 1 of the constitution; and that, if the income tax so incorporated in the act of congress aforesaid were held not to be a direct tax, nevertheless its provisions were unconstitutional, null, and void, in that they were not uniform throughout the United States, as required in and by section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, upon many grounds and in many particulars specifically set forth....

Congress, under the articles of confederation, had no actual operative power of taxation. It could call upon the states for their respective contributions or quotas as previously determined on; but, in case of the failure or omission of the states to furnish such contribution, there were no means of [157 U.S. 429, 560] compulsion, as congress had no power whatever to lay any tax upon individuals....

Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states....

The result is that the decree of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree in favor of the complainant in respect only of the voluntary payment of the tax on the rents and income of the real estate of the defendant company, and of that which it holds in trust, and on the income from the municipal bonds w ned or so held by it.

That should be enough to make the point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bignickel
It's not penalizing the wealthy; it's billing approapriately for services rendered. If you make make millions because you live in the Land of the Free

Wait! Are you saying freedom is something you have to pay for????

I did incorrectly identify 'sales tax': what I was referencing are duties and tariffs, which eventually get passed down to the consumers to pay.

But are ultimately limited in that if the government tries to raise them too much, the demand for those items will decrease and so will the revenues the government gets from them.

If the problem is the one mentioned at the top of the thread (stopping the Feds from exercising powers not listed in the Constitution), then this bill is not going to do it, because it will never get voted in, thanks to the 10th Amendment. You would need a change to the 10th Amendment inserting the word "expressly."

Why? I know the excuse given is that the word "expressly" wasn't included, but the wording of the 10th Amendment is nonetheless clear. It did use the word "reserved," which, arguably, is equally strong as "expressly."

If you believe the problem is the existance of the Income Tax inself, then you'll probably need an additional Amendment to the Constitution repealing it.

Well, that's the very subject line of this thread!

[bignickel]

Originally posted by shanek


Wait! Are you saying freedom is something you have to pay for????

Nope: it's the stuff you buy, thanks to freedom, that you pay for. Including buying politicions.

Those who get the most off the table pay most of the bill. If they don't want to pay more, they can always move to China and see how effective their business skills are at raising a fortune there. And they don't 'taxed'!


But are ultimately limited in that if the government tries to raise them too much, the demand for those items will decrease and so will the revenues the government gets from them.

For food? Heating oil? Basic supplies? The people in government thought the bills of the nation should be spread around a little more equitably. Unfortunately for most us, they didn't build in anything to adjust for inflation.


Why? I know the excuse given is that the word "expressly" wasn't included, but the wording of the 10th Amendment is nonetheless clear. It did use the word "reserved," which, arguably, is equally strong as "expressly."

I know what you're saying Shanek. I thought I had them on this too, but unfortunately, I did some research into the Marshall decision. It turns out that in the early drafts, "expressly" was in there. It got removed, mostly because of the reasoning Marshall gave in his summation.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1801-1825/marshallcases/mar05.htm

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/con021.pdf
from the website
That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or re-served to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ‘‘expressly’’ before the word ‘‘delegated,’’ and was confirmed by Madison’s remarks in the course of the debate which took place while the proposed amend-ment was pending concerning Hamilton’s plan to establish a national bank.


Well, that's the very subject line of this thread!

You got me there sir. I somehow mis-read this as a proposed law. Nothing constitutional prevents it's passing. But I wouldn't give it very good odds...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Economists do. And people save for retirement over the long term.



appeal to authority. It is only recently that the IMF has actually stopped subsidising their own lunches. when they can actually act like they are not a bunch of hypocritical ideologues, i might listen to them.



If you knew anything at all about the subject, you'd know that they only recommend the more agressive stocks for long-term investments. As you get closer to retirement age, you move funds from the high risk/high return investments to lower risk/lower return investments like money markets and CDs.



doesn't help the people who worked for places like Enron





Bullsh*t. For reasons I mentioned above, people close to retirement age move funds into lower risk money markets and other accounts which were largely unaffected by the stock prices.



It's happening already with Social Security! That's why they have to keep raising the Social Security tax while cutting benefits and raising the retirement age!

NO ONE would be allowed to get away with this scam in the private sector!!!

the problem is the falling birthrate. But it was always known that there would be a problem with the current population bubble. What will make it worse is that in a democracy, the increase in the numbers of the elderly will give them more clout.

why don't they get their act together earlier, well, when they were younger, they were the majority too, and didn't see planning that far in the future to be a major voting issue.

As for Australia, we have a compulsory superranuation scheme. There are billions saved up in it now, the only problem being that you should see all those free enterprise money managers lining up at the trough for their one percent cuts here, and two percent cuts there. It is being milked for all it is worth. Hopefully, there will be something left in it by the time i retire.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Wait! Are you saying freedom is something you have to pay for????



yep. this isn't an anarchist's paradise. freedom is just a concept we have created as a society. it is largely a result of civilisation and culture that we have what we call freedom. these don't come cheap.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
You know exactly how you meant it to appear. You're fooling no one.
I'm apparently fooling you because I didn't "mean it to appear" as anything other than a link to a previous discussion.


Well, I guess some people have to told seventeen times...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=157&page=429

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
The bill charged that the provisions in respect of said alleged income tax incorporated in the act of congress were unconstututional, null, and void, in that the tax was a direct tax in respect of the real estate held and owned by the company in its own right and in its fiduciary capacity as aforesaid, by being imposed upon the rents, issues, and profits os said real estate, and was likewise a direct tax in respect of its personal property and the personal property held by it for others for whom it acted in its fiduciary capacity as aforesaid, which direct taxes were not, in and by said act, apportioned among the several states, as required by section 2 of article 1 of the constitution; and that, if the income tax so incorporated in the act of congress aforesaid were held not to be a direct tax, nevertheless its provisions were unconstitutional, null, and void, in that they were not uniform throughout the United States, as required in and by section 8 of article 1 of the constitution of the United States, upon many grounds and in many particulars specifically set forth....

Congress, under the articles of confederation, had no actual operative power of taxation. It could call upon the states for their respective contributions or quotas as previously determined on; but, in case of the failure or omission of the states to furnish such contribution, there were no means of [157 U.S. 429, 560] compulsion, as congress had no power whatever to lay any tax upon individuals....

Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states....

The result is that the decree of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter a decree in favor of the complainant in respect only of the voluntary payment of the tax on the rents and income of the real estate of the defendant company, and of that which it holds in trust, and on the income from the municipal bonds w ned or so held by it.

That should be enough to make the point.
The first paragraph you quoted is a restatement of the charges in the case--that's why it says "The bill charged that..." It's not part of the findings of the court. The second paragraph specifically refers to the situation the government was in under the Articles of Confederation. You were saying something about blatant dishonesty?

You still haven't come to terms with the fact that the courts consistently drew a distinction between income from property (rents, dividends etc) and income from other sources (like labor).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=157&page=429
We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the constitution, and is invalid.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct
On rehearing, the same five justices decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (property other than land) was also a "direct tax" and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

The Pollock court was very clear that it was only a tax on the incomes from property that was a "direct tax," and other forms of income could be taxed without apportionment.
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html)
Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.
That should be enough to make the point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bignickel
Nope: it's the stuff you buy, thanks to freedom, that you pay for. Including buying politicions.

Sorry, but freedom isn't something you can buy. It isn't even something you can obtain. It's something you have as a part of nature. It can't be given; but it can be abrogated through the use of force. And so you can't use force to preserve freedom, except in a defensive manner.

This is the founding principle upon which this country was based.

For food? Heating oil? Basic supplies?

Yes; they're still susceptible to supply and demand. People wil just stop eating more expensive food and go with cheaper food.

I know what you're saying Shanek. I thought I had them on this too, but unfortunately, I did some research into the Marshall decision. It turns out that in the early drafts, "expressly" was in there.

It was also in the original Articles of Confederation; but the problem, and the essence of the debate behind the use of the word, had nothing to do with the government having powers not given to them by the Constitution. It was to make sure that the powers that were granted the Federal government by the Constitution could not be abrogated by the states. Read about it in the 1791 Annals of Congress.

You got me there sir. I somehow mis-read this as a proposed law. Nothing constitutional prevents it's passing. But I wouldn't give it very good odds...

Nor would I, as I stated above. But I do want to point out that nothing in the Constitution forces the government to levy an Income Tax; Congress could choose not to if they wanted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
appeal to authority.

No, a_u_p, it's what real people do in the real world, and it works. Once again, your bizarre assertions do not match what actually happens in the real world.

doesn't help the people who worked for places like Enron

Only because the government has abrogated the ways of seeking damages which would ordinarily have been open to them. And again, when it comes to financian chicanery, Enron, WorldCom, etc. are rank amatuers compared to Congress.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I'm apparently fooling you because I didn't "mean it to appear" as anything other than a link to a previous discussion.

Bullsh*t! Your exact words were:

That simply isn't true, and it was explained in great detail in this thread.

You weren't just pointing out that it had already been discussed; you were pointing it out as though it refuted what I said!

The first paragraph you quoted is a restatement of the charges in the case

WHICH THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF!!! :rolleyes:

Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek


Bullsh*t! Your exact words were:



You weren't just pointing out that it had already been discussed; you were pointing it out as though it refuted what I said!



WHICH THE COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF!!! :rolleyes:
Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.


Yes. It did refute what you said. I thought you were complaining that I just threw "it out [t]here like it's new information [you] haven't considered."

I quoted their exact finding. Here it is again:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=157&page=429
We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the constitution, and is invalid.

Here is the rest of the quote you seem to be so fond of:
It is true that the effect of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the states in proportion to their population is necessarily that the amount of taxes on the individual [157 U.S. 429, 583] taxpayer in a state having the taxable subject-matter to a larger extent in proportion to its population than another state has, would be less than in such other state; but this inequality must be held to have been contemplated, and was manifestly designed to operate to restrain the exercise of the power of direct taxation to extraordinary emergencies, and to prevent an attack upon accumulated property by mere force of numbers.

And, of course, no comment on the other items I posted.

[shanek]

They said "property," not "land." All land may be property, but not all property is land. Your income, the fruts of your labor, are as much your property as anything else you own.

Your position is especially stupid as Pollock had to deal with Income Tax on interest and dividends invested on bank deposits.

[shanek]

More Pollock quotes:

The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinioin of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue.

A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls witin the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution.

[I]t follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom. Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution.

In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a diect tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by bignickel
Congress enacted the Income Tax because they thought sales taxes unfairly penalized the lower and middle classes. Why shouldn't those who got the most out of a free nation pay the most?

Originally posted by WMT1
Sounds like a good argument for user fees, not for penalizing the wealthy.

Originally posted by bignickel
It's not penalizing the wealthy; it's billing approapriately for services rendered.

Which is just a ******** rationalization for penalizing the wealthy. Since people footing the bill for actual services rendered are usually allowed to agree to the terms first, your analogy fails. And in the absence of any itemized statements indicating exactly what services someone has used, your approach merely takes more from some because they have more, and no matter how you dress it up, that's penalizing them.


If you make make millions because you live in the Land of the Free (as opposed to China), then you are billed more than the fast-food worker who has benefitted the least.

For what??? What basis does anyone, including government, have for claiming any credit for the differences between the degrees to which different individuals achieve success, let alone factoring it into any kind of bill?


Sounds fair to me.

Then you must be presuming some unfairness simply from the fact that someone has more. But unless you can make a case for ill-gotten gains, they are entitled to the opposite presumption.


If you believe the problem is the existance of the Income Tax inself, then you'll probably need an additional Amendment to the Constitution repealing it.

Does someone arguing against the income tax somehow lead you to believe they're not aware of this?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by shanek
Wait! Are you saying freedom is something you have to pay for????

Originally posted by a_unique_person
yep. this isn't an anarchist's paradise.

What has that got to do with it? Sounds like you haven't thought this through very well.


freedom is just a concept we have created as a society. it is largely a result of civilisation and culture that we have what we call freedom. these don't come cheap.

And if you think someone has a right to make you pay them for it, then it's pretty clear it's a concept you don't quite understand. "Pay me and I'll leave you alone" isn't freedom.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by shanek

Sorry, but freedom isn't something you can buy. It isn't even something you can obtain. It's something you have as a part of nature.

Like I said already: you're not buying freedom. You are paying the bills for your government: an entity set up by the people to take care of various things so that we all don't have to do every little thing ourselves (thousands of different money, measuring systems, mail delivery systems, etc.).

Those who make the most out of living in a free country pay more the bill for government than those who make the least. I find that fair. You don't find that fair. Instead of going around and around on this, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, I might have to start quoting Rush songs, and none of us want that to happen!


Yes; they're still susceptible to supply and demand. People wil just stop eating more expensive food and go with cheaper food.

Ah, but the government still needs X amount of dollars. It'll just raise duties and tariffs more so that gets X amount of dollars. The buying public will still end up paying that bill one way or another, no matter how cheap their food is. And that's just food: how about heating oil and basic necessities.?


It was also in the original Articles of Confederation; but the problem, and the essence of the debate behind the use of the word, had nothing to do with the government having powers not given to them by the Constitution. It was to make sure that the powers that were granted the Federal government by the Constitution could not be abrogated by the states. Read about it in the 1791 Annals of Congress.

From what I've read so far, the 'expressly' issue has everything to do with the powers of the Federal government: the Federal government has certain powers and mandates; if it needs certain powers to carry out those mandates, those additional powers don't need to be listed in the Constitution. Otherwise, the word length of the Constitution would double every 15 years because the Feds would have to keep adding things to it.

This is the reasoning behind the Marshall decision, from what I've read. If you've read some different material behind the 10th Amendment and 'expressly', could you post a link?

Of course, you and I both know that no where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has a mandate to police the chemicals in your brain. How'd they get around this? By a law that makes narcotics taxable; once they've got their foot in the door with this, they can instantly rip the door off the hinges by immediately banning what they've just declared taxable.

Which reminds me: "TJX-1138" was just on this weekend. A world where the government polices the chemicals in your brain (and it's illegal to NOT have certain chemicals in your brain). But that could never happen, hmmm? :rolleyes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14668-2001Mar29&notFound=true

[bignickel]

Originally posted by WMT1

Which is just a ******** rationalization for penalizing the wealthy. Since people footing the bill for actual services rendered are usually allowed to agree to the terms first, your analogy fails. And in the absence of any itemized statements indicating exactly what services someone has used, your approach merely takes more from some because they have more, and no matter how you dress it up, that's penalizing them.

I could then say that the opposite is a ******** rationalization for screwing the poor. That I'm more interested in those who have less being able to afford decent housing and basic necessities than I am in whether billionares can buy one more yacht (one for "him" and one for "her"). That the wealthy wouldn't make squat in an unfree country, and since they've made out like bandits here, and can buy and sell politicions to advance their interests (and getting their tax burden decreased to a point where some don't even have to pay), complaining about the unfairness of their taxes makes them sound rather un-grateful for the success they've had living in the land of the free.

But really: I don't want to escalate the thread to a point where it just gets into name-calling, which is where too many threads of this nature end up.

I did a search on Yahoo just now on "graduated income tax"; I couldn't fine ONE page in favor of it. I really don't have the time or inclination to do tons of research on this issue, to be honest. To each his own hobby, and income tax doesn't happen to be mine. With that, I withdraw from this thread.

Before I go, I will say this: Although I am for a graduated income tax, I would drop it in a heartbeat for the opportunity to live in a country where the federal government only had the powers and mandates given to it by the Constitution. I would consider that a better trade up, than not, and well worth dropping the income tax for.

Originally posted by John Lockard

Books? It's all vids now. (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/tglo.htm) :cool:

No, thanks. I don't want to contribute money to the Libertarian party. :D

Originally posted by shanek


Well, here's one (duh):

http://www.lp.org/issues/social-security.html

The libertarian National Center for Policy Analysis has a website http://www.mysocialsecurity.org/ where you can get information on privatization plans complete with a calculator where you can compare your benefits under Social Security with the benefits you'd get from a private account.

Shanek, thanks for the effort, but I was asking about point papers on user fees, not Social Security.

Listen, I don't want to any more of a pain, so just forget about it.
I'll figure it out somehow.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by bignickel
It's not penalizing the wealthy; it's billing approapriately for services rendered.

Originally posted by WMT1
Which is just a ******** rationalization for penalizing the wealthy. Since people footing the bill for actual services rendered are usually allowed to agree to the terms first, your analogy fails. And in the absence of any itemized statements indicating exactly what services someone has used, your approach merely takes more from some because they have more, and no matter how you dress it up, that's penalizing them.

Originally posted by bignickel
I could then say that the opposite is a ******** rationalization for screwing the poor.

Well, yeah, anybody can say pretty much anything. What matters is who can make their case. I pointed out quite clearly how your "bill for services rendered" thing fails. You haven't established anything about how anybody's "screwing the poor".


That I'm more interested in those who have less being able to afford decent housing and basic necessities than I am in whether billionares can buy one more yaught (one for "him" and one for "her").

Good. Somebody else's purchases are none of your business, and nobody's stopping you from helping the poor.


That the wealthy wouldn't make squat in an unfree country,

And how does that give anyone else a rightful claim on any portion of what they do make?


and since they've made out like bandits here,

Please explain this analogy. Somehow I think it will probably be just as faulty as your previous one.


and can buy and sell politicions to advance their interests

To the degree that their "interests" mean keeping what they've earned, I can hardly blame them.


(and getting their tax burden decreased to a point where some don't even have to pay),

Sounds like what you should be arguing for is a flat tax.


complaining about the unfairness of their taxes makes them sound rather un-grateful for the success they've had living in the land of the free.

Only to those whose reason is muddled by envy. To the clear mind, it only sounds like someone complaining about something that actually is unfair - taking more from someone just because they have more. Besides, the wealthy aren't the only ones complaining about it. I'm not one of them, and I don't think they should have to pay any more than anyone else either.


But really: I don't want to escalate the thread to a point where it just gets into name-calling, which is where too many threads of this nature end up.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. I haven't resorted to namecalling.


I did a search on Yahoo just now on "graduated income tax"; I couldn't fine ONE page in favor of it.

Can't say I know what this has to do with anything I said either.

[shanek]

Originally posted by bignickel
Otherwise, I might have to start quoting Rush songs, and none of us want that to happen!

Go for it. Rush's lyrics are written by Neil Peart, who's a Libertarian.

Ah, but the government still needs X amount of dollars. It'll just raise duties and tariffs more so that gets X amount of dollars.

Which will reduce the demand for those goods and you won't end up making the money. Your nefarious plan to grow the size of government has failed.

From what I've read so far, the 'expressly' issue has everything to do with the powers of the Federal government: the Federal government has certain powers and mandates; if it needs certain powers to carry out those mandates, those additional powers don't need to be listed in the Constitution.

