Flat Tax

[Charles Livingston]

I am starting this thread as much for debate as for my own personal knowledge. I am pretty ignorant of most economics, but as I understand it a flat tax would not only "give the rich a break" but would raise the minimum salary necessary to invoke income tax, ie it would help both ends, probably at the expense of the middle.

With the little knowledge that I have, it seems like a good thing. I get tired of the argument that tax breaks are just helping the rich, when the rich already pay a much higher tax burden (ie a higher percentage, not just more money). Sometimes I wonder if people do not consider the 'percentage' aspect. In addition, it seems as though the 'right's' tax plan would actually do more to help the poor, and this point never seems to be raised at election time. Democrats (I am neither D or R) always seem to paint tax breaks as screwing the poor and helping the rich, when it seems to me they are really talking about the middle (with regard to screwing the poor).

Some or all of the above may be incorrect, as I said I am not very knowledgable about general economics nor either side's specific tax provision.

Any thoughts on a flat tax?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
I get tired of the argument that tax breaks are just helping the rich, when the rich already pay a much higher tax burden (ie a higher percentage, not just more money). Sometimes I wonder if people do not consider the 'percentage' aspect.
OK, consider the percentage. If a billionare(per year) paying the max 33% tax rate (feel free to correct my numbers anyone) saves 1%, that means he takes home $668 million instead of 667 million (rounded).

If a lower middle class person making $25,000 per year saves 1% in taxes, that means he saves $250. The amount he pays will depend heavily on what the standard deduction is.

Now for the billionaire, that extra 1% might mean he can buy a new house or several new luxury cars. But for the LMC person it might mean better nutrition for his/her family, or help paying in-state college tuition.

Keep in mind that the billionaire is not necessarily a billionaire simply due to his own merits, but may have inherited the wealth, or even if he "earned" it he was able to do so because of the business environment in this country allowed him to do so.

[shanek]

I'm all for a flat tax, as long as the flat rate is 0%. Don't think that's some kind of extremist position; we could completely eliminate the income tax and with no other taxes added or increased still maintain a government the size it was at the end of the Cold War.

[Michael Redman]

Setting a minimum income for tax liability is independant of the flat tax issue. The same can be done no matter the method of calculating tax. A flat tax does not, by its nature, help the poor.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Keep in mind that the billionaire is not necessarily a billionaire simply due to his own merits, but may have inherited the wealth, or even if he "earned" it he was able to do so because of the business environment in this country allowed him to do so.

Also keep in mind that the person earning $25,000 is not necessarily only earning $25,000 because of circumstances outside of his control. The business environment in this country would have allowed him to be a billionaire if he had made the right choices.

[arcticpenguin]

Many of Bush's tax cuts are geared towards those who use money to make money, rather than those who actually perform labor for their money. The elimination of taxes on stock dividends would be an example. You don't find too many minimum wage workers making stock dividends.

[Samus]

My jury is still out on a Flat Tax. To be honest, I have not invested the time into researching flat tax plans to see how they would affect overall tax income for the government, as well as the tax burden on any given income level.

Having admitted my lack of knowledge, I think one of the argument against a flat tax is that it will increase the tax burden on middle class or lower-middle class incomes, which is not a popular move. Let's say, for example, that I now pay 15% of my income to the income tax. Then, the goverment sets the flat tax rate at 20%, well, that just increased my burden. At the same time, someone who is was taxed 33% is now getting a big break. The more you make, the more you'll be able to keep when a tax percentage decrease is passed.

But there's more to it than that. My 5% increase in tax paid, in terms of an actual dollar amount, is far less than the dollar amount saved by the 13% decrease in the rich guy's tax. Under that plan, the government of my two-person country will receive less money from the income tax.

I think the majority of people believe that a progressive income tax is "fair", or at least, not overly unfair. I would point to the lack of support for any other model (viz. flat tax) as my evidence. Weak argument indeed, but it's a start.

The rhetoric surrounding tax breaks is frustrating, because some wish to convince you that a tax plan that helps the wealthiest will automatically hurt the poorest, and this is not true. The poorest among us don't even pay income taxes, so what do they care? Those who make the most, by far, pay the most. Why not lessen the burden on the people that carry it?

I think the fear of a flat tax, or any tax cut, is that it decreases the income the government receives. That leaves less money for the government to spend. If your individual political philosophy is conservative, as mine is, then you see that as a good thing, because it forces the federal government to de-scope and spend money on less things.

How's that for rambling? Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way, I'm just trying to look at both sides of the coin.

[Tmy]

Heres my concearns:

Flat Tax just deal with fed income tax. What about all the other taxes?? Will they be eliminated?

Say I make $40K, sure I pay a less percentage of income tax but what happens when you throw in all the other taxes (for gas, fees, ect..) In then end am I actually paying a higher percentage of my income to taxes??

Say Im a business owner. Will I be able to use clever accounting to hide/move income so I can avoid the taxes???

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tmy
Heres my concearns:

Flat Tax just deal with fed income tax. What about all the other taxes?? Will they be eliminated?

Say I make $40K, sure I pay a less percentage of income tax but what happens when you throw in all the other taxes (for gas, fees, ect..) In then end am I actually paying a higher percentage of my income to taxes??

Say Im a business owner. Will I be able to use clever accounting to hide/move income so I can avoid the taxes???
A good point. The government needs a certain amount of income to do what it does (roads, schools, etc). If it comes from any form of sales tax rather than income tax, then there is no progressive tax rate and no deduction.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Many of Bush's tax cuts are geared towards those who use money to make money, rather than those who actually perform labor for their money. The elimination of taxes on stock dividends would be an example. You don't find too many minimum wage workers making stock dividends.

So, you actually have to do "labor" to "earn" money in your eyes? Sorry, but I have heard this sad, tired, old argument too many times.

First, there are very few that inherited all their wealth and do no work at all. Just ask William Ford III. Not only is the guy running Ford, he is also running the Detroit Lions NFL team (badly, but he still has duties.)

Second, why is running a business not considered "labor"? Sure, a ditch digger works hard his 8-10 hours a day. But he goes home and forgets about his work. Executives can never forget about work. Their lives are about work. They might put 8-10 hours in at the office (or 12-14), then they get to go out to dinner with clients, work parties, late night meetings, business trips, etc....

So, the executive isn't digging ditches, but he also trades that off for a life of stress and work. But you can't dismiss what a business man does and not call it work.

[corplinx]

A flat tax is too much change at once for our government. Here is a good step to getting there.

A. Take away _all_ tax deductions.
B. Reduce the tax rates by 8 percent.

I am all for this. It would be ideal if each paid his own share blindly of how much he made, but I don't see that happening with all the demagoguery and class envy scams the pols run with.

[jayrev]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Many of Bush's tax cuts are geared towards those who use money to make money, rather than those who actually perform labor for their money. The elimination of taxes on stock dividends would be an example. You don't find too many minimum wage workers making stock dividends.

Yes, because they pay the taxes. You don't find too many minimum wage workers paying income tax. They usually make money in the deal with the earned income credits.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Diezel


So, you actually have to do "labor" to "earn" money in your eyes? Sorry, but I have heard this sad, tired, old argument too many times.

First, there are very few that inherited all their wealth and do no work at all. Just ask William Ford III. Not only is the guy running Ford, he is also running the Detroit Lions NFL team (badly, but he still has duties.)

Second, why is running a business not considered "labor"? Sure, a ditch digger works hard his 8-10 hours a day. But he goes home and forgets about his work. Executives can never forget about work. Their lives are about work. They might put 8-10 hours in at the office (or 12-14), then they get to go out to dinner with clients, work parties, late night meetings, business trips, etc....

So, the executive isn't digging ditches, but he also trades that off for a life of stress and work. But you can't dismiss what a business man does and not call it work.
I'm sure those business men and executives actually get a salary and possibly various perks for performing their duties.

Nothing you said would address those who make money off money, like stock dividends, rahter than performing some kind of work. And nothing you said would justify their getting a special tax break I don't get on my salary.

