Don't we need higher taxes nowadays?

[moustache]

Quote by: Lou Minotti What are you talking about? I make much less then $35,000 per year and pay much more then $10 per year. MUCH more. What makes "perfect sense" here?

Im talking about the tax proposed at the beggening of this thread... if you make under 40,000 then you pay 10 dollars....

[Leopard]

Quote by: Zeebadee You seem to laboring under the assumption that just because a person is rich he's more productive.

untrue. 'wealth' (or being 'rich') is a definition of total capital stock a person may have (and on a personal scale, it can easily be reflective of things non-monetary like love or leisure, etc). Productivity is directly tied to the value of his/her labor. Productivity therefore is directly related to income, not wealth. Wealth can be had due to savings of income or asset accumulation, in addition to gifts/charity/inheritance.

There are many ways to be rich without providing any productivity at all.

I don't deny this obvious fact, why do you bring it up? There is one definite way to become rich(monetarily) which is under the control of each individual - increase their capital skills/talents/knowledge in a manner which entrepenuers suggest (if they theyselves do not have decent entrepenuerial skills) and then sell their labor and restrict their consumption. Its rather easy to become 'rich - if people really thought it was worth the effort. Most people do not, but they still want the benefits of being rich...

And anybody that believes that "our rights, which are equal", that rich and poor are treated alike by society, the legal system, or any other scale you choose to apply really is a schmuck.

if the government is allowed to have discriminatory powers in regard to its recognition of rights, then THAT is the place to focus change. Restrict government from trampling the natural rights of humans (which are equal) will go a long way to fixing the problems that exist in our country. Now, if you are talking about 'society' as in social trends and fads and perceptions, of course you cannot change these things - the rich person will tend to be sought after by mates more so than the poor person. But that is in no way a violation of 'rights'.

and... anybody who does not take a detailed look at what is actually going on with our political system, but still feels they have some sort of valid opinion and express this opinion in a manner to violate the rights of others (steal their property, ie: tax the rich, give to the poor), is much more than a schmuck, they are a criminal.

Nice to meet ya!

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Leopard I don't deny this obvious fact, why do you bring it up?

I brought it up because you implied that 'those that can afford the best' are somehow more productive than those that can't. I was merely pointing out that that's not necessarily true.

"Why do you say that 'those that can afford the best' ought to pay for those schmucks that can only manage to scrape by? Do the productive people have some obligation to take care of unproductive people? ."


[quote=Leopard]if the government is allowed to have discriminatory powers in regard to its recognition of rights, then THAT is the place to focus change. Restrict government from trampling the natural rights of humans (which are equal) will go a long way to fixing the problems that exist in our country. Now, if you are talking about 'society' as in social trends and fads and perceptions, of course you cannot change these things - the rich person will tend to be sought after by mates more so than the poor person. But that is in no way a violation of 'rights'.[/QUOTE=Leopard]

Take a look at our legal system. Those with money have an entirely different legal system than those that don't, whether you want to admit it or not. Schools, health care, living conditions, all are better for those that can afford them, whether that affluence is earned, productive, or anything else you want to call it.

[quote=Leopard]and... anybody who does not take a detailed look at what is actually going on with our political system, but still feels they have some sort of valid opinion and express this opinion in a manner to violate the rights of others (steal their property, ie: tax the rich, give to the poor), is much more than a schmuck, they are a criminal.[/QUOTE=Leopard]

Are you implying that taxing people is stealing? I never said to "tax the rich, give it to the poor", I just pointed out that those in a position to benefit more from this society because of their affluence ought to be willing to pay more for it. If you're going to claim that we all benefit equally in today's society, I respectfully disagree with you.

Nice to meet you too!

[Leopard]

Question #1: Is there something inherently wrong with one person being able to afford to eat steak, and another only being able to afford beans?

Schools, health care, living conditions, all are better for those that can afford them, whether that affluence is earned, productive, or anything else you want to call it.

all these things are commodities, things that can be had by anyone if that person labors hard enough, or is lucky enough, to gather enouth money to pay for them. Each of these are the same as the above 'steak' and 'beans' question above.

Question #2: As long as the wealth that a person owns is not stolen from others, or somehow gotten in an illegal manner, do you think they have an obligation to others who have less wealth to help provide for them?

Question #2a: Should a lottery winner divide up his winnings with all the other players that did not win?

