If Taxes Are Theft, How Will the World run? (generations, crime, compared)

[TimTheEnchanter]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

The issue isn't that they pay the same tax it is the proportion of taxes. As I mentioned in the previous post about the gas tax that it is assuming the 350K and 35K have the same car, same fuel mileage and pay the same price at the pump (these being held cp for argument sake) the amount of gas spent for both parties is $3,744 for both parties. However because the 350K maker makes 10x more than the 35K maker, the 350k maker holds onto more money despite the same usage so the percentage of income spent on gas goes from 1.07% to 10.70% meaning that the 35K person effectively spent 11% of their income on gas.

Taxes on gasoline are not based on income or type of car or any other factor than how much income do we need from the amount of gasoline sold to cover the repair and maintenance of roads.

Whether the poor person pays a higher percent of his income for the tax is neither here nor there.

If the cost of gasoline and the tax burden is too onerous then the poor person can use public transportation that is also subsidized by other taxpayers.

Originally Posted by mkpunk

Now to bring up your "ideal liberal world" from another post it actually is relevant in this case, however the case is flipped. Instead of the green card giving the low income person the beer and $5, they give it to the rich who pays less in proportion of gasoline and taxes in regards to their income while the lower income maker now has the red card. The tax itself being at 18.4 as per your original post would be 287.04 a year. Again the 350K maker has an effective 0.082% tax rate on gas taxes while the 35K maker has an effective 0.820% tax rate (still paying 10x more.) Again, the 350K maker has the green card from your example about liberals vs the 35K maker who has the red card.

You continue to ignore the basic fairness of everyone paying the same rate. It smacks of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to speak of effective tax rates and regressivity on taxes like gasoline and sales tax, which was the point of the Red Card/Green Card analogy.

[mkpunk]

If you are going to say items shouldn't be taken from someone, what about evidence to an alleged crime? Technically that is theft by your definition. The issue is without use of some evidence (say bloody boots) you may not be able to arrest criminals. It is a needed "evil" even if you disagree with it. If not, you are allowing people to be allowed on the street that shouldn't be.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter

Taxes on gasoline are not based on income or type of car or any other factor than how much income do we need from the amount of gasoline sold to cover the repair and maintenance of roads.

Which is why it is regressive even though you don't believe it is.

Whether the poor person pays a higher percent of his income for the tax is neither here nor there.

It is when you and others claim that the rich are taxed too much. The rich getting taxed a 35% tax rate, somewhat evens out with local taxes and the gas tax.

If the cost of gasoline and the tax burden is too onerous then the poor person can use public transportation that is also subsidized by other taxpayers.

One, not all areas do have public transportation; two, if they do, not all lines have access and you might need to make two even three transfers; and three, not all public transportation is reliable whether it is day to day (traffic from accidents) or just lines that are no longer a "need" and closed. If I am in the northeast on a day when a snowstorm of blizzard proportions and my employers (as well as the state is at-will) and mass transit is screwed up so bad I can't get to work, I'm as good as fired.

You continue to ignore the basic fairness of everyone paying the same rate. It smacks of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to speak of effective tax rates and regressivity on taxes like gasoline and sales tax, which was the point of the Red Card/Green Card analogy.

And you missed the analogy of the inverse which is the case in the gas tax. As I mentioned, the 350K person pays only 0.082% of their income in gasoline taxes and 1.07% in gasoline while the 35K person pay .82% of their income in gasoline taxes and 10.7% in gasoline. Because they make more they pay effectively less.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by T0103E

I came to accept the NAP and respect for property rights by having someone explain them to me and I thought it made logical sense (and still do).

I believe most people who buy into that sort of thing appreciate how it feeds their own personal comfort and luxury and/or care little about how it devolves society and adversely impacts those most vulnerable within it.

Originally Posted by T0103E

I'm a very objective thinker and have changed my mind on things if the other person made a better argument...it's a bit insulting to suggest that I only accept these principles because it serves me.

It isn't meant as an insult. It is meant as an observation of the reality. If you choose to take it as an insult, that's something you're doing to yourself, perhaps because the moral repudiation strikes a chord highlighting how your acceptance of corrupt principles plays against what you know is right, compassion and consideration for the less fortunate in society.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Simply put, "don't hit and don't steal", which most people tend to agree with EXCEPT when it comes to government.