[Charles Livingston]

I was under the impression that Bush's tax plan actually helped the poor more than Gore's (ie raised the minimum) Is this correct?

I realize this has nothing to do with a flat tax.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I'm sure those business men and executives actually get a salary and possibly various perks for performing their duties.

Nothing you said would address those who make money off money, like stock dividends, rahter than performing some kind of work. And nothing you said would justify their getting a special tax break I don't get on my salary.

Actually, many executives salaries are heavily weighed in stock options, thus stock dividends make a good part of their wealth. Show me all the people living primarily on stock dividends. For each rich one you show me, I will show you a retired person living the same way. Buying income stocks, or stocks that pay dividends was (and is) a common way of investing for retirement. In fact, without looking, I will venture to say the vast majority of the people living off of stock dividends are retirees. Do you think it is unfair they are getting a break?

Also, think about how many people are in 401(k)s. Stocks are not just for the rich - this isn't 1975.

[Charles Livingston]

Articpenguin: "Nothing you said would address those who make money off money, like stock dividends, rahter than performing some kind of work. And nothing you said would justify their getting a special tax break I don't get on my salary."

Anyone can use their own money to try and make more by investing it, some people just have more than others to play around with, and certainly the more you have the easier it is to make more. Are you suggesting that people who already have a certain amount of money should not be allowed to use it to make more, or that they should be taxed heavier because of it? At what level do you invoke this? What do you define as rich?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Charles Livingston

I am starting this thread as much for debate as for my own personal knowledge. I am pretty ignorant of most economics, but as I understand it a flat tax would not only "give the rich a break" but would raise the minimum salary necessary to invoke income tax, ie it would help both ends, probably at the expense of the middle.Well, "flat tax" with minimum income criterion is not really flat -- it's a progressive tax of a very coarse kind. An ideal progressive tax would look like a smooth function (where X axis is income, and Y axis is taxation percentage); extant tax system in USA looks like a rough approximation of that curve, consisting of multiple disjoint horizontal lines, kinda like a staircase, where each horizontal segment would represent an income bracket; and a flat tax with minimum income would be even worse -- just a simple step function (called so because it looks like a step -- horizontal line, vertical line, then again horizontal line higher up). The step-progressive tax is thus just as the current progressive tax, but with fewer tax brackets, and thus coarser in granularity.

And yes, the price of the coarser granularity of this sort of taxation would be borne by the middle class, especially the people right above the point where the function "steps".

if anything was ever unfair, this sort of "flat tax" is it. it's the worst of both worlds; it still taxes different people at different rates as the current progressive tax does, thus arguably being "unfair"; and at the same time it doesn't actually spread this unfairness to those who can most afford to bear it, which was the argument for progressive tax in the first place.

The only people this sort of setup benefits, are the very rich, the tiny fraction of the people who are right below the step (adjacent to the 0% dividing line from the low side) who were paying higher tax under progressive system, and the politicians who get to banter around about flat tax. Fortunately, it seems like most people aren't buying the flat tax rhetoric, and so the political capital to be gained by promoting flat tax is negligible and even negative.

With the little knowledge that I have, it seems like a good thing. I get tired of the argument that tax breaks are just helping the rich, when the rich already pay a much higher tax burden (ie a higher percentage, not just more money).Nothing wrong with that. Our society is de-facto grounded in a mixture of utilitarian and deontological ethics, not pure deontological one. I personally see no reason to proclaim that utilitarian arguments for progressive taxation are unsound, because deontological ethics is inherently superior to utilitarian ethics -- it's not.

Sometimes I wonder if people do not consider the 'percentage' aspect. In addition, it seems as though the 'right's' tax plan would actually do more to help the poor,Step-progressive (it's not really flat) tax that you spoke about would help some poor -- a very small number of them that aren't paying [nearly-]zero tax already, but would be paying 0% under step-progressive tax. It would hurt a great number of people who are right above the break line, because -- guess what? in order for the step-progressive tax to actually generate significant revenue, it would have to tax middle and lower-middle classes, since they comprise majority of the population and a critical piece of the tax base. However, due to the very nature of the step-progressive tax, those people -- the population majority -- would be exactly the people who get hit the hardest.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tmy

Heres my concearns:

Flat Tax just deal with fed income tax. What about all the other taxes?? Will they be eliminated?Good point. Other forms of tax -- excise, real estate, sales, VAT -- are actually regressive, in fact making the lower-income citizens pay higher tax rates.

[Tmy]

I often hear "it isnt fair for people to pay more than their share just because they make more", BUT since when is taxation based on fairness??

I'm not married and have no children. Is it fair that my taxes go to pay for public education? Is it fair for married people to get special tax breaks?

Sure someday I may be married, and have kids in public school. Then again someday I might be a millionaire.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tmy

I often hear "it isnt fair for people to pay more than their share just because they make more", BUT since when is taxation based on fairness??Very true -- because there is no such thing as "objective fairness" with regard to taxation. Flat tax would not be inherently more fair that making all people pay a flat dollar amount per year (which is how it used to be in in some places in medieval Europe). We, as a society, define what "fairness" in regard to taxation means, because there is no other standard that can be held to objectively.

I'm not married and have no children. Is it fair that my taxes go to pay for public education? Is it fair for married people to get special tax breaks?Very much so. Who do you think will make it possible for you, a childless retiree, actually buy stuff with the money in your 401k? Today's children will be tomorrow's value makers, benefitting everyone by maintaining the very infrastructure within which money has value. In a way, people are a social meta-resource, making all other resources have value, and it's perfectly fair IMO to tax you to help raise the children which will enable you to actually use your retirement funds.

Sure someday I may be married, and have kids in public school.What matters is that someday you will be retired, and enjoy the social infrastructure maintained by the children for whose education your taxes pay now.

[Tmy]

Someone mentioned perks.

If you have a company car thats a perk, not income right? So could compaines avoid flat taxes by supplementing employee incomes with various perks?

[Roadtoad]

It occurs to me that any income tax goes back to the old Marxist saw, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Income taxation is wrong, period. The last thing we need is further abuse of the American citizen. Enough already!

Further, consider this: Look at the amount of waste and fraud already perpetuated on us, and the continuing invasion of our lives by the government, and you tell me you want to fund that sort of crap.

[shanek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Many of Bush's tax cuts are geared towards those who use money to make money, rather than those who actually perform labor for their money. The elimination of taxes on stock dividends would be an example. You don't find too many minimum wage workers making stock dividends.

Uh, I agree that the tax "cut" is unfair (in fact, I dispute that it's even a "cut"), but don't discount the role of those who "use money to make money." That's what investment is, and without it, the economy couldn't grow. Investment creates jobs and increases productivity.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Flat Tax just deal with fed income tax. What about all the other taxes?? Will they be eliminated?

According to the US Census Bureau, government at all levels takes in 48% of the National Income in taxes. No one really gets a break; regardless of income, overall you're paying between 30% and 70% of your income in taxes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jayrev
Yes, because they pay the taxes. You don't find too many minimum wage workers paying income tax.

They still pay 15+% in Social Security Tax.

[shanek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I'm sure those business men and executives actually get a salary

Steve Jobs's salary is $1/year. :p

[patnray]

One trick both democrats and republicans use in tax debates is to concentrate on individuals rather than groups collectively. Republicans often claim that the rich "pay most of the taxes" because a rich person pays a large number of dollars in tax. It's true that a millionaire pays more in taxes than most of us make. But there are not that many millionaires compared to the non-millionaires. Actually, the middle class, by virtue of collective size, pays most of the taxes. The disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us has been growing since at least the Reagan tax "reforms", but the middle class still has a large share of the collective burden.

Another trick is to divide income groups up in a way that includes much of the middle class with the wealthiest tax payers, so that changes that benefit the wealthiest tax payers seem to benefit a larger group.

Democrats, on the other hand, will concentrate on the small dollar value returned to the poorest tax payers, and steere away from percentages.

