Don't we need higher taxes nowadays?

[FIFI]

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

It is not just how much schools need / get / demand, it is were the money is spent. In my old highschool we won a $3,000 school bonus for some shmucky thing or another, and instead of buying new text books (our history books stopped at the beginning of President Bush SR.'s reign!) or maybe a sports or arst fund, it went to a new plasma reader board in the cafiteria. Anyone else see a problem!!??!

[Zeebadee]

Like it or not, we live in a social environment (being careful not to call it a "society", as the truth seems to offend you). This environment provides certain benefits, as well as imposes costs on all of us. You can define those benefits and costs any way you want, but the social structure of this particular environment has seen fit to disagree with you on the subject of taxes. That's life!

[Leopard]

Quote by: FIFI ...and instead of buying new text books (our history books stopped at the beginning of President Bush SR.'s reign!)

Very interesting! This brings up a whole other level of problems which develop when the government gets involved: monopolistic merchantilism

I am in the printing business, and I know quite alot about printing and publishing. I found it pretty funny about how you said your history books 'stopped' at a certain date. Obviously, all history books, or even another books must stop at the point in time where they are written. BUT, this does not mean that they are worthless. For instance, those history books which only went so far as Pres. Bush Sr., keep them, but then each decade or even every year, publish a pamphlet which covers the time period up to the present from the end of the book, like supplements. This way you maximize the use of the previously printed material. BUT, since the entire educational book purchasing/publishing system is a major controlled market, innovations like this are cast aside without even any attempts at seeing if they are viable.

There would be plenty of opportunity for this and many other ideas to come to be tested within the free market.

Notice how the entire education system is stagnated? Everything from the desks to the chalkboards to the idea that it is good to yank a student from one subject to another at the ringing of a bell every hour or so? We still have a system which was developed in Prussia over 150 years ago! Of course it is failing to meet the needs of people today! Government does not innovate and resists change.

[Leopard]

Quote by: Zeebadee Like it or not, we live in a social environment (being careful not to call it a "society", as the truth seems to offend you). This environment provides certain benefits, as well as imposes costs on all of us.

I do not deny that a group of people can be called a 'society' - but it is a fallacy to then ascribe to each person in that group some 'average' or overall median. It is also wrong to say that 'society' provides something when actually that thing was provided by individual people, and would still be provided without your so-called society.

You can define those benefits and costs any way you want, but the social structure of this particular environment has seen fit to disagree with you on the subject of taxes. That's life!

Good thing that we have the ability to change the laws and repeal these 'benefits' and taxes. It is also possible to then prevent such awful institutions from coming into being through government in the future. All I advocate for is a return to following the Constitution.
Perhaps today the tax system is as you describe it, but don't you consider it worthy to fight and vote and talk to people about how immoral and harmful the current system is so that we all can join together and change it for the better? This is all I am doing, spreading the word of freedom (true freedom, not the 'freedom' that Pres Bush thinks can be bought at the point of a gun)

[ibm]

Quote by: Leopard Pollution: This is an easily definable aggression against property and so is able to be addressed by the court system. ... 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. ...

your response kinda amused me. i may not necessarily disagree with what you said, but you answered my questions by talking about others. for instance, in my example, i was obviously talking about the consumption of resources, including public protection and services, is not equal b/w different people. you answered with issues like polution.

and in your own response, by paying donation, you are in fact paying an extra "tax" that is beyond the head tax you've rationalized. ain't it so?

p.s., if every country does what what we're "supposed" to, i.e., "export" the homeless or those who cannot afford a head tax, what kind of a world you suppose it will be?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Leopard Perhaps today the tax system is as you describe it, but don't you consider it worthy to fight and vote and talk to people about how immoral and harmful the current system is so that we all can join together and change it for the better? This is all I am doing, spreading the word of freedom (true freedom, not the 'freedom' that Pres Bush thinks can be bought at the point of a gun)

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you think I'm going to work towards a tax system where I get to pay as much as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (although with the current loopholes, I may actually be paying more), you're totally bonkers. If you really want tax equality, then I suggest you pick out someone who's paying more than you are and match them, dollar for dollar. And it's not necessary for everyone to do the same, as your individual sense of Morality and Justice will be heightened no matter what the rest of the people do.

[Leopard]

Quote by: ibm your response kinda amused me. i may not necessarily disagree with what you said, but you answered my questions by talking about others. for instance, in my example, i was obviously talking about the consumption of resources, including public protection and services, is not equal b/w different people. you answered with issues like polution.

Glad I could amuse you!

I am sorry that I missed the gist of what you were saying, I thought you had brought up pollution a couple of times (like the example of 5 AC units for a mansion, etc).

