Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Classically Liberal wrote: The government steals about 25% of my income before my bills are paid...

No matter how hard you try, two wrongs won't make a right...

On top of that, you're taking about taking away nearly half of all money going into companies. That means that for every dollar that company receives, 40 cents of that is going to the government. What would happen then, is that companies would start charging 40% more on all products and services to compensate for that. So while you're getting your 25% back, you're going to have to pay 40% more on anything you spend that money on. In reality, you're spending 15% more money than you would otherwise.

[SouthernComfort]

LostSoul3412 wrote: SouthernComfort wrote: Sorry I'm not familiar with what you mean by privatization. Do you mean donation or they will need to fund themselves?

Both.

SouthernComfort wrote: Government is always necessary in any organization of people. There has do be an order, people with certain responsabilities and roles. Without that there would be complete chaos with no law and order.

A different issue for a different thread, I'm afraid.

To add to my least the military would cease to exist. They cannot fund themselves.

[Kindred]

A lot of the debate about the role of government hinges on how you conceptualise property. I believe property is a social convention, created by society, it is most properly a relationship between people with relation to objects. If property is a convention created through contractual yet implicit agreements, then a different set of rules regarding what can rightfully be done to property arise.

Contemplate your values and decide, which you do you pay more credence? Human life and welfare, or property?

[LeopardPM]

humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

[Kindred]

LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Humans are property insofar as it serves the utility of a particular ideology. You believe humans are property because it establishes a foundation that the rest of your political philosophy rests upon, but I do not agree with the Lockean belief that humans are property per se.

Private property is an idea, a notion, a convention, a social construction prevalent in western societies, but certainly not common among all, nor even most throughout documented history. In saying that 'humans are property' you are actually saying very little. What you are essentially saying is that you believe in the idea of property, and within that epistemological realm, you place humans within the category of 'property'. You saying 'I am property' is not something I would contend to be inherently wrong, but equally, it is not something I find to be inherently correct, nor even convincingly so. It is correct according to a set of assumption which are relative to societies.

Calling yourself property seems to be the beginning of the moral philosophy of ownership etc. but it rests upon several assumptions which precede it, such as the assumption that property its self is absolute, which it is not; or the assumption that property is not a distinctly human idea i.e. it’s a ‘natural law’ . If I believe property is a socially mediated and invented convention or institution, then the belief that I am property is also simply the extension of that institution.

[cap'n queasy]

A flat tax is the only morally equitable way to tax people.

[cap'n queasy]

Kindred wrote: LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Humans are property insofar as it serves the utility of a particular ideology. You believe humans are property because it establishes a foundation that the rest of your political philosophy rests upon, but I do not agree with the Lockean belief that humans are property per se.

Private property is an idea, a notion, a convention, a social construction prevalent in western societies, but certainly not common among all, nor even most throughout documented history. In saying that 'humans are property' you are actually saying very little. What you are essentially saying is that you believe in the idea of property, and within that epistemological realm, you place humans within the category of 'property'. You saying 'I am property' is not something I would contend to be inherently wrong, but equally, it is not something I find to be inherently correct, nor even convincingly so. It is correct according to a set of assumption which are relative to societies.

Calling yourself property seems to be the beginning of the moral philosophy of ownership etc. but it rests upon several assumptions which precede it, such as the assumption that property its self is absolute, which it is not; or the assumption that property is not a distinctly human idea i.e. it’s a ‘natural law’ . If I believe property is a socially mediated and invented convention or institution, then the belief that I am property is also simply the extension of that institution.

Resurrection! :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

Kindred wrote: LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Humans are property insofar as it serves the utility of a particular ideology. You believe humans are property because it establishes a foundation that the rest of your political philosophy rests upon, but I do not agree with the Lockean belief that humans are property per se.

Private property is an idea, a notion, a convention, a social construction prevalent in western societies, but certainly not common among all, nor even most throughout documented history. In saying that 'humans are property' you are actually saying very little. What you are essentially saying is that you believe in the idea of property, and within that epistemological realm, you place humans within the category of 'property'. You saying 'I am property' is not something I would contend to be inherently wrong, but equally, it is not something I find to be inherently correct, nor even convincingly so. It is correct according to a set of assumption which are relative to societies.

Calling yourself property seems to be the beginning of the moral philosophy of ownership etc. but it rests upon several assumptions which precede it, such as the assumption that property its self is absolute, which it is not; or the assumption that property is not a distinctly human idea i.e. it’s a ‘natural law’ . If I believe property is a socially mediated and invented convention or institution, then the belief that I am property is also simply the extension of that institution.

Animals have territory.
Is that an "invented convention"? Is it "socially meditated"?

Monetary exchange for property rights is merely a civilized and intelligent way to adjudicate something that exists naturally.

I guess we could just fight for territory and mates, like animals do, eh?

[gavnook]

Classically Liberal wrote: Quicksurf wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

So everyone has all their money and nothing to spend it on. :?

I really do not see how this would cause any deflation or put any healthy company under.

Because they have to give 40% of their profits to the government.

Correction; I said 40% of corporate gross income. If there is some restructuring of the socialist monstrosities that will only be a good thing. Keep in mind, I am advocating 0% taxes on individual businesses and partnerships.

What about joint stock companies, trusts, and other business arrangements?

[gavnook]

SouthernComfort wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: SouthernComfort wrote: No taxes? How would things like Libraries, public schools, hospitals, fire sations and police manage to survive?