Look very carefully at any figures thrown at you by politicians of any ilk. Their goal is to persuade you, not to inform you...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tmy

Good point. Other forms of tax -- excise, real estate, sales, VAT -- are actually regressive, in fact making the lower-income citizens pay higher tax rates.

Not always true. Excise taxes on luxury items, for example, don't really affect the poor, although excise tax on gas does.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by patnray
The disparity between the wealthy and the rest of us has been growing since at least the Reagan tax "reforms"

data?

[corplinx]

Let me just say this, a true flat tax would be a step up for our government. Right now he have people running around like idiots complaining that someone might get more dollars in taxes back than them. Firstly I say "duh", secondly I say "its none of your business".

Imagine a flat 20 percent tax rate. No deductions, no returns, no exemptions. It can easily be implemented at the payroll level for the majority of people.

In other words, it gets government out of the business of knowing how much money you make. It is no business of the government how much total money you or anybody makes.

The income tax is a high overhead tax, both on payers and on the receiver. most people wind up spending money to prepare their taxes and the government winds up spending money checking for fraud.

I would rather have a national consumption (aka sales) tax but we seem to be bent on taxing income instead, so lets go with a nice anonymous flat tax.

No more tax breaks, no more Hillary deducting old underwear, and no more invasion of your privacy through taxation.

[Samus]

Originally posted by corplinx
The income tax is a high overhead tax, both on payers and on the receiver. most people wind up spending money to prepare their taxes and the government winds up spending money checking for fraud.

I would rather have a national consumption (aka sales) tax but we seem to be bent on taxing income instead, so lets go with a nice anonymous flat tax. Actually, it is quite the opposite. The income tax is the most efficient way for the government to collect taxes. Sales tax, on the other hand, has a high overhead associated with it. Don't have any Internet sources on hand, I'd have to sift through the ol' Public Adminstration books from the college days to provide some citations.

Let me rifle through some stuff and see what I can find...

[shecky]

I see no problem with the idea of progressive taxation on income. The biggest intrusion I think is the complexity of the current system. While elimination of loopholes, deductions, etc would be something I'd like to see (even if it would probably mean higher taxes for middle and upper incomes, myself included), momentum is probably squarely against it.

A truly flat tax, however, would clearly be unfair to the lowest paid workers while being a remarkable cut for the higher income workers.

A consumption tax is a interesting idea, a system in which I'm curious in seeing the viability. However, it's silly to be married to any particular taxation philosophy, especially those which have never been (or are never likely) to be truly tested.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

This just in:

Fed reports widening inequality: Worth of top 10% rose 69% from 1998 to 2001 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/23/BU60584.DTL&type=business)

See also: http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by corplinx
In other words, it gets government out of the business of knowing how much money you make. It is no business of the government how much total money you or anybody makes.
If the government knows that they are getting 20% of my income, can't they just multiply to figure out my total income?

[jayrev]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
This just in:

Fed reports widening inequality: Worth of top 10% rose 69% from 1998 to 2001 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/23/BU60584.DTL&type=business)

See also: http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Economics/Consumption_and_Wealth/Inequality/

The link you posted refers to wealth, not income. It is likely (I know this is my opinion, not backed up by hard data) that the top 10% in wealth saw their wealth grow more because they had more money invested in the stock market during the internet boom. I'm not sure how this relates to an income tax discussion?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

You're right, the article concentrates on wealth, but it also discusses income. It was in response to the posts by patnray and corplinx regarding income disparity. The links in the Google Directory are more on point.

From the article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/01/23/BU60584.DTL&type=business) :
While income in the top 10 percent of households rose 19.3 percent from 1998 to 2001, income for the bottom fifth of all households climbed by 14.4 percent.

[Roadtoad]

Excuse me, here, but dammit, an income tax in and of itself is unfair. What you earn is yours, and yours alone. If you choose to share it with anyone else, that ought to be a voluntary act. Otherwise, it's just the Federal Government stealing from you.

And let me add this: Just got my tax forms for this year. Ever take a look at just how much information the government demands from you? This is STUPID! It is NONE of the business of the Federal Government what I spend on health care, what my mortgage costs, or anything else! This is intrusive, wasteful, and insulting. AND I'M SICK OF IT!

[corplinx]

How do you measure disparity, by the amount of wealth the rich have or the number of rich people? According to data, we have more rich people than ever before.

Look at some of the notions we have.

A. someone having more money than you is a disparity
B. if you make tax rates equal that is unfair because there are people who would get more benefit since they get taxed at a higher rate
C. income is public and not a private matter
D. taxing someone at a higher rate because they have more money is ethical
E. "Fairness" which is subjective, should be considered in taxation

I have a notion that all of this is bunk.

Support anonymous taxation. Support equal taxation.
Support Privacy and Equal treatment.

[FalsePerception]

I'm all for a flat tax, as long as the flat rate is 0%. Don't think that's some kind of extremist position; we could completely eliminate the income tax and with no other taxes added or increased still maintain a government the size it was at the end of the Cold War.

Agreed that was one of the great things I learned in political science income tax is truly unecessary.

I always like to ask people is "income tax necessary?" their answer "OF COURSE" without income taxe no schools hospitals roads nothing!.

Sadly common americans are in need of a history lesson. (of course most americans are ignorant of history!)

The income tax did not begin until 1910 I believe and amercia was fine up until that point. If income tax is necessary how did america survive nearly 120 years without income tax????

The answer I always get back is "times have changed" BULL!!

Truth is the propganda is so strong that the idea of income tax as being necessary is ingrained in the american counsciousness.

Income tax gives the federal government power.

Olden days it used to be only state taxes and , city taxes, the government collected funds through traiffs.

I never heard a decent answer of why the old system would not work today.

As it stands now though State governments are becoming more and more irrelevant One day The federal government will be the only government. By accepting money from the federal government states and cities have sold their souls to the devil.

Wpefully no going back though income tax is here to stay. It would take another civil war to get rid of it!!!!!!

[Victor Danilchenko]

FalsePerception

The income tax did not begin until 1910 I believe and amercia was fine up until that point. If income tax is necessary how did america survive nearly 120 years without income tax????By having the government do a lot less. Government wasn't maintaining highways, wasn't keeping Social Security system, wasn't maintaining a military powerful enough to carry out and win decisively two wars simultaneously, wasn't paying for public education system, wasn't imposing environmental regulations, etc. etc.

Now you may say that these should not be a function of teh federal government, and I would agree with you at least on some issue; but this means that the statement "we don't need income tax" is flat-out wrong -- at best, we should start by asking just which services provided by the government do we truly need, and then seeing if what we want to keep can be supported without income tax.

The answer I always get back is "times have changed" BULL!!But times have changed. Are you willing to do without highways? if so, then you will end up paying lots of money in tolls, and still won't save much. Are you willing to do without public education system (I include both schools and colleges here)? If so, then you will have to pay higher tuition costs, and there will be lots of promising people who will simply never have a chance to get a real education; etc. etc. It all comes to to the fact that times have changed, and if you want to roll the changes back, there will be a price.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
FalsePerception But times have changed. Are you willing to do without highways? if so, then you will end up paying lots of money in tolls, and still won't save much.

I agree that much of what the federal government does now was never mandated. But I have to say that maintaining a public infrastructure was one the first mandates. One of the main responsibilities given to the federal government was the facilitation of inter-state commerce. While many believe that to only mean enforcement of contract law and mediator of disputes, but it has also always meant the construction and maintenance of a infrastructure in which to transport the commerce. Early on, this meant trails, paths, roads and canals (The Inter-coastal Waterway is a good example.) Now it means expressways, highways, bridges and everything else.

But has always been a part of the federal government’s duties and is tied directly to their obligation to facilitate inter-state commerce.

[edited to change "many" to "much" and to add a missing "but"]

[Shane Costello]

Originally posoted by Victor Danilchenko:
Are you willing to do without highways? if so, then you will end up paying lots of money in tolls, and still won't save much.

Are there studies that have established this as fact?

