Taxing income

[Leopard]

Originally posted by bishop, what if the wage is imposed, rather than agreed to?

please explain how a wage is 'imposed' without the use of force? Are you suggesting you did not have the choice of finding work elsewhere or working for yourself?

i've experienced this scenario more often than not - i'm also young, so the chances that i'd be exploited are much more likely than someone older/more experienced (experience is a debatable thing imo, experience without knowledge is moot).

I love that term, 'exploited' - if you felt you were being 'exploited' then why on earth did you stay? Why did you take the job in the first place? You had to have thought that it was your best alternative when compared to all your other avenues of generating income. Did the business somehow make all your other alternatives so bad that theirs was the 'least worst'? Or were your alternatives restricted by actions you had taken in the past or present? I would gather that you probably would not put yourself in such a position today.

there is no universal definition of what constitutes human rights. who's definition is the one we ought to use? china's? israel's? our's? germany's? our country is purported to be the leader in human rights, yet we show up as being one of the biggest violators of human rights. to some people they feel that the usage of mines violates human rights, but we're opposed to banning such weapons. the devil is in the details, and the details usually add strong grey areas to every absolutist argument. human rights do exist, as do most abstract ideas, on a spectrum.. some countries have better human rights than others, would you agree?

ah yes, relativism is a wonderful thing and obviously impossible to defeat as it is impossible to prove a negative. I know when I believed as you do, I was lost - was very hard to decide upon a course of action, was always second guessing myself. Don't know if that was just me, or if it applies to everyone with that belief. I won't debate you on this, suffice it to say that I do believe that the Theory of Original Appropriation and all that logically flows from it: the Right to Self-ownership, the Right to own Property, the Right to Homestead, the Right to Self-defense are the basis for my beliefs in Human Rights. You, of course, are free to believe otherwise and I will respect your beliefs as long as you do not use force against me...

I agree with your statements on abritration between a boss and worker.. my focus is more on the system itself, rather than on individuals. sometimes it simply isn't so easy for people to just pick up and move - especially when the job market is consistently weak (as it's been for the past 3 years now) and you have a family to feed. definitely a game of calculated risks, and when it comes to risking the lives of other people than yourself, i can understand how people would be hesitant.

it is true that it may not be easy for people to 'pick up and move' AND on the other side, it isn't easy to find good workers either. Geez! just finding one that will show up on time is a challenge these days! No wonder our economy is in the toilet. The fact is that I had no say in whether or not another person choose to have a family without making absolutely certain that they could provide for them or that his obligation to them would not limit his employment choices. It is easy for 'certain' people to move, if they have allowed for the possibility in their planning - this is another beef I have with our education system and the entire 'lack of responsibility' thing. We cannot control everything that happens to us, but we can definitely make preparations for at leaast some unforeseen events, the decision to not do so is entirely the responsibility of that person, as our any consequences which the decision may incur in the future.

no. people in the 70's realized that they were either going to stay in their dwindling blue collar jobs, or put themselves through school to give themselves a chance. having an education doesn't guarantee success (definitely not as much as being born into the right family), but for the overwhelming majority, it sure seems to help.

I did not say that education itself was a 'bad' choice - I was talking about the type of education pursued (and also the quality of such education). Sure, a college degree 'helps'. But only to a certain percentage? It does not guarantee AND is not the ONLY method of increasing one's chances for success - to believe that one can ONLY succeed through college is to be misinformed.

do you know what sort of education i am recieving? you should know before casting stones. thanks for the link, but i prefer the cato institute - lots more prominent faculty there.

I believe you mentioned you were getting an MBA - as far as the quality, I obviously do not know your particular case, and I took the liberty of making a hap-hazard guess based on a variety of sources I have read regarding public university education and the subjects taught within, including my own experiences at college. I did make assumptions here, for all I know you are absolutely recieving the best education available and you will have almost total, truthful, honest, perception of reality in the world the day you leave with your degree.

I appreciate the Cato Institute as well, but, they have begun to sluff off in favor of gaining more acceptance into the mainstream (explaining your prominent faculty statement). They are doing good work... unfortunately, I have diverged with them as I do not accept comprimise in certain circumstances. But I find it heartening that you do travel through the roads of freedom - congratulations!

likewise, people have starved because the elite have horded wealth for themselves. etc. etc.. your comments about what "will" happen are not bulletproof.