Correct. But that doesn't mean they can just assume any power they want, the way they have.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, the book is much more indepth.
The video's his 30-minute campaign infomercial.
Oops! I don't have real player, not that I want it. :o

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
Probably however many want to receive government services. If you simply withhold services from those who do not contribute, and nobody contributes anyway, how important could those services be?

Are you deliberately ignoring the "freeloader" problem? How can the government withhold national defense from your home when it must protect those surrounding you? Can it prevent you from using public roads? Can it prevent you from benefiting by the economic stability provided by having laws and and a military?

Sure, but "wanting a government" isn't where the hypocrisy is. Believing we should pay more, and then passing up the opportunity to do so - that's where the hypocrisy is.

An individual choice to pay more comes with the freeloader problem too. Suppose I want a stronger national defense. Should I pay in more so that freeloaders can benefit from it, or should all be required to increase their pay-in (assuming the change is democratically enacted)?

If a service truly benefits everyone, then you shouldn't need to tax them for it. Just offer the service, and if everyone agrees that it sufficiently benefits them, then everyone will be willing to pay so they can receive it. If they aren't, then maybe the benefit isn't all it's cracked up to be. And admittedly, some of us wouldn't be particularly interested in paying for some of the "services", like the war on drugs.

Unanimity ("Everyone agrees") is a completely impractical means of taxation. For a service that is non-separable it falls to majority rule to determine whether to purchase it from the government or not. That's what the legislature is for. For separable services paid for by taxes--well, that I'm willing to debate. But my understanding here is that the right to tax for anything is in question.

And who says government is the only alternative to purchasing things individually?

But the government is the only mechanism by which those that benefit can be compelled to contribute according to how the majority decides the bill should be divided. If you have an alternative to that, I'm game.

How is it inherently so? Why not just have individuals pay for the services they decide are important enough for them to receive, rather than making everyone pay for the whole package, whether they want it or not?

It is inherently a group decision because in these cases the benefits accrue to the group. Each individual deserves a say in what group benefits they want, but unanimity is impractical... there would likely be no government at all. So it falls instead to a majority to decide.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
They said "property," not "land." All land may be property, but not all property is land. Your income, the fruts of your labor, are as much your property as anything else you own.
I understand that property is more than just land, that's why I used "rents, dividends etc" as an example in a previous post. How you define "property" is irrelevant, it's how the Supreme Court defined it that matters.


Your position is especially stupid as Pollock had to deal with Income Tax on interest and dividends invested on bank deposits.
Yes, income from personal property.

So the Supreme Court Justices in the Brushaber decision are stupid? My postion is the same as theirs.
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html)
Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past.

My position is the same as Chief Justice White in the case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html):by the previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
More Pollock quotes:
It would have been helpful if you had distinguished which Pollock case each quote came from, U.S. 429 or U.S. 601.
Originally posted by shanek
The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinioin of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue.
This quote is completely out of context. This particular case found the tax unconstitutional because it "diminished" the pay of federal judges, not because it was an income tax. Nice try.
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/157/429.html)
The constitution of the United States provides in the first section of article 3 that 'the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.'
Originally posted by shanek
A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls witin the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution.
This quote was snatched from the middle of a discussion on Alexander Hamilton's opinions in the Hylton case. If you look at the whole passage you see that it referred specifically to income from property. Here are quotes from before and after the passage:
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/158/601.html)
'The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes: Capitation or poll taxes; taxes on lands and buildings; general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.
.
.
.
[the next sentence after the original quote]And Mr. Hamilton, in his report on the public credit, in referring to contracts with citizens of a foreign country, said: 'This principle, which seems critically correct, [158 U.S. 601, 626] would exempt as well the income as the capital of the property. It protects the use, as effectually as the thing. What, in fact, is property, but a fiction, without the beneficial use of it? In many cases, indeed, the income or annuity is the property itself.'
Originally posted by shanek
It follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom. Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution.
This quote also deals with income from property.
Originally posted by shanek
In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a diect tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax.
At the time this was written, England was not yet a part of the United States. ;)

Here is a final quote of my own:
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/158/601.html)
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such

[shanek]

Funny; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. doesn't define excise taxes that way.

And you still haven't answered my one big question: If Income Tax was permitted before the 16th Amendment, why was it necessary to pass a Constitutional Amendment giving the government the power to tax income without apportionment?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek

Sorry, but freedom isn't something you can buy. It isn't even something you can obtain. It's something you have as a part of nature.



nature did not give us freedom. it gave us a short, dangerous life full of pain.

freedom is a cultural concept, like civilisation, family, independence etc.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Funny; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. doesn't define excise taxes that way.
Is it a secret, or are you going to tell us? Here's a link: FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/220/107.html)

Here's what the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct) has to say about that case:
After the Pollock decisions, and before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court also held that a corporate income tax was constitutional if it was based on the income from the manufacture and sale of goods, even though real and personal property were used to manufacture the goods. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
And you still haven't answered my one big question: If Income Tax was permitted before the 16th Amendment, why was it necessary to pass a Constitutional Amendment giving the government the power to tax income without apportionment?

Actually, I answered that at the top of this page. Here it is again:
Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct)
Because of the Pollock decisions, Congress was limited in its ability to impose a tax on incomes, because it was necessary to determine the source of the income. Wages, salaries, and other earned incomes could be taxed, and income from manufacturing and other business activities could be taxed, but rents, interest, dividends, and other incomes from property could not be taxed without apportionment (a very awkward process). The 16th Amendment was therefore proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states, so that Congress could tax incomes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
If you simply withhold services from those who do not contribute, and nobody contributes anyway, how important could those services be?

Originally posted by gnome
Are you deliberately ignoring the "freeloader" problem?

The inability to figure out how to withhold a service from someone who has not asked for it, or agreed to pay for it, does not equal a right to demand payment. Having pointed that out, however, I will attempt to address it where I can.


How can the government withhold national defense from your home when it must protect those surrounding you?

Though this is the toughest "freeloader" issue of them all, even it is not nearly the problem some like to make it out to be. I've got my own ideas about it, but just to keep things simple, the federal government could always just add a "national defense" surcharge to the fees it charges for all the other services it provides. Can't say I see much of anything else for which this approach would be necessary, though.


Can it prevent you from using public roads?

Not a problem. Finance the roads exclusively through licenses, and then fine the hell out of someone who is caught using them without being licensed. Not that much different from the way things operate now, except the method of financing. Sure, the licenses will cost a lot more than they do now, but if you're not paying taxes, so what?


Can it prevent you from benefiting by the economic stability provided by having laws and and a military?

Well, you're kind of repeating yourself with the "military" thing. And economic stability is a condition, not a commodity or service that anyone owns or deserves to be paid for providing.


An individual choice to pay more comes with the freeloader problem too. Suppose I want a stronger national defense. Should I pay in more so that freeloaders can benefit from it,

I'd say you should probably pay more because you want a stronger national defense.


or should all be required to increase their pay-in (assuming the change is democratically enacted)?

That would be a "no". If 51% of a population wants a stronger national defense (or anything else), then that 51% can enter into a contractual agreement to commit their own resources toward that goal. Same for 90% or 20%.


Unanimity ("Everyone agrees") is a completely impractical means of taxation.

I agree. You were the one making comments about services benefiting everyone. I'm arguing for people paying for the services they think they will benefit enough from to choose to pay for them. That requires no unanimity.


For a service that is non-separable it falls to majority rule to determine whether to purchase it from the government or not.

That certainly does seem to be the way things operate. But if you're specifically arguing that this is how things should be, and if you're claiming it should fall to the majority to decide how much everyone must pay (even those outside that majority), then I don't see the case for this. Once again, if any number of people (no matter how large or small) feel something is worthwhile, they have every right to pool their own resources to provide its funding. That is not accompanied by a right to demand the contribution or participation of anyone who isn't interested, just because the group happens to be large enough to draw power from its size.


For separable services paid for by taxes--well, that I'm willing to debate. But my understanding here is that the right to tax for anything is in question.

Of course it is. There is no such right.


But the government is the only mechanism by which those that benefit can be compelled to contribute according to how the majority decides the bill should be divided.

So what? You haven't established that such compulsion is a worthwhile, or even moral, objective. Again, those in the majority have every right do whatever they want with their own resources, but they have no rightful claim on anyone else's just because they're the majority, or because someone outside the majority might benefit.


If you have an alternative to that, I'm game.

I believe I've already mentioned it.


Both what services are bought, and how the bill should be divided, is inherently a group decision

How is it inherently so? Why not just have individuals pay for the services they decide are important enough for them to receive, rather than making everyone pay for the whole package, whether they want it or not?

It is inherently a group decision because in these cases the benefits accrue to the group.

That's fine, if the "group" you're talking about is everyone who agrees to contribute and participate in any particular program. But you seem to be trying to make the "group" synonymous with everyone for some reason, and that's the part there is no justification for.


Each individual deserves a say in what group benefits they want, but unanimity is impractical...

But again, I'm not arguing for "unanimity". If anything, I'm arguing against it. I'm just arguing against it more consistently than you are. If you don't need unanimous consent to do something, then you don't need (or more to the point, you are not entitled to) unanimous contribution either. Nothing impractical about that.


there would likely be no government at all.

There's certainly no basis for concluding this would be the result of anything I'm arguing for.


So it falls instead to a majority to decide.

If the "majority" refers to those who support a particular endeavor, it only falls to them to decide how to divide the bill among themselves. They have no need (or right) to decide anything for anyone who does not wish to participate.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
freedom is a cultural concept, like civilisation, family, independence etc.

Do you think "pay me and I'll leave you alone" is consistent with that concept?

[shanek]

Originally posted by bignickel
It's not penalizing the wealthy; it's billing approapriately for services rendered. If you make make millions because you live in the Land of the Free (as opposed to China), then you are billed more than the fast-food worker who has benefitted the least. Sounds fair to me.

Knew I'd find this if I looked hard enough:

Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm)

It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution.

In other words, you can't charge people a fee for exercising their sovereign rights, or from benefiting from the free exercise of their sovereign rights.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


nature did not give us freedom. it gave us a short, dangerous life full of pain.



If the natural state of humanity isnt freedom, is it oppression?


And if you think someone has a right to make you pay them for it, then it's pretty clear it's a concept you don't quite understand. "Pay me and I'll leave you alone" isn't freedom.

Indeed, paying someone to leave you alone is extortion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


If the natural state of humanity isnt freedom, is it oppression?


And if you think someone has a right to make you pay them for it, then it's pretty clear it's a concept you don't quite understand. "Pay me and I'll leave you alone" isn't freedom.

Indeed, paying someone to leave you alone is extortion.

false dichotomy. the natural state of humanity is like the animals in the wild. they don't make me pay for my freedom, i pay taxes in the expectation that i will be able to live in a civil society. lets look at the facts. which countries are continually derided for high taxes, but have other advantages like a lower homicide rate than the US? I choose a lower homicide rate.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


false dichotomy. the natural state of humanity is like the animals in the wild.

It may be a false dichotomy. But animals in the wild are free, No?


they don't make me pay for my freedom, i pay taxes in the expectation that i will be able to live in a civil society. lets look at the facts. which countries are continually derided for high taxes, but have other advantages like a lower homicide rate than the US? I choose a lower homicide rate.


"Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither." Ben Franklin.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Tony
If the natural state of humanity isnt freedom, is it oppression?

Originally posted by WMT1
And if you think someone has a right to make you pay them for it, then it's pretty clear it's a concept you don't quite understand. "Pay me and I'll leave you alone" isn't freedom.

Originally posted by Tony
Indeed, paying someone to leave you alone is extortion.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
false dichotomy. the natural state of humanity is like the animals in the wild.

Is having to pay someone in order for them to leave you alone more consisent with freedom or extortion? It's a simple question.

they don't make me pay for my freedom, i pay taxes in the expectation that i will be able to live in a civil society.

Do "they" leave it up to you to decide whether that's an expectation you're willing to pay for, or will "they" do undesirable things to you if you don't?

lets look at the facts. which countries are continually derided for high taxes, but have other advantages like a lower homicide rate than the US? I choose a lower homicide rate

The key word there is "choose". If you choose to pay someone to do something for you that reduces your risk of being a homicide victim, there is no conflict with freedom. But that's not the way it usually works, is it?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Knew I'd find this if I looked hard enough:

Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm)

In other words, you can't charge people a fee for exercising their sovereign rights, or from benefiting from the free exercise of their sovereign rights.
It doesn't come close to meaning that. It's another quote completely out of context. This case was about a town charging license fees for door-to-door soliciting, and has no relation at all to income taxes. The Jehovah's Witnesses who brought the case complained that the fee was a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. The decision didn't say that a fee could not be charged at all, only that it couldn't be used to deny people their right to free speech.

From the paragraph immediately preceding your quote:http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
The protection afforded by the First Amendment is not so restricted. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers and treats them all alike. Such equality in treatment does not save the ordinance. Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position.
Again, towards the end of the page:
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
Furthermore, the present ordinance is not narrowly drawn to safeguard the people of the community in their homes against the evils of solicitations.
The court had no problem at all with a fee for solicitation. The problem was that the ordinance didn't sufficiently distinguish between evagelists (exercising their free speech rights) and your garden variety encyclopedia salesman.

On an unrelated note, My favorite part of the Constitution.org site is where they give the low-down on who's really running the country:The Shadow Government (http://www.constitution.org/shad4816.htm)
There are indications that after things settled down, the Shadow Government would allow the establishment of a parliamentary system that would provide a façade of democracy, just as it does in other countries that have such a system, without effective limits on the powers of government, where "rights" endure only as long as there is a sufficiently strong constituency that defends them. Such a system is not a republican form of government, based on the Rule of Law, or a representative democracy, but merely a tool for control by an oligarchy.

There is also suspicious circumstantial evidence that part of the plan is the release of diseases, of which HIV/AIDS is one, to reduce the world population, selectively.

A key part of the plan seems to involve the development and use of mind control techno logies, both electronic and chemical, which allow the elite to disable or discredit dissidents and keep the people compliant and productive. The experimentation that has been done on this is one of the great coverups and abuses of human rights of our time, far exceeding that of the radiation experiments that are now coming to light.

Wooo-woooo. Get out your tin-foil beany cause the gub-mint is shooting thoughts right into your frontal lobe.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

This seems to have gone ovelooked from the previous page. I'm reposting a link here for convenience.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=369146

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
false dichotomy. the natural state of humanity is like the animals in the wild. they don't make me pay for my freedom, i pay taxes in the expectation that i will be able to live in a civil society. lets look at the facts. which countries are continually derided for high taxes, but have other advantages like a lower homicide rate than the US? I choose a lower homicide rate.

"Those who would give up their liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

Besides, you have no evidence whatsoever that the higher taxes and the programs they pay for are responsible for the lower homicide rate.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
It doesn't come close to meaning that. It's another quote completely out of context. This case was about a town charging license fees for door-to-door soliciting, and has no relation at all to income taxes.

When did I say it had anything to do with Income Taxes? I was responding to bignickel's assertion that people should pay when they benefit from a free society.

You're so desperate to get me any way you can that you blind yourself to what's really being said, jump on the first assumption that comes to your mind, and end up blathering on like a nincompoop (complete with an ad hominem at the end). Not the behavior of a good skeptic.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
When did I say it had anything to do with Income Taxes? I was responding to bignickel's assertion that people should pay when they benefit from a free society.
Since bignickel was arguing a justification for a graduated income tax, I thought that's what you were addressing. Silly me.

You're so desperate to get me any way you can that you blind yourself to what's really being said, jump on the first assumption that comes to your mind, and end up blathering on like a nincompoop (complete with an ad hominem at the end).
The "ad hominem" was directed at the kooky website you quoted, not at you. (Unless, of course, you also believe in all that New World Order/Shadow Government/Mind Control crap.)

Not the behavior of a good skeptic.
So I guess the behavior of a "good skeptic," involves quoting out of context, deliberately misinterpreting items to fit your world view, and completely ignoring all contrary evidence.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

Since bignickel was arguing a justification for a graduated income tax, I thought that's what you were addressing. Silly me.

He was arguing a justification that was completely invalid. I responded with a Supreme Court case that rejected his reasoning. It didn't have to be about Income Tax to reject his reasoning. You cannot charge a fee for someone to exercise their rights or for benefiting from them exercising their rights. Period

The "ad hominem" was directed at the kooky website you quoted, not at you.

Doesn't matter. It's still an ad hominem. The only reason you would cast any aspersions on the hosting site is if you meant to imply that they would fraudulently represent the document, something you implied but didn't have the cajones to state directly.

Which is laughable anyway, since there was no commentary whatsoever. Just a printing of the ruling. So, what possible reason could there be for even mentioning the hosting site? Unless you just wanted an excuse to dismiss it.

So I guess the behavior of a "good skeptic," involves quoting out of context,

Show me where I have done this.

deliberately misinterpreting items to fit your world view,

Show me where I have done this.

and completely ignoring all contrary evidence.

Show me where i have done this.

The only "sin" I appear to have committed is to dare to disagree with the great Mahatma (nice ego, giving yourself that title) and not to just roll over and take what he says at face value.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Doesn't matter. It's still an ad hominem. The only reason you would cast any aspersions on the hosting site is if you meant to imply that they would fraudulently represent the document, something you implied but didn't have the cajones to state directly.
Ridiculing crackpots is one of this board's favorite pastimes. This is why I said that the comments were on "an unrelated note." If I had thought the document was fraudulent,I would not have quoted from it.
Show me where I have done this. [Quoting out of context]
I've already gone over this in my posts, so I'm just going to post links.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=368866#post368866
Show me where I have done this. [Misinterpreting items to fit your world view]
Your entire discussion of the Pollock case is a misinterpretation, since they explicitly said they were only considering income from property, and not other forms of income (like from "employments"). See also: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=367284#post367284

This one was my favorite (bolding is yours, colorizing mine):
Originally posted by shanek
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=157&page=429

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Congress, under the articles of confederation, had no actual operative power of taxation. It could call upon the states for their respective contributions or quotas as previously determined on; but, in case of the failure or omission of the states to furnish such contribution, there were no means of [157 U.S. 429, 560] compulsion, as congress had no power whatever to lay any tax upon individuals....

Show me where i have done this. [completely ignoring contrary evidence]
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=368795#post368795
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=369146#post369146
(nice ego, giving yourself that title)
It's a WC Fields joke (http://alt.tcm.turner.com/essentials/essential/pop_bank.html).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Your entire discussion of the Pollock case is a misinterpretation, since they explicitly said they were only considering income from property,

But, as I quoted, they specifically said that income from labor was a form of property. And I'm not the only one to interpret Pollock that way.

It's a WC Fields joke (http://alt.tcm.turner.com/essentials/essential/pop_bank.html).

Then I confess ignorance and ask for your understanding.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
The inability to figure out how to withhold a service from someone who has not asked for it, or agreed to pay for it, does not equal a right to demand payment. Having pointed that out, however, I will attempt to address it where I can.