Dumbing the matter down is a common tactic used to insulate right wingers, including libertarians (despite claims to the contrary), from having to face the uncomfortable truths associated with the antisocial choices they make. Nuance is an anathema in their view because thinking that deeply about the matter reveals moral considerations that reflect the reality of a world that is anything but simple.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Reciprocity is extremely important to me, and I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand reciprocity. I think a lot of people think it means equality, evenness of some sort, rather than consideration of the way things should be in terms of how it would affect others: "Would I want things to be this way if I was this other person or that other person instead of myself?" Too many people view the way they are innately different from others as some kind of birthright instead of the reality, that it is a responsibility - responsibility accompanies advantage.

Originally Posted by T0103E

I simply don't believe we should be FORCING people to do so.

I agree: I think people should voluntarily abide by the standards of society, including paying income tax. It is only when people fail to live up to their obligations that force is warranted as a reflection of protection against craven exploiters and antisocial anarchists. Again:

Ahimsa Paramo Dharma
Dharma himsa tathaiva cha

Originally Posted by T0103E

I don't think force is required to get people to do things for mutual benefit.

That is a naive view in light of current pervasive evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by T0103E

You can say that I'm rationalizing, and I'll say that you're projecting.

Except you'd be wrong in saying so. Throwing a random word out as if it mitigates the harm your perspective would inflict on society has no merit. That is rationalization - literally making excuses for antisocial inclinations sound justified.

By contrast, I abide by society's standards. I pay income tax and don't make up excuses for those who don't. You can label my comments with myriad labels, but projection isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Who is society though? That concept of "society's rules" seems to break down when examined logically. Society is not a concrete entity, it is a word to describe a group of individuals. If every single person in that society agrees to have the exact same rules then it might make sense, but that isn't the case.

You're using the Nirvana Fallacy to attempt to defend yet another rationalization. The Nirvana Fallacy is just another form of dumbing the matter down - blinding yourself to the nuances of reality because they don't fit the narrative necessary to defend the corrupt perspective you're trying to defend.

Originally Posted by T0103E

So theoretically, if a society condoned rape but I thought it was evil and destructive, I should just accept being raped until the majority changes their mind?

That isn't what is happening, so you are yet again engaging in fallacy to attempt to defend yet another rationalization. Before you can presume to use such "logic" you have to establish a parallel between society raping people and society spending money to feed, clothe, heal and shelter the poor; you'd have to establish a parallel to society spending money to protect against criminals entering the nation by airplane; you'd have to establish a parallel to society spending money on educating our youth. Our society does kill people - police officers were justified in killing to protect society from a crazed gunman shooting dozens of rounds into downtown Austin buildings last November. Why "justified"? Dharma himsa tathaiva cha. And actions like seizure of assets are equally justified in cases where people do not voluntarily fulfill their financial obligations to society. Even if some people cannot differentiate between themselves and their money.

Originally Posted by T0103E

If I was protesting laws against marijuana for example, my goal would be to highlight the violence inherent in that law and get others to see the evil in attacking a non-violent person because they possess a piece of vegetation.

And to do so you must be willing to accept the consequences imposed by society on you for violating the law in that manner. The fact that you hold a specific opinion does not give you license to do whatever you want with impunity.

Originally Posted by T0103E

First, it isn't "me me me" at all. It's "respect my rights and I'll respect yours".

Sorry but I think you're lying to yourself. You aren't saying "respect my rights" - you're saying "respect the rights I have decided to claim". That's the crux of the matter. In these things your actual rights are being respected. There are cases where society is, on an institutionalized basis, denying the rights of people (great examples of this include economic injustice and the established patterns of discrimination against minorities by society's institutions), but this isn't one of them. You have decided to misconstrue a right and demand that your false definition prevail by way of personal fiat you do not actually have.

Originally Posted by T0103E

To your main point,

This is also a mistake. My main point is that which we've been discussing prior to this point in the reply. That which follows pertains to a tangent you decided to go off on, which I placated. I'll continue to do so, but let's be clear - the matters above are the main point - this is not...

Originally Posted by T0103E

I'm not sure I'm following...could you give an example of this: "Within your family, by contrast, if both partners in a marriage act in contrary directions on the "sovereignty" you have asserted here, your perspective leads to unresolvable inconsistency."?

One spouse decides that their daughter should be brought up a devout Muslim and the other spouse decides that their daughter should be brought up in the Hasidic Jewish tradition. The solution to the unresolvable inconsistency is shared sovereignty, where the two spouses come to consensus on an approach (perhaps an interfaith upbringing) rather than asserting their own personal sovereignty as justification for promulgating their own decision.

Originally Posted by T0103E

I think you have dominion over yourself, and that is all.