I would say an example of what you say here would be in countries where the 'king' or 'warlord' or 'dictator' or even 'president' horded such wealth, obtained with force from the people. Is this what you are referring to?

also, i've given money whenever i could to charities. i see bush's faith based charity initiative as a very good idea. however, i don't favor a world run entirely on charity.

I don't believe that humans could survive in a world based soley on 'charity' - thats mostly some uptopian dream, kind of a socialist one.

don't talk down to me. i've shown many an arrogant "elder" that they were not as superior as they believed themselves to be. spare me the ad hominem statements and i'll do the same..

I believe that you had made a comment about my not having a good grasp on the reality of business and the world in general - which I took as an insult, was just returning the favor - I will gladly respect you for your knowledge and accomplishments if you do the same - the businesses I have built, friends made, and relationships endured are all things I am proud of and refuse to let myself by insulted by someone who does not know about these things. I am sure you too feel this way about your life and achievements - successfully completing a college degree, in and of itself, does require persistence and a measure of diligence and discipline - congrats! now lets move on...

fyi, i'm also completely against deficit spending. i would support a constitutional amendment mandating balanced budgets if i had it my way. don't assume that you understand my ideology (that i'm a socialist sympathizer).

I must admit that this post of yours showed some sides of you which wwere hidden to me in your others - I am glad that you understand the dangers of deficit spending (and hopefully the immorality of it as well). I do fear that perhaps you put too much faith in that old document which seems to collect dust and not be bothered with at the discretion of the Judicial Branch, as well as the other two branches... once again, I love the term 'living constitution', another interesting aspect of relativism... oh well, next thing you know, it will become acceptable to brush away respect for human rights as long as the mod 'votes' on it.... oh wait, tell me it isn't so!

yours in freedom,
michael

[bishop]

this debate has gotten a bit too personal and tenuous for my liking.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by Leopard, I don't believe that humans could survive in a world based soley on 'charity' - thats mostly some uptopian dream, kind of a socialist one.

I would be suspicious of such a system, too. It isn't systematized enough for the complexity we face in the current world of private property and a cost for every service or item.

But, there was a working system a couple hundred years ago that was based on something other than private needs and wants. The ahupua'a system of pre-contact Hawaii. http://www.alternative-hawaii.com/hacul/history1.htm

The concept of land ownership was foreign to ancient Hawaiians. Under their holistic view of the world that incorporated all things from the ocean to the sea, no one owned the land. Instead the land was divided into ahupuaa, land sections that usually extended from the mountain summits down through fertile valleys to the outer edge of the reef in the sea (for example a large valley). The alii (chiefs) were stewards of the land and granted the makaainana (general populace) living in the ahupuaa use of the land's bounty for their livelihood. Headmen (konohiki) facilitated day to day operations with the assistance of specialists (luna). The ahupuaa formed a self-contained economic and social unit that effectively integrated the uses of its resources from dispersed ecological zones. Everyone living throughout the ahupuaa had access to all types of products and everyone was entitled to a share of what they produced from the soil or took from the sea. The system benefited the land because the ahupuaa was managed carefully, and thought of and cared for as a whole. Today, this ancient system is viewed by many as an excellent model of resource management. When Kamehameha the Great brought all the islands under his control, he had kept the traditional land system in existence. Now, with Cook's introduction of Hawaii to the Western World, a market economy began to emerge. Fur and sandalwood traders, merchants, whalers, and missionaries accustomed to owning land pressured the King, Kamehameha III, to change the ahupuaa system of land tenure and permit private ownership of land. The Great Mahele (land division) of 1848 instituted a system of private property ownership that ended the old land system. The new law divided Hawaii land among the Crown, the government, the alii (chiefs) and konohiki (headmen). Concern for the commoners' rights resulted in the Kuleana Act of 1850 which permitted land ownership by commoners who occupied and improved any portion of the lands controlled by the alii and konohiki. Additionally, Government Lands were made available for purchase by commoners and foreigners who did not have kuleana rights. Within decades, title to thousands of acres had fallen into the hands of non-Hawaiians. Even the Crown lands, owned by the King and his successors, were often sold or leased to foreigners in payment of debts or in exchange for foreign goods and supplies. When, in 1893, the Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown and Queen Liliuokalani was taken prisoner, the remaining Crown Lands were confiscated by the new government and made part of the public domain. Today, the overthrow of the queen and the confiscation of the lands are the foundation of the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement.