I wouldn't say it automatically generates a right to demand payment, but the issue must be considered, else anyone can opt out by saying, "I don't want it, but thanks anyway" and let the good samaritans funding it take over their share. It creates an incentive to claim you don't want it when in fact you do. Basically, it punishes the honest and rewards the dishonest, until the honest can no longer carry the burden. Only then will you see some of the freeloaders change their mind.

Though this is the toughest "freeloader" issue of them all, even it is not nearly the problem some like to make it out to be. I've got my own ideas about it, but just to keep things simple, the federal government could always just add a "national defense" surcharge to the fees it charges for all the other services it provides. Can't say I see much of anything else for which this approach would be necessary, though.

And if someone opts out of all the pay services, or only takes a minimal amount? Why do you suppose this is not a big problem?

Not a problem. Finance the roads exclusively through licenses, and then fine the hell out of someone who is caught using them without being licensed. Not that much different from the way things operate now, except the method of financing. Sure, the licenses will cost a lot more than they do now, but if you're not paying taxes, so what?

There's a lot of people that don't have the money to be "fined the hell out of" and would find it tempting to try to use the roads anyway. Personally I think it would create a monster enforcement problem. But that's an opinion, yours can honestly differ from mine.

Well, you're kind of repeating yourself with the "military" thing. And economic stability is a condition, not a commodity or service that anyone owns or deserves to be paid for providing.

Whatever you call it semantically, it is a condition that exists because of taxes paid to run the government, and all too easy to opt out of with just words.

Let me state it a little simpler with an analogy.

You are part of a small group of people renting a house or an apartment. How would you feel if suddenly one or two of your roommates decided they weren't going to pay for cable anymore since they don't want it... but then continued to use it when everyone else ponied up the extra bucks because they didn't want to get rid of it.

Wouldn't you be a little suspicious that they just said they didn't want it to get out of their portion of the bill, knowing full well that the rest of the group would cover their share?

[Rouser2]

Shame on Ron Paul. He should know better. Abolishing the 16th Amendment in no way would abolish income taxes and contrary to Paul's assertions, prior to the passage of the Amendment, the Supreme Court never ruled that congress had no authority to levy an income tax.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
I wouldn't say it automatically generates a right to demand payment, but the issue must be considered, else anyone can opt out by saying, "I don't want it, but thanks anyway" and let the good samaritans funding it take over their share. It creates an incentive to claim you don't want it when in fact you do. Basically, it punishes the honest and rewards the dishonest, until the honest can no longer carry the burden. Only then will you see some of the freeloaders change their mind.

But again, these problems are only problems for the services where you either can't figure out a way to withhold the service, or can't provide sufficient incentive for most people to want to pay for them. Other than national defense, can you provide an example or two of a service where this would be particularly problematic?



Though this is the toughest "freeloader" issue of them all, even it is not nearly the problem some like to make it out to be. I've got my own ideas about it, but just to keep things simple, the federal government could always just add a "national defense" surcharge to the fees it charges for all the other services it provides. Can't say I see much of anything else for which this approach would be necessary, though.

And if someone opts out of all the pay services, or only takes a minimal amount? Why do you suppose this is not a big problem?

Because the contributions of "someone" aren't that important in the grand scheme of things. If those other services government is providing are all that beneficial, then there's probably not a lot of incentive for anyone to opt out of all them, or even most of them, and there should be plenty of customers. Now, if you want to argue that the other stuff is not all that beneficial, then this approach could be a problem. But I didn't get the idea you thought this.



Not a problem. Finance the roads exclusively through licenses, and then fine the hell out of someone who is caught using them without being licensed. Not that much different from the way things operate now, except the method of financing. Sure, the licenses will cost a lot more than they do now, but if you're not paying taxes, so what?

There's a lot of people that don't have the money to be "fined the hell out of" and would find it tempting to try to use the roads anyway. Personally I think it would create a monster enforcement problem.

But why would these problems be a natural result of what I've suggested any more than of the way things are now? How big a temptation is it for people to drive without a license today? Is this a monster enforcement problem? And if not, do you suppose the threat of traffic fines might have something to do with the fact that it isn't?



Well, you're kind of repeating yourself with the "military" thing. And economic stability is a condition, not a commodity or service that anyone owns or deserves to be paid for providing.

Whatever you call it semantically, it is a condition that exists because of taxes paid to run the government, and all too easy to opt out of with just words.

And it is a condition that could just as easily exist from user fees paid to the government for actual services requested and rendered. How would this be any less supportive of economic stability? It might help if you could identify which "services" are most conducive to economic stability, but which you don't think enough people would pay for if given the choice to opt out.



Let me state it a little simpler with an analogy.

You are part of a small group of people renting a house or an apartment. How would you feel if suddenly one or two of your roommates decided they weren't going to pay for cable anymore since they don't want it... but then continued to use it when everyone else ponied up the extra bucks because they didn't want to get rid of it.

Wouldn't you be a little suspicious that they just said they didn't want it to get out of their portion of the bill, knowing full well that the rest of the group would cover their share?

Actually, I'd wonder why the hell they were still getting cable in their home or apartment.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
But again, these problems are only problems for the services where you either can't figure out a way to withhold the service, or can't provide sufficient incentive for most people to want to pay for them. Other than national defense, can you provide an example or two of a service where this would be particularly problematic?

Police and prisons come to mind. Also public education--which does not only benefit the students. Publicly funded roads and infrastructure as well.

And for services that can't be withheld, under your proposed system the optional payment is a built in disincentive to pay.

I have another argument I want to make against your proposal, but to avoid a straw man, please confirm: you propose each individual pays the government a user fee for distinct services, and whatever they want to for any other budget items they feel are necessary?

But why would these problems be a natural result of what I've suggested any more than of the way things are now? How big a temptation is it for people to drive without a license today? Is this a monster enforcement problem? And if not, do you suppose the threat of traffic fines might have something to do with the fact that it isn't?

Well... those that can't drive have alternatives. They can take a bus... bicycle, walk on the sidewalk. Catch a ride with a friend. In your system, hard to find too many alternatives that would allow them to get around without actually using a road somehow. When you have a lack of legal alternatives, that's when an enforcement problem emerges.

And it is a condition that could just as easily exist from user fees paid to the government for actual services requested and rendered. How would this be any less supportive of economic stability? It might help if you could identify which "services" are most conducive to economic stability, but which you don't think enough people would pay for if given the choice to opt out.

Specifically, military defense, law enforcment, and federally insured banks come to mind. And I think plenty of people like the idea, but would choose not to pay if they figured other people would pick up the slack.

Actually, I'd wonder why the hell they were still getting cable in their home or apartment.

Because cable was important enough for the rest of them to be willing to pay for it. But is that the most fair way of handling it? Or is it better that everyone who uses the television contribute towards cable and agree TOGETHER (democratically, if you will) how the bill should be divided?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
But again, these problems are only problems for the services where you either can't figure out a way to withhold the service, or can't provide sufficient incentive for most people to want to pay for them. Other than national defense, can you provide an example or two of a service where this would be particularly problematic?

Originally posted by gnome
Police and prisons come to mind.

Damn. Can open, worms everywhere!

Okay, first, I have no problem with an approach that treats the criminal justice system as one service, and allows people to subscribe to the service, as they would with cable, electricity, or anything else most people choose to pay for. In fact, in some ways, insurance might be a better analogy. And if you're concerned about poor people not being covered, there is nothing stopping you, and those who agree with you on that point, from committing a portion of your own resources to the maintenance of a fund to cover them. Another alternative would be to simply charge people based on economic status. Unless subscribers are being made to pay through the nose for this coverage, I don't see much incentive for anyone opting out.



Also public education--

Sorry, but the freeloader problem doesn't apply here. Someone doesn't pay, you don't let their kid in school. And if you think that's harsh, then again, there is nothing stopping you, and those who agree with you, from pooling your own resources to pay for the education of kids who could not otherwise afford it. If yours is the prevailing opinion, then there should be plenty of contributors.



which does not only benefit the students.

They're the only ones it benefits directly. And any indirect benefit is nothing anybody has any business sending anybody else a bill for.



Publicly funded roads and infrastructure as well.

I thought I already covered roads. The ones I talked about don't need to be "publicly funded", remember?

What other infrastructure issues are you talking about?



And for services that can't be withheld, under your proposed system the optional payment is a built in disincentive to pay.

First, you still haven't come up with much in the way of services that can't be withheld, and almost none for which incentive to pay couldn't be created through heavy penalties assessed for unauthorized use.

And second, I'm not proposing a specific "system" as such. I'm suggesting an alternative approach to addressing funding, in response to your concerns about taxes being voluntary. For any particular area of concern, there might be any number of different solutions that are consistent with a voluntary approach.



I have another argument I want to make against your proposal, but to avoid a straw man, please confirm: you propose each individual pays the government a user fee for distinct services, and whatever they want to for any other budget items they feel are necessary?

That's pretty close. There may be some subtleties in your wording I'm not too sure about, but if your argument is based on that wording, and if it exposes some difference between that wording and my actual views, I promise to simply point that out, without calling your argument a straw man.



And if someone opts out of all the pay services, or only takes a minimal amount? Why do you suppose this is not a big problem?

I know this is from an earlier post, but I wanted to add to my answer:

One of the reasons I'm not concerned about this is that I consider the flip side of it to be worse - making people pay for services they may not benefit from, or which they may not even want at all.



Well... those that can't drive have alternatives. They can take a bus... bicycle, walk on the sidewalk. Catch a ride with a friend. In your system, hard to find too many alternatives that would allow them to get around without actually using a road somehow. When you have a lack of legal alternatives, that's when an enforcement problem emerges.

Sorry, but you seem to be reading more into my "system" than I've outlined. It's hard to get around today without actually using a road somehow too. And I'm not sure how anything I've argued for precludes the alternatives you itemized (bus, etc.).



It might help if you could identify which "services" are most conducive to economic stability, but which you don't think enough people would pay for if given the choice to opt out.

Specifically, military defense, law enforcment, and federally insured banks come to mind.

Military defense - again, already covered. That you keep bringing it up suggests you can't find that many other examples to support your "freeloader" concerns.

Law enforcement - addressed earlier in this post.

Federally insured banks - I don't see the problem. Can you ask a specific question about this one?



Because cable was important enough for the rest of them to be willing to pay for it. But is that the most fair way of handling it? Or is it better that everyone who uses the television contribute towards cable and agree TOGETHER (democratically, if you will) how the bill should be divided?

How about a third option - provide cable service to those households that pay for it, and withhold it from those that don't? Isn't that pretty much how cable works now in most places? And is that any less "fair" than either of your proposals? Why would democracy even need to enter the picture?

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
Okay, first, I have no problem with an approach that treats the criminal justice system as one service, and allows people to subscribe to the service, as they would with cable, electricity, or anything else most people choose to pay for.

The problem is this... what to do with people that don't pay. You say, fail to provide them with police service. Ok... so, if a criminal runs onto their property, you don't go after them? Sorry, that doesn't sound too smart to me. Or prisons? Lock them up, they can't leave the walls except to go to someone's house that didn't pay the prison bill?

I fail to see how this is a service that is separable.

In fact, in some ways, insurance might be a better analogy. And if you're concerned about poor people not being covered, there is nothing stopping you, and those who agree with you on that point, from committing a portion of your own resources to the maintenance of a fund to cover them. Another alternative would be to simply charge people based on economic status. Unless subscribers are being made to pay through the nose for this coverage, I don't see much incentive for anyone opting out.

All too easy to let your neighbors pay for it all and reap the benfits. And even if everyone wants to opt in, how do THEY know how much money the police force needs (See my argument below)

They're the only ones it benefits directly. And any indirect benefit is nothing anybody has any business sending anybody else a bill for.

Here's where you and I differ. Crime is lower because of schools. It's safe to walk around because other people pay taxes for it. So just because you don't have a kid, you don't have any responsibility for this?

I thought I already covered roads. The ones I talked about don't need to be "publicly funded", remember?

See below about roads.

And second, I'm not proposing a specific "system" as such. I'm suggesting an alternative approach to addressing funding, in response to your concerns about taxes being voluntary. For any particular area of concern, there might be any number of different solutions that are consistent with a voluntary approach.

I'll listen to any you have.

That's pretty close. There may be some subtleties in your wording I'm not too sure about, but if your argument is based on that wording, and if it exposes some difference between that wording and my actual views, I promise to simply point that out, without calling your argument a straw man.

Ok the next argument I was going to make is this... let's suppose I believe in having certain government services, and send in extra taxes to pay for them. How do I know how much of a budget they need to do it properly? Basically I'm just guessing. So is everyone else that sends in money for it. Is that any way to handle a budget? have each taxpayer just sort of send in whatever they think is needed? The funding is likely to fluctuate so widely that I wonder if even popular services could be managed properly. Do you have a solution to this? We gripe about our legislature screwing up the budget, but can you imagine the budget situation if everyone just planned their own share of it without even consulting anyone else?

I know this is from an earlier post, but I wanted to add to my answer:

One of the reasons I'm not concerned about this is that I consider the flip side of it to be worse - making people pay for services they may not benefit from, or which they may not even want at all.

I don't consider it ideal, I would prefer 100% voluntary, but certain things cannot be done without SOME people having to sign onto something they didn't want. Just like laws that have nothing to do with money, you can't make an exception for everyone that doesn't agree with it. That's what I meant earlier by the problem of unanimity. The inconvenience of spending some money on something you didn't want, to me is less of a problem than any of the ways you've come up with to prevent that. Difference of opinion I guess.

Sorry, but you seem to be reading more into my "system" than I've outlined. It's hard to get around today without actually using a road somehow too. And I'm not sure how anything I've argued for precludes the alternatives you itemized (bus, etc.).

Well, if I didn't pay for the road, I wouldn't expect the government to want me riding a bus on it, or walking on it, or riding a bicycle on it. Restricting someone from using a car is not as limiting as restricting someone from using the road itself. Hence, a greater enforcement problem.

Federally insured banks - I don't see the problem. Can you ask a specific question about this one?

The federal government insures your deposits. This prevents bank runs and panics. How much money could, say, your small business make, if you couldn't find a reliable bank to save your money in? The government pays to make them reliable, to benefit the economy, and in my book you owe them part of the bill if you want to live here.

How about a third option - provide cable service to those households that pay for it, and withhold it from those that don't? Isn't that pretty much how cable works now in most places? And is that any less "fair" than either of your proposals? Why would democracy even need to enter the picture?

You've misunderstood my example. Everyone in my example is living in the same one house. Do you understand the problem I am trying to bring up or not? To wit: someone that wants a service may choose not to pay for it if they perceive that others will pick up the bill. If you understand this problem and consider it minimal or irrelevant, just say so. If you don't understand, I'll try to explain it better. I just want you to address it.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Okay, first, I have no problem with an approach that treats the criminal justice system as one service, and allows people to subscribe to the service, as they would with cable, electricity, or anything else most people choose to pay for.

Originally posted by gnome
The problem is this... what to do with people that don't pay. You say, fail to provide them with police service. Ok... so, if a criminal runs onto their property, you don't go after them?

There isn't necessarily only one answer to your question. There could be any number of ways things could be set up. But if you want me to provide you with a possibility for this particular scenario, it might help if you made it more specific. What do you mean by "runs onto their property"? And are you saying that doing this is what makes him a criminal? Or, if he had already committed some other crime, what was it, and who's the victim?



Or prisons? Lock them up, they can't leave the walls except to go to someone's house that didn't pay the prison bill?

Uh ... no. Leaving them there would be just fine, thanks. :confused:



I fail to see how this is a service that is separable.

Well, if you're drawing conclusions like that last one from anything I've suggested, I'd have to say you do seem to be easily confused. Maybe it would also help if you were a little clearer about what you mean by "separable".



In fact, in some ways, insurance might be a better analogy. And if you're concerned about poor people not being covered, there is nothing stopping you, and those who agree with you on that point, from committing a portion of your own resources to the maintenance of a fund to cover them. Another alternative would be to simply charge people based on economic status. Unless subscribers are being made to pay through the nose for this coverage, I don't see much incentive for anyone opting out.

All too easy to let your neighbors pay for it all and reap the benfits.

What makes you think those who don't pay would reap the benefits? You seem to be ignoring at least parts of my responses.

And particularly, with regard to the criminal justice system, we already have that now anyway. People who are poor enough not to pay taxes still get to call the cops. Do you object to that?



And even if everyone wants to opt in, how do THEY know how much money the police force needs (See my argument below)

Who cares? How does anyone know how much money the government needs? Sorry, but whenever I purchase a service from anyone, I am less concerned with how much money they need than what the service is worth to me. If it's worth more to me than the price they're asking, sign me up.



which does not only benefit the students.

They're the only ones it benefits directly. And any indirect benefit is nothing anybody has any business sending anybody else a bill for.

Here's where you and I differ. Crime is lower because of schools. It's safe to walk around because other people pay taxes for it.

Crime is lower when people don't commit crimes. That should be the behavior that is expected of everyone. And I, for one, am willing to financially support a criminal justice system that deals harshly with those that violate that expectation.



So just because you don't have a kid, you don't have any responsibility for this?

Whether I have kids is irrelevant. I am not responsible for the education of other people's kids, period. And any increased potential for a life of crime that results from their lack of education is not my responsibility either. I have no moral obligation to subsidize anyone else just so they'll be less likely to end up victimizing their fellow human beings. And even if I chose to assume such a responsibility myself, I have no right to impose it on anyone else.



Ok the next argument I was going to make is this... let's suppose I believe in having certain government services, and send in extra taxes to pay for them. How do I know how much of a budget they need to do it properly?

A good way might be to contact a representative of that particular service, and ask.



Basically I'm just guessing. So is everyone else that sends in money for it. Is that any way to handle a budget?

Since when is a customer responsible for the budget of an organization whose services he's subscribing to? They usually determine the fees, and you decide whether the service you want is worth paying those fees. What need is there for "guessing"?



have each taxpayer just sort of send in whatever they think is needed?

Again, no. It is up to those charged with knowing how to operate the particular service in question to determine those fees.



The funding is likely to fluctuate so widely that I wonder if even popular services could be managed properly. Do you have a solution to this?

No, but that's because I don't see this problem, period. Anyone providing a service is responsible for determining what resources are needed for effectively providing that service, and charging fees accordingly. (It probably speaks well for my viewpoint that you seem to be looking for problems.)



We gripe about our legislature screwing up the budget, but can you imagine the budget situation if everyone just planned their own share of it without even consulting anyone else?

First, a clarification. What I've been talking about is for individuals to decide what services they want, and whether they consider each service to be worth whatever price is being asked for that service. I haven't suggested that anyone decide the amount of his own fees, other than the degree to which that amount is determined by the choices he makes from among the services being offered. Remember, your wording was "you propose each individual pays the government a user fee for distinct services", not "a user fee that the individual gets to determine". I don't know if that's a point of confusion or not, but judging from some of your comments, it seems like it might be.