Privatization.

SouthernComfort wrote: How would government officials be paid? I know that alot of the things our tax money goes to are unnecessary, but no taxes is a bit extreme. A government needs taxes in order to operate.

Why do you need government? (Philosophically speaking. In current politics I am a Libertarian, but philosophically I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.)


Sorry I'm not familiar with what you mean by privatization. Do you mean donation or they will need to fund themselves? Government is always necessary in any organization of people. There has do be an order, people with certain responsabilities and roles. Without that there would be complete chaos with no law and order.

There's nothing quite like a 2 second civics class to put us anarchist types in our place. :-D

[MajorWoody]

Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that lead to a mass exodus of companies to other countries?

I thought most US citizens disagreed with outsourcing?

On to the topic, I support a flat sales tax, i.e. the FairTax. It is a tax that is levied equally among all but also retains the ability to be progressive thanks to the prebate.


Major

[Iriemon]

Quicksurf wrote: Would you support a flat tax for all economic classes?

I would. I see no reason why someone who makes 500,000 a year have to pay a higher tax percentage that someone who makes 15,000 a year.

It seems like we have a thread on this every other week.

IMO, a flat tax is wrong because the wealthier can afford to pay more. A 25% tax on someone raising a couple kids on $15,000 is a crushing burden that deprives the family of necessities. A 40% tax on a guy making a million means he has to buy a little smaller yacht.

[Iriemon]

Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

If you mean gross revenues -- ie a national sales tax, there are some arguments in favor of that, and most European countries use that form of tax. I could support that if there were some progressive tax structures coupled with it. Though a 40% tax on that would be way too high.

If you mean income = revenues - expenditures, a 40% tax on that doesn't come close to meeting current Govt expenditures. Gross corporate income is in the $1 trillion range; a 40% tax would yield $400 billion -- not a 1/6 of what the Govt needs.

[bob.appleyard]

Earned income should not be taxed.

[Iriemon]

Gatz Nieblas wrote: Quicksurf wrote: Would you support a flat tax for all economic classes?

I would. I see no reason why someone who makes 500,000 a year have to pay a higher tax percentage that someone who makes 15,000 a year.

The flat tax is needed more than ever to spur economic activity and simplify a leviathan of a tax code that is 9.2 billion words long(longer than the bible, declaration of independence, constitiution, and gettysburg address combined). In fact, the current system is so large and erroneous that IRS agents and experts get information wrong concerning the tax code 25% of the time! and the taxpayer is held accountable.

I agree 100% that the tax code is too complicated with too many loopholes. But that has nothing to do with a flat tax. The tax code could be simplified with a progressive tax.

A flat tax would not spur economic activity any more than a progressive tax.

Quote: On top of that, billions upon billions are spent by individuals and corporations just to prepare for the income tax. The flat tax would be the size of a postcard an the proposed plan of Steve Forbes allows the taxpayer to have a choice between a flat tax and the current system.

Same issue. Simplification of the tax code has nothing to do with a flat tax. You could have a progressive tax on the post card just as easily.

The money spent by corporations has nothing to do with the income tax rate. IMO corporate taxes should be eliminated.

Quote: The flat tax (which i support of a pure 10% rate) is a tax cut for the wealthy, productive members of society, thus expanding overall prosperity via jobs and production. Also, the billions of dollars going toward preparation of this system would be dispersed into the economy, thus making a simplified system and a pro-business atmosphere when it comes to revenue raising for the government.

Given current levels of Govt expenditures, the flat tax would have to be about 25% -- without any loopholes exemptions or rebates.

A flat tax would have the effect of transferring a big chunk of the tax burden from the wealthiest to the poorest.

[bob.appleyard]

LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Ah, so slavery is justified then?

[LostSoul3412]

LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

[LeopardPM]

bob.appleyard wrote: LeopardPM wrote: humans ARE property - self-owned and homesteaded.

Ah, so slavery is justified then?

you must have missed the 'self-owned' part...

[Classically Liberal]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: The government steals about 25% of my income before my bills are paid...

No matter how hard you try, two wrongs won't make a right...

On top of that, you're taking about taking away nearly half of all money going into companies. That means that for every dollar that company receives, 40 cents of that is going to the government. What would happen then, is that companies would start charging 40% more on all products and services to compensate for that. So while you're getting your 25% back, you're going to have to pay 40% more on anything you spend that money on. In reality, you're spending 15% more money than you would otherwise.

That is simply not true. Corporations will not be able to drastically increase prices for two reason. First, because there will be no taxes on privately held business which will provide an anchor for most goods and services. Secondly, there will be less "noise" confounding market interaction, because individuals will not have to account taxes into their spending equations.

[Classically Liberal]

MajorWoody wrote: Classically Liberal wrote: I support a flat tax in a round about way...

TAX SOCIALISM. I support a 40% tax on corporate gross income coupled with a 0% flat tax on all individuals of all classes.

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that lead to a mass exodus of companies to other countries?

I thought most US citizens disagreed with outsourcing?

On to the topic, I support a flat sales tax, i.e. the FairTax. It is a tax that is levied equally among all but also retains the ability to be progressive thanks to the prebate.


Major

No. This tax would be on all corporate income generated in the United States. A corporation based in France would pay it on any money made within our borders. There will be no where to go if a corporation wants to do in business in this country.