Net Tax Payers vs. Net Tax Consumers

[TruthSeeker1234]

The Austrian school of economics teaches us to view people as generally belonging to either the group of net tax payers, or the group of net tax consumers. There can not be any such thing as a "fair" tax, because any kind of tax, be it income tax, social security tax, sales tax, inheritance, etc, will always create two classes of citizens: those who, on net, pay more than they recieve in benefits, and those who recieve more benefits than they pay.

Net tax consumers would be anyone who gets a paycheck directly from the government, or from a government contractor. There can be gray areas, like a person who works for a company that does some government contracting and some private sector, but in most cases it is pretty clear.

I think it would be very interesting to learn which category JREF members are in. I am certainly a net tax payer. R.Mackey is certainly a net tax consumer, working for NASA. Anybody else care to categorize themselves, Austrian-style?

[Pardalis]

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

[Gravy]

TS, please ask the mods to move this to an appropriate subforum.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The point is that net tax consumers have a financial incentive to support the conspiracy.

[Pardalis]

Maybe "Austrian-libertarians" radicals are more proned to believe in government conspiracies than others.

[Gravy]

Since you haven't identified a conspiracy, this is a non-starter. Are you going to ask the mods that this be moved, or shall I?

[Anti-sophist]

He's trying to demonstrate that JREFers are government shills. That's funny.

Do you actually have a job, truthseeker?

[twinstead]

I think troothydude will believe just about anything, as long as it shows a government, and specifically the US government, in a bad light.

Perhaps anything he posts, even if it doesn't name any conspiracy, should be in the conspiracy sub-forum because to him, everything IS a conspiracy.

[R.Mackey]

I think it would be very interesting to learn which category JREF members are in. I am certainly a net tax payer. R.Mackey is certainly a net tax consumer, working for NASA. Anybody else care to categorize themselves, Austrian-style?
I'll overlook your thinly veiled, entirely rude attack to simply correct you, since -- yet again -- you don't have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about.

For starters, while I do work for NASA, I am a civilian contractor, not a Government employee. So are about half of those at NASA centers, and nearly all of them at my center.

Second, I work under full-cost accounting and I raise my own research money. That's research, and the real kind, not the Google-searching while under the influence of recreational substances practiced by many Troothers.

Third, very little of my funding comes from NASA. Historically about half has come from private industry, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. They don't fund me out of charity, Ace.

Fourth, my research leads to tangible -- and marketable -- products. I am lead inventor of technology protected under two U.S. Patents, and many other copyrighted works besides. These generate revenue directly.

In summary, your assertion that I am a "net tax consumer" is baseless.

I expect a prompt apology, Ace. Not only are you even more clueless than normal, but you have reduced this to a personal level. Shame on you.

[Elizabeth I]

I before E except after C,
Or when sounded like A,
As in "neighbor" and "weigh".

Neither financier seized either species of weird leisure (exceptions.)

[maccy]

The point is that net tax consumers have a financial incentive to support the conspiracy.

Do you really believe that if there was a conspiracy and it was revealed that all the people who worked for the government would lose their jobs?

[R.Mackey]

The point is that net tax consumers have a financial incentive to support the conspiracy.

Ah, now I see what you're getting at. You're accusing me of complicity in your dreamed-of Sept. 11th conspiracy.

Get to apologizing at once, Ace.

[stateofgrace]

Apologise TS, do it, it is the right thing to do.

Stop being so bloody nasty to all that disagree with you.

Be a man and apologise.

[defaultdotxbe]

The point is that net tax consumers have a financial incentive to support the conspiracy.
and for many people financial incentive falls lower in priority than morals and ethics

why is it CTers assume everyone has a price, except themselves of course

as for me, i work for a software company that creates programs for insurance agencies, at least one of which was covering the WTC, does that make me complicit?

[maccy]

Can I just add that such a combination of a simplistic view of economics and of personal ethics is typical of TS1234.

You're behaving despicably Ace, apologise.

[fuelair]

Sorry, but if truthtweaker is saying (and the Austrian thing definitely IS NOT) that a government employee is a net tax consumer he has walked on his own ....,er , argument. A person working for NASA pays back income tax, social security tax, sales tax, state/local taxes and performs a service considered necessary for the general functioning of the government : i.e. the citizens of the country. A net tax recipient ,under the logical terms of the Austrian thingie, would be a welfare recipient, a person getting lost job supplements or food stamps, prisoners getting food , housing and education at taxpayer expense, etc. Not quite the was TS seems to interpret it. (IF TS has a source that explains it exactly the way he interpreted it, I will happily challenge that sources' correctness.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Since you haven't identified a conspiracy, this is a non-starter. Are you going to ask the mods that this be moved, or shall I?

This would be any government conspiracy. Evidently I've touched a nerve with this one. I think it is a perfectly relevant area of discussion, that of financial self-interest vis-a-vis conspiracies.

[maccy]

This would be any government conspiracy. Evidently I've touched a nerve with this one. I think it is a perfectly relevant area of discussion, that of financial self-interest vis-a-vis conspiracies.

Demonstate the financial self-interest.

How does an government employee suffer financially if a conspiracy is disclosed?

[stateofgrace]

This would be any government conspiracy. Evidently I've touched a nerve with this one. I think it is a perfectly relevant area of discussion, that of financial self-interest vis-a-vis conspiracies.

Please don't delude yourself any further. You have not touched a nerve you have simply offended.

People who offend, when it is pointed out to them that they have offended,apologise.

I will not write what I wish to write because it is pointless. I will not name call, I will not lower myself to your level,I will simply withdraw from this thread and allow you to spew your garbage.

Expect no further comment to the vindictive and highly offensive insults you have put forward.

[Horatius]

The point is that net tax consumers have a financial incentive to support the conspiracy.

Do you really believe that if there was a conspiracy and it was revealed that all the people who worked for the government would lose their jobs?

Not only that, but he also has no idea how much rivalry there is between different departments. If someone in NASA has info that could devastate the CIA or FBI, they would have a huge incentive to rat them out, so that their budgets will be slashed, opening the way for other departments to seize their funding and areas of responsibility.

Prestige in such organizations is measured by how big your budget is, and how many people report to you. Anything that gives you a chance to enhance that, enhances your prestige, and therefore your influence.

If you want to know how government actually works, watch all of Yes Minister (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/) and Yes, Prime Minister (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/). It's British, but it pretty much applies everywhere.

There's plenty to be disgusted with in how governments are run, but this CT BS isn't one of them.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Sorry, but if truthtweaker is saying (and the Austrian thing definitely IS NOT) that a government employee is a net tax consumer he has walked on his own ....,er , argument. A person working for NASA pays back income tax, social security tax, sales tax, state/local taxes and performs a service considered necessary for the general functioning of the government : i.e. the citizens of the country. A net tax recipient ,under the logical terms of the Austrian thingie, would be a welfare recipient, a person getting lost job supplements or food stamps, prisoners getting food , housing and education at taxpayer expense, etc. Not quite the was TS seems to interpret it. (IF TS has a source that explains it exactly the way he interpreted it, I will happily challenge that sources' correctness.

Here is Rothbard, Man Economy and State, Chapter 12, on subject:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap12c.asp (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap12c.asp#_ftn1)

[Horatius]

People who offend, when it is pointed out to them that they have offended,apologise.

Unless it was their purpose to offend. And then they accept the offer to duel (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2109706#post2109706).

;)

[maccy]

If you want to know how government actually works, watch all of Yes Minister (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080306/) and Yes, Prime Minister (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/). It's British, but it pretty much applies everywhere.


And for an updated view of the same thing, I thoroughly recommend The Thick of It (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0459159/)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Maybe "Austrian-libertarians" radicals are more proned to believe in government conspiracies than others.

In all objectivity, I have to agree. Libertarians are probably far more likely than average to believe in government conspiracies. In fact, the way we see it, government is more-or-less a conspiracy on its face.

[R.Mackey]

In all objectivity, I have to agree. Libertarians are probably far more likely than average to believe in government conspiracies. In fact, the way we see it, government is more-or-less a conspiracy on its face.
People like you are the reason I left the Libertarian party.

Since you refuse to apologize, consider this fair warning -- any further attacks, aspersions, slander, innuendo, or well-poisoning, and you go on report. I refuse to stand idly while you try to link me to the murder of thousands.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you're one to accept the legitimacy of big government, then you should have no problem being labeled a "net tax consumer". According to this view, big government is good, necessary, and tax money and the projects that are undertaken are beneficial.

Embrace it! Own it!

"Yes", Mackey ought to say, "I am a net net tax consumer, and you are better off for it!"

Gravy, how 'bout you? Where do you guide tours?

[TruthSeeker1234]

People like you are the reason I left the Libertarian party.

Since you refuse to apologize, consider this fair warning -- any further attacks, aspersions, slander, innuendo, or well-poisoning, and you go on report. I refuse to stand idly while you try to link me to the murder of thousands.

Sir, whatever linkage exists between you and the events of 9/11 is of your own publication. Just as my linkage is mine.