Are you willing to do without public education system (I include both schools and colleges here)? If so, then you will have to pay higher tuition costs, and there will be lots of promising people who will simply never have a chance to get a real education; etc. etc. It all comes to to the fact that times have changed, and if you want to roll the changes back, there will be a price.

But won't higher tuition costs be offset by the reduction or elimination of that proportion of income taken by the government?

Are you confident that lots of promising people aren't already missing out on the chance of a real education, even with publicly funded education?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

Are there studies that have established this as fact?Which fact -- that you will pay tolls? That you will pay a lot in tolls? Even if we ignore the highways (think paying $1/day in tolls for commuting, that's ~$250/year for the access to the highways alone), there would be the question of local roads. Will they be maintained by tolls? grossly inefficient. Local taxes? Then they are still being paid for by taxes.

Now privatizing the major highways alone might work; as I said, I think that some items I listed could use being done away with on the federal level. My purpose was to point out that the income tax does pay for something important, many important things in fact, and any loud proclamations about how we don't need income tax miss the point.

But won't higher tuition costs be offset by the reduction or elimination of that proportion of income taken by the government?For some; not for others. As with so many things, the education subsidies help the poor the most, and I have trouble envisioning our society effectively making it nearly impossible for the significant fraction of society -- the ones who, even with tax reduction, couldn't afford higher education costs -- to never have a chance to get an education and to contribute. it's not the kids' fault if their parents can't afford them a decent education, after all.

To cut off such a tremendous pool of human resources from a chance to maximize their social contribution, would be the cutting off of the nose to spite the face. Our society is better off subsidizing education, even from purely selfish reasons; and guess what pays for it?

Are you confident that lots of promising people aren't already missing out on the chance of a real education, even with publicly funded education?of course not; but I am confident that many more would not have a chance if the public education subsidies are removed.

Let's not get stuck in minutae. My point is that cutting of the income tax implies cutting of a great number of highly useful services provided by the government, many of which services are impractical to privatize; and that any proclamations about uselessness of income tax must first consider what social cost would be attached to the removal of the income taxation -- considerations which FalsePerceptions seem to have completely ignored (yes, there is a reason why our government cannot run as cheaply as the federal government could run a year ago).

[Tmy]

I curious, are people upset with the amount of money paid in taxes OR are people offended by the governments percieved wasteful spending practices.

Are we getting our bang for our buck???

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Tmy
I curious, are people upset with the amount of money paid in taxes OR are people offended by the governments percieved wasteful spending practices.

Are we getting our bang for our buck???

Personally, I don't think we are getting our bang for our buck.

I have no problem paying taxes, but I personally get very little in return on them. I use the roads, but that is about it. I object to all the wasteful, inefficient social welfare programs that I am paying for and have no chance to collect on.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko:
Which fact -- that you will pay tolls? That you will pay a lot in tolls? Even if we ignore the highways (think paying $1/day in tolls for commuting, that's ~$250/year for the access to the highways alone), there would be the question of local roads. Will they be maintained by tolls? grossly inefficient. Local taxes? Then they are still being paid for by taxes.

Of course you'd pay tolls. What I was wondering was whether there was any indication that this would work out any more expensive or less efficient than the present system.

I already pay about $17 a week to use public transport for my weekly commute.

My purpose was to point out that the income tax does pay for something important, many important things in fact, and any loud proclamations about how we don't need income tax miss the point.

Would a flat income tax of around 20% achieve this? Or a general sales tax.

[QUOTE]For some; not for others. As with so many things, the education subsidies help the poor the most, and I have trouble envisioning our society effectively making it nearly impossible for the significant fraction of society -- the ones who, even with tax reduction, couldn't afford higher education costs -- to never have a chance to get an education and to contribute. it's not the kids' fault if their parents can't afford them a decent education, after all[QUOTE]

But does anyone benefit from a deterioration in the quality of education provided?

The decline of British universities (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/studentpolitics/story/0,1556,864505,00.html)

My grandfather was a small Irish farmer with seven kids. My father left school at 14 to take up an apprenticeship. Currently he owns a very successful plastering contracting business. I can't abide the presumption of some people that an academic or college education is the be all and end all. If this attitude is allowed take root at official level, then the effects on society as a whole can be deleterious:

Why you can't find a plumber in Scotland (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-02-01&id=2460&searchText=Higher%20Education)

And is there any evidence to suggest that academically gifted children from poorer backgrounds miss out if education is on a fee paying basis?

Set Oxbridge free (www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-02-01&id=2530&searchText=Higher%20Education)

"The assertion that it is only public money which allows talented but poor students to attend university is false. Oxford and Cambridge were educating poor students back in the 14th century, employing ‘fetchers’ to spot talent among the sons of poor north-country farmers. It is public money that has destroyed the scholarship system, under which the rich used to make a direct contribution to the education of the poor. It wasn’t until the state began paying the tuition fees of poor students in 1962, and particularly when the then Labour government introduced universally free higher education in 1977, that dustmen began subsidising the education of doctors."


"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" - PJ O'Rourke

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
I agree that much of what the federal government does now was never mandated. But I have to say that maintaining a public infrastructure was one the first mandates. One of the main responsibilities given to the federal government was the facilitation of inter-state commerce. While many believe that to only mean enforcement of contract law and mediator of disputes, but it has also always meant the construction and maintenance of a infrastructure in which to transport the commerce.

Actually, the Constitution does specifically give the Federal government the power to post roads.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

Of course you'd pay tolls. What I was wondering was whether there was any indication that this would work out any more expensive or less efficient than the present system.No; nor is there any indication to the contrary. remember, if you are talking about roads in the context of taxation, you have to consider what to do with the local roads as well. Privatizing the major highways would be the easiest part of the equation; but state or city income tax, to pay for local roads, is till income tax.

Would a flat income tax of around 20% achieve this? Or a general sales tax.As I wrote before, sales tax is regressive, and thus a terrible source of revenue. Flat tax would still be an income tax, just of a different kind, and I thought you were arguing about the income tax, not just about progressive income tax.

But does anyone benefit from a deterioration in the quality of education provided?Does anyone benefit from the universal education? Does anyone benefit from so many people gettin gtheir Bachelors degrees, for the first time in history?

Democracy is predicated upon populace being educated and informed; kinda hard to achieve without having good education system.

Why you can't find a plumber in Scotland (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-02-01&id=2460&searchText=Higher%20Education)Economics will take care of the lack of plumbers; but you know what? Plumbers are still voting citizens, and i would rather our plumbers had BA in liberal arts, than not.

it used to be that no schooling at all was the norm; then elementary school; then middle school; then highscool. We are now coming to the point where the undergraduate education is the norm, simply continuing an old trend to educate the citizenry as a whole.

And is there any evidence to suggest that academically gifted children from poorer backgrounds miss out if education is on a fee paying basis?Not much these days; but the abysmally low education rates were surely a factor in the past.

The assertion that it is only public money which allows talented but poor students to attend university is false.Indeed; but it's true that public money allows more gifted kids get an education.

Oxford and Cambridge were educating poor students back in the 14th century, employing ‘fetchers’ to spot talent among the sons of poor north-country farmers.Indeed. And even if they could reach the entire local population (which I seriously doubt), they would still pick only the creme de la creme -- but our society still needs people who are merely gifted rather than outright geniuses. So all the kids who could make good doctors/writers/scientists, but not Pasteurs or Hemmingways or Feynmans, would get passed on -- let's face it, you had to be really really something to compete against the kids whose parents had means to pay. Private scholarships offset the inequality somewhat, but public-sponsored education offsets it even more.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" - PJ O'Rourkeit's also like giving them the vaccum cleaners and garden rakes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
(think paying $1/day in tolls for commuting, that's ~$250/year for the access to the highways alone),

Isn't that about what public transportation costs? If not less?

there would be the question of local roads. Will they be maintained by tolls? grossly inefficient. Local taxes? Then they are still being paid for by taxes.

Except that you wouldn't lose the 20% that you lose whenever the money goes on a round trip through Washington.