First, your phrase 'consumption of resources' is dot the correct term to use when describing 'public protection and services' - a more accurate phrase might be 'consumption of services'. Resources can easily imply natural resources and other things. anyways...regarding consumption of protection and public services, yes, some folks will draw upon these more than others - non-drivers use the roads less than others, truckers use roads much more, theives impose a cost upon the justice system whereas a regular non-law breaking citizen does not, it costs money to warehouse criminals (prisons). Many other examples can be made of what you describe. I am saying that each of these things, if done in the free market, would then most accurately impose the cost on the actual users, with heavier users paying more. No problem with that.

and in your own response, by paying donation, you are in fact paying an extra "tax" that is beyond the head tax you've rationalized. ain't it so?

no. a 'tax' is not voluntary. The fact that the amount may be the same does not link them as having the same characteristics. I cannot elect to NOT pay a tax if I feel that the services received are not worth the amount taxed. With a voluntary donation or a free market transaction, I do indeed have the ability to stop paying for an unwanted or unvalued service.

p.s., if every country does what what we're "supposed" to, i.e., "export" the homeless or those who cannot afford a head tax, what kind of a world you suppose it will be?

like I said, 'export' is not the only option, there is also denial of services.

I think it is important to look at government as we would any other service provider. It does, in fact, provide services. The difference when compared to other service providers is that the government does not have an incentive to provide the quantity/quality of service as does a private business.

[Leopard]

Quote by: Zeebadee Sorry to disappoint you, but if you think I'm going to work towards a tax system where I get to pay as much as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (although with the current loopholes, I may actually be paying more), you're totally bonkers.

perhaps I am. Then again, I don't see how you, as a human, have any more or less rights compared to Mr. Gates or Mr. Buffet

If you really want tax equality, then I suggest you pick out someone who's paying more than you are and match them, dollar for dollar.

oh, trust me, I do this exact thing almost, except I choose to pick someone who is paying LESS than me. It is not in my interest to pay more than necessary.

And it's not necessary for everyone to do the same, as your individual sense of Morality and Justice will be heightened no matter what the rest of the people do.

don't know what you are saying here, but... ok!

[ibm]

Quote by: Leopard ... I am saying that each of these things, if done in the free market, would then most accurately impose the cost on the actual users, with heavier users paying more. No problem with that.

true, but only on paper. there was not, is not, and will not be, a true and 100% free market.

Quote by: Leopard like I said, 'export' is not the only option, there is also denial of services.

i'd put "export" as a non-option, if you can't answer my questions on this. but "denial of services"? now are you saying those who cannot afford a head tax should not have access to anything that is funded by tax moneies, such as public schools and libraries and even highways? so what do we do, when seeing a homeless under the bridge of a highway (probably asking money from people)? how do we or how does himself deny the access? or shall we pay some donations and send him off?

Quote by: Leopard I think it is important to look at government as we would any other service provider. It does, in fact, provide services. The difference when compared to other service providers is that the government does not have an incentive to provide the quantity/quality of service as does a private business.

government also has functions that point outward, like waging a war on iraq, or funding programs such as going to the mars. how do we fund those via the head tax? 10k per i'm afraid is not enough.

[BaldEagle]

I would tend to agree with you if the government actually stayed in line with the mandate they have. The phrase, Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, has been turned completely around. It seems we Provide for the general welfare and promote the common defense. If done as intended we would have plenty of money without raising taxes.

[Leopard]

true, but only on paper. there was not, is not, and will not be, a true and 100% free market.

why not?

government also has functions that point outward, like waging a war on iraq, or funding programs such as going to the mars. how do we fund those via the head tax? 10k per i'm afraid is not enough.

what is a 'pointing outward' function? Are these functions necessary? I don't see any reason that the government should do anything beyond protecting the borders of its country. Especially invading other countries or venturing out into space. As long as every citizen is not restrained from attempting to go spaceward or prevented from exiting the country in the case of voluntarily helping others in times of war/revolution then the market will be allow to operate: when it becomes necessary or desireable then people will 'go to mars', if people want to go participate in some war somewhere then they are free to do so without the entirety of the nation being targetted for retribution. 10K per each adult would cover the current budget which INCLUDES the war in iraq and NASA, so I don't understand why you say it is not enough.

but "denial of services"? now are you saying those who cannot afford a head tax should not have access to anything that is funded by tax moneies, such as public schools and libraries and even highways?

well, yes. But first thing is that schools and libraries should not be government institutions anyways.

so what do we do, when seeing a homeless under the bridge of a highway (probably asking money from people)?

I would imagine if such a system as 'Denial of Service' would come into being, there would probably arise some charitable institution that might provide some basic services to those who cannot afford the government ones. This might even include housing to a degree and maybe minimal medical care and food.