I brought it up because you implied that 'those that can afford the best' are somehow more productive than those that can't. I was merely pointing out that that's not necessarily true.

of course it ain't always true, but it does tend to be more true than not - generally a person that has made 'good' choices, like continuing their education, like eating healthy, like abstaining from destructive behaviors, like restricting their consumption (saving), like working hard, etc... that person will be, more than likely, better off than the other who doesn't choose likewise. It is an apt generalization to say " that 'those that can afford the best' are somehow more productive"... of course there are exceptions, on both sides, but it does reflect the average and majority.

I never said to "tax the rich, give it to the poor" ....

ought to pay for those schmucks that can only manage to scrape by'

sorry, when I hear someone say 'ought to', I automatically think that they are intent on making some law to enforce this vision of theirs. If you were just implying that they have some social, but NOT legal, obligation, then fine. I have no problem with this 'stingy' person being called names, or trying to persuade them to donate or whatever, I just draw the line at forcing them either by taxation, or other equally immoral methods.

I just pointed out that those in a position to benefit more from this society because of their affluence ought to be willing to pay more for it.

What benefits are you talking about? Does the receipt of these benefits imply a legal obligation? For instance, my neighbors 'benefit' from me taking good care of my house and yard. Increases their potential resale value of their own home. But I have NO leg to stand on in asking them to reimburse me in any manner.

If you're going to claim that we all benefit equally in today's society, I respectfully disagree with you.

life is not equal or fair. The ONLY thing that is 'equal' are that we are all humans. And as humans, we each have a few basic natural rights: Not to be murdered or otherwise aggressed against, not to be stolen from, not to be frauded. Most importantly, we all have the basic right to own property (land, toys, money, food, etc). Beyond these, nothing is equal. We were born with different talents, IQ's, looks, personalities, etc. add to this the fact that we all grow up in relatively different environments and influences from parents to family wealth to religious beliefs, etc. And so, we will all have differnt lives including material levels of wealth, ability to attract mates, ability to earn money, ability to write poetry, etc... It is wrong to try to equalize these natural differences by violating a persons rights is all I am trying to make plain.

[Pale RIder]

I am ok with paying more taxes, but you have to eliminate the waste in government first. Oh, wait a minute!! If we eliminated the waste in government, we could cut our taxes by 50% and still see a net 25% increase in the money that could be spent on programs and infrastructure.

It is completely pointless to pay more money into a system that wastes 75% of everything it gets fueling an ever growing bureaucracy.

[ibm]

Quote by: Leopard ...What are taxes anyways? Supposedly they are an effort to collect from citizens the cost of their government which protects them and their rights and perhaps provides some services. So, since we all supposedly are protected equally, then we should all pay equally. Take the population, divide it into the government budget, and that is the cost to each citizen for the protection of government. I think it comes to about $10k per year per adult person. If you don't pay, then you get exported until you do. Now THAT is a truely fair tax, its commonly called a head tax.

you're kidding, right?

"So, since we all supposedly are protected equally, then we should all pay equally." - change the word "since" to "if", then it may make some sense. the resources a rich requires and consumes, is never equal to or close to those does a poor or homeless/income-less, incl. the cost of "protection" and "service" from our government.

"If you don't pay, then you get exported until you do." - what did you mean by "exported"? that we ship them out on a container ship since they don't belong or can not afford this country?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Leopard "Quote: ought to pay for those schmucks that can only manage to scrape by'" sorry, when I hear someone say 'ought to', I automatically think that they are intent on making some law to enforce this vision of theirs. If you were just implying that they have some social, but NOT legal, obligation, then fine. I have no problem with this 'stingy' person being called names, or trying to persuade them to donate or whatever, I just draw the line at forcing them either by taxation, or other equally immoral methods.

Sorry, but you're quoting yourself here (post #52). I never said that, did I? If you want to quote yourself, that's fine. Just give it the proper attribution.

Quote by: Leopard What benefits are you talking about? Does the receipt of these benefits imply a legal obligation? For instance, my neighbors 'benefit' from me taking good care of my house and yard. Increases their potential resale value of their own home. But I have NO leg to stand on in asking them to reimburse me in any manner.

I believe I have already covered that. You choose to call them commodities. Yes, your neighbors benefit from you taking good care of your house. But if your house is worth much more than theirs, you benefit a lot more from them taking good care of theirs. Simply a case of wealthy people benefitting more from society than others.

Quote by: Leopard life is not equal or fair.