As for education, we haven't had public education in this country for about 50 years. Since then, it's been government education—and it's gone downhill ever since.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


Actually, the Constitution does specifically give the Federal government the power to post roads.

Where at? I know it has always been the federal governments responsibility (as it should be), but I didn't know they specifically stated it. Do you have a reference?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by shanek
As for education, we haven't had public education in this country for about 50 years. Since then, it's been government education—and it's gone downhill ever since.

True, Shanek. As I recall, a few years ago, they even had to "dummy down" the SATs, because so few kids could even get a minimal score on it.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
As I recall, a few years ago, they even had to "dummy down" the SATs, because so few kids could even get a minimal score on it.

Read about the recentered SAT (http://www.collegeboard.com/repository/rs05_3962.pdf).

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Read about the recentered SAT (http://www.collegeboard.com/repository/rs05_3962.pdf).

I think you've proven the point.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I think you've proven the point.

That the scores were changed mainly to offset a disparity between the verbal and math scores in the old scale and make it easier to compare directly a student's performance in English and math?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


That the scores were changed mainly to offset a disparity between the verbal and math scores in the old scale and make it easier to compare directly a student's performance in English and math?

Yes, but it also seems to me that some of the questions were also made easier, so kids would earn the higher score. So, yes, you proved your point, but I'm still undocumented on mine. That's the sort of thing no one seems to mention.

When I took the SAT in '77, I had to know words like "Tumultuous," and "Tremulous," and how they related to other words. I took a look at what my son must know, and I'm sickened by the drop in the language requirements. Part of this, I realize, is rebellion against a perceived elitism, but part of what makes us American, I thought, was that the elite was acheivable within our society. The decline in our language arts is a sad commentary on our educational system.

[FalsePerception]

Again I will reiterate my pervious point for those who did not clearly understand.

America does not need income tax.

America was PERFECTLY fine in the years before income tax was established.

AS for the war issue as I recall war was the reason income tax was created. But of course after the war ended the politians were reluctant to give up extra money.

The foundering fathers did not want an ALL POWERFULL federal government

they wanted A untied states of course but a nation where individual states took responsibility for their own affairs.

Infrastructure, and education; I believe those are functions of the state or local government (as do the founding fathers) with the exception of interstate highways of course.

Of course without income tax there would be sacrifices such as social security, medicare, the various welfare programs among other things. But Where is the universal law that says the government must be responsible all people? IF someone is too stupid and doesn’t think of saving money then he deserves to be poor. Those that homeless or sick need to depend on charity or BETTER yet a medical loan system should be established so they could get treatment but they would have to pay for it no free lunches.(OF course the OUTLANDISH costs of medical treatment would have to be reduced but that’s another story.

That’s one the problems with the American people in general; they do not take responsibility for their actions. People believe they are entitled to services. That it’s their right. What did they do to deserve it??? (to be clear I`m referring to those who have not paid their proper portion of taxes.

It is possible to get rid of income tax even today. I’ll admit though it would probably take decades to for the states to "wean” themselves from income tax but the results would be worth it.

In the future I see a VERY powerful centralized government: exactly want the founders did not want.. Income tax aids this future.

Income tax is unjust and I predict a few hundred years from now
historians will look back and say income tax lead to America moving from a republic to a semi-totalitarian state.
(of course FDR is one of the main reasons but I’ll save that for another thread)

[Roadtoad]

Welcome, FP! Glad to see there's another of a Libertarian mindset around!

Our founding fathers were also not too keen on the U.S. meddling in foreign affairs, certainly not to the extent that we do. Perhaps if we hadn't, Communism might have fallen a lot faster, and animals (sorry, best I could come up with at the moment) like Agosto Pinochet would never have had the chance to rise to power. Maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have become so dependent on foreign oil, and maybe we might have held greater respect in the world.

This hasn't happened, and probably won't. And as for the notion (voiced in another thread) of a "Pax Americana," that makes me more nervous than a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

[Tmy]

This may be a subject for another thread but........WHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT.

They've been dead for a long time, and they didnt need the funds to pay for stealth bombers. Its a whole different world now. Tax schemes have to keep up with the times. Sure we have a number of taxes, but we alos have a sucessful country.

[Victor Danilchenko]

FalsePerception

Again I will reiterate my pervious point for those who did not clearly understand.

America does not need income tax.

America was PERFECTLY fine in the years before income tax was established.
...
Infrastructure, and education; I believe those are functions of the state or local government (as do the founding fathers) with the exception of interstate highways of course.if you would shift the burden to the states -- which I have no real problem with -- then you aren't arguing against income tax, but against federal income tax.

Of course without income tax there would be sacrifices such as social security, medicare, the various welfare programs among other things. But Where is the universal law that says the government must be responsible all people?nowhere,; but those are the reasons we have income tax -- those and many others, the point you ignored the first time around.

IF someone is too stupid and doesn’t think of saving money then he deserves to be poor. Those that homeless or sick need to depend on charity or BETTER yet a medical loan system should be established so they could get treatment but they would have to pay for it no free lunches.(OF course the OUTLANDISH costs of medical treatment would have to be reduced but that’s another story.Ah, another unthinking libertarian ideologue. Welcome to the freak show.

It is possible to get rid of income tax even today. I’ll admit though it would probably take decades to for the states to "wean” themselves from income tax but the results would be worth it.To you, perhaps; but that still leaves you original statement, that you've never heard a good answer for why the old system wouldn't work, a silly one. Yes, those are the reasons why the old system wouldn't work today. it might work in the future if we cut all those programs off, but it wouldn't work today, in today's America. There's your answer.

In the future I see a VERY powerful centralized government: exactly want the founders did not want.. Income tax aids this future.<shrug> I am yet to see a democracy thought history that didn't eventually move towwards totalitarianism, one way or another. Ancient greece and rome, revolutionary france, or modern USA -- it's a trend apparently independent of the presence or absence of income tax.

Income tax is unjust and I predict a few hundred years from now
historians will look back and say income tax lead to America moving from a republic to a semi-totalitarian state.Only in fantastical libertarian utopia (you do know what "utopia" means, right?)

[Diezel]

I once heard a proposal that I thought had a lot of promise. Don't get rid of income tax, get rid of witholding.

The thinking is this: Let the tax payer make out a check every year for what they owe the government. Out of sight, out of mind is not just a cliche and making the citizens write that check each year would really make the monetary value sink in. Then you would see some real screaming each time a tax raise is proposed.

When you take it right out of their check, most people don't even notice it is gone. Make them write a check each year and they will realize the kind of money they are paying out. I'm thinking even the most liberal out there will start calling for stricter welfare reform. :D

[corplinx]

I mostly agree with your perceptions of how things should be. However, instead of just saying "this is what should be", I look at what the first step is and plug that. The problem I have discussing things with hard libertarians is that they are always so busy talking about the great new house that they never discuss who is going to lay the first brick. I used to just tell people, "thats not in the gov's power anyway". I found this just turned people off. I would pronounce large goals that seemed unattainable.

In other words, I like to talk about things like exemption free income taxes and consumption taxes because I see those as steps towards lower or no taxation. In all practically, I doubt we will ever be free of personal taxation, but at least we can try to make sense of what we have.

[Victor Danilchenko]

corplinx

I mostly agree with your perceptions of how things should be. However, instead of just saying "this is what should be", I look at what the first step is and plug that. The problem I have discussing things with hard libertarians is that they are always so busy talking about the great new house that they never discuss who is going to lay the first brick.You know, this is what i find so annoying about too many libertarians -- utter lack of practicality; it's almost as if they are happy being impractical and despised martyrs for the idea, instead of pursuing practical solutions for their agenda.

I like Libertarian party hell of a lot more than GOP, and for that reason alone I find so many libertarians tremendously annoying when they do the above-mentioned ideologizing. When their agenda fails as they grandstand happily, it hurts me too, because in very many ways Libertarian agenda is a good one. It's a sad fact that too many libertarians justify the stereotype of libertarians as professional whiners.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel


Where at? I know it has always been the federal governments responsibility (as it should be), but I didn't know they specifically stated it. Do you have a reference?