Just because someone has a financial incentive to support something, doesn't mean they do. I don't even know who you really are Mackey.

It is standard procedure to disclose financial interest in all sorts of dealings.

[maccy]

The Austrian School of economics was founded with the publication of Carl Menger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger)'s 1871 book Principles of Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_Economics). Members of this school approach economics as an a priori system like logic or mathematics, rather than as an empirical science like geology. It attempts to discover axioms of human action (called "praxeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology)" in the Austrian tradition) and make deductions therefrom.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothbard#The_Austrian_School)

In other words, make the world fit the theory. Deficiencies in economics in the world must stem from the extent to which it deviates from the theory.

Ace, the real world has just filed for divorce on the grounds of abandonment.

And, one more time, how does a governement worker lose out, financially, if a conspiracy is exposed?

[T.A.M.]

I am a Canadian.

I am a Fee-For-Service Physician. In the USA I would be a tax payer. In Canada, I am, by the standards you have set up, a tax consumer. This has to do with Canada's' GOVT paid Health Care.

Does this influence where I sit on CTs, or any other aspect of govt...not at all.

I know why you have put this up here, and I agree with Mackey. if you continue this line of thought, I will do my best to have you banned from here for reasons of personal insult and slander.

I suggest you take your shaite elsewhere, or perhaps we should go into areas of who contributes the most to society. Who does the most good, a NASA engineer who promotes the furthering of scientific knowledge and the exploration of space, a Physician, who helps people get well or remain well, or a B rated musician?

Wanna go there?

TAM:mad:

[maccy]

Gravy, how 'bout you? Where do you guide tours?

I'll let you know now that Gravy pays a license fee to NYC so that he can make money from paying customers.

[fuelair]

Here is Rothbard, Man Economy and State, Chapter 12, on subject:

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap12c.asp#_ftn1

For the curious, essentially this is based on the work of a gold standard/laissez faire nut job (last two, my words) named van Mise who has a
school for really conservative (my words, again) people in Auburn, Alabama (well you may ask). Actually van Mise is dead, but "his truth will carry on -tadadadadada da! Gory, glory hall...."). Sorry, this is just too good. Actually, von Mise writes well, but he really is nutso on taxes and his system is not functional in the real world. It might work in a very fascist land where the companies ruled and those without jobs sold their bodies or died. but....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

[The Almond]

It seems to me that the basis for this thread is a thinly veiled attack at NIST, essentially stating that because they've received government funding to determine the cause of the WTC collapse, their research is invalid if it supports the government theory.

Before we proceed, let's first get the concept of "appeal to motive" out of the way with. You can establish a motive for someone to do anything but that doesn't prove someone did something. Government employees may have a financial incentive not to question the government, but that does not prove that they have lied or covered up the truth to do it. Furthermore, you've got a long way to go to prove that finances alone are the motivating factor. Despite the 9/11 Truth community's attempt to demonize NIST and it's employees, I have a very hard time believing that they are homogeneously immoral, lying scoundrels who would do anything to help George Bush.

[CurtC]

People like you are the reason I left the Libertarian party.People like him are the reason I describe myself as a small-L libertarian.

BS1234, your view of "two kinds of people" is ridiculously simplistic.

There are two kinds of people in the world - those capable of seeing reality and those who see a conspiracy every time a kitten gets stuck up a tree. BS is in the latter.

And there are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, Austrianism is an a-priori science. I would point out that it has a far better record of correct real-world predictions that any other school of econ.

[T.A.M.]

Incidently, of every dollar the govt pays me, 40% goes back in taxes.

TAM

[R.Mackey]

Sir, whatever linkage exists between you and the events of 9/11 is of your own publication. Just as my linkage is mine.

Just because someone has a financial incentive to support something, doesn't mean they do. I don't even know who you really are Mackey.

It is standard procedure to disclose financial interest in all sorts of dealings.
So you're annoyed, and taking your delusions to a personal level, because I didn't formally disclose that I have an association with the United States Government, and therefore -- in your eyes -- am complicit in the various and sundry imaginary conspiracies that you believe in? That's your excuse for calling me out? (Your assertions are still wrong, by the way.)

Does anyone know Christophera's hat size? He may have to relinquish his crown.

[TruthSeeker1234]

People like him are the reason I describe myself as a small-L libertarian.

BS1234, your view of "two kinds of people" is ridiculously simplistic.




Come on, I didn't say that. Yes, quit the Libertarian party myself. Went from minarchist to anarchist. It happens. Rothbard and Hoppe, just too persuasive and irrefutable.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Any net tax payers at all around here? Ever thought in these terms before? It's good to work your brain in new ways. Creates new neural connections.

[T.A.M.]

Well now that this has been moved to its appropriate area of the forum, and so will not bother those it was intended to annoy, I will leave it...thank god.

TAM

[Pardalis]

In all objectivity, I have to agree. Libertarians are probably far more likely than average to believe in government conspiracies. In fact, the way we see it, government is more-or-less a conspiracy on its face.

How does that help your case?

So you admit you have a fundamental bias that leads you to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, which tells alot about the objectivity, quality and relevance your entire "investigation".

[Gurdur]

Yes, Austrianism is an a-priori science.
Utter nonsense. It is a heavily ideological school of economics, not a science.

Here is a big clue:
The Austrian school of economics is full of value judgments, as is the incredible OP and its aspersions.

Value judgments are both de facto and de jure not science.

The other big clue is the total lack of scientific descriptive rigour in the OP as in the division between "net tax consumer" and "net tax payer", since in the real world people are changing from one category to another and back all the time, as in growing from a child to an adult and thus a worker; in fact with some jobs and occupations it would be easy to construct scenarios where such switching back and forth could be hourly.
I would point out that it has a far better record of correct real-world predictions that any other school of econ.
Oh, puh-leeeze. Put up some evidence for that claim. A nice scientific comparative study would be just dandy.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So you're annoyed, and taking your delusions to a personal level, because I didn't formally disclose that I have an association with the United States Government, and therefore -- in your eyes -- am complicit in the various and sundry imaginary conspiracies that you believe in? That's your excuse for calling me out? (Your assertions are still wrong, by the way.)

Does anyone know Christophera's hat size? He may have to relinquish his crown.

I have mixed feelings about you Mackey. On the one hand, I tremendously respect your education and intelligence. On the other hand, I don't care for your insults. I tolerate them, because, believe it or not, I am here to learn. I think arguing with intelligent people can be a very constructive way to learn.

[maccy]

Yes, Austrianism is an a-priori science.

There's no such thing as an a priori science.

I would point out that it has a far better record of correct real-world predictions that any other school of econ.

Source?

[R.Mackey]

I have mixed feelings about you Mackey. On the one hand, I tremendously respect your education and intelligence. On the other hand, I don't care for your insults. I tolerate them, because, believe it or not, I am here to learn. I think arguing with intelligent people can be a very constructive way to learn.
You tolerate me, huh.

You're the one saying that I -- by name -- have a motive in "supporting the conspiracy" of Sept. 11th. That indeed is the whole purpose of this thread.

Do me a favor, and leave me out of your hallucinations.

[maccy]

The question you're avoiding.

Demonstate the financial self-interest.

How does an government employee suffer financially if a conspiracy is disclosed?

[maccy]

The other big clue is the total lack of scientific descriptive rigour in the OP as in the division between "net tax consumer" and "net tax payer", since in the real world people are changing from one category to another and back all the time, as in growing from a child to an adult and thus a worker; in fact with some jobs and occupations it would be easy to construct scenarios where such switching back and forth could be hourly.

Also implicit making this distinction is the idea that people whose work is paid for via taxation are taking from those whose work isn't. This ignores the complexity of what the people who work for the government then do with their money (ie spend it) - and also the money that governments spend in the private sector.

Plus it assumes that nobody benefits from all this government spending.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The question you're avoiding.


9/11 is more than a conspiracy. Loss Leader hit the nail on the head. If true, the 9/11 conspiracy is a hijacked democracy. I think a lot of engineers are holding their noses and "supporting" the official story, knowing it is false, because, either:

1. They fear that exposing 9/11 truth would lead to something far worse, like a coup, or a military dictatorship in the US.

or

2. They support the global domination project, and realize how important 9/11 was in achieving it.

or both.

[Beerina]

Also implicit making this distinction is the idea that people whose work is paid for via taxation are taking from those whose work isn't. This ignores the complexity of what the people who work for the government then do with their money (ie spend it) - and also the money that governments spend in the private sector.

Plus it assumes that nobody benefits from all this government spending.

Well, it's a bit incestuous when the government forbids any competition for medical services -- either the doctor works for them, or the don't work. It's strange how many people drool at the loveliness of this situation, but bark up a hellacious storm at corporations even getting anywhere near remotely a (non-coericive) monopoly. But it's our monopoly and therefore it's good.

[TruthSeeker1234]

There's no such thing as an a priori science.


Beg to differ. All science must be based on certain a-priori assumptions. For instance, we assume that the laws of nature operate in a time-invariant manner.