Having said that, at worst I think this might present a problem for some of the things government is now involved in that it probably should not be involved in, and the result would be nonessential services shrinking or disappearing altogether from lack of business. The stuff that's really important should do just fine, and if anything, budgetary issues should be simplified, since people are paying for what they actually want, rather than giving legislators the ability to just come up with stuff to spend money on, and then send everyone a "bill".



I don't consider it ideal, I would prefer 100% voluntary, but certain things cannot be done without SOME people having to sign onto something they didn't want.

But you haven't established this. All that's clear is that certain things can't be done unless enough people want it enough to support it.



Just like laws that have nothing to do with money, you can't make an exception for everyone that doesn't agree with it.

But the two are not alike. If it helps to use those terms, then when it comes to laws that do have to do with money, you can (for the most part) make an "exception" for anyone who doesn't want the service. You simply withhold the service from them, or penalize them (severely, if that's what it takes) for unauthorized use.



The inconvenience of spending some money on something you didn't want, to me is less of a problem than any of the ways you've come up with to prevent that. Difference of opinion I guess.

Being made to spend one's own money on things he doesn't want is just "inconvenience"? :rolleyes:

You are apparently much more comfortable than I am with the prospect of telling your fellow human beings that they must pay for something, whether they want it or not, whether they asked for it or not, and whether they agreed to pay for it or not. I, however, recognize the arrogance of such a behavior, and that it becomes no less arrogant just because you can get enough other people (voters) to agree with you.



Well, if I didn't pay for the road, I wouldn't expect the government to want me riding a bus on it, or walking on it, or riding a bicycle on it. Restricting someone from using a car is not as limiting as restricting someone from using the road itself. Hence, a greater enforcement problem.

What's to stop them from charging bus companies & bicyclists for use? These are not insurmountable problems. And who cares if a few people do some walking on it without paying? You're taking this freeloader concern to extremes. Frankly, I'm encouraged by the fact that these relatively minor problems are where you're having to find your objections.



Federally insured banks - I don't see the problem. Can you ask a specific question about this one?

The federal government insures your deposits. This prevents bank runs and panics. How much money could, say, your small business make, if you couldn't find a reliable bank to save your money in?

I don't know, but I don't see it as a problem. I'd certainly be willing to pay extra for the services of such a bank, and I would imagine most other business owners would as well. And if there was a demand for them that was not being met, I'd probably even try to find some investors to join me in helping to fill that void by starting one of our own.



The government pays to make them reliable, to benefit the economy, and in my book you owe them part of the bill if you want to live here.

Well, you're not the first to use such leaps of logic to rationalize a financial obligation that doesn't exist, and you won't be the last.



You've misunderstood my example. Everyone in my example is living in the same one house. Do you understand the problem I am trying to bring up or not? To wit: someone that wants a service may choose not to pay for it if they perceive that others will pick up the bill. If you understand this problem and consider it minimal or irrelevant, just say so. If you don't understand, I'll try to explain it better. I just want you to address it.

I went back and reread your initial scenario, and you're right. I apparently read it too fast the first time. So, to revisit your questions about it:

Because cable was important enough for the rest of them to be willing to pay for it. But is that the most fair way of handling it? Or is it better that everyone who uses the television contribute towards cable and agree TOGETHER (democratically, if you will) how the bill should be divided?

I'd be interested in knowing who owns the TV, and how the decision to get cable was arrived at in the first place. These are all decisions usually best worked out before people decide to live together. And in the absence of any firm agreement to share that particular expense indefinitely, then I'd say the best approach is for whoever wants cable to determine whether it's worth putting up with any "freeloader" issues to continue paying for it. End of story.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
There isn't necessarily only one answer to your question. There could be any number of ways things could be set up. But if you want me to provide you with a possibility for this particular scenario, it might help if you made it more specific. What do you mean by "runs onto their property"? And are you saying that doing this is what makes him a criminal? Or, if he had already committed some other crime, what was it, and who's the victim?

A criminal has already committed a crime, and while still at large comes onto the property of someone who has "opted out" of police protection. My point being, to do the job right, the police have to apprehend the criminal whether the homeowner paid their fees or not, on behalf of those who did pay their fees. This is what I mean when I say it's non-separable--A service that has to be given to everyone or it can't be given properly at all.


Uh ... no. Leaving them there would be just fine, thanks. :confused:

But paying for the prisons is voluntary, in your system. This is an example of how withholding is impossible under those circumstances.

Well, if you're drawing conclusions like that last one from anything I've suggested, I'd have to say you do seem to be easily confused. Maybe it would also help if you were a little clearer about what you mean by "separable".

Non-Separable--a service that must be given to a group or an area or else cannot be given at all--basically, something that can't be shopped for a-la-carte.

What makes you think those who don't pay would reap the benefits? You seem to be ignoring at least parts of my responses.

I'm not trying to ignore you.. I propose a problem, you argue a solution, I argue that the solution is inadequate. Did we leave a point behind?

And particularly, with regard to the criminal justice system, we already have that now anyway. People who are poor enough not to pay taxes still get to call the cops. Do you object to that?

Certainly not, but that was decided by a legislature, not by the non-taxpayers themselves. Other people had input into that.

Crime is lower when people don't commit crimes. That should be the behavior that is expected of everyone. And I, for one, am willing to financially support a criminal justice system that deals harshly with those that violate that expectation.

But, crime prevention is an implicit part of the criminal justice system as well, and one method is public education.

Since when is a customer responsible for the budget of an organization whose services he's subscribing to? They usually determine the fees, and you decide whether the service you want is worth paying those fees. What need is there for "guessing"?

First, a clarification. What I've been talking about is for individuals to decide what services they want, and whether they consider each service to be worth whatever price is being asked for that service. I haven't suggested that anyone decide the amount of his own fees, other than the degree to which that amount is determined by the choices he makes from among the services being offered. Remember, your wording was "you propose each individual pays the government a user fee for distinct services", not "a user fee that the individual gets to determine". I don't know if that's a point of confusion or not, but judging from some of your comments, it seems like it might be.

I am focused primarily on the second part... for these "Non-separable" services we've been discussing... not the ones that can be easily broken down into a fee-for-service distinctness. I would have no problem making those 100% voluntary.

I'd be interested in knowing who owns the TV, and how the decision to get cable was arrived at in the first place. These are all decisions usually best worked out before people decide to live together. And in the absence of any firm agreement to share that particular expense indefinitely, then I'd say the best approach is for whoever wants cable to determine whether it's worth putting up with any "freeloader" issues to continue paying for it. End of story.

All I really want here is for you to acknowledge (or deny) that there is an incentive here to say you want out, and bet on other people paying for it--even though you would pay if you were given an ultimatum.

I think we've about run this argument through... tell me if you think this is a fair summary:

I have been trying to explain that a fee-for-service model has problems in that some can choose not to pay, and receive the non-separable and indirect benefits of the services.

I argue that anyone who receives these services (by living in the country) incurs an implicit debt to be paid for in some mandatory taxes.

You believe that this problem is minimal, or in any case should be ignored in favor of taxes being totally voluntary.

I think we've come to our core point of disagreement, further arguing is unlikely to change the others' mind... do you agree?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
The problem is this... what to do with people that don't pay. You say, fail to provide them with police service. Ok... so, if a criminal runs onto their property, you don't go after them?

Originally posted by WMT1
There isn't necessarily only one answer to your question. There could be any number of ways things could be set up. But if you want me to provide you with a possibility for this particular scenario, it might help if you made it more specific. What do you mean by "runs onto their property"? And are you saying that doing this is what makes him a criminal? Or, if he had already committed some other crime, what was it, and who's the victim?

Originally posted by gnome
A criminal has already committed a crime, and while still at large comes onto the property of someone who has "opted out" of police protection. My point being, to do the job right, the police have to apprehend the criminal whether the homeowner paid their fees or not, on behalf of those who did pay their fees.

So far so good.


This is what I mean when I say it's non-separable--A service that has to be given to everyone or it can't be given properly at all.

Then by your own definition, this particular service does not qualify as "non-separable", because it does not have to be "given to everyone" in order to be given properly to those who subscribe. The homeowner who has not chosen to be covered by the service would not necessarily be able to just pick up the phone and call the cops for help, unless the criminal in question had done something to someone who is covered by the service. That's why I asked who the victim of the previous crime was.



Or prisons? Lock them up, they can't leave the walls except to go to someone's house that didn't pay the prison bill?

Uh ... no. Leaving them there would be just fine, thanks. :confused:

But paying for the prisons is voluntary, in your system. This is an example of how withholding is impossible under those circumstances.

What is??? You're not making sense. If a portion of a population commits their resources to the maintenance of a criminal justice system (which prisons would be a part of), how does anything you've said make it "impossible" to withhold that system's protections from those who choose not to subscribe?



I propose a problem, you argue a solution, I argue that the solution is inadequate.

But the primary basis for your "the solution is inadequate" argument is the lack of incentive people have to pay, and I don't see any concerns left unaddressed in that area. Don't you like the idea of being able to call on the criminal justice system in the event that anyone ever does anything to you? Or would you be comfortable with your safety, and the protection of your property, being dependent on others being able to call on that system for themselves?



And particularly, with regard to the criminal justice system, we already have that now anyway. People who are poor enough not to pay taxes still get to call the cops. Do you object to that?

Certainly not, but that was decided by a legislature, not by the non-taxpayers themselves. Other people had input into that.

What difference does that make? I was responding to your concern "All too easy to let your neighbors pay for it all and reap the benefits". Well, I'd say it's just as easy to do that when it is decided by a legislature, if not more so. But if this is a distinction to which you would now like to attribute some significance, does this mean you would be okay with any freeloading that resulted from anything I've argued for, as long as it was all "decided by a legislature"?



Crime is lower when people don't commit crimes. That should be the behavior that is expected of everyone. And I, for one, am willing to financially support a criminal justice system that deals harshly with those that violate that expectation.

But, crime prevention is an implicit part of the criminal justice system as well, and one method is public education.

Um ... why public education? Why not just education? Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes?



I am focused primarily on the second part... for these "Non-separable" services we've been discussing... not the ones that can be easily broken down into a fee-for-service distinctness. I would have no problem making those 100% voluntary.

Then wouldn't that include education, since (by your own definition) it is not "non-separable"?



All I really want here is for you to acknowledge (or deny) that there is an incentive here to say you want out, and bet on other people paying for it--even though you would pay if you were given an ultimatum.

For the cable TV scenario you described, consider it acknowledged.



I think we've about run this argument through... tell me if you think this is a fair summary:

I have been trying to explain that a fee-for-service model has problems in that some can choose not to pay, and receive the non-separable and indirect benefits of the services.

I agree that that's what you've been trying to explain. Can't say I've seen much in the way of solid "non-separable" examples, though. And someone benefiting indirectly from something they did not ask for, and did not agree to pay for, is not something anyone has any business billing them for.



I argue that anyone who receives these services (by living in the country) incurs an implicit debt to be paid for in some mandatory taxes.

Then it's a flawed argument. One does not necessarily "receive these services" just by "living in the country". Debt is not incurred just by existing, and no one has any business billing someone for a service not asked for, or agreed to. That "implicit debt" thing just seems to be a way to try to rationalize a case for financial obligations that don't actually exist.



You believe that this problem is minimal, or in any case should be ignored in favor of taxes being totally voluntary.

I think we've come to our core point of disagreement, further arguing is unlikely to change the others' mind... do you agree?

Yes, but only because minds are rarely changed anyway. The natural tendency is for people to cling to long held views, regardless of their merit, especially if those views are the prevailing ones.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
Um ... why public education? Why not just education? Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes?

Do you see a distinction between prevention and extortion? If tax money pays for immunizations of schoolkids, does that mean that I'm paying some kid not to infect me?

Yes, but only because minds are rarely changed anyway. The natural tendency is for people to cling to long held views, regardless of their merit, especially if those views are the prevailing ones.

I don't feel that's what is going on here. I'm not looking for a prevailing opinion to latch onto, I'm coming up with an opinion on it just like you are. We disagree, and now we know exactly what we're disagreeing about and why, and so does everyone else. End of story.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Um ... why public education? Why not just education? Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes?

Originally posted by gnome
Do you see a distinction between prevention and extortion?

Of course. Persuading people to choose to contribute to education, in the hope that those receiving the education will be less likely to commit crimes in the future, would be consistent with prevention. Telling people they must contribute to the funding of the education of others, or they will be punished, is much more consistent with extortion. Does that help?



If tax money pays for immunizations of schoolkids, does that mean that I'm paying some kid not to infect me?

That depends on whether you support the use of tax money for such purposes, and on the nature of your arguments in doing so. What is clear is that the arguments you have been making, to justify tax money for education, are very close to suggesting that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes.



Yes, but only because minds are rarely changed anyway. The natural tendency is for people to cling to long held views, regardless of their merit, especially if those views are the prevailing ones.

I don't feel that's what is going on here. I'm not looking for a prevailing opinion to latch onto, I'm coming up with an opinion on it just like you are.

Then maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that you were looking for such an opinion. From the beginning of our discussion, you've pretty much demonstrated that you already have a pretty clear opinion (support for taxation). And that particular opinion has also been the prevailing one in society (by a considerable margin) for quite some time. Those are sometimes the toughest ones to question, let alone break away from.



We disagree, and now we know exactly what we're disagreeing about and why, and so does everyone else. End of story.

Not exactly. The why behind that disagreement isn't all that clear. I asked you a few questions earlier, and I don't think I see a clear, direct answer to any of them in your latest response.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
Of course. Persuading people to choose to contribute to education, in the hope that those receiving the education will be less likely to commit crimes in the future, would be consistent with prevention. Telling people they must contribute to the funding of the education of others, or they will be punished, is much more consistent with extortion. Does that help?

Not really. To me it's the cable TV example. The crime prevention benefits of education are clear... and as I've said before, it's all too easy to say YOU don't care about preventing crime this way, and count on others to pay for it, while benefiting from their choice and money. It seems perfectly fair to say, everyone tosses in, or it doesn't get done. And if you get outvoted, you can certainly vote with your feet and move to another state where public education has a low priority. (Like Florida :( ) ... to tie into the cable TV example, you chip in for the bills or you don't live there.

Then maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that you were looking for such an opinion. From the beginning of our discussion, you've pretty much demonstrated that you already have a pretty clear opinion (support for taxation). And that particular opinion has also been the prevailing one in society (by a considerable margin) for quite some time. Those are sometimes the toughest ones to question, let alone break away from.

I might also point out that sometimes prevailing opinion is the result of generations of experience and knowledge. Isn't this the whole reason kids go to school, to benefit from previous generations' knowledge?

I KNOW it's hard to question, but that doesn't make me a sheep for agreeing with it.

Not exactly. The why behind that disagreement isn't all that clear. I asked you a few questions earlier, and I don't think I see a clear, direct answer to any of them in your latest response.

I have seen and understand your point of view. I disagree, but the parts I disagree on come down to opinion. I don't mind clarifying myself some more, however... but I'm not sure which questions I missed. Could I trouble you to repeat them?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
Do you see a distinction between prevention and extortion?

Originally posted by WMT1
Of course. Persuading people to choose to contribute to education, in the hope that those receiving the education will be less likely to commit crimes in the future, would be consistent with prevention. Telling people they must contribute to the funding of the education of others, or they will be punished, is much more consistent with extortion. Does that help?

Originally posted by gnome
Not really. To me it's the cable TV example.

Well, I was answering your question about the distinction between prevention and extortion. Which part of my statements do you take issue with, or find unclear? And since you say it's the cable TV example, can you explain how either prevention or extortion relates to that example?



The crime prevention benefits of education are clear... and as I've said before, it's all too easy to say YOU don't care about preventing crime this way, and count on others to pay for it, while benefiting from their choice and money.

I can't tell whether you're specifically attributing these attitudes to me, but just to be clear, I have not expressed them.

That aside, your opinion about how much someone may benefit from something they did not ask for, and did not agree to pay for, does not give you a claim on any portion of their property or income to help pay for it. Put another way, your failure to figure out a way to withhold that benefit from them does not equate to a financial obligation on their part.



It seems perfectly fair to say, everyone tosses in, or it doesn't get done.

That's all well and good, if everyone being expected to "toss in" has clearly and freely agreed to that decision making process. Otherwise, you've got some pretty screwed up ideas about what is "fair". If what you're doing involves forcing people to contribute to something, and your only rationalization is that the assessment of benefit by those doing the collecting somehow deserves more consideration than the assessment of benefit by those footing the bill, then that doesn't qualify as "fair", not by a long shot. Moreover, it's the very essence of extortion.



And if you get outvoted, you can certainly vote with your feet and move to another state where public education has a low priority. (Like Florida :( ) ...

"Vote with your feet"? :rolleyes:

With all due respect, what a horribly lazy excuse for an argument. Do you really believe that anything supported by the majority of voters would be acceptable, as long as those in the minority had the option of moving somewhere else to avoid it? And if not, then what makes you think it has any weight as an argument in this particular case?

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people will fall back on nonsense like "vote with your feet and move" as if it were some kind of trump card, when they can't defend something any other way. It kind of gets back to that thing I was talking about with regard to prevailing opinions. People should be embarrassed to make arguments like this, but what saves you from that embarrassment is that so many other people haven't thought this stuff through any better than you have, and would make the same flimsy argument themselves.



to tie into the cable TV example, you chip in for the bills or you don't live there.

Sorry, but your cable TV example relates to private property, and is not analogous to the obligations of living in one's own city, state, or country. (Such factors as who owns the house/apartment, who owns the TV, and what the residents agreed to at the time they moved in together are also relevant to that example, by the way, and I don't think you ever addressed any of those points.)



I might also point out that sometimes prevailing opinion is the result of generations of experience and knowledge.

And sometimes it's the result of generations of repeating the same bad habits, because "that's the way it's always been". Guess how to determine which is the case.



Isn't this the whole reason kids go to school, to benefit from previous generations' knowledge?

I thought it was so they wouldn't become criminals. :D

In any case, the "previous generations' knowledge" thing may sound good, and to a large degree, benefit may actually be the result, particularly when you're just talking about training kids in various skills (math, language, etc.). But it is also painfully clear is that what is sometimes viewed as "previous generations' knowledge" is nothing more than mindless attachment to tradition, without a lot of critical analysis - often flawed tradition, like some of the nonsense people have been known to carry around with them about religion, or people of a different race, or even socialistic ideas about fairness, for example.

(I usually try to avoid using the "s" word too quickly, but your arguments have been consistent enough that, by now, I think it's probably warranted. If you disagree, we can take a closer look.)



I KNOW it's hard to question, but that doesn't make me a sheep for agreeing with it.