In Article I Section 8, of course. 7th paragraph.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
True, Shanek. As I recall, a few years ago, they even had to "dummy down" the SATs, because so few kids could even get a minimal score on it.

Well, it's actually tough to compare SAT scores. The reason why is that not only are a greater proportion of high school students college-bound, but also that many non-college-bound students are taking it as well. So they don't really compare well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
They've been dead for a long time, and they didnt need the funds to pay for stealth bombers. Its a whole different world now. Tax schemes have to keep up with the times. Sure we have a number of taxes, but we alos have a sucessful country.

Our country found its success while we were still mostly loyal to what the founders originally intended. Ever since we started to get away from that, things have actually started to slide back downhill. We're just riding on the coattails of our former glory, and America is no longer the place that inspired the French people (not the government, but the people) to build and donate the Statue of Liberty.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


In Article I Section 8, of course. 7th paragraph.

Thanks, I never noticed that one there. Whenever I see "post office", I get bored and skip over it. ;)

BTW, I always love this one:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Many people have no idea that responsibility is mandated by the Constitution. Better yet, welfare is not. Good ammo for anyone arguing about how many poor people can be feed for the price of the space program. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
To you, perhaps; but that still leaves you original statement, that you've never heard a good answer for why the old system wouldn't work, a silly one. Yes, those are the reasons why the old system wouldn't work today. it might work in the future if we cut all those programs off, but it wouldn't work today, in today's America. There's your answer.

Now this I will agree with. Tax cuts are meaningless without corresponding spending cuts. You'll notice that I've always mentioned this&mdash;"Cut Income Taxes and you can fund a government the size it was during the Cold War," or "We can fund all of the Constitutional functions of government with the current levels of tariffs and excises and still run a surplus."

This is something Bush doesn't seem to realize (or care about). Without spending cuts, tax cuts are just a reshuffling of the tax burden. We either pay for it with other taxes increasing, or the government increases deficit spending, which we pay for in inflation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
I mostly agree with your perceptions of how things should be. However, instead of just saying "this is what should be", I look at what the first step is and plug that.

Show me how a smaller first step can work and I'll get behind it.

When I ran for County Commissioner, for example, I proposed a tax refund for parents who send their children to private school or home-school them. This is not the situation I want to end up with; I want the government completely out of education. But that would be an acceptable step in that direction.

[Diezel]

Wait, I just re-read that again and realize that what is in that article is a very limited power:

To establish post offices and post roads;

Nobody has every called building a road "posting a road"! They are saying they have the right to spend tax money on establishing post roads - roads in which to facilitate the transportation of post (mail.) We still have these, called rural mail routes.

So, if you wanted to be picky, this mention of roads isn't the reason the federal government has the responsibility to build and maintain the infrastructure. That would still fall under the Inter-state commerce clauses. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Diezel
So, if you wanted to be picky, this mention of roads isn't the reason the federal government has the responsibility to build and maintain the infrastructure. That would still fall under the Inter-state commerce clauses. :)

Well, technically, they don't build the roads. They just give the money to the states to do it. This dates back to 1845 with Searight v. Stokes, which determined that since Congress is charged with transporting the US mail, it could enter into a contract with the states to build roads. That's still what's happening.

[sorgoth]

D. taxing someone at a higher rate because they have more money is ethical


It IS ethical. Which is more important:A billionaire buying that 7th car, or me getting through university? I think it's fair to say that the answer is getting through university. What does anyone need a fleet of cars for?


Anyway, the government would get less money, I think, with a flat tax anyway.

And I think the government services are a nice thing, myself. You know, garbage, firefighting,police, ect. Education could use work, of course, but it would no matter what we did.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by shanek


Well, technically, they don't build the roads. They just give the money to the states to do it. This dates back to 1845 with Searight v. Stokes, which determined that since Congress is charged with transporting the US mail, it could enter into a contract with the states to build roads. That's still what's happening.

Ok, so I should have said "fund the building of the roads". :D

[Diezel]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Which is more important:A billionaire buying that 7th car, or me getting through university?

To who? To you? To me? Or to the billionaire?

I can tell you that there is only one of those that will pick the answer you gave.

[mbp]

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Originally posted by Diezel

Many people have no idea that responsibility is mandated by the Constitution. Better yet, welfare is not. Good ammo for anyone arguing about how many poor people can be feed for the price of the space program. ;)
What does "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" have to do with the space program?
As I read it this doesn't require any branch of government to promote the progress of science. It just says that authors and inventors CAN be granted time limited exclusive rights, but ONLY in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Or is that not how it is usually understood?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko:
Does anyone benefit from the universal education? Does anyone benefit from so many people gettin gtheir Bachelors degrees, for the first time in history?

Do they? If so, why?

Democracy is predicated upon populace being educated and informed; kinda hard to achieve without having good education system.

Does this mean that American democracy prior to the setting up of a public education system past elementary level was only a qualified success?

Economics will take care of the lack of plumbers; but you know what? Plumbers are still voting citizens, and i would rather our plumbers had BA in liberal arts, than not.

Why would you want plumbers to have BAs?

Economics will dictate that plumbers earnings will rise faster, considering that theirs is a sought after skill. What about the graduates with liberal arts degrees, though?

Not much these days; but the abysmally low education rates were surely a factor in the past.

This is merely a presumption.

Indeed; but it's true that public money allows more gifted kids get an education.

And your evidence for this is?


Indeed. And even if they could reach the entire local population (which I seriously doubt), they would still pick only the creme de la creme -- but our society still needs people who are merely gifted rather than outright geniuses.

The article said "talent", not "genius". Our society also needs people with vocational and technical skills. It's wrong to think of "gifted" people merely in terms of academic achievement. How well could you build a plumb wall, or tile a bathroom? Most of us could happily live out our days without ever needing the services of a neurosurgeon. Binmen are a different matter.

So all the kids who could make good doctors/writers/scientists, but not Pasteurs or Hemmingways or Feynmans, would get passed on -- let's face it, you had to be really really something to compete against the kids whose parents had means to pay.

And you don't have to be "really, really something" to become a doctor, good scientist or secure a publishing deal anyway?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by mbp


What does "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" have to do with the space program?
As I read it this doesn't require any branch of government to promote the progress of science. It just says that authors and inventors CAN be granted time limited exclusive rights, but ONLY in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
Or is that not how it is usually understood?

Of course, this provision is speaking directly of copyright and patent law - letting authors and inventors reap rewards from their works promotes the arts and sciences.

But the stated intention of why they need to do that "To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." is where the space program comes in. This line makes the statement that one of the functions of the federal government is to promote science and arts. The space program is just one of the very useful ways it has done this (we have all seen the lists of the useful products we use everyday, all developed for the space program.)

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

When I ran for County Commissioner, for example, I proposed a tax refund for parents who send their children to private school or home-school them. This is not the situation I want to end up with; I want the government completely out of education. But that would be an acceptable step in that direction.Let me just say it once again that this is the mature and responsible and realistic way to promote libertarian agenda -- to deal with reality as it is and work on implementing practical steps towards changing it, instead of merely proclaiming wholesale that the system is busted.

Shane, I said it to you before, but I wish more libertarians were like you. I disagree with many of your positions, but I find you and your views worthy of respect.

[Victor Danilchenko]

sorgoth

It IS ethical. Which is more important:A billionaire buying that 7th car, or me getting through university? I think it's fair to say that the answer is getting through university. What does anyone need a fleet of cars for?I kinda sorta agree, but I must remind you that you cannot simply assume this view of ethics. Yours is a utilitarian position (as opposed to a pure deontic position held by many libertarians), and it would do you well to be explicitly aware of the fact that your views aren't self-evident, but rather are based on a certain ethical stance.

Now I happen to mostly agree, and I think that utilitarian ethics is the best thing we have going; but you should still be aware of your hidden assumptions.