If not for this assumption, the search for laws of nature is futile. Newton's laws could just start working differently in 2012 than they did for the last 300 years.

[maccy]

9/11 is more than a conspiracy. Loss Leader hit the nail on the head. If true, the 9/11 conspiracy is a hijacked democracy. I think a lot of engineers are holding their noses and "supporting" the official story, knowing it is false, because, either:

1. They fear that exposing 9/11 truth would lead to something far worse, like a coup, or a military dictatorship in the US.

or

2. They support the global domination project, and realize how important 9/11 was in achieving it.

or both.

Are you accusing posters here of doing this?

Do you extend your reasoning to all government employees?

I'll say it again, how does a governement employee lose out financially if a conspiracy is exposed?

[Rob Lister]

I'm curious...

Would an IRS employee that nets $10,000,000 in tax collections annually and yet is paid $50,000 annually, be a net tax consumer?

If yes, show the math.

If no, what other exceptions exist?

[Pardalis]

I think a lot of engineers are holding their noses and "supporting" the official story, knowing it is false, because, either:

1. They fear that exposing 9/11 truth would lead to something far worse, like a coup, or a military dictatorship in the US.

or

2. They support the global domination project, and realize how important 9/11 was in achieving it.

or both.

Circular reasoning, based on your confirmation bias.

:boggled: :boggled:

[maccy]

Well, it's a bit incestuous when the government forbids any competition for medical services -- either the doctor works for them, or the don't work.

Where does this happen?

It's strange how many people drool at the loveliness of this situation, but bark up a hellacious storm at corporations even getting anywhere near remotely a (non-coericive) monopoly. But it's our monopoly and therefore it's good.

This is at a tangent to what I was saying. If you pay taxes and get healthcare you still benefit from that healthcare.

Monopoly situation or otherwise, the benefit is still there.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I am a Canadian.

I am a Fee-For-Service Physician. In the USA I would be a tax payer. In Canada, I am, by the standards you have set up, a tax consumer. This has to do with Canada's' GOVT paid Health Care.

Does this influence where I sit on CTs, or any other aspect of govt...not at all.

I know why you have put this up here, and I agree with Mackey. if you continue this line of thought, I will do my best to have you banned from here for reasons of personal insult and slander.

I suggest you take your shaite elsewhere, or perhaps we should go into areas of who contributes the most to society. Who does the most good, a NASA engineer who promotes the furthering of scientific knowledge and the exploration of space, a Physician, who helps people get well or remain well, or a B rated musician?

Wanna go there?

TAM:mad:

Gosh, I never said anything about "amount of good". Like I said before, you should embrace your tax-paying status and celebrate it.

Would you care to see a list of the insulting and possibley libelous comments I have endured here, and would you support banning the members who have issued them?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, it's a bit incestuous when the government forbids any competition for medical services -- either the doctor works for them, or the don't work. It's strange how many people drool at the loveliness of this situation, but bark up a hellacious storm at corporations even getting anywhere near remotely a (non-coericive) monopoly. But it's our monopoly and therefore it's good.

Excellent point Beerina. Of course medical care is a government monopoly in the US. The point about monopoly is that you will have higher prices and lower quality than under competition. The point is not that monopolistic providers can do no good at all.

[maccy]

Beg to differ. All science must be based on certain unavoidable a-priori assumptions. For instance, we assume that the laws of nature operate in a time-invariant manner.

If not for this assumption, the search for laws of nature is futile. Newton's laws could just start working differently in 2012 than they did for the last 300 years.

I've fixed that for you. Yes proof by induction is not provable but it is an unavoidable working assumption. Beyond that, science is built from observation.

Your comparison is flawed.

[Gurdur]

Beg to differ. All science must be based on certain a-priori assumptions.
*shrug*
How about answering the points made on non-scientific value judgments, and also the lack of rigor in your dichotomy re consumer/payer ?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Circular reasoning, based on your confirmation bias.

:boggled: :boggled:

Sorry, how was my comment circular?

[maccy]

Excellent point Beerina. Of course medical care is a government monopoly in the US. .

How so? Don't you pay the doctor for your medical treatment? Where does the government come into it?

[Gurdur]

Excellent point Beerina. Of course medical care is a government monopoly in the US.
Are you really serious?

Please tell me this was a sarcastic joke. Please?

Or else explain why the private sector has such a huge role in medical care in the USA. Go on.

[Pardalis]

It is all based on your false assumption that 9/11 was an inside job.

[maccy]

Sorry, how was my comment circular?

Something like this:

1. because there was a conspiracy, engineers (and other government employees) are supporting the official version.

2. because engineers (and other government employees) are supporting the official version, there was a conspiracy.

[fuelair]

Any net tax payers at all around here? Ever thought in these terms before? It's good to work your brain in new ways. Creates new neural connections.
Would suggest you look harder into that "creates new neural connections thing"unless you are in your teens.:)

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm curious...

Would an IRS employee that nets $10,000,000 in tax collections annually and yet is paid $50,000 annually, be a net tax consumer?

If yes, show the math.



Yes, the IRS employee is a net tax consumer. He earns a salary of $70,000 per year, he pays $20,000 in taxes.

70,000
-20,000
------------
50,000

The amount he collects from others and deposits into the general fund is not relevant.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Something like this:

1. because there was a conspiracy, engineers (and other government employees) are supporting the official version.

2. because engineers (and other government employees) are supporting the official version, there was a conspiracy.


I didn't reason that way. Strawman.

[TruthSeeker1234]

How so? Don't you pay the doctor for your medical treatment? Where does the government come into it?

LOL. There is a government enforced monopoly of the labor supply, the AMA. There is a government monopoly on drugs, the FDA.

If you practice medicine without the government's permission, they will put you in jail.

[Rob Lister]

My god, somehow the $10,000,000 collected was magically negated.

It is almost as if the term 'net' has no meaning.

What a wonderful rabbit...hat...sleeve...yada.

[Rob Lister]

Yes, the IRS employee is a net tax consumer. He earns a salary of $70,000 per year, he pays $20,000 in taxes.

70,000
-20,000
------------
50,000

The amount he collects from others and deposits into the general fund is not relevant.

Why is it not relevant?

[TruthSeeker1234]

The general point that I'm testing here is a predisposition to believe in the inherent goodness of government, or "democracy". It seems like it might be testable and falsifiable to posit that net tax consumers are more likely to accept on faith the notion that governments are inherently good.

Any net tax payers at all?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why is [the fact that IRS agents collect taxes] not relevant [in deciding their net tax paying/consuming status]?

Becasue the IRS agent does not get to spend the tax money he collects.

[Rob Lister]

Becasue the IRS agent does not get to spend the tax money he collects.

The money he collects for the government is greater than the money he gets from the government, therefore, he is a "net" tax contributor.

If you disagree, tell my why.

[maccy]

LOL. There is a government enforced monopoly of the labor supply, the AMA. There is a government monopoly on drugs, the FDA.

If you practice medicine without the government's permission, they will put you in jail.

Government regulation of an industry is not the same as a monopoly.

[maccy]

The general point that I'm testing here is a predisposition to believe in the inherent goodness of government, or "democracy". It seems like it might be testable and falsifiable to posit that net tax consumers are more likely to accept on faith the notion that governments are inherently good.

Any net tax payers at all?

And you're proposing to test this by asking for reponses on an interent message board?

The reason to belive that 9/11 was not a conspiracy is that there is no evidence for one. On top of that there isn't even a plausible or agreed hypothesis for one that can be tested against the evidence.

What anyobody feels about government or democracy is irrelevant in this case.

[Loss Leader]

I just read through this entire thread and damn.

TS1234's biggest mistake - actually an inexcusably false supressed premise - is that individuals act to maximize their financial gain. It's just not true. There is an emotional aspect to many decision that has nothing to do with maximizing profits. Anyone can think of five examples in one minute. It's cheaper to live in Ohio than New York and there are jobs in Ohio, but New Yorkers stay put. The doctor who chooses the ER gets paid less and works harder than the doctor who chooses Opthamology. Etc.

Here's what happens when you don't confront that false premise:

The general point that I'm testing here is a predisposition to believe in the inherent goodness of government, or "democracy". It seems like it might be testable and falsifiable to posit that net tax consumers are more likely to accept on faith the notion that governments are inherently good.

TS1234 may well be right. Government employees may well be more likely to believe the government is inherently good, whatever that means. But what does it show? It might show that they think they'll get fired if they criticize the government. Of course, under the civil service system, that's nearly impossible. You can't lose your civil service job for your political beliefs.

But it might also show something else: Government workers are more likely to know how government works than other people. They are more likely to have opinions about government based on fact and experience. If their experience is that government is filled with hard-working people trying to do a good job, their satisfaction with the government will reflect that and not some cold financial calculation.

As regards net tax consumers and contributors, the concept is sociologically and politically meaningless. The only time it has meaning is if your personal prejudices cause you to believe that governments are evil. Then, you must explain why all those government workers don't bother confirming your prejudices. The explanation you turn to in order to retcon your ideology is that the money they are being paid blinds them.

There is no reason to believe this is true.