To the degree that the popularity of that opinion contributes to your agreement, it does. And judging from your own confident use of weak but popular arguments, I'd say that contribution is probably fairly significant.



I have seen and understand your point of view. I disagree, but the parts I disagree on come down to opinion. I don't mind clarifying myself some more, however... but I'm not sure which questions I missed. Could I trouble you to repeat them?

Ask and ye shall receive:



But paying for the prisons is voluntary, in your system. This is an example of how withholding is impossible under those circumstances.

What is??? You're not making sense. If a portion of a population commits their resources to the maintenance of a criminal justice system (which prisons would be a part of), how does anything you've said make it "impossible" to withhold that system's protections from those who choose not to subscribe?



I propose a problem, you argue a solution, I argue that the solution is inadequate.

But the primary basis for your "the solution is inadequate" argument is the lack of incentive people have to pay, and I don't see any concerns left unaddressed in that area. Don't you like the idea of being able to call on the criminal justice system in the event that anyone ever does anything to you? Or would you be comfortable with your safety, and the protection of your property, being dependent on others being able to call on that system for themselves?



And particularly, with regard to the criminal justice system, we already have that now anyway. People who are poor enough not to pay taxes still get to call the cops. Do you object to that?

Certainly not, but that was decided by a legislature, not by the non-taxpayers themselves. Other people had input into that.

What difference does that make? I was responding to your concern "All too easy to let your neighbors pay for it all and reap the benefits". Well, I'd say it's just as easy to do that when it is decided by a legislature, if not more so. But if this is a distinction to which you would now like to attribute some significance, does this mean you would be okay with any freeloading that resulted from anything I've argued for, as long as it was all "decided by a legislature"?



Crime is lower when people don't commit crimes. That should be the behavior that is expected of everyone. And I, for one, am willing to financially support a criminal justice system that deals harshly with those that violate that expectation.

But, crime prevention is an implicit part of the criminal justice system as well, and one method is public education.

Um ... why public education? Why not just education? Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes?



I am focused primarily on the second part... for these "Non-separable" services we've been discussing... not the ones that can be easily broken down into a fee-for-service distinctness. I would have no problem making those 100% voluntary.

Then wouldn't that include education, since (by your own definition) it is not "non-separable"?

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
Of course. Persuading people to choose to contribute to education, in the hope that those receiving the education will be less likely to commit crimes in the future, would be consistent with prevention. Telling people they must contribute to the funding of the education of others, or they will be punished, is much more consistent with extortion. Does that help?

Actually what's happened here is there has been a slide in meaning. First you said that the need to fund education to prevent crime amounts to extortion on the part of those that would commit crimes without an education, against those who would pay for it. Now you've changed it, to that the government is the one extorting the money, and threatening the taxpayers with punishment if they do not pay.

I was speaking to the first suggestion and not the second. In my mind it is simply more sensible to fund education and save money on prisons, and that this is not extortion.

That aside, your opinion about how much someone may benefit from something they did not ask for, and did not agree to pay for, does not give you a claim on any portion of their property or income to help pay for it. Put another way, your failure to figure out a way to withhold that benefit from them does not equate to a financial obligation on their part.

I would say it this way--that my opinion is not sufficient, no, but majority opinion in the affected area, yes. (Within constitutional bounds of due proccess and all that, of course). You disagree and I understand that.

"Vote with your feet"? :rolleyes:

With all due respect, what a horribly lazy excuse for an argument. Do you really believe that anything supported by the majority of voters would be acceptable, as long as those in the minority had the option of moving somewhere else to avoid it? And if not, then what makes you think it has any weight as an argument in this particular case?

My argument is that your consent (or as much of it as can be offered practically) to the laws you live under (including tax obligations) comes with your right to vote and your choice to live here, because unanimous consent to every law you live under is not possible. What if you don't like a traffic law. You didn't agree to it? What's your choice? Move to someplace that doesn't have that traffic law. The money issue doesn't change that.

Sorry, but your cable TV example relates to private property, and is not analogous to the obligations of living in one's own city, state, or country. (Such factors as who owns the house/apartment, who owns the TV, and what the residents agreed to at the time they moved in together are also relevant to that example, by the way, and I don't think you ever addressed any of those points.)

I can address them if you want, but I already made the point that I want to, that in a group-benefit situation where payment is voluntary, there is an incentive to freeload. With any analogy you can drill down to little details and bring up a hundred what-ifs to reduce it to meaninglessness. I am just trying to highlight that incentive.

And sometimes it's the result of generations of repeating the same bad habits, because "that's the way it's always been". Guess how to determine which is the case.

It could be either, agreed. We all have to make an opinion on it. I am far from arguing that it is correct because it is traditional. If I accept that it isn't automatically one way or the other, can we move on from this point?

If a portion of a population commits their resources to the maintenance of a criminal justice system (which prisons would be a part of), how does anything you've said make it "impossible" to withhold that system's protections from those who choose not to subscribe?

Perhaps my example was not clear enough... my point about the prisons is they are either there or they're not. If someone opts not to pay for them, there's no way of withholding from them the protection of having the criminals locked up if others want it. If you have a way, I'm interested.

Don't you like the idea of being able to call on the criminal justice system in the event that anyone ever does anything to you? Or would you be comfortable with your safety, and the protection of your property, being dependent on others being able to call on that system for themselves?

The question here is not what someone would or wouldn't do... the question is, should they have the right to? But to answer the question, if someone knew that all their neighbors had paid for a significant amount of police protection, they might indeed be tempted to give it a miss. Police protection, like military protection is area-based, not individual-based.


What difference does that make? ...


The difference is that it is a group decision making process for a group service, and I can vote for the people in the group. Taxation with representation.

But if this is a distinction to which you would now like to attribute some significance, does this mean you would be okay with any freeloading that resulted from anything I've argued for, as long as it was all "decided by a legislature"?

Within constitutional bounds... yes. Isn't that basically the legislature voting on a tax break for some particular group?


why public education? Why not just education? Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes?

Here's the part where you say it's the potential criminals committing extortion. I don't see where I left this point behind, we continue to discuss it even above.


Then wouldn't that include education, since (by your own definition) it is not "non-separable"?

Not all of the "product" of education is separable, not at all. There is a societal benefit to universal literacy and education, not JUST to those receiving the education itself, and it is this we are buying with our taxes as much as the individual service.

Have I covered it all?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
Do you see a distinction between prevention and extortion?

Originally posted by WMT1
Of course. Persuading people to choose to contribute to education, in the hope that those receiving the education will be less likely to commit crimes in the future, would be consistent with prevention. Telling people they must contribute to the funding of the education of others, or they will be punished, is much more consistent with extortion. Does that help?

Originally posted by gnome
Actually what's happened here is there has been a slide in meaning. First you said that the need to fund education to prevent crime amounts to extortion on the part of those that would commit crimes without an education, against those who would pay for it.

No, I most definitely did not. I've said nothing to characterize the actions of anyone as extortion, other than those demanding payment. (Should I become worried that, like so many others in this forum, you're going to start to resorting to bad paraphrasing to make your points, rather than confining your responses to what was actually said?)



Now you've changed it, to that the government is the one extorting the money, and threatening the taxpayers with punishment if they do not pay.

Since you got the first part wrong, I didn't "change" anything. Again, if you're going to paraphrase, get it right.



In my mind it is simply more sensible to fund education and save money on prisons,

Whatever is a good idea in your mind is a sound reason for supporting that idea with your own resources, and for trying to persuade others to do likewise with theirs. It is not, however, a justification for forcing such support from anyone. Confusing the two is a consistent theme in your posts, and such confusion is another reflection of falling in line with that prevailing opinion I was talking about.



and that this is not extortion.

It is if you're coercing that funding from anyone. Sorry, but it doesn't fail to qualify as extortion just because you happen to like what's being done with the loot.



That aside, your opinion about how much someone may benefit from something they did not ask for, and did not agree to pay for, does not give you a claim on any portion of their property or income to help pay for it. Put another way, your failure to figure out a way to withhold that benefit from them does not equate to a financial obligation on their part.

I would say it this way--that my opinion is not sufficient, no, but majority opinion in the affected area, yes.

Based on what? :confused:

Does something that would otherwise be wrong become right because the majority approves of it?



With all due respect, what a horribly lazy excuse for an argument. Do you really believe that anything supported by the majority of voters would be acceptable, as long as those in the minority had the option of moving somewhere else to avoid it? And if not, then what makes you think it has any weight as an argument in this particular case?

My argument is that your consent (or as much of it as can be offered practically) to the laws you live under (including tax obligations) comes with your right to vote and your choice to live here, because unanimous consent to every law you live under is not possible.

Who said anything about "unanimous consent"? :confused:

You really do seem to be trying to get a lot of mileage out of arguments I haven't made, and you've been corrected on this particular point before (more than once, I think).

Moreover, I'll add your name to the ever-increasing list of people who are confused about what consent actually means. You don't even seem to have much confidence in it yourself. Take a look at your own statement again, and check out the logical and semantic leaps you had to make to justify what could not otherwise be justified. Increasingly, you really do seem to be just parroting rhetoric you've always been spoonfed, without ever having given it much thought.

Out of curiosity, would you still stand by your statement if you replaced the words "including tax obligations" with "no matter what those laws are"? What about something more specific, like "even if those laws include institutionalized slavery or legalized rape"?

And finally, I also noticed that you did not answer the relatively straightforward question that I actually asked. Once again, do you believe that anything supported by the majority of voters would be acceptable, as long as those in the minority had the option of moving somewhere else to avoid it?



What if you don't like a traffic law. You didn't agree to it? What's your choice? Move to someplace that doesn't have that traffic law.

Or don't move, and don't use the roads. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. You really seem to be all over the map here. Are you simply trying to use the fact that some laws might actually make sense to somehow justify the position that any law is acceptable as long as you can move somewhere else?



The money issue doesn't change that.

Yes, it most definitely does. It is your money. It's not your road.



Sorry, but your cable TV example relates to private property, and is not analogous to the obligations of living in one's own city, state, or country. (Such factors as who owns the house/apartment, who owns the TV, and what the residents agreed to at the time they moved in together are also relevant to that example, by the way, and I don't think you ever addressed any of those points.)

I can address them if you want, but I already made the point that I want to, that in a group-benefit situation where payment is voluntary, there is an incentive to freeload. With any analogy you can drill down to little details and bring up a hundred what-ifs to reduce it to meaninglessness. I am just trying to highlight that incentive.

But in assessing whether that incentive actually exists, those "little details" actually matter. You never told me who owned the TV, or what was agreed to when everybody moved in together.



And sometimes it's the result of generations of repeating the same bad habits, because "that's the way it's always been". Guess how to determine which is the case.

It could be either, agreed. We all have to make an opinion on it. I am far from arguing that it is correct because it is traditional. If I accept that it isn't automatically one way or the other, can we move on from this point?

No problem. Given the nature of your arguments, however, I think there's a good chance it might come up again.



Perhaps my example was not clear enough... my point about the prisons is they are either there or they're not. If someone opts not to pay for them, there's no way of withholding from them the protection of having the criminals locked up if others want it. If you have a way, I'm interested.

But there is a way of withholding from them the protection of having criminals locked up who are only committing crimes against them. If you were a criminal, wouldn't it be to your advantage to select your victims from those who were not covered? And if the answer is "yes", then doesn't it suddenly become advantageous to subscribe to that coverage, if you want to avoid being victimized?

(While I'm at it, I'd like to take this opportunity to ask you to please try to answer my questions as we go along, like the ones I just asked, so I won't have to repeat them for you later.)



I propose a problem, you argue a solution, I argue that the solution is inadequate.

But the primary basis for your "the solution is inadequate" argument is the lack of incentive people have to pay, and I don't see any concerns left unaddressed in that area. Don't you like the idea of being able to call on the criminal justice system in the event that anyone ever does anything to you? Or would you be comfortable with your safety, and the protection of your property, being dependent on others being able to call on that system for themselves?

The question here is not what someone would or wouldn't do...

Take another look. My question, at least that last one, was about what someone "would or wouldn't do". And since you're the one who keeps raising the issue of incentive, it's a fair one.



the question is, should they have the right to?

It could depend on any number of things. Different people might pay different levels for different types of coverage, and some might choose to pay extra to have their own coverage to include the ability to call on the service for a non-subscriber. Or, to draw an analogy with insurance, they could simply understand that making such a call might make their premiums go up. Again, these are not insurmountable problems, and there is not necessarily only one solution to them.



But to answer the question, if someone knew that all their neighbors had paid for a significant amount of police protection, they might indeed be tempted to give it a miss.

But you did not answer the question - either of them. They were both direct, straightforward, yes/no questions, and I would appreciate if you would take another shot at answering what I actually asked.

And to respond to the comment you did make, what's going to happen the first time someone is breaking into their house, and they can't call the cops, because they're not a subscriber? If no one else helps them, do you suppose that experience, if they survive it, would provide any incentive to reconsider that decision?



Police protection, like military protection is area-based, not individual-based.

Sorry, but you're just pointing out the status quo. You've hardly said anything to establish that it has to be. But just to avoid getting too much more bogged down in this area, would you be agreeable to subscription requirements being decided on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, rather than being imposed by city, state, or federal government?



And particularly, with regard to the criminal justice system, we already have that now anyway. People who are poor enough not to pay taxes still get to call the cops. Do you object to that?

Certainly not, but that was decided by a legislature, not by the non-taxpayers themselves. Other people had input into that.

What difference does that make?

The difference is that it is a group decision making process for a group service, and I can vote for the people in the group.

More nonsensical rationalization. Outside of government, can you think of any other "group" that has the ability to make financial decisions for anyone who hasn't freely and clearly agreed to abide by the decisions of the group?



Taxation with representation.

Here we have yet another example of relying on popular rhetoric without examining it too closely. Read very slowly: The only people actually being represented are those whose views are shared by those who are elected. And even if any of them happen to represent my views, "representation" isn't of much use if my voice is being heard, but ignored. Being able to make one's disapproval known when someone else is picking their pocket does not mitigate the wrongdoing.



I was responding to your concern "All too easy to let your neighbors pay for it all and reap the benefits". Well, I'd say it's just as easy to do that when it is decided by a legislature, if not more so. But if this is a distinction to which you would now like to attribute some significance, does this mean you would be okay with any freeloading that resulted from anything I've argued for, as long as it was all "decided by a legislature"?

Within constitutional bounds... yes. Isn't that basically the legislature voting on a tax break for some particular group?

It might be, but since I've made no statements supporting this practice either, what's the relevance? Is this one of those things where you're trying to justify one type of freeloading with another? If so, all you've done is illustrate one of the built-in problems with taxation, and which could be cleared up by people simply choosing which services they want. Thanks for the help.



But, crime prevention is an implicit part of the criminal justice system as well, and one method is public education.

Um ... why public education? Why not just education? Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes?

Here's the part where you say it's the potential criminals committing extortion.

No, here's the part where I correct you, yet again, for bad paraphrasing. The ones committing the extortion are the ones demanding payment, even if they're using the potential criminality of others to justify it. Please write it down this time.



I don't see where I left this point beind, we continue to discuss it even above.

Where you "left this point behind" is that you still have not provided a clear, direct answer to the questions that were actually asked.

1. Why public education?

2. Why not just education?

3. Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes? (yes or no will suffice)



I am focused primarily on the second part... for these "Non-separable" services we've been discussing... not the ones that can be easily broken down into a fee-for-service distinctness. I would have no problem making those 100% voluntary.

Then wouldn't that include education, since (by your own definition) it is not "non-separable"?

Not all of the "product" of education is separable, not at all.

Sure it is. Just to refresh your memory about your own definition of non-separable: "A service that has to be given to everyone or it can't be given properly at all". In the case of education, you simply provide it (as well as its "products") for those who pay, and you don't provide it for those who do not. No problem.



There is a societal benefit to universal literacy and education, not JUST to those receiving the education itself,

This is a purely subjective assessment, and it is up to anyone being asked to share in paying the bill to make this determination for themselves, not up to you to impose your judgment on them. And that role doesn't change just because you happen to be part of a group that's large enough to draw power from its size.



and it is this we are buying with our taxes as much as the individual service.

Have you noticed how you keep conveniently ignoring the issue of choice in your rhetoric in order to make it sound more reasonable? Sorry, but with taxes, you don't buy things, you have someone else's idea of what ought to be paid for imposed on you.

Out of curiosity, would you be okay with it if enough people decided that there was sufficient "societal benefit" to religion to get the Constitution changed, and laws passed, to require that everyone give a portion of their earnings to the religious institution of their choice? Or, to make things a bit more analogous to taxing for public schools, what if you were required to give to a specific religious institution that happened to be particularly popular with the voters? Any problem there? Would that be just fine because it's what the majority wanted?



Have I covered it all?

No. And hopefully, I've pointed out where you have not.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
No, I most definitely did not. I've said nothing to characterize the actions of anyone as extortion, other than those demanding payment. (Should I become worried that, like so many others in this forum, you're going to start to resorting to bad paraphrasing to make your points, rather than confining your responses to what was actually said?)

In that case I misunderstood you and I'll speak to your clarified point. In my opinion the extent to which it counts as extortion depends on the validity of the representation idea: is your representation sufficient to justify taxation on what the majority decides--this is the point we disagree on fundamentally.

Whatever is a good idea in your mind is a sound reason for supporting that idea with your own resources, and for trying to persuade others to do likewise with theirs. It is not, however, a justification for forcing such support from anyone. Confusing the two is a consistent theme in your posts, and such confusion is another reflection of falling in line with that prevailing opinion I was talking about.

My arguing for the idea is not the justification of requiring payment. It is an example of an idea that I can't just buy a piece of for myself. As I have said many times, the justification comes from majority rule in a legislature (bound by the constitution).

Based on what? :confused:

Does something that would otherwise be wrong become right because the majority approves of it?

Not necessarily, but something that one person does not have the right to decide unilaterally might have legitimacy if decided by elected representatives. For example, it's wrong for me to put up a stop sign at the corner of my property, but if appropriate local authorities do so (at the behest of a majority legislature), it isn't wrong.

Who said anything about "unanimous consent"? :confused:

My point is that any law can impose on us in some way, and we can't be subject only to the ones we agree with. I don't consider a tax law a special case. I understand that you do. You seem to be arguing that tax laws in particular cannot apply to everyone unless everyone agrees to it.

Out of curiosity, would you still stand by your statement if you replaced the words "including tax obligations" with "no matter what those laws are"? What about something more specific, like "even if those laws include institutionalized slavery or legalized rape"?

Of course not.

And finally, I also noticed that you did not answer the relatively straightforward question that I actually asked. Once again, do you believe that anything supported by the majority of voters would be acceptable, as long as those in the minority had the option of moving somewhere else to avoid it?

No. I do not believe that anything would be acceptable.