P.S. You ethical deontologists (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/d2.htm#deon) out there (ethical theory of natural right is a type of deontic ethics) should be aware of the fact that utilitarianism, at least policy-utilitarianism, subsumes most practical aspects of such an ethical system; Mill, the founder of modern utilitarianism, considered liberty to be the greatest ethical good.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

Do they? If so, why?Yes. the society benefits from the rising education levels.

Does this mean that American democracy prior to the setting up of a public education system past elementary level was only a qualified success?It's only a qualified success now as well; but hell damn yeah, it's better now that it was a century ago. We have gained universal suffrage and de-segregation, to name only two.

Why would you want plumbers to have BAs?because they are voting citizens, and education helps one understand the historical and political context of the world better, and thus vote better.

Economics will dictate that plumbers earnings will rise faster, considering that theirs is a sought after skill. What about the graduates with liberal arts degrees, though?If plumbers get paid enough, liberal arts graduates will become plumbers. they can vbe good plumbers. I could have been a good forest ranger (forestry was one of my major choices), and i am a good carpenter -- I could work as a carpenter now, and enjoy my job. There is nothing wrong with having a degree and working as a plumber or a carpenter -- a degree is not simply professional training, it's also the education of a citizen.

This is merely a presumption.Quite a reasonable one, though. the richer your parents are, the easier it is for you to get a good education; thus more gifted rich kids got good education, than gifted poor kids.

And your evidence for this is?Again, the simple fact that being able to pay for your education simplified getting admitted. These days gifted kids have a chance to get subsidized loans, thus making the ground more level with the rich kids.

take my education. I qualified for a full scholarship, but I applied too late, and the scholarship funds were already allocated. I thus got only partial scholarship, but was able to make up for it my getting a subsidized loan.

basically it's self-evident that giftedness can compensate for lack of money only partially. Public funding alleviates this discrepancy somewhat.

Our society also needs people with vocational and technical skills.Right; but does it need those people to lack good education?

In addition to whatever job they do, every person is a voting citizen (or potentially so). being educated helps one be a better citizen.

It's wrong to think of "gifted" people merely in terms of academic achievement. How well could you build a plumb wall, or tile a bathroom? Most of us could happily live out our days without ever needing the services of a neurosurgeon. Binmen are a different matter.And the binmen should have a good education too, because they too participate in deciding the fate of the society.

The general level of education si still rising, and that's a good thing; but it wouldn't be possible without publicly sponsored education system.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Which is more important:A billionaire buying that 7th car, or me getting through university? I think it's fair to say that the answer is getting through university. What does anyone need a fleet of cars for?

Anyway, the government would get less money, I think, with a flat tax anyway.

And I think the government services are a nice thing, myself. You know, garbage, firefighting,police, ect. Education could use work, of course, but it would no matter what we did.

On what basis do you make the claim that it's more important that you finish your university education? You presume that because it's in YOUR best interest that you complete your degree, that it must be done at the expense of someone else's luxury. I fail to see how that computes.

If you finish your degree, it will be because YOU put the effort into it, it will be because YOU invested your capital into your education. YOU will ultimately be the one paying for it, either through your taxes, or from donations to the University, or from direct payments of your own tuition, not anyone else. And for that matter, how dare anyone demand that YOU pay for their education, either.

Should the Government get less money? Let's see: in America, we have a government which routinely loses BILLIONS of dollars, which it wastes on projects which make no sense whatsoever, (remember Senator William Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards?), has continued to infringe on our civil liberties, and has even lost things like carburetors for F-16s and nuclear material. In the meantime, we still have members of Congress who were exposed in the House Check Kiting scandal still in office, (I loved Barbara Boxer's idiotic response to the questions about her bouncing 142 checks: "Well, I suppose Adolf Hitler had a balanced checkbook!"), and you get people who scratch their heads and can't figure out why we can't balance the Federal Budget. DUH! People who can't balance their own checkbooks will probably have an even worse time of it balancing the NATION'S checkbook.

And just as an FYI: Fire, Police, Garbage, etc.? Those are all LOCAL services. Those are paid for out of our property taxes. FEDERAL funding for such programs, for all intents and purposes, remains DISCRETIONARY. (Yeah, Bill Clinton and putting 100,000 cops on the streets. Sure he did. :mad: And he even kept McClellan Air Force Base open, just like he promised he would...)

Just as another point, California spends more on education than most states in the Union, but we're 49TH IN THE NATION when it comes to standardized testing, according to the California Dept. of Education. (Oh, joy. Thank God for Mississippi.) States like South Dakota spend far less, but make up for it with parental involvement, (which, I can tell you as a parent in California, they do NOT want in California schools), and they consistently rank in the top 1/3 of the nation. So much for the money connection.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko:
Yes. the society benefits from the rising education levels.
Does this necessarily entail that everyone should have a college degree?
My fear is that in an ill-advised rush to ensure greater access to education, standards are lowered and "rising education levels" are arrived at using the statistical dodge of greatly lowering those levles and standards. As seems to be the case in the UK

It's only a qualified success now as well; but hell damn yeah, it's better now that it was a century ago. We have gained universal suffrage and de-segregation, to name only two.

But didn't a lot of very well educated people oppose de-segregation and universal suffrage?


because they are voting citizens, and education helps one understand the historical and political context of the world better, and thus vote better.

So should people with PhDs in the physical sciences also earn BA degrees in the liberal arts?

If plumbers get paid enough, liberal arts graduates will become plumbers. they can vbe good plumbers.

It depends on whether being a plumber has enough social prestige for the liberal arts graduate. People, particularly parents, can be obtuse about things like this.

Prostitutes tend to get paid very well in comparison to other professions, but not even the laws of economics have made this a first choice profession among young adults.

There is nothing wrong with having a degree and working as a plumber or a carpenter -- a degree is not simply professional training, it's also the education of a citizen.

Absolutely not. But why shouldn't vocational training and the workplace be as much about acquiring good citizenship skills. Surely the university of life and the home environment are more important than any academic setting?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

Does this necessarily entail that everyone should have a college degree?No, of course not; in education, more is better.

My fear is that in an ill-advised rush to ensure greater access to education, standards are lowered and "rising education levels" are arrived at using the statistical dodge of greatly lowering those levles and standards. As seems to be the case in the UKthat is indeed a concern; but it's a concern of execution rather than principle.

Furthermore, consider this: does "lowering education levels" mean that person X learns less in getting BA today than they did decades ago -- or that graduating BAs on average know less? The issue is that expanding education reach will inevitably lead to people getting a chance at education who couldn't "cut it" a century ago, in the climate of that time. however, the society still benefits from these people getting an education.

The point thus would be not to restrict education to those who are gifted (relatively speaking), but rather to educate everyone while still permitting those more able to get a better education.

it's a difficult problem, but as i said, it's a question of implementation rather than principle.

So should people with PhDs in the physical sciences also earn BA degrees in the liberal arts?Well, they already kinda do -- this is why the universities have core curricula. However, yes, a full-blown humanities education would be a good thing; this is much more of an issue for purely professional education (think DeVry) than for real higher education institutions.

As a flip side, liberal arts education should include core science curriculum -- any liberal arts graduate should know at least a little about physics, chemistry, biology, etc. In order to vote well in the modern world, it helps to understand at least the basics of math and sciences, and especially the scientific method itself.

I did this myself as a choice -- triple-majored in CS/math/philosophy, with about 30 credits in non-required humanities.

It depends on whether being a plumber has enough social prestige for the liberal arts graduate.If BA or at least AA becomes universal, it won't be a matter of prestige but rather a matter of convention, the way highschool education is now.

Absolutely not. But why shouldn't vocational training and the workplace be as much about acquiring good citizenship skills.Why shouldn't McD's training be about history of the modern world and the political theory? You tell me.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As a flip side, liberal arts education should include core science curriculum -- any liberal arts graduate should know at least a little about physics, chemistry, biology, etc. In order to vote well in the modern world, it helps to understand at least the basics of math and sciences, and especially the scientific method itself.