[ibm]

Quote by: Leopard ...I would imagine if such a system as 'Denial of Service' would come into being, there would probably arise some charitable institution that might provide some basic services to those who cannot afford the government ones. This might even include housing to a degree and maybe minimal medical care and food.

then the charitable contribution becomes additional taxes on top of the head tax. as an individual you may be able to choose do or not do, but as a whole the society has to come with some form of additional taxes.

btw, i can see many merits in your argument, so i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you at times.

[Leopard]

then the charitable contribution becomes additional taxes on top of the head tax. as an individual you may be able to choose do or not do, but as a whole the society has to come with some form of additional taxes.

this is one of the errors about talking about 'society' - it is NOT a living entity, it is an abstract label used to define a certain group. Society does not pay a tax, society cannot be harmed, society does not die. When you try to start making policy based on these abstractions without taking a look at the individuals then many errors will be made. Just as is seen by your calling 'voluntary donations' some sort of tax, this sort of error happens all the time when folks use a label and attribute to it some sort of personhood. By definition, a donation is NOT a tax, no matter how you look at it. To claim such is the same as calling the purchase of food a 'food tax' or the purchase of anything. Taxes are backed by the use of force, donations are not.

btw, i can see many merits in your argument, so i'm not necessarily disagreeing with you at times.

I understand and appreciate your position. What is important is that we are discussing possibilities, figuring out problems, and logically determining what defines an ethical and moral government. What, if any, restrictions should be placed on the power of government over our lives. What concerns me most in this country today is the complete misunderstanding of fundamental economic facts and how these misunderstandings then get translated into law which ultimately harms and may even destroy the essence of what brought great prosperity to this incredible test of self-governance called 'america'.

I hate it when people quote other dead people, so usually I refrain from doing so... BUT, I do like this one as I think it most appropriate:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. -- Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler

[ibm]

leopard, above everything we’ve agreed or disagreed here on this topic, i think it’s fairly safe for me to say that a “head tax” idea is apparently irrational and impractical.

you acknowledge that members of a society are not equal, meaning we don’t have same intel and physical abilities, our background and upbringing and fortunes are different. so when it comes to taxation, why not make a same distinction? in reality, we have the rich and the poor, we have the mid-class, we have seniors and juniors, we have handicapped citizens, etc. why should a say 70-year-old, who has worked hard his entire life and is now living on his pension (if he’s got one) and social security money and has an income of 25,000 per year, pay the same amount of tax (the 10k you’ve suggested) that say bill gates pays?

irrational, counter-intuitive, and impractical is all i can say.

eom.

[Leopard]

you acknowledge that members of a society are not equal, meaning we don’t have same intel and physical abilities, our background and upbringing and fortunes are different. so when it comes to taxation, why not make a same distinction? in reality, we have the rich and the poor, we have the mid-class, we have seniors and juniors, we have handicapped citizens, etc. why should a say 70-year-old, who has worked hard his entire life and is now living on his pension (if he’s got one) and social security money and has an income of 25,000 per year, pay the same amount of tax (the 10k you’ve suggested) that say bill gates pays?

I acknowledge that people are indeed 'unequal' in talent or ability, but the government has nothing to do with that. Taxation is for governmental protection of RIGHTS, including the Right to be secure in person and property from foreign intervention (National Defense). Since these rights as alluded to in the Constitution ARE equal, then that is where the equality of taxation is based. In 'theory', we each have the same 'right' to not be murdered, to not be cheated, to be secure in our property and possessions (Right to Property ownership). I agree that in the convoluted system of government we have today, 'rights' are respected in an unequal manner. THIS is a separate issue! It definitely needs to be addressed! But, as long as we are claiming that the Constitution is the 'Law of the land' then a head tax is more than prudent and reasonable. In fact, it is the only just way of collecting the taxes for equal services.

In practice, since most people, in fact almost all people, do not receive governmental services in value equivalent to the amount of the head tax, then we would see an almost immediate trimming down of government size and spending. This reduction of government services (which is actually a drag on the economy) would then be taken up by various businesses and institutions on the free market: for instance, the post office would be abolished and private companies would take over the delivery of 1st class mail. Now, only those folks who used the mail would pay the cost to do so instead of mail service being subsidized but the population at large through taxation. Same thing would happen with education, social security, medical care, and a whole host of other governmental programs including a reduction in military size.

In the end, I would guess that the head tax would be more like $1k - $3k, Which is way more palettable to each citizen. Of course, all services which the government once provided would have to be purchased as each person saw fit on the market, but, for the most part, these services would be cheaper and be of better quality than the government ones they replaced.

and there would be NO way that people/businesses in any other country which imposed itself upon its citizens (social democracys, mixed economies, etc) could compete with those in our country - no more worries about China, or Mexico, or so-called 'out-sourcing', or whatever. Without the yoke of government we would ALL (productive and unproductive) rise with the tide of the free market.

end rant,
michael