It was a feudal system of land tenure, with the king holding all lands in the place of the gods, who were the real "owners" There was further subdivision through various cheifs and leaders, but the point I wanted to make is this: There was no trade.

Trade, as natural as it seems to us, has not always been a given at all locations throughout history. The Hawaiians gave away their excess production of food, within their ahupua'a. Such a system collapsed in the face of a market system and has never been restored.

I live in Hawaii but I do not seek a restoration of the old order economic system. I am content with our current market system, though it could be improved.

My point is that there existed once a system based on giving away, not maximizing improving one's position through trade. Interesting, primitive and people oriented, not object oriented.

[Leopard]

I do not suggest that other systems cannot be put in place by any given society or group of folks, my concern is that the individual within those societies be able to prosper as best he can through the full, unrestricted use of his faculties.

Cooperative systems and various socialist systems have always sprung up and worked... but did they 'prosper' to the full extent that the people were capable of? I doubt it. I believe that people, if given a choice, would rather play than 'work', make love rather than war, and plain relax and have the necessities of life be 'provided' for them. Thus, even if a culture were able to survive for hundreds of years, if the people did not make significant gains towards achieving less work and more play, I would deem it a failure. I sincerely believe that the Free Market is the only system yet which guides us towards this goal in the most efficient manner...

... I know, this sounds pretty strange coming from me, but, its a bonding moment...

michael

[Lava]

> No one, except the actual employee and the employer has ANY basis to judge the trade which both parties agreed to.

I can see no basis for this statement.

Regards, Lava

[Leopard]

why not Lava?

How can you possibly gauge the value of the transaction if you are not a participant?

Is $100 too much to pay for a gallon of water? maybe - unless the person is thirsting in the desert - a $100 bill is worthless to him...

What if the business REALLY needs the skills of this prospective employee? And it is worth it to them to pay the employee double what they might pay at another time? You have NO way of evaluating ALL the conditions that the participants are contemplating - there are many more things to consider than just a monetary amount, right?

michael

[prettyredhead]

All I see here are people fighting over "rights" when all that should matter is that children have rights. They have few rights in this country. All that should matter is that kids go to bed fed at night, and adults utilize the economy to only live modestly. What else do you need? How much money is enough?? Can you take it with you. ? No, you cant. The best thing to do with it is do good for other humans, better yet children.
Children are being demoted in priority in this country. It had better stop. They will be in charge when you are old and feeble.
Some ppl cant save, they arent making enough to do so. As long as this country embraces deadbeat fathers (mothers) then alot of children will remain below poverty level. Yes, a bad thing.
I have 2.09 in my checking. I cant save, as I only have time or energy for one job, and feed my three kids whose father is a deadbeat loser. Yes, though it is ALL my fault. I carry guilt, I take some or even most of the blame, but you arent going to continue to punish children on my watch.

[prettyredhead]

Social programs are MUCH needed, as we cant depend on "others" compasssion. I wish compassion came in a manditory pill to take, but since it doesnt, charity would be based on a "pick and choose" basis, thus leaving athiest out in the cold. Or rather those deemed worthy would be helped. No one should judge anyone. Period. All people should be equal.
Illlegals should be deported, and come back the legal way. They should also know some US history, but lets not rehash that tired ass subject.

[Lava]

Originally posted by Leopard, How can you possibly gauge the value of the transaction if you are not a participant?

well i guess the same way the participants do.

Is $100 too much to pay for a gallon of water? maybe - unless the person is thirsting in the desert - a $100 bill is worthless to him...

ah, you just judged the value of the transaction.

L

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by m3talsmith, I vote no taxes; other than foreign trade.

I echo this statement. If you DO NOT pay income taxes, the govt will not collapse. There are plenty of other ways they get money. Sales taxes, consumption taxes, license fees, fines, penalties, tickets...

Instead payroll deductions, I will take that money and pay down credit card debt. Then that money will go into savings/investment. This will not decrease my spending, it will increase it because I won't be loosing 100's of dollars every month to interest.

[m5lange1]

Compugasm I won't be loosing 100's of dollars every month to interest.

Except that that interest is going into someones pocket, who will be spending that money. Look at it this way comp. The interest you are paying is giving money to corperations which is good for America, right?

Regarding your personal finances... well borrow and spend gets you in situations where you owe hundreds of dollars every month to interest.
Now at least I know why you do not see a problem with how Bush is handeling our economy.