Or don't move, and don't use the roads. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. You really seem to be all over the map here. Are you simply trying to use the fact that some laws might actually make sense to somehow justify the position that any law is acceptable as long as you can move somewhere else?

I was trying to establish the existence of ANY laws where your only fair option was to move away, and to see if you still thought that was wrong.

Yes, it most definitely does. It is your money. It's not your road.

There are plenty of laws about what you can do with your own property. As above, I was saying that it's not ALWAYS wrong if all you can do is move away. If you're not arguing that, ok.

But in assessing whether that incentive actually exists, those "little details" actually matter. You never told me who owned the TV, or what was agreed to when everybody moved in together.

My point is not that specific. I'm not trying to prove anything about how an apartment should be run. I just want your acceptance or denial of whether such an incentive sometimes exists. Given that, I'd rather argue the details of the case at hand.

But there is a way of withholding from them the protection of having criminals locked up who are only committing crimes against them. If you were a criminal, wouldn't it be to your advantage to select your victims from those who were not covered? And if the answer is "yes", then doesn't it suddenly become advantageous to subscribe to that coverage, if you want to avoid being victimized?

So you propose that someone shouldn't be locked up, if they're only victimizing people that don't pay a law enforcement fee? That's an even harsher punishment than what the IRS has to offer. How would you reccomend that criminals tell the difference?

Take another look. My question, at least that last one, was about what someone "would or wouldn't do". And since you're the one who keeps raising the issue of incentive, it's a fair one.

If you'll look, you'll see that I answered the question even so.

It could depend on any number of things. Different people might pay different levels for different types of coverage, and some might choose to pay extra to have their own coverage to include the ability to call on the service for a non-subscriber. Or, to draw an analogy with insurance, they could simply understand that making such a call might make their premiums go up. Again, these are not insurmountable problems, and there is not necessarily only one solution to them.

Can you think of any scheme where someone surrounded by neighbors with full service, would not receive free law enforcement protection of some kind, without paying at all? And are you prepared to say that's OK? I'm not. Again, the difference in opinion I am trying to highlight to close the argument with.

But you did not answer the question - either of them. They were both direct, straightforward, yes/no questions, and I would appreciate if you would take another shot at answering what I actually asked.

Don't you like the idea of being able to call on the criminal justice system in the event that anyone ever does anything to you? Or would you be comfortable with your safety, and the protection of your property, being dependent on others being able to call on that system for themselves?

My apologies for not being more clear. Yes, I like the idea of being able to call. No, I would not be comfortable being dependent on others. But this is speaking of ME in MY situation--not everyone is in that same situation, hence my answer.

And to respond to the comment you did make, what's going to happen the first time someone is breaking into their house, and they can't call the cops, because they're not a subscriber? If no one else helps them, do you suppose that experience, if they survive it, would provide any incentive to reconsider that decision?

Again, I cannot think of any scheme where someone would give the police information about a criminal, and they would ignore it. That person might be wanted for crimes against other people that paid for law enforcement. They couldn't afford to ignore the call.

Sorry, but you're just pointing out the status quo. You've hardly said anything to establish that it has to be. But just to avoid getting too much more bogged down in this area, would you be agreeable to subscription requirements being decided on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, rather than being imposed by city, state, or federal government?

I might. Let's say yes, for the sake of argument. Where do you wanna go with that?

More nonsensical rationalization. Outside of government, can you think of any other "group" that has the ability to make financial decisions for anyone who hasn't freely and clearly agreed to abide by the decisions of the group?

Can you think of any other situation where financial decisions are needed that affect everyone in an area whether they agreed to be affected or not? What constitutes my agreement to follow /any/ of the laws in my city, state, or country?

Here we have yet another example of relying on popular rhetoric without examining it too closely. Read very slowly: The only people actually being represented are those whose views are shared by those who are elected. And even if any of them happen to represent my views, "representation" isn't of much use if my voice is being heard, but ignored. Being able to make one's disapproval known when someone else is picking their pocket does not mitigate the wrongdoing.

Being able to vote, and having the wrong person win, does not erase your representation. This problem exists with all laws, not just tax laws.

It might be, but since I've made no statements supporting this practice either, what's the relevance? Is this one of those things where you're trying to justify one type of freeloading with another? If so, all you've done is illustrate one of the built-in problems with taxation, and which could be cleared up by people simply choosing which services they want. Thanks for the help.

Ok, this is the best solution in your opinion. Fine.

No, here's the part where I correct you, yet again, for bad paraphrasing. The ones committing the extortion are the ones demanding payment, even if they're using the potential criminality of others to justify it. Please write it down this time.


I think this has been cleared up. Let's move on.


1. Why public education?

2. Why not just education?

3. Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes? (yes or no will suffice)


I didn't answer questions 1 and 2 because I felt that it was obvious that I was discussing the benefits of universal (public) education over a user fee, public or private. Does that help?

Sure it is. Just to refresh your memory about your own definition of non-separable: "A service that has to be given to everyone or it can't be given properly at all". In the case of education, you simply provide it (as well as its "products") for those who pay, and you don't provide it for those who do not. No problem.

We're going in circles again. I consider it non-separable because one of its "products" benefits an area (and the entire nation, frankly) and can't be purchased piecemeal. The area either has it or it doesn't.

This is a purely subjective assessment, and it is up to anyone being asked to share in paying the bill to make this determination for themselves, not up to you to impose your judgment on them. And that role doesn't change just because you happen to be part of a group that's large enough to draw power from its size.

It is a subjective assessment, but I feel that it's perfectly fine for it to be settled in elected committee. I know that you disagree.

Have you noticed how you keep conveniently ignoring the issue of choice in your rhetoric in order to make it sound more reasonable? Sorry, but with taxes, you don't buy things, you have someone else's idea of what ought to be paid for imposed on you.

This is a repeat of earlier arguments about the legitimacy of an elected representive to pass laws over you.

Out of curiosity, would you be okay with it if enough people decided that there was sufficient "societal benefit" to religion to get the Constitution changed, and laws passed, to require that everyone give a portion of their earnings to the religious institution of their choice? Or, to make things a bit more analogous to taxing for public schools, what if you were required to give to a specific religious institution that happened to be particularly popular with the voters? Any problem there? Would that be just fine because it's what the majority wanted?

No, I don't think it would be fine. I'm a big fan of that first amenment, I'm sure you are too. No need to lay such a trap, just take it as read that I'm a fan of separation of church and state and move on to the next point.

Or, which would make me happier, agree with me that we have differing opinions about the level of consent needed to justify group taxation, and end it there.

[Roadtoad]

The biggest problem with any debate regarding taxation is that someone's ox is going to get gored, and once it is, anyone who called for the goring of said livestock is immediately dubbed "hateful/homophobic/antichild/antielder..." Take your pick.

AUP had the right of it: I pay taxes to provide the necessary tools so I can dwell in a civil society. I pay taxes to provide for a fire department, a police force, a military, postal service, and decent hospitals, (the last of which used to be provided nearly entirely in America by churches and private charities, until someone decided there was profit to be made). Anything more, and it's an invasion of my privacy, and detrimental to my liberty.

George Will once made the remark that the government's role was to Defend the Country, Deliver the Mail, and Get Out of the Way. Unfortunately, we've had people over the years who have found new and unique ways to ruin others, (not the least of which include what we've seen with WorldCom and Enron), and we've called upon Government to provide for our protection from same.

Unfortunately, we've also forgotten that a Civil Service is also the tool of an entrenched power base, and it's part of what keeps someone in power. You make the case for it's reduction or elimination at your own peril. It's a nice idea that they want to reduce, or even eliminate the income tax, but if you think it's happening any time soon, I've got Pacific Ocean vista property for sale in Omaha. And you can debate this til there's inclement weather in the netherworld, but thems the facts, boys and girls.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I pay taxes to provide for a fire department, a police force, a military, postal service, and decent hospitals, (the last of which used to be provided nearly entirely in America by churches and private charities, until someone decided there was profit to be made).

Not true. It was provided by churches and private charities until the government stuck its nose in it. Now, you pretty much have to run a hospital as a for-profit business to be able to afford the staggeringly high cost of regulatory compliance.

[gnome]

Originally posted by shanek
Not true. It was provided by churches and private charities until the government stuck its nose in it. Now, you pretty much have to run a hospital as a for-profit business to be able to afford the staggeringly high cost of regulatory compliance.

I'm not praising the state of the US healthcare system by any means, but if you're spending your "profits" on regulatory compliance, are you a for-profit business?

[shanek]

Originally posted by gnome


I'm not praising the state of the US healthcare system by any means, but if you're spending your "profits" on regulatory compliance, are you a for-profit business?

Well, how are the free clinics and charity hospitals ever going to raise enough money to cover the cost of compliance?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, how are the free clinics and charity hospitals ever going to raise enough money to cover the cost of compliance?

Obviously, that ain't happening. We watched a few hospitals get swallowed up by Catholic Healthcare West out here in Sacramento, and also watched as the one hospital for low income people, Sac. Community, shut down, because they couldn't afford to pay the premiums for malpractice insurance, and because they couldn't afford to cover the cost of compliance. You can hold all the bake sales you want, but when you look at what it costs for basic medications for ANY human being, (don't even ask what it would cost me for my glucophage if I weren't a member of Kaiser!), then figure in what it costs for equipment like CAT scanners, MRIs, hell, even a damned Xray machine...!

Much of the regulation imposed by government is unnecessary. Unfortunately, if you want to get rid of the garbage, you have to deal with the reality that you'll be labeled as wanting to rid us of the gold as well. This is demagoguery, but we've decided this something we want and like, so it continues. Go fig.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Much of the regulation imposed by government is unnecessary. Unfortunately, if you want to get rid of the garbage, you have to deal with the reality that you'll be labeled as wanting to rid us of the gold as well. This is demagoguery, but we've decided this something we want and like, so it continues. Go fig.

What it may take is someone that seems like they would know the difference between "garbage" and "gold".

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
In my opinion the extent to which it counts as extortion depends on the validity of the representation idea: is your representation sufficient to justify taxation on what the majority decides--this is the point we disagree on fundamentally.

And your disagreement remains poorly founded. I haven't run across too many definitions of extortion that turn on whether there is "representation". Just looks like more word games to make support for coercion sound like taking the high road. Would you approve of armed robbery as long as the victim somehow had "representation" in the decision making process of those who committed the act?



Whatever is a good idea in your mind is a sound reason for supporting that idea with your own resources, and for trying to persuade others to do likewise with theirs. It is not, however, a justification for forcing such support from anyone. Confusing the two is a consistent theme in your posts, and such confusion is another reflection of falling in line with that prevailing opinion I was talking about.

My arguing for the idea is not the justification of requiring payment.

The what is?



As I have said many times, the justification comes from majority rule in a legislature (bound by the constitution).

How is that justification for anything? Can you even conceive of the idea of finding something the majority approves of (which is also Constitutional) to be morally objectionable? Would you be okay with slavery if enough of a majority approved of it to get a Constitutional amendment passed allowing it? If not, why not?



That aside, your opinion about how much someone may benefit from something they did not ask for, and did not agree to pay for, does not give you a claim on any portion of their property or income to help pay for it. Put another way, your failure to figure out a way to withhold that benefit from them does not equate to a financial obligation on their part.

I would say it this way--that my opinion is not sufficient, no, but majority opinion in the affected area, yes.

Based on what? :confused:

Does something that would otherwise be wrong become right because the majority approves of it?

Not necessarily, but something that one person does not have the right to decide unilaterally might have legitimacy if decided by elected representatives.

That's nice, but it has no bearing on what we're talking about. Someone's decision about whether to participate in, contribute to, or subscribe to any particular project or program is nobody else's damn business, and it therefore is something they have a "right to decide unilaterally".

Now, once again, how does "majority opinion in the affected area" equate to the financial obligation mentioned? Is this something you were brought up to believe, or did you arrive at this conclusion from a place of disagreement, or at least neutrality, after careful, bias-free analysis?



My point is that any law can impose on us in some way, and we can't be subject only to the ones we agree with.

If that's your point, then why are you bothering to make it? As nearly as I can tell, our disagreement is about what laws should do, not what they can do.



I don't consider a tax law a special case.

Judging from some of your responses a little further down, apparently you do.



I understand that you do [consider a tax law a special case].

Based on what?



You seem to be arguing that tax laws in particular cannot apply to everyone unless everyone agrees to it.

Again, please try to keep straight the differences between "cannot" and "should not". Laws can do all sorts of things that they should not do.

Besides, I'm not really arguing about who tax laws should "apply" to, so much as I'm arguing against them, period. You seem to think making people pay for things they may not want, and have not agreed to pay for, is the reasonable position, but that's just a reflection of that prevailing opinion I referred to before.



My argument is that your consent (or as much of it as can be offered practically) to the laws you live under (including tax obligations) comes with your right to vote and your choice to live here, because unanimous consent to every law you live under is not possible.

...

Out of curiosity, would you still stand by your statement if you replaced the words "including tax obligations" with "no matter what those laws are"? What about something more specific, like "even if those laws include institutionalized slavery or legalized rape"?

Of course not.

...

And finally, I also noticed that you did not answer the relatively straightforward question that I actually asked. Once again, do you believe that anything supported by the majority of voters would be acceptable, as long as those in the minority had the option of moving somewhere else to avoid it?

No. I do not believe that anything would be acceptable.

Good. Now that we've cleared all that up, apparently you do consider tax laws to be a special case.



I was trying to establish the existence of ANY laws where your only fair option was to move away, and to see if you still thought that was wrong.

Just depends on the nature of the laws in question. If the laws themselves violate individual rights, then they are wrong. You have the right to run your own life, including control of your own property and earnings, as long as you do not violate the rights of others in the process. There is, however, no "right" to use roads that aren't yours.



There are plenty of laws about what you can do with your own property.

And the ones that allow for the confiscation of your property without your consent are wrong. (You do understand that merely pointing out the existence of a law does not make it a good law, right?)



As above, I was saying that it's not ALWAYS wrong if all you can do is move away. If you're not arguing that, ok.

No, but I want to be clear about what I am arguing - that the fact that you can move away to avoid a law is worthless as an argument for the merit of that law. Are we in agreement on this?



But in assessing whether that incentive actually exists, those "little details" actually matter. You never told me who owned the TV, or what was agreed to when everybody moved in together.

My point is not that specific. I'm not trying to prove anything about how an apartment should be run. I just want your acceptance or denial of whether such an incentive sometimes exists.

As stated in a previous response, I agree that, depending on the circumstances, such incentive sometimes exists. But it never justifies forcing anyone to pay for something, unless they have, at some point, agreed to terms that allow for doing so.



So you propose that someone shouldn't be locked up, if they're only victimizing people that don't pay a law enforcement fee?

No, I'm mentioning it as one possible option that should alleviate your freeloader concerns. That was what was worrying you, wasn't it?



That's an even harsher punishment than what the IRS has to offer.

Nonsense. The government would simply be withholding from you a service that you chose not to pay for. So, do you object to freeloaders or not? I wish you'd make up your mind.



How would you reccomend that criminals tell the difference?

You've got to be kidding. Are you under the impression that objecting to the idea of making people pay for stuff they may not want, and have not agreed to pay for, is somehow accompanied by an obligation to address every last concern you could possibly come up with, even to the point of making things easier on criminals? Oh well, as I've pointed out, it does speak well for what I've been arguing for that this is where you have to look to try to find problems. And if it would alleviate your concerns that things would be too tough on criminals to provide the proper disincentive for freeloading, there is no reason that such things could not simply be a matter of public record.



If you'll look, you'll see that I answered the question even so.

Yes, and your answer reflected incentive to pay.



Can you think of any scheme where someone surrounded by neighbors with full service, would not receive free law enforcement protection of some kind, without paying at all?

I can think of at least two. In one case, there would be no option for anyone to purchase coverage that would extend to their neighbors who are not covered. And in another, the coverage would be available, but none of the neighbors choose it as part of their own coverage.



And are you prepared to say that's OK?

Of course.



I'm not. Again, the difference in opinion I am trying to highlight to close the argument with.

So what the hell happened? You really do seem to be backpedaling from that initial position, by saying now that what you're not OK with is something that provides plenty of incentive for people not to freeload. There's just no pleasing some people. :rolleyes:



Don't you like the idea of being able to call on the criminal justice system in the event that anyone ever does anything to you? Or would you be comfortable with your safety, and the protection of your property, being dependent on others being able to call on that system for themselves?

My apologies for not being more clear. Yes, I like the idea of being able to call. No, I would not be comfortable being dependent on others.

Bingo! Incentive to pay.



But this is speaking of ME in MY situation--not everyone is in that same situation, hence my answer.

How would anyone else's "situation" differ from yours in any significant way that would make them likely to respond any differently than you have? In particular, is there any reason to think most people's situations are different enough from yours that they are likely to answer differently?



And to respond to the comment you did make, what's going to happen the first time someone is breaking into their house, and they can't call the cops, because they're not a subscriber? If no one else helps them, do you suppose that experience, if they survive it, would provide any incentive to reconsider that decision?

Again, I cannot think of any scheme where someone would give the police information about a criminal, and they would ignore it. That person might be wanted for crimes against other people that paid for law enforcement. They couldn't afford to ignore the call.

So they check it out. If it turns out the person is not wanted for such crimes, they are free to drop the matter, as they have no obligation to freeloaders (your initial concern).

Police check out false leads all the time. Did you think this was going to be a problem? And once again, now that we've cleared that up, can you take another shot at answering the questions I actually asked?



But just to avoid getting too much more bogged down in this area, would you be agreeable to subscription requirements being decided on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, rather than being imposed by city, state, or federal government?

I might. Let's say yes, for the sake of argument. Where do you wanna go with that?

Where I wanna go is to simply find out whether you would actually agree with it. Beyond that, I don't know that there's much more to say about it "for the sake of argument".



The difference is that it is a group decision making process for a group service, and I can vote for the people in the group.

More nonsensical rationalization. Outside of government, can you think of any other "group" that has the ability to make financial decisions for anyone who hasn't freely and clearly agreed to abide by the decisions of the group?

Can you think of any other situation where financial decisions are needed that affect everyone in an area whether they agreed to be affected or not?

Why should I? I'm not the one arguing that merely being "affected" equates to a financial obligation in the first place. That's the leap you're making, remember?

Moreover, I haven't argued that financial decisions are not needed, but rather that such necessity does not equate to a right to make those decisions easier by confiscating the property or earnings of anyone who has not agreed to be bound by those decisions.



What constitutes my agreement to follow /any/ of the laws in my city, state, or country?

Probably anything where you actually, you know, express that agreement. But what's the relevance? I haven't argued that everyone needs to express their agreement in order for any law to be valid, only that no law is valid if it violates someone's rights - including the right to determine how to dispose of one's own earnings.