I'm glad you understand that. I'm sorry you can't seem to apply that knowledge to the current tax structure.

[Leopard]

So, since we all supposedly are protected equally, then we should all pay equally." - change the word "since" to "if", then it may make some sense.

the word supposedly in that sentence functions the same, no need to alter. According to the Declaration and the Constitution, we all have equal rights. The fact that these days neither document is adhered to is the problem.

the resources a rich requires and consumes, is never equal to or close to those does a poor or homeless/income-less, incl. the cost of "protection" and "service" from our government.

I am talking about rights violations - the government is 'supposed' to protect the life and property of every person, independent of material possessions of either. I would say that additional protection, if desired, could be purchased by anyone who wanted. For instance, the police do not really serve to 'protect', they function mostly as an enforcement agency AFTER violations have occurred. They are not preventative. So, those folks who desire any sort of preventative protection can and do hire out private agencies (security guards, bodyguards, home security services, gated communities, etc) to provide the additional protection of whatever assests they deem valuable. But, as far as government is concerned, it is the actual infringement of rights violations which is 'supposed' to be equally protected: it is EQUALLY illegal to murder a homeless man, as it is a rich man, or woman, or citizen of non-caucasion lineage, or whatever... ALL citizens are equally afforded this protection.

What does it matter how much property or resources any particular citizen owns? Are you suggesting that the person who owns 2 bicycles is being afforded more protection compared to the person who owns one?

"If you don't pay, then you get exported until you do." - what did you mean by "exported"? that we ship them out on a container ship since they don't belong or can not afford this country?

It does not have to be inhumane, or even an actual 'export' - they could be immigrated to the country of their choice, as long as that country agreed. An alternative would be to just deny further governmental services to these folks: no access to public areas including roads, no welfare, no government medical, no use of the government police or fire services, etc. Also these folks would have their citizenship suspended until the time that they paid their obligation which means they would not be eligible to vote or run for public office.

Yes, it does indeed sound extreme, but, it is ultimately 'fair' - in respect to government costs and services to each citizen.

[cheesenuggett]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel End the wars, fire the recruiters, cut pentagon budget in half. Tax the rich. End the slavery of an unfair minimum wage.

yesssssss


just imagine the good an extra 10, 20, or 30 dollars could achieve for schools?

[Leopard]

Wrong, Zeebadee, I was not the one who brought up the phrase 'ought to', this is from your original post #50:

Quote by: Zeebadee Everything costs money in this society, those that can afford the best maybe ought to pay a bit more than us schmucks barely scraping by.

THAT is what I was talking about. Why do you now deny what is plainly seen in previous posts? I must assume that you forgot.

I believe I have already covered that. You choose to call them commodities. Yes, your neighbors benefit from you taking good care of your house. But if your house is worth much more than theirs, you benefit a lot more from them taking good care of theirs. Simply a case of wealthy people benefitting more from society than others.

you failed to answer my question: What benefits are you talking about? What are these vague 'benefits from society'?

Quote by: Zeebadee Quote by: Leopard life is not equal or fair. I'm glad you understand that. I'm sorry you can't seem to apply that knowledge to the current tax structure.

But I am. I am stating that each and every human has a right to their life (not be murdered or be aggressed against which includes theft, coercion, and fraud). This is what our original documents talk about and acknowledge. Since we are each human, with each of us having these 'rights', and that the government is 'supposed' to serve to protect these rights, then the cost of government should be directly and equally born by each citizen.

Humans are not physically equal, tall , short, etc. That is not what I am talking about. Humans are equal in that they are all human and being human conveys some basic natural rights. It is in respect to this equality that I am discussing.

[Leopard]

Quote by: cheesenuggett yesssssss just imagine the good an extra 10, 20, or 30 dollars could achieve for schools?

oh, I don't have to imagine. We already have a history of increasing money to the governmental education institution and receiving the 'benefit' of a decreasing quality of education for our children. The reason is fundamental: it is a government institution, set up with the express and public statement of NOT providing education, but of sucking out the individuality and creativity of the children. Education is NOT the goal o schools, rather, it is homogenity with a dose of authoritarian worship thrown in.