To an extent, we do have science requirements in the liberal arts. To get an associate's degree in arts at this school, you have to have two semesters of science courses and math (only one semester) at least up to college algebra. This is a two-year school, but general ed requirements at most 4-year colleges these days are similar.

It might be a good idea to have more science and math, but even a liberal arts student gets some exposure to science.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Shane, I said it to you before, but I wish more libertarians were like you. I disagree with many of your positions, but I find you and your views worthy of respect.

Thanks. And in my experience, most Libertarians are like me. We will ultimately be satisfied with nothing less than the total removal of governemnt from our private lives, but will get behind any measure that will reduce government. Look at how many Libertarians work for medical marijuana initiatives, for example, when pretty much we all want all drugs fully legalized.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Let me just say it once again that this is the mature and responsible and realistic way to promote libertarian agenda -- to deal with reality as it is and work on implementing practical steps towards changing it,

That's certainly one option. So is challenging authoritarian arguments.


instead of merely proclaiming wholesale that the system is busted.

Who has done such a thing?


Shane, I said it to you before, but I wish more libertarians were like you. I disagree with many of your positions, but I find you and your views worthy of respect.

Since I'm a libertarian who's been arguing with you lately, I'm prompted to ask - is there any particular view I've expressed that you specifically find unworthy of respect?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yours is a utilitarian position (as opposed to a pure deontic position held by many libertarians)

What the hell does that mean? (yeah, I checked the link. It didn't make much sense either.)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
In addition to whatever job they do, every person is a voting citizen (or potentially so). being educated helps one be a better citizen.

Um ... wouldn't being a "better citizen" include not taking that which belongs to your neighbor without his consent, just because you can get enough other people to go along with you?

[Victor Danilchenko]

WMT1

What the hell does that mean? (yeah, I checked the link. It didn't make much sense either.)Well, I guess you will have to hang in suspense then, as I am sick and tired of pre-chewing and pre-digesting knowledge for you, only to have you ignore it anyway. Do a little fscking research on your own. Learn a bit about ethics and political theory, for example -- it will do you good. it might even crack your shell of invincible ignorance.

Yes, I am ignoring the rest of your posts.

P.S. Yes, your frequent inability to understand what is being said is a problem, and it's a problem with you rather than the text in question. You are an intellectual featherweight. Do try to deal with that fact maturely, maybe even remedy it.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, I guess you will have to hang in suspense then, as I am sick and tired of pre-chewing and pre-digesting knowledge for you, only to have you ignore it anyway.

As many times as I corrected you on stuff in the other thread, I guess I might as well do so here as well. Just to refresh your memory (again), I handled everything you threw my way. It is you who began making excuses for not answering the tough questions about your views.


Do a little fscking research on your own. Learn a bit about ethics and political theory, for example -- it will do you good. it might even crack your shell of invincible ignorance.

Yes, I am ignoring the rest of your posts.

P.S. Yes, your frequent inability to understand what is being said is a problem, and it's a problem with you rather than the text in question. You are an intellectual featherweight. Do try to deal with that fact maturely, maybe even remedy it.

I apologize to everyone for Victor's pissy behavior, but he is the one who recently got exposed as an "intellectual featherweight". His arguments got trounced in another thread, and one of the things he likes to do when he gets backed into a corner is to begin hurling baseless insults to try and spin his own incompetence as someone else's "ignorance", or failure to "understand", stuff like that. It's no different here. He apparently has read a hell of a lot of stuff about political theory, but he doesn't seem to have applied much critical analysis to what he's read, because he just becomes flustered and insulting whenever he is asked questions about his arguments, which are supposedly based on all that reading - legitimate questions almost any self-respecting skeptic would have thought to ask, but which apparently didn't occur to him.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Are you talking about your "I never signed any 'social contract'" argument from the hammegk and slavery thread?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
These days gifted kids have a chance to get subsidized loans, thus making the ground more level with the rich kids.

take my education. I qualified for a full scholarship, but I applied too late, and the scholarship funds were already allocated. I thus got only partial scholarship, but was able to make up for it my getting a subsidized loan.

Subsidized student loans? Whisper those words very softly, lest you want some people in this part of the world accusing you of being a right wing fascist bigot. Seriously.

Take what's happened in this country. College fees for everyone were abolished about a decade ago, the reasoning being that this would allow more students from poorer backgrounds gain access to a university education. This isn't how it's turned out in practice, and the proportion of less well off students going to college hasn't increased (possibly because they're all doing plumbing apprenticeships). My point is that government initiatives in education are usually ill-thought out and financially wasteful.

Right; but does it need those people to lack good education?

Why should it be implied that they do, or that by choosing a more vocational than academic route that they are in some way losing out?

In addition to whatever job they do, every person is a voting citizen (or potentially so). being educated helps one be a better citizen.

So academia, consisting as it does of superbly educated people, should be free of squabbling, personality clashes and petty politics? But it isn't like that in practice. I fail to see how a good education can necessarily mould someone into a decent human being and good citizen.

Well, they already kinda do -- this is why the universities have core curricula.

Not in this country they don't.

Why shouldn't McD's training be about history of the modern world and the political theory? You tell me.

A. Many people working in McDonalds are doing so to pay for their studies in history and political theory.
B. Many people working in McDonalds are doing so because they lack the intellectual capacity or desire to study history or political theory.

[shanek]

Originally posted by WMT1
Since I'm a libertarian who's been arguing with you lately, I'm prompted to ask - is there any particular view I've expressed that you specifically find unworthy of respect?

I can't think of any, but on the other hand I can't say I've read every single thread where you've posted.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane Costello

Subsidized student loans? Whisper those words very softly, lest you want some people in this part of the world accusing you of being a right wing fascist bigot. Seriously.

Take what's happened in this country. College fees for everyone were abolished about a decade ago, the reasoning being that this would allow more students from poorer backgrounds gain access to a university education. This isn't how it's turned out in practice, and the proportion of less well off students going to college hasn't increased (possibly because they're all doing plumbing apprenticeships). My point is that government initiatives in education are usually ill-thought out and financially wasteful.The problem is cultural then.

I see no need for free tuition now, when higher education is still more the exception than the norm; in this situation, getting a higher ed typically allows the student to increase their earning and thus repay the loan better. At this point in time, i don't see how free tuition would help the poor kids get education any more than subsidized loans. If higher ed does become the norm, the tuition will have to go, though -- then the higher ed should be financially on the similar footing to highschool.

Note that I am talking about long-term cultural changes here, not simply about education in its current state.

Why should it be implied that they do, or that by choosing a more vocational than academic route that they are in some way losing out?Because learning history and philosophy and scientific method are more relevant to being a good voting citizen than learning howto run pipes and assess the room's heating needs.

So academia, consisting as it does of superbly educated people, should be free of squabbling, personality clashes and petty politics?Why? I said better citizen, not better person. People are still people, academia or no; what education gives you is a better ability to evaluate political choices presented to you, and thus an ability to vote better.

But it isn't like that in practice. I fail to see how a good education can necessarily mould someone into a decent human being and good citizen.I wouldn't necessarily -- I never brought up the "decent human being" angle, that's your invention. i am speaking from a purely civic point of view -- educated populace is better able to govern itself, due to being able to make decisions more informedly. Just look at some of the legislation that got proposed and even passed!

Not in this country they don't.Well, in USA, any undergrad degree includes so-called core curriculum -- a set of classes that everyone must take regardless of their major. My undergrad school required that you take 60 credits, as I recall, in core subjects -- so there was 6 credits in foreign language of your choice, 9 credits in political or philosophy studies (your choice), one psychology or sociology class, etc. Any PhD who got his or her undergrad degree in USA thus has had a non-trivial exposure to humanities.

B. Many people working in McDonalds are doing so because they lack the intellectual capacity or desire to study history or political theory.That doesn't change anything. There are people who lack the intellectual capacity or desire to finish highschool, but that doesn't mean that highschool education shouldn't be the norm.