[T.A.M.]

LOL. There is a government enforced monopoly of the labor supply, the AMA. There is a government monopoly on drugs, the FDA.

If you practice medicine without the government's permission, they will put you in jail.

1. The American Medical Association, if it is like the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is a self-regulating body of physicians, who over sees the quality control of physicians by setting standards that must be met for a physician to practice. The CMA has nothing to do with the government persay, and I would assume the AMA is similar. THE CMA is a physician body, created and run by physicians. This is distinct from the licensing boards, which each province in Canada has, which represents the people, and issues licences to physicians.

2. In Canada, you must obtain permission from the provincial government to practice within that province (licensing boards mentioned earlier). They do not throw you in jail if you do not do this, they will merely suspend your medical licence, or not issue it in the first place, and hence you will not get paid. If you decide to set up practice and charge people privately, than you will be charged with practicing medicine without a licence (if they never issued you one) or for charging people for insured services (if you bill privately for services their medicare should pay for).

It is a gigantic stretch to insinuate that a physician would tow a govt line on any issue, for fear of having his licence suspended or revoked. I can not think of one case where a doctor had his licence taken for his political views.

TAM

[Solitaire]

The Austrian school of economics teaches us to view people as generally belonging to either the group of net tax payers, or the group of net tax consumers. There can not be any such thing as a "fair" tax, because any kind of tax, be it income tax, social security tax, sales tax, inheritance, etc, will always create two classes of citizens: those who, on net, pay more than they recieve in benefits, and those who recieve more benefits than they pay.

I just had an idea. :)

We can cut the cost of government by not charging taxes to people who work for the government, since taxing them only causes money to go around in circles forever.

P.S. I quite like the fair tax.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Government regulation of an industry is not the same as a monopoly.

Ah. Mainstream economics often defines a monopoly as when a one company has some large "market share", like Microsoft. Austrian theory defines monopoly as the legal right to prevent others from entering into a given line of work.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I just had an idea. :)

We can cut the cost of government by not charging taxes to people who work for the government, since taxing them only causes money to go around in circles forever.

P.S. I quite like the fair tax.

Quite right. Requiring govt employees to pay taxes is a statistical fiction designed to trick you into thinking that "everybody pays taxes". Obviously if a govt employee makes 70,000 and pays 20,000 in taxes, it would be the same as making 50,000 and paying no taxes.

There is no such thing as a fair tax. It is theoretically impossible.

[T.A.M.]

As for the FDA:

It is a regulating, standards setting body. Who do you propose set it up and run it, if not government...the united musicians of america? the hippies of the 60's? come on. Either govt regulates it, or the industry does. Seems to me the safer option would be govt. If you let the Pharm Industry regulate themselves, with no stopguards from govt...well you can well imagine what would happen.

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

TS1234's biggest mistake - actually an inexcusably false supressed premise - is that individuals act to maximize their financial gain. It's just not true.

I never said that. Economists assume that people generally act in what they percieve to be their self-interest, which certainly may include financial considerations, but many other things, as you point out. A guy can quit a $500,000/ year job to hang out on the beach and look at the waves.

The curiosity on my part is this: We know a lot of people accept the official story of 9/11, a lot of people don't. Can we predict who is who, based on some other societal criteria? I thought I'd introduce an important Rothbardian concept into the mix, and see what we can learn.

Clearly JREF members are overwhelmingly inclined to accept the official story. Are they also overwhelmingly net tax consumers? I don't know.

[TruthSeeker1234]

As for the FDA:

It is a regulating, standards setting body. Who do you propose set it up and run it, if not government...the united musicians of america? the hippies of the 60's? come on. Either govt regulates it, or the industry does. Seems to me the safer option would be govt. If you let the Pharm Industry regulate themselves, with no stopguards from govt...well you can well imagine what would happen.

TAM

TAM, false dichotomy. The basic idea of libertarianism is that monopolies are bad, and competition is good. Standards, regulation, oversight, quality control, etc. - these are all services that consumers demand. We believe that the competitive market can do a better job of these services than a monopoly, for the exact same reason that applies to any good or service you care to mention.

[maccy]

The curiosity on my part is this: We know a lot of people accept the official story of 9/11, a lot of people don't. Can we predict who is who, based on some other societal criteria? I thought I'd introduce an important Rothbardian concept into the mix, and see what we can learn.

You need some better methodology than just asking.

Clearly JREF members are overwhelmingly inclined to accept the official story.

This is not even remotely clear. What do you mean by "inclined to accept"?

Are they also overwhelmingly net tax consumers? I don't know.

You're just playing pathetic games here. Your trying to imply that peoples reason is impaired by some speculative financial obligation to the government.

I ask again, how would someone lose out, financially, if a government conspiracy was unmasked?

[maccy]

TAM, false dichotomy. The basic idea of libertarianism is that monopolies are bad, and competition is good. Standards, regulation, oversight, quality control, etc. - these are all services that consumers demand. We believe that the competitive market can do a better job of these services than a monopoly, for the exact same reason that applies to any good or service you care to mention.

What in your anarchist capatalist world stops corporate cartels and/or monopolies happaning? What stops misleading claims, false advertising and quackery?

[Gurdur]

TAM, false dichotomy. The basic idea of libertarianism is that monopolies are bad, and competition is good. Standards, regulation, oversight, quality control, etc. - these are all services that consumers demand. We believe that the competitive market can do a better job of these services than a monopoly, for the exact same reason that applies to any good or service you care to mention.
Oh meh.
You totally failed to answer the point. Regulations do not equal monopoly.

Really, it's such a simple point. Setting regulations over something does not mean you yourself actually go into that business or area; it only means you set the regulations.

A monopoly is where one given organization, state or private, actually controls the market in supply of goods and/or services in that area, and gains all profit from that.

The government derives no per se profits from regulation. He who sets the rules does not necessarily profit by them.

Now: are you saying you are in favour of no regulations at all?

And heavens above, please answer this time to the point.

[Gurdur]

And BTW, FYI, I am indeed a total net tax payer, in your dichotomy, a dichotomy I find to be very silly.

I live as a Permanent Resident in a country; I am not entitled to any social benefit payments at all, not being a citizen, and I pay tax, and my field of work is not subsidised at all. And that for the last 15 years.

So I pay tax, the same level of tax as a citizen, and I derive less benefits than do the citizens of the country where I live, seeing as to how I am not a citizen there.

So I am a net tax payer par excellence; now will you answer my points and questions?

[maccy]

I just had an idea. :)

We can cut the cost of government by not charging taxes to people who work for the government, since taxing them only causes money to go around in circles forever.

What if the person who is working for the government gets some income that is non-governmental? How do you work out how much tax they should pay on that income?

What if they move into the private sector half way through a tax year?

It's actually simpler to tax everybody's income in the same way, regardless of where that income comes from.

[maccy]

Ah. Mainstream economics often defines a monopoly as when a one company has some large "market share", like Microsoft. Austrian theory defines monopoly as the legal right to prevent others from entering into a given line of work.

OK so you were using a specialist definition of monopoly that is different from the one commonly used. Nice communication skills there.

I'd probably define it as market anarchy - ie no regulation of markets at all.

Cartels and monopolies seem a lot easier in these circumstances.

[maccy]

And BTW, FYI, I am indeed a total net tax payer, in your dichotomy, a dichotomy I find to be very silly.

I live as a Permanent Resident in a country; I am not entitled to any social benefit payments at all, not being a citizen, and I pay tax, and my field of work is not subsidised at all. And that for the last 15 years.

So I pay tax, the same level of tax as a citizen, and I derive less benefits than do the citizens of the country where I live, seeing as to how I am not a citizen there.

So I am a net tax payer par excellence; now will you answer my points and questions?

Perhaps you should know that TS1234 started this thread in the conspiracy theory forum, where he is a regular poster.

His ridiculous postings are continually being rebutted by people over there. Since he can't argue the science or even the basic evidence with any competency he's trying a different tack of trying to imply that we must all be deliberately defending the official account because we have a vested financial interest in the government.

In other words, he's trying an ad hominem attack.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oh meh.
You totally failed to answer the point. Regulations do not equal monopoly.

Really, it's such a simple point. Setting regulations over something does not mean you yourself actually go into that business or area; it only means you set the regulations.

A monopoly is where one given organization, state or private, actually controls the market in supply of goods and/or services in that area, and gains all profit from that.

The government derives no per se profits from regulation. He who sets the rules does not necessarily profit by them.

Now: are you saying you are in favour of no regulations at all?

And heavens above, please answer this time to the point.

I've answered that. No, I like regulations. I think that privately competing firms could do a better job of regulating things than could a monopoly. "Regulation" is a service, like haircuts. If you had only one choice of who could cut your hair, the one haircutter could charge you more, and give you a worse haircut than he could under competition. Austro-libertarians apply this principle to everything. Monopolies bad. Competition good.

We must define terms. Monopoly, the way I use the word, means the exclusive right to provide some good or service, and the legal right to use force to exclude others from providing that service. In Austrian theory, only government can create monopolies, because only govenrmnet has the legal right to use force.