So, once again, now that I've answered the questions you responded to my question with, can you get back to answering it? Outside of government, can you think of any other "group" that has the ability to make financial decisions for anyone who hasn't freely and clearly agreed to abide by the decisions of the group?



Taxation with representation.

Here we have yet another example of relying on popular rhetoric without examining it too closely. Read very slowly: The only people actually being represented are those whose views are shared by those who are elected. And even if any of them happen to represent my views, "representation" isn't of much use if my voice is being heard, but ignored. Being able to make one's disapproval known when someone else is picking their pocket does not mitigate the wrongdoing.

Being able to vote, and having the wrong person win, does not erase your representation.

For all practical purposes, that's exactly what it does. At the very least, it renders that representation meaningless.



This problem exists with all laws, not just tax laws.

Which is precisely why what you're referring to as "representation" is not a valid justification for any laws that violate rights rather than protect them.



Within constitutional bounds... yes. Isn't that basically the legislature voting on a tax break for some particular group?

It might be, but since I've made no statements supporting this practice either, what's the relevance? Is this one of those things where you're trying to justify one type of freeloading with another? If so, all you've done is illustrate one of the built-in problems with taxation, and which could be cleared up by people simply choosing which services they want. Thanks for the help.

Ok, this is the best solution in your opinion. Fine.

I guess you must think most of my questions are rhetorical, but they are not. I really do want to know, were you trying to justify one type of freeloading with another? If not, what was the relevance of the tax break thing?



I don't see where I left this point beind, we continue to discuss it even above.

Where you "left this point behind" is that you still have not provided a clear, direct answer to the questions that were actually asked.

1. Why public education?

2. Why not just education?

3. Do you realize how close you're getting to arguing that people have an obligation to pay other people not to commit crimes? (yes or no will suffice)

I didn't answer questions 1 and 2 because I felt that it was obvious that I was discussing the benefits of universal (public) education over a user fee, public or private. Does that help?

No. Your comment was "crime prevention is an implicit part of the criminal justice system as well, and one method is public education". If public education can help prevent crime, is there some reason private education cannot do the same?

Incidentally, you still have not answered question #3 at all. Is that one a particular problem for you?



We're going in circles again. I consider it non-separable because one of its "products" benefits an area (and the entire nation, frankly) and can't be purchased piecemeal. The area either has it or it doesn't.

If we're going in circles, it's probably because you keep confusing service with benefits, and making statements for which there is no basis, like the "can't be purchased piecemeal" thing. This particular service can be purchased piecemeal, just like almost any other service, and the value of any benefits is an assessment rightfully made by whoever is deciding whether to purchase the service. Moreover, being purchased "piecemeal" is not the only alternative to requiring support from everyone. If a portion of any given population wants to make it a group effort, they can do so with their own resources, and leave everyone else alone.

And the statement "the area either has it or it doesn't" seems pointless, since that, too, could be said of any product or service. If anyone in an area is providing education (or anything else) to anyone, then the area has it. If nobody is providing it, then it doesn't.



There is a societal benefit to universal literacy and education, not JUST to those receiving the education itself,

This is a purely subjective assessment, and it is up to anyone being asked to share in paying the bill to make this determination for themselves, not up to you to impose your judgment on them. And that role doesn't change just because you happen to be part of a group that's large enough to draw power from its size.

It is a subjective assessment, but I feel that it's perfectly fine for it to be settled in elected committee.

Then why stop there? If the judgment of an "elected committee" is so much more reliable than that of individuals when it comes to such subjective matters, then shouldn't you be arguing for having every financial decision be made by "elected committee"? Why leave any financial decisions up to individuals at all?



and it is this we are buying with our taxes as much as the individual service.

Have you noticed how you keep conveniently ignoring the issue of choice in your rhetoric in order to make it sound more reasonable? Sorry, but with taxes, you don't buy things, you have someone else's idea of what ought to be paid for imposed on you.

This is a repeat of earlier arguments about the legitimacy of an elected representive to pass laws over you.

And I keep repeating them, because you keep failing to point out anything wrong with them, or otherwise address them, in some cases completely ignoring them. Once again, have you noticed how you keep conveniently ignoring the issue of choice in your rhetoric in order to make it sound more reasonable?



Out of curiosity, would you be okay with it if enough people decided that there was sufficient "societal benefit" to religion to get the Constitution changed, and laws passed, to require that everyone give a portion of their earnings to the religious institution of their choice? Or, to make things a bit more analogous to taxing for public schools, what if you were required to give to a specific religious institution that happened to be particularly popular with the voters? Any problem there? Would that be just fine because it's what the majority wanted?

No, I don't think it would be fine. I'm a big fan of that first amenment, I'm sure you are too.

I'm a big fan of freedom of expression, and I don't base my enthusiasm for that principle on whether there's an amendment protecting it or not. Can you say the same?



No need to lay such a trap, just take it as read that I'm a fan of separation of church and state and move on to the next point.

It doesn't qualify as a "trap" to try to get you to answer questions that might just expose the inconsistencies in your views. And just to remind you of a couple of your statements that seem relevant at this point:

my opinion is not sufficient, no, but majority opinion in the affected area, yes

...

something that one person does not have the right to decide unilaterally might have legitimacy if decided by elected representatives

So, with those statements in mind, why are you a fan of separation of church and state, but not school and state?

If you are in support of the majority using their ideas about the societal benefits of education to justify imposing taxation for the support of educational institutions, on what possible basis would you object to that same majority using their ideas about the societal benefits of religion to justify imposing taxation for the support of religious institutions, especially if doing so were to become permissible under the Constitution?



Or, which would make me happier, agree with me that we have differing opinions about the level of consent needed to justify group taxation, and end it there.

I agree that we have differing opinions, but so what? We started out that way. That's what debate is for. What's the point of just ending it, unless you're having trouble defending yours?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Much of the regulation imposed by government is unnecessary. Unfortunately, if you want to get rid of the garbage, you have to deal with the reality that you'll be labeled as wanting to rid us of the gold as well.

The problem is, our government takes gold and turns it into garbage. Reverse alchemy, as it were.

[Lemastre]

I'm with anyone who gripes about any taxes. I say do away with all of them. Then when all governmental entities disappear for lack of support, we can live like our ancestors, battling over our little plot of land and other necessities from day to day and perishing at the hands of stronger invaders. This would strengthen the human race by weeding out weaker members. The question is whether the survivors would eventually figure out that banding together for mutual benefit made life a little less harrowing and that some members of the group were better able to figure out how to do this and should be delegated that task, etc. That, of course, could lead to ruin, since you'd end up with some sort of social structure that eventually would call for individual contributions of some sort to sustain it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I'm with anyone who gripes about any taxes. I say do away with all of them. Then when all governmental entities disappear for lack of support, we can blah blah blah blah blah

A staggeringly extreme strawman from someone who has apparently not even tried to understand the argument.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I'm with anyone who gripes about any taxes. I say do away with all of them. Then when all governmental entities disappear for lack of support, we can blah blah blah blah blah

Originally posted by shanek
A staggeringly extreme strawman from someone who has apparently not even tried to understand the argument.

What he said.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by shanek


A staggeringly extreme strawman from someone who has apparently not even tried to understand the argument. Extreme, you say? And it's not a "straw man," it's the result of no taxes. Merely doing away with income taxes means some other form of tax must be devised; so there is no real relief possible for beleaguered citizens. Anyway, do you suppose any solution to the myriad problems with our tax structure can be contrived in this forum? Obviously most tax codes need rewriting. But that involves offending so many interest groups (campaign contributors) that it is unlikely to happen. All we seem to do is adjust taxes here and there and make the system more cumbersome. Pols like Ron Paul aren't really serious (I hope). They court votes with proposals to repeal taxes, etc. because they expect to be applauded and remembered fondly by constituents, who naturally would like their own taxes reduced or eliminated. Most of us are quite happy to accept government benefits as long as others pay for them.

We'd all like a scheme whereby only worthy government functions are funded or in which taxpayers get to choose which programs they wish to pay for. The wrangle over whose pet program gets cut or funded is already a big part of what goes on in our capitals, and so far no objective rules have emerged to make identifying worthy programs any easier. In most cases, if we got to choose what to fund I fear that all programs would be underfunded.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Extreme, you say?

Yes.

And it's not a "straw man,"

Yes, it is.

it's the result of no taxes.

No, it isn't.

Merely doing away with income taxes means some other form of tax must be devised;

No, it doesn't.

so there is no real relief possible for beleaguered citizens.

Beleaguered by what???

Anyway, do you suppose any solution to the myriad problems with our tax structure can be contrived in this forum?

Yes.

Obviously most tax codes need rewriting.

Or doing away with.

But that involves offending so many interest groups (campaign contributors) that it is unlikely to happen. All we seem to do is adjust taxes here and there and make the system more cumbersome.

Agreed.

Pols like Ron Paul aren't really serious (I hope).

Why?

(It is also worth noting that there probably are not any others like Ron Paul. Too bad.)

They court votes with proposals to repeal taxes, etc. because they expect to be applauded and remembered fondly by constituents, who naturally would like their own taxes reduced or eliminated. Most of us are quite happy to accept government benefits as long as others pay for them.

That's the problem.

We'd all like a scheme whereby only worthy government functions are funded or in which taxpayers get to choose which programs they wish to pay for.

Based on election results, I'd say very few people would.

The wrangle over whose pet program gets cut or funded is already a big part of what goes on in our capitals, and so far no objective rules have emerged to make identifying worthy programs any easier.

Nonsense. Taxpayer choice.

In most cases, if we got to choose what to fund I fear that all programs would be underfunded.

Are private companies that provide services or products that are needed or in high demand "underfunded"?

[Lemastre]

Mr/Ms WMT1:

I won't deal with your need to parse each sentence in my message, except to take off from this last item:Originally posted by WMT1
Are private companies that provide services or products that are needed or in high demand "underfunded"? which suggests that you would favor or accept having all services now provided by tax-funded governmental agencies obtained directly from private firms by individuals as needed. And, I suppose this would mean you want no agencies monitoring these firms and their practices. It might be nice, and maybe cheaper, if everything were provided in the best way by private firms, with no need for regulation or monitoring. If they did so, perhaps government agencies and regulatory statutes would not grow and proliferate as they do. It is public demand for such regulations that keeps our capitals busy.

My sense is that private firms can provide a lot of what we need, but that they require close watching to discourage the quality of their product from being sacrificed for the bottom line, especially in competitive markets. This monitoring is the province of governmental agencies, such as the FDA and HHS. How well they do it is often debated, but the need for them to do it is generally accepted.

My experience of the privately owned nursing-home industry shows that lapses in providing really adequate care at all times are often considered acceptable based on the need to sustain owners' and stockholders' dividends. The operators of these facilities want to do good, but after all, they have to make a profit, don't they? This industry is fairly well regulated and monitored, at least in some states, but still provides fodder for various horror stories, not all deserved.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Extreme, you say? And it's not a "straw man,"

Okay, I'm a fair-minded man. Show me where any of us have advocated the total removal and support for every single government program and I'll retract the strawman remark.

Merely doing away with income taxes means some other form of tax must be devised;

No, it doesn't. We could do away with the Income Tax, impose no other tax at all, and still support government the size it was at the height of the Cold War. If we made the government obey the constitution, we could pay for everything with excise duties and user fees.

Obviously most tax codes need rewriting. But that involves offending so many interest groups (campaign contributors) that it is unlikely to happen.

Which is why you can't cut down government one program at a time. You need a wholesale package where the tax relief to the members of these interest groups would be so great that they wouldn't mind losing their programs.

Or, as Harry Browne so nicely put it, "Would you give up your favorite government program if it meant never having to pay Income Tax again?"

Most of us are quite happy to accept government benefits as long as others pay for them.

But would you give up that benefit if it meant never having taxes of any kind taken out of your paycheck ever again?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
It might be nice, and maybe cheaper, if everything were provided in the best way by private firms, with no need for regulation or monitoring. If they did so, perhaps government agencies and regulatory statutes would not grow and proliferate as they do. It is public demand for such regulations that keeps our capitals busy.

No, it isn't. These are "problems" created by politicians to sieze power. They're lying when they're saying it's what the people want; if even 5% of the people want it, or even less, the free market will jump forward to provide it.

My sense is that private firms can provide a lot of what we need, but that they require close watching to discourage the quality of their product from being sacrificed for the bottom line, especially in competitive markets.

This just shows that you have no idea how a competitive market operates. Competition raises, not lowers, quality.

This monitoring is the province of governmental agencies, such as the FDA and HHS. How well they do it is often debated, but the need for them to do it is generally accepted.

So how do you feel about UL?

My experience of the privately owned nursing-home industry

No health care industry in this country is fully private. Government puts heavy regulations on every single one of them. Really, really bad example.

Look at the computer industry—with pretty much no regulation at all, computer equipment is cheaper, faster, better quality, and safe for anyone to use. It's amazing how many people trot forth with an example of a "private sector failure" that's heavily regulated by the government, whereas those industries that are largely unregulated have no such problems.

[Roadtoad]

Okay, first, I want to see hard evidence that a higher tax rate leads to a lower murder rate. That strikes me as just plain weird.

Second, Lemastre, it's a strawman. Sorry, but ya gotta call 'em for what they are.

No one really wants to see his or her ox get gored, but when you think about it, for the most part, much of what the government is really funding is the re-election of the current Congress. It's become not so much a question of "Who's the best person for the office?" but "Who's going to bring home the bacon?"

Sad, and ironic, given the death today of retired Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was considered one of the nation's greatest statesmen, (according to George F. Will). I wonder how many other "Moynihans" there are out there, who will never get a crack at public office because they would be obligated to bring home the pork, rather than serve the common good.

Yeah, the nation's going to hell. But it ain't because of high taxes, or because we say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It has more to do with a lack of regard for our fellow citizens, and an atmosphere of amorality, (as you saw with Enron, Global Crossings, Martha Stewart, WorldCom...). No government can change that. We change that, starting with ourselves, and building from there.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
I won't deal with your need to parse each sentence in my message

Hey, that's just a natural result of all the points in your own poorly thought out post that called for some kind of response. My style is meant to minimize any misunderstanding about which of your words I am commenting on or asking about at any given point. And your comment just comes across as an attempt to put a positive spin on avoiding a point-by-point response of your own.



Are private companies that provide services or products that are needed or in high demand "underfunded"?

which suggests that you would favor or accept having all services now provided by tax-funded governmental agencies obtained directly from private firms by individuals as needed.

Maybe you should consider trying to actually, you know, answer a question, rather than reading something into it that isn't there. It matters less to me who is providing those services than what their method of funding is. I was just trying to pin you down a little on the "underfunded" thing. Guess that won't be happening any time soon.



And, I suppose this would mean you want no agencies monitoring these firms and their practices.

No, it would not mean that. You made a couple of leaps like this in your last post too, and it's an example of one of those poorly thought out points I mentioned.



It might be nice, and maybe cheaper, if everything were provided in the best way by private firms, with no need for regulation or monitoring.

Who has argued for no regulation or monitoring?



If they did so, perhaps government agencies and regulatory statutes would not grow and proliferate as they do. It is public demand for such regulations that keeps our capitals busy.

Okay, I'll try this again. If there is such "public demand", then what makes you think they would be underfunded?



My sense is that private firms can provide a lot of what we need, but that they require close watching to discourage the quality of their product from being sacrificed for the bottom line, especially in competitive markets. This monitoring is the province of governmental agencies, such as the FDA and HHS. How well they do it is often debated, but the need for them to do it is generally accepted.

Again, if that need is "generally accepted", then what makes you think there would be a problem with funding? Has anyone argued against those who are part of that general acceptance being allowed to commit their own resources to the maintenance of these agencies?



My experience of the privately owned nursing-home industry shows that lapses in providing really adequate care at all times are often considered acceptable based on the need to sustain owners' and stockholders' dividends. The operators of these facilities want to do good, but after all, they have to make a profit, don't they? This industry is fairly well regulated and monitored, at least in some states, but still provides fodder for various horror stories, not all deserved.

That's nice. Is this supposed to somehow refute anything I've said, or answer anything I've asked about?

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by shanek
No health care industry in this country is fully private. Government puts heavy regulations on every single one of them. Really, really bad example.What I thought I was pointing out in mentioning nursing homes is that private nursing homes are regulated and still manage to produce some bad-looking instances of neglect and abuse. I do not, however, consider the nursing-home industry a failure. Nor any of a number of other regulated industries that fail now and then. I do assume, though, that without regulation, unfortunate instances would be more numerous.

Look at the computer industry — with pretty much no regulation at all, computer equipment is cheaper, faster, better quality, and safe for anyone to use. It's amazing how many people trot forth with an example of a "private sector failure" that's heavily regulated by the government, whereas those industries that are largely unregulated have no such problems.Also, aside from firms on the scale of one guy trudging across lawns sticking flyers on doorknobs, I think that no firms would consider themselves "pretty much" unregulated. If your criterion for being private is that a firm come under little or no regulation, I would say there are no private firms in this country for you to champion. Certainly, to imagine that Microsoft operates without extensive government regulation is a bit naive. And to suggest that their products have no problems seems pretty charitable. (Perhaps, like me, you are a Mac user.) If recent court cases are an indication, the widespread promulgation of Microsoft products appears to be at least as much a result of marketing and bundling schemes as of the quality of the software. (I may be misreading the dissatisfaction my friends have with their various Microsoft products.) But then, maybe the bugs stem from there being no enforced standards of software quality.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
What I thought I was pointing out in mentioning nursing homes is that private nursing homes are regulated and still manage to produce some bad-looking instances of neglect and abuse. I do not, however, consider the nursing-home industry a failure.

Clarification: I'm not calling the industry a failure; I'm calling government intervention in the industry a failure. There's a difference.

I do assume, though, that without regulation, unfortunate instances would be more numerous.

On what do you base that assumption?

I think that no firms would consider themselves "pretty much" unregulated.

I was using that phrase to mean in comparison to more heavily regulated industries.

[Lemastre]

Forgive my indulging in flights of fancy heretofore, carrying on about government regulations and such. It really had little to do with the libertarian return to utopia. So I will amend my original call to say don't just do away with income taxes but at the same time lay on, what is it we want, excise taxes and user fees? Trim governments to fit, too. I'd love to see the numbers on how my finances and public services would fare under such a scheme.

And I have to stand up for Ron Paul, we being Texians and all. His pronouncements take me back to those Frank Capra films werein the lanky hero's homespun idealism overcomes all obstacles and puts the pols to shame, plus getting him the girl. What's likely to happen in Texas, maybe not right away, is a state income tax to go with the federal one. Of course, every aspiring governor delivers the mandatory "no new taxes" line several times during his campaign.

To those who have taken their valuable time dissecting my ill-considered maunderings, I must say that your idealism is well taken. Without the likes of it, I suppose this nation and humankind in general will only manage to obliterate themselves that much quicker.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Forgive my indulging in flights of fancy heretofore, carrying on about government regulations and such. It really had little to do with the libertarian return to utopia.