[cheesenuggett]

Quote by: Leopard oh, I don't have to imagine. We already have a history of increasing money to the governmental education institution and receiving the 'benefit' of a decreasing quality of education for our children. The reason is fundamental: it is a government institution, set up with the express and public statement of NOT providing education, but of sucking out the individuality and creativity of the children. Education is NOT the goal o schools, rather, it is homogenity with a dose of authoritarian worship thrown in.

have you seen "the wall"?

it has a great message, individuality is sucked out of kids at schools

[Leopard]

yeah, 'The Wall' had alot of good messages, Pink Floyd was a great band in their commentary on alot of social problems.

[ibm]

Quote by: Leopard the word supposedly in that sentence functions the same, no need to alter. According to the Declaration and the Constitution, we all have equal rights. The fact that these days neither document is adhered to is the problem.

i agree.

Quote by: Leopard ... What does it matter how much property or resources any particular citizen owns? Are you suggesting that the person who owns 2 bicycles is being afforded more protection compared to the person who owns one?

in a sense, yes. imagine i have a multi-millionare next-door neighbor and he owns a number of vehicles including a hummer and corvette. i, on the other hand, can only afford a civic. you don't think the pollutants his cars emit into the air are of the same quantity of mine, do you? and since the hummer is much heavier than my civic, you don't suppose it costs the same damage to the roads and highways, do you? in addition, since his mansion is ten-times bigger than mine, the 5 extra a/c units are polluting the air more than the only one unit i have for my house. notice i'm not talking about the consumption of electricity here.

Quote by: Leopard It does not have to be inhumane, or even an actual 'export' - they could be immigrated to the country of their choice, as long as that country agreed. An alternative would be to just deny further governmental services to these folks: no access to public areas including roads, no welfare, no government medical, no use of the government police or fire services, etc. Also these folks would have their citizenship suspended until the time that they paid their obligation which means they would not be eligible to vote or run for public office. Yes, it does indeed sound extreme, but, it is ultimately 'fair' - in respect to government costs and services to each citizen.

extreme and fair don't usually co-exist. under your theory, how do you suggest we treat the homeless? "export" them to mexico? what if the mexicans don't agree to accept him? oh wait, they shouldn't even have access to the highways, how do you even "transport" them to mexico? and since they are not supposed to be protected by the police, maybe next time i see one, i can just shoot him as i please, 'cause nothing will ever occur to me, huh?

[Leopard]

in a sense, yes. imagine i have a multi-millionare next-door neighbor and he owns a number of vehicles including a hummer and corvette. i, on the other hand, can only afford a civic. you don't think the pollutants his cars emit into the air are of the same quantity of mine, do you? and since the hummer is much heavier than my civic, you don't suppose it costs the same damage to the roads and highways, do you? in addition, since his mansion is ten-times bigger than mine, the 5 extra a/c units are polluting the air more than the only one unit i have for my house. notice i'm not talking about the consumption of electricity here.

Pollution: This is an easily definable aggression against property and so is able to be addressed by the court system. If you dump particles in the air which land in my lungs and cause me to be harmed, then I most certainly can sue your butt. If you dump toxic waste into the ground, and it gets onto my property or into my water system then , again, I got a case.
Roads: The problem here is that roads are considered 'public'. If they were private then these problems would be taken care of.

under your theory, how do you suggest we treat the homeless?

um, whether or not one owns or rents a home makes no difference. If they desire to partake of government services and protections then they pay. Simple. It applies to everyone. Of course, some folks might get their money to pay from donations or whatever. The 'homeless' as well as anyone, are free to ask others for help and money.

oh wait, they shouldn't even have access to the highways, how do you even "transport" them to mexico?

I would gladly donate to pay for the access to whatever transportation was required to help deliver these folks to where ever they wanted. I am sure that I am not alone in this charitable help.

and since they are not supposed to be protected by the police, maybe next time i see one, i can just shoot him as i please, 'cause nothing will ever occur to me, huh?

THAT is the biggest problem, simply because it goes against the grain of the compassionate part of every human. I would venture to guess that most folks, if not all, would voluntarily donate to pay for a universal basic right against aggression protection for both citizens and non-citizens within our borders. I know that I would NOT have a problem donating to such a fund to insure that everyone who committed violence, no matter who the victim, were justly punished.

I got a question for you along those lines though: Do you think that the fear of prosecution decreases the amount of people that choose to commit violence? Is the only thing stopping you from murdering people, or stealing, or committing fraud the fact that there is some 'law' or punishment? I say that most all rights violations (true crime) is committed by folks who just plain have no respect of other peoples rights. The people who do respect other humans refrain from this awful activity, whether or not there are 'laws'.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: cheesenuggett yesssssss just imagine the good an extra 10, 20, or 30 dollars could achieve for schools?