If you want to define monopoly differently, go ahead, but be clear.

[maccy]

TAM, false dichotomy. The basic idea of libertarianism is that monopolies are bad, and competition is good. Standards, regulation, oversight, quality control, etc. - these are all services that consumers demand. We believe that the competitive market can do a better job of these services than a monopoly, for the exact same reason that applies to any good or service you care to mention.

And you're right it is a very basic idea. An extreme philosophical position with no basis in economic reality.

[TruthSeeker1234]

What if the person who is working for the government gets some income that is non-governmental? How do you work out how much tax they should pay on that income?



Nobody should pay any "taxes". Taxation is theft.

[maccy]

Nobody should pay any "taxes". Taxation is theft.

I was talking about why it isn't practical for government workers not to pay taxes, not about the rights and wrongs of taxation.

But while you're at it.

Taxation is not theft. It is the collective provision of goods and services through a state system rather than a market system. It should have democratic accountability to work well.

You can argue that it is inefficient and/or unfair but this does not equate it to theft.

[Bandersnatch]

I've answered that. No, I like regulations. I think that privately competing firms could do a better job of regulating things than could a monopoly.

Like Big oil and Tabacco, right?

BTW, If I was an entrepreneur, making 70 000 and paying 20 000 taxes, what am I?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Taxation is not theft. It is the collective provision of goods and services through a state system rather than a market system. It should have democratic accountability to work well.

You can argue that it is inefficient and/or unfair but this does not equate it to theft.

Please give me a definition of theft that includes what common theives do yet excludes what governments do when they tax.

[TruthSeeker1234]

BTW, If I was an entrepreneur, making 70 000 and paying 20 000 taxes, what am I?

You'd be a net tax payer, assuming your income derived from voluntarily paying customers.

[Mashuna]

Please give me a definition of theft that includes what common theives do yet excludes what governments do when they tax.

Well, the definition you quoted, where the government provide shared goods and services through through a state system.

Unless where you live the theives break into your house, steal your TV but fix the leaking roof on the way out?

[maccy]

Please give me a definition of theft that includes what common theives do yet excludes what governments do when they tax.

It is impossible to argue that the victim of a common theft benefits in any way from the act. Nor to they have any influence over what happens with what is stolen. Nobody approves of being stolen from.

It is possible to argue that taxation is spent on things that benefit the citizens of a country and that they can influence the way it is spent. Plenty of people approve of being taxed

It is just a rhetorical flourish to say that taxation is theft, it avoids having to focus on specific issues to do with taxation and attempts to portray it as a priori and necessarily entirely without virtue. It is intellectually dishonest to sloganeer in this way.

I have the same problem with the maxim 'property is theft'.

[maccy]

By the way, Ace, where do you stand on intellectual property rights, copyright and patents?

[TruthSeeker1234]

It is impossible to argue that the victim of a common theft benefits in any way from the act. Nor to they have any influence over what happens with what is stolen. Nobody approves of being stolen from.

It is possible to argue that taxation is spent on things that benefit the citizens of a country and that they can influence the way it is spent. Plenty of people approve of being taxed

It is just a rhetorical flourish to say that taxation is theft, it avoids having to focus on specific issues to do with taxation and attempts to portray it as a priori and necessarily entirely without virtue. It is intellectually dishonest to sloganeer in this way.

I have the same problem with the maxim 'property is theft'.

If we allow the thief to do the arguing, he could easily argue that the victim benefits. "You have too much money, you'll be a better person if I take your wallet". "You would have spent the money on something bad for you, like drugs and alcohol." ETC.

The concept of "benefit" is in the eye of the beneficiary, not the benefactor. Those people who "approve" of being taxed are free to give their money to whom they choose, and derive their benefits.

So according to this "beneficiary" view, taking money from someone by force is OK, so long as the taker can make some plausible case for benefitting the victim? I can steal your TV set so long as I fix your roof, even if the TV is worth $1000 and the roof job is only worth $500?

Now, "Property is Theft", is indeed absurd. This is because the concept of property must precede the concept of theft. Unless and until you have a concept of property ownership, you cannot have a concept of theft.

[Dr Adequate]

I don't follow this. If someone is a net tax recipient, that doesn't mean that they'd benefit from (a) 9/11 (b) the war in Afghanistan (c) the war on Iraq (d) Republican government. On the contrary, the economic effects of 9/11, plus the spending on the war, guarantees that there's less money for them. And I would be willing to bet that most of them vote Democrat.

Defense contractors might have a selfish bias in favor of war and Bushco, but I fail to see how this would apply to, for example, a public school teacher.

[TruthSeeker1234]

By the way, Ace, where do you stand on intellectual property rights, copyright and patents?

I see intellectual property as property. A unique intellectual creation can be owned and marketed.

There are Austro-libertarians who disagree, like Walter Block. In his view, only physical things can be property. A book can be owned, but the combination of words cannot.

It's a very interesting debate.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I don't follow this. If someone is a net tax recipient, that doesn't mean that they'd benefit from (a) 9/11 (b) the war in Afghanistan (c) the war on Iraq (d) Republican government. On the contrary, the economic effects of 9/11, plus the spending on the war, guarantees that there's less money for them. And I would be willing to bet that most of them vote Democrat.

Defense contractors might have a selfish bias in favor of war and Bushco, but I fail to see how this would apply to, for example, a public school teacher.

You're right. Defense contractors are an obvious beneficiary of war. Public school teachers, not. But I think it is possible that those who derive their income from government are more likely than others to accept on faith the notion that government is good, or that democratic government is good, or some such. Thus, such a person, like a public school teacher, would be more likely to reject the "inside job" theory of 9/11 out of hand, than would someone who derived their income from the private sector.

I don't know this, it is an hypothesis.

[maccy]

If we allow the theif to do the arguing, he could easily argue that the victim benefits. "You have too much money, you'll be a better person if I take your wallet". "You would have spent the money on something bad for you, like drugs and alcohol." ETC.

Nonsense. The government isn't trying to persuade people that they're better off without the money, they're trying to persuade them that they'll benefit from what the government spends the money on. The isn't a relations ship between two atomic individuals, it's a relationship between the individual and society.

The concept of "benefit" is in the eye of the beneficiary, not the benefactor. Those people who "approve" of being taxed are free to give their money to whom they choose, and derive their benefits.

And most people who pay taxes believe they are benefiting from the society this creates.

So according to this view, taking money from someone by force is OK, so long as the taker can make some plausible case for benefitting the victim? I can steal your TV set so long as I fix your roof, even if the TV is worth $1000 and the roof job is only worth $500?

Taxes are not taken by force.

And why would a thief offer to fix a roof? A thief just steals things, to no benefit of the victim - that is the essential difference.

This is all just sophistry. People do not regard taxation as theft. If you want to argue about taxation, you should talk precisely about the specifics. Grand rhetorical statements don't provide a solid argument.

[maccy]

You're right. Defense contractors are an obvious beneficiary of war. Public school teachers, not. But I think it is possible that those who derive their income from government are more likely than others to accept on faith the notion that government is good, or that democratic government is good, or some such. Thus, such a person, like a public school teacher, would be more likely to reject the "inside job" theory of 9/11 out of hand, than would someone who derived their income from the private sector.

I don't know this, it is an hypothesis.

The problem with your hypothesis is that nobody here is rejecting the inside job hypothesis "out of hand". It is strictly on the evidence. Questioning motivation is pointless.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Nonsense. The government isn't trying to persuade people that they're better off without the money, they're trying to persuade them that they'll benefit from what the government spends the money on. The isn't a relations ship between two atomic individuals, it's a relationship between the individual and society.



And most people who pay taxes believe they are benefiting from the society this creates.



Taxes are not taken by force.

And why would a thief offer to fix a roof? A thief just steals things, to no benefit of the victim - that is the essential difference.

This is all just sophistry. People do not regard taxation as theft. If you want to argue about taxation, you should talk precisely about the specifics. Grand rhetorical statements don't provide a solid argument.

Where to begin?

You are certainly, right now, trying to convince me that I am better off without my money.

You confuse society with government, and pretend that government and taxation create society. This is precisely backwards. Society and productive individuals must precede government and taxation, otherwise there is nothing to tax.

Taxes not taken by force? This is silly. Everything, repeat, each and every thing done by government is done by force, or the credible threat of force. Often common thieves do not have to use force, only threaten it. Then the victim "voluntarily" surrenders his wallet.

Yes, government promises to benefit citizens by spending money on things. But people can spend their own money on things without government taking it away.

Speaking of money, this is the #1 thing that has been stolen by government - money. Another subject perhpas.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/baker/baker2.html

[maccy]

To be honest, I don't care.

Your attempted ad hominem has been hived off into politics anyway.

Maybe the some of the posters here, will get some amusement from seeing an escapee from the conspiracy forum in all his glory.

[Darth Rotor]

I never said that. Economists assume that people generally act in what they percieve to be their self-interest, which certainly may include financial considerations, but many other things, as you point out. A guy can quit a $500,000/ year job to hang out on the beach and look at the waves.