:confused: What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like you've been getting some bad information about libertarianism.



So I will amend my original call to say don't just do away with income taxes but at the same time lay on, what is it we want, excise taxes and user fees? Trim governments to fit, too. I'd love to see the numbers on how my finances and public services would fare under such a scheme.

Does anybody ever refer to anything they actually agree with as a "scheme"? For instance, how come nobody arguing for taxation ever refers to it as the "scheme" of making funding easier by making people pay for things they don't want?



And I have to stand up for Ron Paul, we being Texians and all. His pronouncements take me back to those Frank Capra films werein the lanky hero's homespun idealis overcomes all obstacles and puts the pols to shame, plus getting him the girl.

Is there a point buried in there somewhere? Clarity is not one of your strong points.



To those who have taken their valuable time dissecting my ill-considered maunderings, I must say that your idealism is well taken. Without the likes of it, I suppose this nation and humankind in general will only manage to obliterate themselves that much quicker.

Wow. You really do seem to have an affinity for vagueness in your comments. Judging from your previous contributions, I'm guessing it's due to a lack of confidence in a more straightforward approach.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Forgive my indulging in flights of fancy heretofore, carrying on about government regulations and such. It really had little to do with the libertarian return to utopia.

This is a typical charge, but the fact is that Libertarians don't advocate utopia. If anything, it's the Socialists who have this idea of utopia where government magically solves all of our problems and everyone in government works for the greater good of those around them.

We Libertarians realize that people can't be relied upon to do that, especially in politics, and so the liberty of the people should be protected so that they can seek out solutions to their own problems.

[qoute]So I will amend my original call to say don't just do away with income taxes but at the same time lay on, what is it we want, excise taxes and user fees?[/quote]

Ecxept that those duties and fees are already there. Nothing more would need to be added; the current level is more than enough.

Trim governments to fit, too. I'd love to see the numbers on how my finances and public services would fare under such a scheme.

The best outlay of the plan I've see is in The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne.

[Lemastre]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WMT1


:confused: What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like you've been getting some bad information about libertarianism.
Hey, you guys! I thought Ron Paul was a libertarian or at least had a libertarian bent and that all this about funding via excise taxes and user fees was favored by libertarians. Excuse me. I really don't know what libertarians favor.

Does anybody ever refer to anything they actually agree with as a "scheme"? For instance, how come nobody arguing for taxation ever refers to it as the "scheme" of making funding easier by making people pay for things they don't want?
Of course "scheme" usually isn't applied to plans one favors. Scheme is almost always neutral or pejorative. In my usage here, it was more neutral than pejorative.

Is there a point buried in there somewhere? Clarity is not one of your strong points.
The point is that Ron Paul's effusions put me in mind of Frank Capra films. Perhaps you don't recall them. You may rewrite the statement to make it clearer to you if you wish.

Wow. You really do seem to have an affinity for vagueness in your comments. Judging from your previous contributions, I'm guessing it's due to a lack of confidence in a more straightforward approach.
I'm acknowledging your efforts and appreciating your idealism. You may rewrite it to make it clearer to you. It's true that every writer needs editing, but this internet makes it easy to just fire away without it. It's liberating in a way, but obviously, if all this back and forth was more than casual chatter, it would call for more rewriting.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lemastre
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WMT1
[B]Hey, you guys! I thought Ron Paul was a libertarian or at least had a libertarian bent and that all this about funding via excise taxes

Actually, it was about ending the Income Tax.

and user fees was favored by libertarians. Excuse me. I really don't know what libertarians favor.

www.lp.org

Of course "scheme" usually isn't applied to plans one favors. Scheme is almost always neutral or pejorative. In my usage here, it was more neutral than pejorative.

Actually, I have heard Brits use it favorably. "I've got a bloody good pension scheme."

The point is that Ron Paul's effusions put me in mind of Frank Capra films.

Care to post an example of Paul's comments that do this for you?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Forgive my indulging in flights of fancy heretofore, carrying on about government regulations and such. It really had little to do with the libertarian return to utopia.

Originally posted by WMT1
:confused: What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like you've been getting some bad information about libertarianism.

Originally posted by Lemastre
Hey, you guys! I thought Ron Paul was a libertarian or at least had a libertarian bent and that all this about funding via excise taxes and user fees was favored by libertarians.

You may have that part right. It's the "utopia" thing I'm questioning. In fact, that should have been clear, since the comment of yours that I expressed confusion about made a clear reference to "utopia", and not one word about Ron Paul, excise taxes, or user fees.



Excuse me. I really don't know what libertarians favor.

And I hate to step on Shane's toes here, but if you're really confused about libertarianism, don't assume the platform of the Libertarian Party is representative of those views. Its conclusions are, for the most part, consistent with libertarian philosophy, but they are far too specific to reflect what all (or even most) libertarians would support on any particular issue. If you're going to use anything from that website as a guide, I'd direct you to the Statement of Principles. The second paragraph sums it up pretty well, though most of the libertarians I've run across would probably agree with just about everything in the subsequent paragraphs as well.



The point is that Ron Paul's effusions put me in mind of Frank Capra films. Perhaps you don't recall them.

I do, but if this is all you meant, you apparently don't have much of a point. Your earlier posts left the impression that you actually wanted to criticize opposition to taxation, but so far, what you've posted hasn't amounted to much.



You may rewrite the statement to make it clearer to you if you wish.

In this case, your statements are clear enough, but their relevance is not, at least not if criticizing opposition to taxation is your goal. That's what I meant about being vague.

Besides, if someone else does not understand your point in the first place, where did you get the idea that they are in a position to rewrite your statements to convey what you meant?



I'm acknowledging your efforts and appreciating your idealism.

Where did you get the idea that it's idealism?



You may rewrite it to make it clearer to you.

If communicating effectively is of any importance to you, then please pay close attention, so I don't have to repeat this. When you are unclear about something, it is up to you to make yourself clearer.



It's true that every writer needs editing, but this internet makes it easy to just fire away without it. It's liberating in a way, but obviously, if all this back and forth was more than casual chatter, it would call for more rewriting.

Nevertheless, if you want your comments to be taken seriously (and admittedly, judging from these last statements of yours, the jury's still out on that one), there is something to be said for being straightforward in your criticisms, or you just come across as someone who lacks confidence in his own views. And that tends to favor those you are trying to criticize, especially in a forum like JREF.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, I'm a fair-minded man. Show me where any of us have advocated
the total removal and support for every single government program and
I'll retract the strawman remark.

It's not anyone here on the board but rather the libertarian position
that generates stawman remarks, see:

"All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose
all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money
or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights."

Hell, that ought to generate an army of straw golems, perpetually.

It violates the concepts of government that everyone understands.
In Frankonian terms goverment is omnibenevolent, omnicoercive,
omniscient, omnitaxing, and etcetera. When a position implies the
absence of one of these primary defining terms, people naturally
think of anarchy, even though libertarians do not subscribe to anarchy.

No, it doesn't. We could do away with the Income Tax, impose
no other tax at all, and still support government the size it was
at the height of the Cold War. If we made the government obey
the constitution, we could pay for everything with excise duties
and user fees.

This... this is bizzare. But most of the ideas floated here have been so.
The idea of subscription law enforcement, the idea of privately owned
roads, even way, way, way out idea of a bank where people pay extra
not to have a run on the bank. It gives me such a terrible headache.

Which is why you can't cut down government one program at a time.
You need a wholesale package where the tax relief to the members
of these interest groups would be so great that they wouldn't mind
losing their programs.

Or, as Harry Browne so nicely put it, "Would you give up your favorite
government program if it meant never having to pay Income Tax again?"

But would you give up that benefit if it meant never having taxes of any
kind taken out of your paycheck ever again?

The answer must always be a very small, "no."
I can even imagine eliminating programs I disfavor.

[shanek]

Originally posted by John Lockard
It's not anyone here on the board but rather the libertarian position that generates stawman remarks, see:

So, the fact that people use strawman arguments against us is somehow our fault? :confused:

This... this is bizzare.

No, it isn't. Do the math. Keeping all other tax levels the same, eliminating the Income Tax entirely, and remembering to adjust for inflation, you'd be able to have the same size government as in the early 80s.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
I agree that we have differing opinions, but so what? We started out that way. That's what debate is for. What's the point of just ending it, unless you're having trouble defending yours?

The reason I'm interested in ending it is because the argument is dragging long, points are beginning to be repeated, and we are no closer to consensus. The only remaining benefit would be if others reading it need thoughts to help them form their opinion... and I suggest anyone still paying attention would be just as happy if we finally both put a lid on it. Our points of view are clear enough.

If you are personally interested in responses to a few of these issues enough to PM me about it, go ahead, but I hope you understand I'm growing weary of this ever-lengthening point-by-point debate. I want to move on to other topics.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by gnome
I'm growing weary of this ever-lengthening point-by-point debate. I want to move on to other topics. [/B]

Word.

Most of the responses have become like the debate between Randfan and Wayne Grabert in one of the war threads. No one was convinced of anything they hadn't already believed. I opted out simply because it was becoming repetitive. People would bring up valid points, and they were ignored simply because it had become a game of mental masturbation for a few individuals. (Oddly enough, not for Randfan or Wayne Grabert.) After a while, I suspect even they were sick of it and were seeking new info which wasn't forthcoming; when you have people with different views, and they're run off by the few with more mouth than brains, it gets old.

This is a subject that requires some serious debate, but it's only going to work if someone on either side actually listens, and tries to absorb and understand what is being said by the other side.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by John Lockard
It's not anyone here on the board but rather the libertarian position that generates stawman remarks, see:

"All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights."

Hell, that ought to generate an army of straw golems, perpetually.

It violates the concepts of government that everyone understands. In Frankonian terms goverment is omnibenevolent, omnicoercive, omniscient, omnitaxing, and etcetera. When a position implies the absence of one of these primary defining terms, people naturally think of anarchy, even though libertarians do not subscribe to anarchy.

Yes, people do often leap to poorly founded conclusions. But you wouldn't think this would apply to most skeptics, would you?



This... this is bizzare. But most of the ideas floated here have been so. The idea of subscription law enforcement, the idea of privately owned roads, even way, way, way out idea of a bank where people pay extra not to have a run on the bank. It gives me such a terrible headache.

Just imagine the headaches libertarians suffer as a result of all the manufactured problems cited in objection to their ideas. For example, the "extra" you referred to, apparently to support the characterization "way, way, way out idea", would essentially just be the fees paid by customers to cover what was previously being paid for by the taxes designated for that same service - taxes which are no longer being collected from those customers.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
The reason I'm interested in ending it is because the argument is dragging long,

It took you almost a week to point this out? Are you sure it isn't just because you're having trouble figuring out how to respond to some of my questions?


points are beginning to be repeated,

That probably happens in most discussions. And if I'm the one doing this, it might be a result of points I've raised previously that have gone unaddressed.


and we are no closer to consensus.

The reasons for that might become clearer if you would try to answer the questions I raised in my last post to you.


The only remaining benefit would be if others reading it need thoughts to help them form their opinion...

That is, nevertheless, a possible benefit. Moreover, it's not the only one. But in the interest of not adding things to talk about, I won't bother mentioning the others unless you're interested enough to ask what they are.


and I suggest anyone still paying attention would be just as happy if we finally both put a lid on it.

If that's true, then why would they still be paying attention at all?


Our points of view are clear enough.

Points of view are usually fairly clear early on. What is not always so clear is how well those viewpoints will withstand scrutiny.


If you are personally interested in responses to a few of these issues enough to PM me about it, go ahead,

What's to be accomplished by moving the discussion to PM?


but I hope you understand I'm growing weary of this ever-lengthening point-by-point debate. I want to move on to other topics

I understand, but you were the one who took issue with opposition to taxation in the first place, and I was merely trying to defend that opposition, or at least challenge some of your arguments. Are you at least willing to acknowledge that, by moving on, you're leaving several unanswered questions on the table?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Most of the responses have become like the debate between Randfan and Wayne Grabert in one of the war threads. No one was convinced of anything they hadn't already believed. I opted out simply because it was becoming repetitive. People would bring up valid points, and they were ignored simply because it had become a game of mental masturbation for a few individuals. (Oddly enough, not for Randfan or Wayne Grabert.) After a while, I suspect even they were sick of it and were seeking new info which wasn't forthcoming; when you have people with different views, and they're run off by the few with more mouth than brains, it gets old.

This is a subject that requires some serious debate, but it's only going to work if someone on either side actually listens, and tries to absorb and understand what is being said by the other side.

I hate to say it, but although I agree with some of your comments generally, they aren't very helpful, since you aren't the least bit specific about who you're referring to when you make references to things like valid points being ignored, not listening, mental masturbation, or in particular, something as insulting as "more mouth than brains" (which, by the way, some might say of someone who posts such insults without being forthright enough to identify who he's talking about).

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to either defend or reconsider anything I've posted, but it's kind of hard to know where to start when it's not even clear whether I'm the one being criticized. So if it is of any interest to you that your comments be taken as constructive criticism, then please have enough confidence in them to be clearer - much clearer.

[gnome]

Originally posted by WMT1
It took you almost a week to point this out?

Actually it was because RL intruded somewhat and I was unable to invest the time to a careful response, and after a few days realized that I felt it would be rather pointless.

What's to be accomplished by moving the discussion to PM?

Just that I suspect it has gone on long enough that others are less interested in the results. I also note that very few people have picked up and commented on anything either of us have said... I take that as a sign of relative disinterest.

I understand, but you were the one who took issue with opposition to taxation in the first place, and I was merely trying to defend that opposition, or at least challenge some of your arguments.

I believe you brought up valid challenges, it is starting to boil down to opinion, which we have each clearly stated.

Are you at least willing to acknowledge that, by moving on, you're leaving several unanswered questions on the table?

Yes. We can raise and address questions and what-ifs indefinitely on this topic, I am sure.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by gnome
We can raise and address questions and what-ifs indefinitely on this topic, I am sure.

And even in this forum, some are apparently better prepared than others to address questions that test the foundation of their own views.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by WMT1


I hate to say it, but although I agree with some of your comments generally, they aren't very helpful, since you aren't the least bit specific about who you're referring to when you make references to things like valid points being ignored, not listening, mental masturbation, or in particular, something as insulting as "more mouth than brains" (which, by the way, some might say of someone who posts such insults without being forthright enough to identify who he's talking about).

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to either defend or reconsider anything I've posted, but it's kind of hard to know where to start when it's not even clear whether I'm the one being criticized. So if it is of any interest to you that your comments be taken as constructive criticism, then please have enough confidence in them to be clearer - much clearer.

Don't hate to say it. In retrospect, I agree. My remarks were out of line. And, as pointed out, not particularly helpful. (And, I wound up looking like I had "more mouth than brains." Damn.)

Sometimes, reading through this, I get the feeling, WMT1, that there are moments from Shanek and Gnome, to name only two, (I said MOMENTS, this is not a regular occurance, and it's not intended to be malicious on their part) and from others that points made from others, unless they're waaaaaay out , are ignored, even if they're in agreement with something someone has said. (Guilty as charged as well. There are times when I really need to shut up and listen to what someone else has to offer.) Call it frustration. Much of what you got was job related, and had nothing to do with what was happening on the board. (Two words might help you understand: Pulling Doubles.)

[Roadtoad]

And once more, huge apologies for my words. This is not a good week. Long story. I'll tell you more later, on another thread.

[Roadtoad]

Here's a question for those present. (Or not.)

What reason does the Federal Government have for asking for information regarding what you are paying for a home mortgage? Ancillary to this: Why does the Federal Government need to know what you're paying for health care? Why not take an average of what's paid out, and cut taxes by that amount/percentage, then do away with those deductions?

[gnome]

I can even admit, looking back, that I do not always reply to every single point made.

(and I am not taking your comments as an attack RoadToad, just adding my own two cents to the issue)...

I tend to do this when each individual post is already terribly long--and I am trying to compact the argument back down to what was originally being discussed...

I get frustrated when a discussion balloons into sorting out side points, arguing /about/ the argument, or when I am asked about something that I feel I have explained enough already, and don't feel like engaging in yet ANOTHER argument about whether I have.

Or, when the other person makes a point that I feel ends that tangent without need for further comment by me--effectively giving them the last word on that issue and moving back to the original discussion...

I could offer more acknowledgement in such cases I suppose.

WMT--prepared to consider questions that test the foundations of my beliefs--most definitely. You have caused me to consider a great deal. Just not prepared to spend any more time actually arguing it.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
So, the fact that people use strawman arguments against us is somehow our fault? :confused:

No.
I only point to a possible solution to the problem.
If you do not wish to take corrective action then I hope you have a hungry horse. :)

No, it isn't. Do the math. Keeping all other tax levels the same, eliminating the Income Tax entirely, and remembering to adjust for inflation, you'd be able to have the same size government as in the early 80s.

Hm. That checks outs and yet it feels a little like 'lite' beer.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by WMT1
Yes, people do often leap to poorly founded conclusions.
But you wouldn't think this would apply to most skeptics, would you?

Unfortunately, no even skeptics are perfect. So it happens.
But we can hope that we do it much less than the others. :D

Just imagine the headaches libertarians suffer as a result of all the
manufactured problems cited in objection to their ideas. For example,
the "extra" you referred to, apparently to support the characterization
"way, way, way out idea", would essentially just be the fees paid by
customers to cover what was previously being paid for by the
taxes designated for that same service - taxes which are no longer
being collected from those customers.

Well, since your not UCE, I don't need to go into the metaphysics behind it.

Objectively, a bank has a run on it, not as a property of a bank, but as an
event of a bank. There's no way to design a bank that doesn't have runs,
so a runless bank cannot exist. You can have a repository or a vault where
you put your money in and pay a fee to keep it there each month, but that
money would never be loaned out. Not many people want that.

Banks as a class, loan out money from deposites, and usually have a small
amount on reserve for regular transactions. Rarely, demand exceeds this
reserve, if people panic there will be a run on the bank. Since there's no
quick way to deloan the money and if fear spreads it can wipe-out an entire
banking system.

The federal reserve solves this problem by providing an unlimited amount
of money to cover the run. By acting not as a bank, it prevents collapse.
Actually, you don't need to support the federal reserve system with taxes
but instead by a user fee on banks.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Here's a question for those present. (Or not.)
What reason does the Federal Government have for asking
for information regarding what you are paying for a home mortgage?
Ancillary to this: Why does the Federal Government need to know
what you're paying for health care?
[QUOTE]
Good stewardship. Keeping track of the economy and
compiling statistics lets everyone know what's going one.
[QUOTE]
Why not take an average of what's paid out, and cut taxes by
that amount/percentage, then do away with those deductions?

It's a good idea. Problem is, people who benefit from
those deductions constitute a significant voting block.