Imagine if a school actually had to work and offer a product in order to turn a profit instead of just crying to the government and threatening the district with split shifts and other garbage if they don't simply receive more money.

[cheesenuggett]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Imagine if a school actually had to work and offer a product in order to turn a profit instead of just crying to the government and threatening the district with split shifts and other garbage if they don't simply receive more money.

how do you suppose tey make a product?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Leopard Wrong, Zeebadee, I was not the one who brought up the phrase 'ought to', this is from your original post #50: THAT is what I was talking about. Why do you now deny what is plainly seen in previous posts? I must assume that you forgot.

As usual, you assume wrong. You quoted me as saying, " ought to pay for those schmucks that can only manage to scrape by".

But that's not what I said, is it?? I said, "Everything costs money in this society, those that can afford the best maybe ought to pay a bit more than us schmucks barely scraping by." I must assume that you don't know what a quote is. You can't paraphrase someone and then claim that you're quoting them.

Quote by: Leopard you failed to answer my question: What benefits are you talking about? What are these vague 'benefits from society'?

Geez, I've answered this twice now. I've even told you where you referred to them as "commodities". You may disagree that they are benefits from society, but don't pretend that you don't know what I am talking about.

"Schools, health care, living conditions, all are better for those that can afford them, whether that affluence is earned, productive, or anything else you want to call it."

[Leopard]

how do you suppose they [schools] make a product?

Their 'product' is the service of providing an education. Just like when someone pays a piano tutor, or a financial advisor, or a therapist or counselor. And by letting the free market take on this task, the natural conclusion will be exactly what the consumers (parents) desire: lowest cost, quality education for their children. There would arise a variety of different educational and vocational systems that would come into being. All manner of different needs and desires would be met.

[Leopard]

As usual, you assume wrong. You quoted me as saying, " ought to pay for those schmucks that can only manage to scrape by". But that's not what I said, is it?? I said, "Everything costs money in this society, those that can afford the best maybe ought to pay a bit more than us schmucks barely scraping by." I must assume that you don't know what a quote is. You can't paraphrase someone and then claim that you're quoting them.

ok, so you are talking about the parts I left out, the 'a bit more' part... either way, you are saying that certain people should pay more than other people, in effect subsidizing them.

Geez, I've answered this twice now. I've even told you where you referred to them as "commodities". You may disagree that they are benefits from society, but don't pretend that you don't know what I am talking about. "Schools, health care, living conditions, all are better for those that can afford them, whether that affluence is earned, productive, or anything else you want to call it."

Society does not provide people with schools or education, government does. And these 'things' (being careful not to call them 'commodities' as the truth seems to offend you) can and have in the past been provided on the market. We have private teachers and tutors, all manner of different instructors that we freely choose to pay in order to be 'educated' by them. Same with healthcare, there is no reason why people should not pay directly the healthcare they desire - different levels of care carry different costs, these costs should be born by the healthcare consumer, not by other folks at the point of a gun. By putting healthcare back into the free market, we can be sure to garner all the benefits from competition and trade that are available. The results will naturally be an increased quality of service, a decreased cost, an increase to availability and a wide variety of levels of care. Healthcare and education do have specific and direct costs to provide differing types of product. If we are each responsible for payment and have the choice of type, then we can most effectively determine how to best structure our home finances and fit these into our value systems. Note: Some people care much less for their healthcare than perhaps other things in their lives, like enjoying a much needed vacation, or perhaps putting food on the table, or maybe helping out a family member in financial trouble... whatever the case is, we each are responsibile for our own health, education, housing, food, etc. It directly harms folks to force them to pay for a certain level of care, you steal a percentage of their labor and life and spend it in a manner they might not otherwise desire.

'Society' provides no benefits, only voluntarily trading and interacting with other people does. The only possible large-scale benefit which government provides that perhaps is not possible on the free market is: National Defense and Rights Protections. (I actually can pretty well defend even the privatizing of these things, but that is a discussion for another day - I am more than happy to return back to the point of constitutional enforcement)

What do you mean by 'living conditions'? and how does 'society' provide this 'thing'? I thought that we each purchase or rent the homes we live in - society does not provide me this, actual private citizens built and sold or rented my home to me, not my community or the government.