The curiosity on my part is this: We know a lot of people accept the official story of 9/11, a lot of people don't. Can we predict who is who, based on some other societal criteria? I thought I'd introduce an important Rothbardian concept into the mix, and see what we can learn.

Clearly JREF members are overwhelmingly inclined to accept the official story. Are they also overwhelmingly net tax consumers? I don't know.
For more on economic reductionism as political theory, see Karl Marx.

BSspeaker1234, revealing yourself as a closet commie makes you a fine match for skeptigirl. You two deserve each other: All flash, no boom.

DR

[Loss Leader]

I was going to come in and give a civics lesson but everyone here is doing a fine job.

PM me if anything starts to get out of hand.

P.S. Taxation is theft; what a load of cr:boggled:p.

[Gurdur]

This is getting totally ridiculous.
....Clearly JREF members are overwhelmingly inclined to accept the official story. Are they also overwhelmingly net tax consumers? No, I like regulations. I think that privately competing firms could do a better job of regulating things than could a monopoly.
No, you don't like regulations. Regulations are just that; they are NOT some code put out by a competing company. You are trying to bagatellise the term "regulations" into complete meaninglessness. The very idea of "regulations" includes compliance, not competition.
"Regulation" is a service, like haircuts.
Please, look up "regulations" in a dictionary.
We must define terms.
Wrong! The problem is you simply don't like the terms as they are already defined, and you simply try introducing your heavily ideologically-twisted own definitions instead.
In Austrian theory,
Meh, and meh³. Seit wann sollte ich es mich erlauben, mir es von blöde alten Männer mit sehr verdächtigen Schnurrbarten zu sagen, wie der Welt lauft? Hmmmmm?
Try a heavy dosis of realism instead of these arcane, cultish ideologies.
Everything, repeat, each and every thing done by government is done by force, or the credible threat of force.
This is absolutely silly. A government-run library is done by force, huh?
Speaking of money, this is the #1 thing that has been stolen by government - money.
Oh, twaddle.

Now, TruthSeeker1234, I have another question for you and this time please answer it.
You have demeaned others here (whether by implication or directly) as "net tax consumers" and therefore as being The Enemy who of course don't believe you. It turns out you are very wrong; many of us, including myself, are induitably net tax payers and we still don't agree with you.
But if you're simply going to cast aspersions on anyone failing to agree with you, as you did with your implication regarding the whole JREF membership, why the hell are you in here talking to us at all? Since we're The Enemy and all that?

[Gurdur]

People like you are the reason I left the Libertarian party.
Meh, I never encountered libertarianism in that perfervid Ayn-Rand/Mises style before the web really took off; it is a heavily cultish ideology, and a very very minority ideology at that, almost totally confined to the USA; it has no influence at all in the rest of the world. Its vocality on the net is out of all proportion to its importance.

Mostly people are only too damned glad to escape modern libertarian paradises like Somalia.

[Earthborn]

Please give me a definition of theft that includes what common theives do yet excludes what governments do when they tax.Common thieves break the law.

[R.Mackey]

Meh, I never encountered libertarianism in that perfervid Ayn-Rand/Mises style before the web really took off; it is a heavily cultish ideology, and a very very minority ideology at that, almost totally confined to the USA; it has no influence at all in the rest of the world. Its vocality on the net is out of all proportion to its importance.

Mostly people are only too damned glad to escape modern libertarian paradises like Somalia.
No argument here.

A few months ago I discussed my libertarian leanings in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1868109#post1868109), a follow-up to the question of whether the Libertarian Party attracts the most wackos. I don't feel a hard-core Randist party would have any practical value, but I would like to see a moderate third party emerge with a realistic, selfish perspective.

Our friend TruthSeeker1234 appears to fit into that first (or possibly second) category of Libertarian I describe. He is, of course, entitled to his opinions on political theory (even if he is not entitled to slander people with his opinions on Sept. 11th) -- I merely find those opinions unrealistic and impossible to reason with.

Hence I found a more reasonable third party, and have never looked back.

[maccy]

TS1234, if you come back to this thread, I'd be ineterested to know your answer to this question:

By the way, Ace, where do you stand on intellectual property rights, copyright and patents?


For those that don't know, Truthseeker1234, aka Ace Baker, currently makes his living as a musician, producer and composer (http://www.acebaker.com/).

Oh, and from his interesting article (http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/baker/baker2.html) on how we should get rid of banks and go back to having gold as currency:

Alexander "Ace" Baker is a Film and TV composer currently working on a libertarian rock-opera.

How's that coming along, Ace?

[Solitaire]

1. They fear that exposing 9/11 truth would lead to something far worse, like a coup, or military dictatorship in the US.

or

2. They support the global domination project, and realize how important 9/11 was in achieving it.


Actually this coin seems overwhelmingly one sided; as in, heads I win, tails you loose.

Given a mix of people in engineering, I'd expect two more positions:
(3) They fear that not exposing the truth leads to something worse and leak documents.
(4) They support the Dominion and brag about the importance of 9/11 in the press.
If either of these two events happen then one can safely say that a conspiracy exists.

By the way two quick rules for making a conspiracy work:
(1) A conspiracy can be kept quite between two people if one or both of them dies.
(2) If a conspiracy involves more than two people then they should issue a press release.
Nobody ever reads those things.


Clearly JREF members are overwhelmingly inclined to accept the official story.
Are they also overwhelmingly net tax consumers? I don't know.


Large populations like the JREF tend towards the mean. Let's say 3 million government employees out of a population of 300 million people equals a ratio of one to a hundred. If the JREF has ten thousand members then mathematically about one hundred will be government employees.


There is not such thing as a fair tax. It is a theoretically impossible.

That's what the european aviators said about the Wright Brothers when they first went over there, but the Wright Brother proved their design flew better than the european aviators' designs, and theoretically impossible of their flight became impossible no more.

The Fair Tax imposes taxes newly produced goods and services within the governmental territory. Old furniture, sales of goods and services outside of the territory, and sellers with sales less than $25,000 would be tax exempt. The exclusive tax rate - if you think of it as functioning like a sale tax - would be 30%. The inclusive tax rate - if your thinking it as functioning like an income tax - would be 23%. It has strong positive in that it gets rid of the H&R Block, and two really strong negatives: Everyone get paid a stipend covering the tax over necessities - putting everyone one on the government dole. The tax turns the government into an expense causing large corporations like Wall-mart into opposing to government spending as an unnecessary expense - even on spending we all consider good.

See: The Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/)
See: Dominionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism)

[T.A.M.]

Some how I just knew you were a tax hater. You probably think that all the taxes paid, do not go to provide any services for the poor or less fortunate, but into the pockets of big business and govt right???

This argument is useless.

Here in Canada, no matter how rich or poor you are, you will get your medical treatment, your doctors visit, without a dime coming out of your immediate pocket, because of the tax system. I am paid by the govt, who gets their money from taxes.

Single mothers who need social assistance until they get on their feet...they get this from the taxation system.

So Mr. "NO TAXES" How do you propose the world should work?

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Oh and incidently, I paid $80,000 in taxes last year, and I am proud of it. Would I have liked to have paid less...yes, but I am glad to know my money is going to what I consider good use, and I have had no one prove to me otherwise.

TAM

[Pardalis]

Is there a tax on goods and services in the US?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Too many strawman, never-said-that comments to reply to individually.

Never said get rid of banks, on the market, banks are a perfectly legitimate business.

Money was not invented by government, money evolved privately, on the market, in order to solve the problems of a barter economy. Many commodities were used, and gold emerged as the best-functioning money. Governments then took over,monopolized the production of money, and eventually confiscated monetary gold from citizens by force. This is simply an historical fact. Free people should be allowed to use whatever they want as money. This is not the case today. Today governments "print" money, which is an effective and stealthy way to trasnfer real wealth away from the people who earned it, and into the hands of government.

If anyone is truly interested in the theory of how market anarchy would work, there is a huge literature on the subject. I suggest Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy and State.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

If you guys actually believe in the goodness of taxation and government spending, then you should not be offended by being labled a net tax consumer. If you are offended by this label, perhaps you don't really buy into the notion of tax and spend after all.

[T.A.M.]

As long as by a "tax consumer" you are not insinuating that I am a government "dependent" or government "shill".

SO TS, you have never availed of any service that was provided to you by taxes?

TAM

[Earthborn]

Some people are obviously Net Tax Consumers. Anyone who depends on welfare for example. Or anyone who depends on subsidies.

But I'm not so sure it is possible to clearly identify who is a Net Tax Payer. Governments often provide services that are not so easy to value monetarily, particularly if no one has ever tried to put a price on it. It provides national security, protects property rights...

What if your business uses oil derivatives and cheap oil is only available because the government ensured a good relationship with oil producing nations? How much money is that good relationship worth, and how do you calculate from that whether your business pays more in taxes than it benefits from the government?

Suppose your business is located on a piece of land that is reclaimed from the sea using government paid dikes and flood protection (pretty relevant issue here in the Netherlands). Do you benefit less from the government than the government benefits from you?

[Rob Lister]

Is there a tax on goods and services in the US?

Generally, maybe.

It depends on where you buy them, where they came from, and what they are used for.

It's an involved question that deserves another thread. If you're interested, start one...not that this one could be more derailed than it already is.

[Gurdur]

If anyone is truly interested
You are obviously not interested in replying to direct questions or points made in good faith to you.

Why should we be interested in your missionary preaching then?
If you guys actually believe in the goodness of taxation and government spending, then you should not be offended by being labled a net tax consumer. If you are offended by this label, perhaps you don't really buy into the notion of tax and spend after all.
Uh huh, so much for any pretence of objectivity at all in your self-serving, demonising "definitions".

Now you say even if we are induitably net tax payers, yet you will label us as net tax consumers only because we do not agree with your missionarizing against taxes and government.

Meh. You should change your username; it's a misnomer.

[Pardalis]

Generally, maybe.

It depends on where you buy them, where they came from, and what they are used for.

It's an involved question that deserves another thread. If you're interested, start one...not that this one could be more derailed than it already is.

Here we have the GST (goods and services tax), and each province (except Alberta I think) also have their own sales tax.

If the US has also such taxes, this would make Truthseeker also complicit in "teh conspiracy"...

[Darth Rotor]

TS1234, if you come back to this thread, I'd be ineterested to know your answer to this question:

Seeker is now working on a libertarian rock opera.

For those that don't know, Truthseeker1234, aka Ace Baker, currently makes his living as a musician, producer and composer (http://www.acebaker.com/).
*Pete Townsend voice*

Seeker can you hear me?
Seeker can you hear me?
Seeker can you hear me?
Can you hear me --

*Who Chorus*

How can he be saaved?
-- switch tracks--
*Roger Daltry voice*

Sucking his crack pipe
Seek's in a quiet
Cee Tee land now

Raving, it seems,
His anarchist schemes
Aren't all that rad!

Sickness will surely take his mind
He's used up too much of that "blow"
A libertarian journey
Ends up in yellow snow!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist the Zappa intrusion, sue me!)

DR

[Loss Leader]

SO TS, you have never availed of any service that was provided to you by taxes?

A single lifetime isn't long enough to list all of the services that are provided to Ace through taxation.

Being in LA, those roads of his are darn important, built by tax money. And as he's driving, he'll be glad his tax money was spent on safety regulations that mandate airbags and seatbelts and non-exploding gas tanks. If he gets hungry, he can pull into McDonalds for a $5.25 combo meal. Why so cheap? His tax money subsidized the corn that sweetens his drink, fries his potatoes and feeds the cows that become his hamburger. After that, it's off to work where he uses a sound mixing board that does not short out because his tax money paid for the courts who found a company liable for exactly that thing and caused all the other companies to improve their products. And he'll be glad to hear good old American english at the studio because without his tax contributions Adolf Hitler would be on all our money. Oh, he tripped and fell, but don;t worry because the sales tax he paid at McDonalds helped fund the ambulance that takes him to the hospital. That's where he gets drugs that work because of tax money.

And the beat goes on.

[Horatius]

A single lifetime isn't long enough to list all of the services that are provided to Ace through taxation.

And the beat goes on.

Don't forget that he then goes to the bank to cash a royalty check, derived from the copyrights he owns which are secured by government force.

[Horatius]

Please give me a definition of theft that includes what common theives do yet excludes what governments do when they tax.

Common thieves don't allow the victim to vote on who the next thief should be.

[T.A.M.]

A single lifetime isn't long enough to list all of the services that are provided to Ace through taxation.

Being in LA, those roads of his are darn important, built by tax money. And as he's driving, he'll be glad his tax money was spent on safety regulations that mandate airbags and seatbelts and non-exploding gas tanks. If he gets hungry, he can pull into McDonalds for a $5.25 combo meal. Why so cheap? His tax money subsidized the corn that sweetens his drink, fries his potatoes and feeds the cows that become his hamburger. After that, it's off to work where he uses a sound mixing board that does not short out because his tax money paid for the courts who found a company liable for exactly that thing and caused all the other companies to improve their products. And he'll be glad to hear good old American english at the studio because without his tax contributions Adolf Hitler would be on all our money. Oh, he tripped and fell, but don;t worry because the sales tax he paid at McDonalds helped fund the ambulance that takes him to the hospital. That's where he gets drugs that work because of tax money.

And the beat goes on.


game, Set, Match.

Thank you sir.

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

No question I benefit from government spending. Never said otherwise, that isn't the argument. The argument is both a moral one, and a practical one.

On a practical level, I believe I personally get about 10 cents value for each dollar I am taxed, at best. It is not possible to calculate this, because of the famous "calculation problem". Meaningful cost accounting is theoretically impossible for government services, because there are no market prices involved. This was one of Mises' great contributions to economics, and allowed him to correctly predict the demise of Soviet Communism, due to the inability of the Soviet government to do cost accounting.

On a moral level, the case is even more clear cut. It is simply immoral to take property away from people by force. It doesn't make any difference if it is sanctioned by a majority or not. It is a violation of human rights. Majorities have supported all sorts of heinous things in the past, including slavery.

[TruthSeeker1234]

A single lifetime isn't long enough to list all of the services that are provided to Ace through taxation.



Translation: Today, large government is involved in every single aspect of our lives. Do you realize that prior to 1860 in the US, the only contact most people had with the federal govt their whole lives was the post office?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Being in LA, those roads of his are darn important, built by tax money. And as he's driving, he'll be glad his tax money was spent on safety regulations that mandate airbags and seatbelts and non-exploding gas tanks. If he gets hungry, he can pull into McDonalds for a $5.25 combo meal. Why so cheap? His tax money subsidized the corn that sweetens his drink, fries his potatoes and feeds the cows that become his hamburger. After that, it's off to work where he uses a sound mixing board that does not short out because his tax money paid for the courts who found a company liable for exactly that thing and caused all the other companies to improve their products. And he'll be glad to hear good old American english at the studio because without his tax contributions Adolf Hitler would be on all our money. Oh, he tripped and fell, but don;t worry because the sales tax he paid at McDonalds helped fund the ambulance that takes him to the hospital. That's where he gets drugs that work because of tax money.



Here Loss Leader is attempting to convince us that government is more efficient than the market at providing things. Economists of all stripes beg to differ. Efficiency can only come about through competition and cost accounting, both lacking in government services. The truth is, everything you buy is far more expensive than it would be in a free market.

Let me phrase it as a question. If you really think that taxing and spending lowers the cost of goods and services, then why not apply that to every single good and service in the whole economy? (I.E. full on socialism)

[Solitaire]

Speaking of money, this is the #1 thing that has been stolen by government - money. Another subject perhpas.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/baker/baker2.html

Oh, that's just crazy. :D

But I got one that's even crazier!

Is The United States Already Bankrupt (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE2/doodoo.html)

They both don't understand Federal Reserve open market operations.

And the gold bug thing, yuck!

My advice stay away as far as you can from people write stuff like that.

[Abbyas]

Yes, the IRS employee is a net tax consumer. He earns a salary of $70,000 per year, he pays $20,000 in taxes.

70,000
-20,000
------------
50,000

The amount he collects from others and deposits into the general fund is not relevant.

This is one hundred percent false.

I apologize if this has been already stated, but you are looking at this in completely the wrong way.

The IRS agent accepts $70,000 in salary. And provides $70,000 worth of services to the population (minus bureaucratic gobbledy-gook of course).

In your calculations you fail to include for the worth of services and goods provided by those tax dollars.

I receive my "tax comsumption" not solely in the form of dollars given to me by way of government salaries but through police/fire protection, an educated public, parks, etc, etc. I fail to understand why the value of these goods (public goods and externalities that are not adequately addressed in the market) are not included in calculations.

[Abbyas]

On a practical level, I believe I personally get about 10 cents value for each dollar I am taxed, at best.

Quick question here: Are you accounting for only goods and services or are you taking the GDP multiplier into consideration as well?

Speaking of money, this is the #1 thing that has been stolen by government - money. Another subject perhpas.

Are you suggesting that it's best to adhere to the gold standard? Do you know how much gold would be necessary? You do realize how much that would restrict growth correct?

[Dr Adequate]

No question I benefit from government spending. Never said otherwise, that isn't the argument. The argument is both a moral one, and a practical one.

On a practical level, I believe I personally get about 10 cents value for each dollar I am taxed, at best. It is not possible to calculate this, because of the famous "calculation problem". Meaningful cost accounting is theoretically impossible for government services, because there are no market prices involved. This was one of Mises' great contributions to economics, and allowed him to correctly predict the demise of Soviet Communism, due to the inability of the Soviet government to do cost accounting. Wow, the argument from ignorance used to support crank economics.

You say that it's impossible to calculate the benefit, so you believe that it's 10 cents on the dollar.

I've got a better idea. Since it's impossible to calculate, and can be whatever you believe, then why not belive that the benefit is five dollars on the dollar, for you and everyone else, and then feel happy? If your crazy economic beliefs are, as you maintain, based entirely on faith, then why not put your irrational belief into something you want to be true?

Oh, I forgot, you're a 9/11 CT, aren't you? You put all your stock of irrational belief into imaginary things that you find utterly hateful, so that you can feel victimized and whine about them.

[Dr Adequate]

You're right. Defense contractors are an obvious beneficiary of war. Public school teachers, not. But I think it is possible that those who derive their income from government are more likely than others to accept on faith the notion that government is good, or that democratic government is good, or some such. Thus, such a person, like a public school teacher, would be more likely to reject the "inside job" theory of 9/11 out of hand, than would someone who derived their income from the private sector. I have no data on this.

However, I would point out that many of the people arguing with you are extremely hostile to Bush and his government.

Many of us are hopping mad about the actual conspiracy. You know, the real one? The one that actually happened? The one you can't admit happened 'cos it spoils your crazy stuff about holographic airplanes and controlled demolition and soundless nukes?

I for one have said that in an ideal world Bush and his pals would be tried for war crimes. It's not like I'm a fan of the guy.

But you are talking rubbish.

Let me make this clear.

I don't argue with you guys because I'm a fan of Bush. IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL TOTALLY ******* CRAZY.

OK?

[Dr Adequate]

Too many strawman

...

If you guys actually believe in the goodness of taxation and government spending, then you should not be offended by being labled a net tax consumer. :dl:

[WildCat]

Is there a tax on goods and services in the US?
Goods, yes. Services, no. At least not in Illinois.

[Dr Adequate]

It is not possible to calculate this, because of the famous "calculation problem". Meaningful cost accounting is theoretically impossible for government services, because there are no market prices involved. This was one of Mises' great contributions to economics, and allowed him to correctly predict the demise of Soviet Communism, due to the inability of the Soviet government to do cost accounting. And finally, this problem only occurs when the government set the prices of everything --- in a control economy. A government using tax revenue to buy stuff in a free market economy does not suffer from the calculation problem.

This is, we may presume, why the economist you cited did not predict the demise of American capitalism.

[WildCat]

Translation: Today, large government is involved in every single aspect of our lives. Do you realize that prior to 1860 in the US, the only contact most people had with the federal govt their whole lives was the post office?
And the lack of good roads made traveling in winter all but impossible, sewage was allowed to simply run into the nearest river/lake that people also drank from. Coal was burned unchecked to power heavy industry, covering everything for miles around in a thick coat of soot. Etc etc., the good old days!

You like your royalty checks TS1234, tell me who do you turn to if somebody uses your work w/o compensation?

[Horatius]

Wow, the argument from ignorance used to support crank economics.

You say that it's impossible to calculate the benefit, so you believe that it's 10 cents on the dollar.


You have to remember, that 10 cents on the dollar estimate is from the fellow who also "generously" estimates that 99.9% of the concrete in the WTC towers was turned to microscopic dust.

All I'm saying is, his skill at estimation is somewhat lacking.

[Loss Leader]

On a practical level, I believe I personally get about 10 cents value for each dollar I am taxed, at best.

Man, you are like an endless fountain of wrong. First of all, you've miscalculated and I'll explain how in a moment. But lets take a look at what your calculation means for your "voluntary" tax system. It means that you would choose to pay 10% as much tax as you do. Now, why should we, your neighbors, rely on your calculation about yourself? After all, you have every reason to fudge your numbers low so that you pay less. Then we are paying more to carry you. What is required is some overarching authority that decides exactly how much benefit you derive from government action, tells you how much to pay, and jails you if you don't. That authority, which we your neighbors need to keep you honest, is just one more benefit you get from government.

But your 10% is far too low, in any case. I will use the example of the school tax. You do not go to public school but you pay (through property tax or its pass through to rent) to run your area's public schools. Since you don't go to school or, let's say, have a child in school, are they of no benefit to you?

Of course the school system benefits you. Almost every person you meet is a product of the public schools. Inovation, exploration, experimentation - it all comes about because of the basic education we all got in school. Every child who can read is a child who can contribute. And that goes for libraries, public parks and a host of other services you don't think you use. If I get a book from the library and go to read it in a public park, I feel good. That makes me more productive so the economy picks up. And it makes me nicer because I'm in a good mood; and if I'm nice to you, you're having a better day. Taxation made a stranger on the street nice to you.

Even so, I see no reason in a just society why people should see 100% benefit from their tax dollars. We are one community and some of us need more help than others. Is money spent to operate community residences for the developmentally disabled tax money that doesn't benefit you? Or does the government have the right to save your soul, even by force? I think the answer is yes.

On a moral level, the case is even more clear cut. It is simply immoral to take property away from people by force. It doesn't make any difference if it is sanctioned by a majority or not. It is a violation of human rights.

No, it isn't. Among the things your tax dollars do is fund government offices at every level that exist to protect human rights.

Majorities have supported all sorts of heinous things in the past, including slavery.

No one here has advanced the argument for majority rule. By the way, I'm pretty sure tax dollars supported the Union army in their fight to end slavery, genius.

[Loss Leader]

Translation: Today, large government is involved in every single aspect of our lives. Do you realize that prior to 1860 in the US, the only contact most people had with the federal govt their whole lives was the post office?

Yeah, but in 1861, the American people started to become a lot more familiar with exactly what a government can do.

[Loss Leader]

Here Loss Leader is attempting to convince us that government is more efficient than the market at providing things.

I absolutely did not. I said no such thing. Create your strawmen somewhere else. I have never argued that the government is more efficient than the market. I have never even argued that the government is in any way efficient.

The government is effective.

Government does things that the free market cannot or will not do. The free market could not put a man on the moon in 1969. It could not exhaustively test new drugs and therapies before putting them up for sale. It definitely could not protect copyrights. Defeating Nazis is something best left to government. None of it efficient, all of it effective.

[Beerina]

Common thieves don't allow the victim to vote on who the next thief should be.

So the difference is that you have 0.0000000001% influence on the government, vs. 0% on the thief?

[Loss Leader]

So the difference is that you have 0.0000000001% influence on the government, vs. 0% on the thief?

That's a little like saying that because Tylenol only costs three cents a pill, each purchaser of Tylenol cannot affect the product.

However, most of the effort went in during the design and testing phase of the medicine. There, the individual purchaser had a great deal of say over whether this medicine did something of value, worked the way it was supposed to and had tolerable negative effects. And if the individual purchaser gets a tainted or poisoned Tylenol, she will be able to force the makers to repackage and maybe even reformulate the product.

In a democracy, most of the work was done at the design and implementation phase. Just because it appears that the individual's day-to-day power over government is negligible doesn't mean that the total power an individual has over government is similarly small.

[Horatius]

So the difference is that you have 0.0000000001% influence on the government, vs. 0% on the thief?

Well, it is a difference, which TS implied simply didn't exist between a taxing government and a common thief.

Also, my vote may only be one vote out of millions, but I also have the option to speak out and try to influence other voters to vote as I do. Get enough people to agree with you, and you can tell the government what to do, or even form the government yourself.

Can't do that with thieves, can you? Well, I suppose you could form a gang and beat up the thieves, but that's restricted to just those of us who are physically and mentally capable of it. 90 year old blind grandmothers could take down the government, if you got enough of them together in one spot on election day.

[Darth Rotor]

Let me phrase it as a question. If you really think that taxing and spending lowers the cost of goods and services, then why not apply that to every single good and service in the whole economy? (I.E. full on socialism)
When your IQ hits 60, sell.

DR

[luchog]

And the lack of good roads made traveling in winter all but impossible, sewage was allowed to simply run into the nearest river/lake that people also drank from. Coal was burned unchecked to power heavy industry, covering everything for miles around in a thick coat of soot. Etc etc., the good old days!

Roads can be funded by user fees, no taxes necessary. Sewers are not funded by taxes, at least here where I live, they're funded by user fees.

[Loss Leader]

Roads can be funded by user fees, no taxes necessary. Sewers are not funded by taxes, at least here where I live, they're funded by user fees.

First of all, highways can be funded by user fees through tolls. Your basic city streets, however, probably can't be made to be toll roads.

In any case, those user fees are taxes, they're just use taxes. But they also are somewhat regresive and maybe not entirely fair. I'll give you an example. John and Jane need to get to work at the same office building from their homes by traveling down toll road I-99. John is the CEO of the company and makes twenty million a year. He drives his hundred thousand dollar sports car down I-99 and pays the $1.00 toll. Jane works in the cafeteria and makes $20,000.00 per year. She drives a '78 Chevy Nova down the same road and pays the same $1.00 toll.

They have both used the road equally and both supported the road with the same dollar. But have they paid equally? John paid 1/20,000,000 of his yearly salary but Jane paid one thousand times as much of her salary, 1/20,000. Not only that but since there's a minimum that must be spent on food, rent, gas, etc. to stay alive, Jane has far less disposable income (if any) than John. That dollar for the toll is a dollar less she has for necessities. The use tax in this instance may be seen as regressive.

So, what is fair?