As I said, "... within your own skin ... "

Originally Posted by T0103E

You can act as equals and come to agreements, but one can't impose their will on another and be acting morally, IMO.

More than that - it is only through consensus, compromise, or democratically-derived determinations that anything is moral in venues that are shared, such as one's family, and such as society.

Originally Posted by T0103E

I agree with your last sentence, and I don't expect that. I simply hope that I can reason with people and change their minds. I hope they give up the belief that one person can ever have the right to rule another.

The reason why you won't get any traction with that is because the people you're aiming your message at have no intention regarding one person ruling over another. As long as you continue to blind yourself to what is actually being said to you, your contributions will be as inconsequential as a help desk worker who doesn't actually listen to what the caller is asking and just provides "assistance" for some much simpler problem that doesn't actually exist.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Society is not real.

It is as real as the money you have in the bank, and is consequential regardless of the fact that is a construct. And until you recognize that, you're going to continually feel that something is wrong when it is not.

Originally Posted by T0103E

It isn't a person or any type of concrete entity, for the same reason that a corporation isn't a person.

And none of that is relevant enough to even address.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Individuals can own things collectively...but saying that society can own anything is just cloudy, murky thinking.

Wrong. It is "cloudy, murky" thinking to play semantics in the middle of a substantive discussion.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Each person owns themselves, but not anyone else.

Non-sequitur. I've been saying repeatedly that people should live according to their own beliefs and values within their own skin. So your comment here is an evasion.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Certain individuals own certain property, but they don't all own each other's property.

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, perhaps even in two dimensions. That's quite an impressively constructed fallacy you've crafted, there.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Extending that logically, no individual has a right to forcibly control another.

That is not a logical extension of the words above it. Again I think you're trying to dodge the issue with semantics. Stick to the topic.

Originally Posted by T0103E

If we can't agree that using violence against non-violent people is wrong, or that one person can't have the right to rule another, we probably won't get very far.

Of course, that was never any part of this discussion - just another craven evasion of what we were talking about.

[DauntlessDan]

Then send citizens a "bill" for fees every year, just like they get utility bills. But this would be a bill for government fees. And itemize it so they know what they are paying for.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DauntlessDan

Then send citizens a "bill" for fees every year, just like they get utility bills. But this would be a bill for government fees. And itemize it so they know what they are paying for.

Exactly. Pay for what you use, just like utilities.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by petch751

I don't know what is so hard to understand? Fair is when everyone pays the same percentage. How much you make is another topic. If someone doesn't put in the effort to improve marketable skills to get a better pay rate is not the fault of someone who does.

"Fair" is a means of liberals establishing an ongoing narrative which, if it takes hold, will justify the liberals doing whatever they want because the term is so vague.

It's similar to how the liberals have pushed "Republicans are racist" so hard for so long that it has simply entered public consciousness at this point. In modern society, people don't even think to ask for any proof that a given Republican is racist. Merely having the "R" next to his name has preconditioned people to believe he's racist.

If liberals are able to push the "pay your fair share" meme in the same way, they'll end up with a catch-all excuse to justify all their wealth redistribution schemes going forward without the need to provide any sort of specific facts or figures justifying them. The need for more money in order to make sure things are fair will become a part of public consciousness just like the notion that Republicans are obviously racists so anytime you accuse a conservative of being a racist, everyone will just automatically know it is true.

It gives the Democrats a nebulous nonspecific but nice sounding excuse to charge whatever taxes they want whenever they want to - the rest is just smoke and mirrors

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

"Fair" is a means of liberals establishing an ongoing narrative which, if it takes hold, will justify the liberals doing whatever they want because the term is so vague.

Exactly.

Constantly changing vague Orwellian terms that mean whatever they want it to mean in the moment is not good government. Those governments that employed that style, no longer exist.

Demand that they define those things like "living wage", "fair wage", "fair tax", "basic income", "universal healthcare" etc etc etc, objectively in no uncertain terms so that they can be quantified and qualified and everyone can replicate and duplicate the results and know exactly whether or not the programs are successes or total failures and they do nothing but dodge, deflect, and make 50 Million excuses why they should not have to objectively define those terms.

Write a business plan that says, "Success is whatever I say it is" and see how many investors and banks are lining up to hand out money.

Any tax that is not an Opportunity Cost is Fraud, and Fraud is Theft.

Income Redistribution is not an Opportunity Cost....

Mircea

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No, it doesn't. Not. Even. Close.

Total average effective tax rates, local, state, and federal, combined, by income cohort:

Bottom 20%: 13%
Middle 20%: 25%
Top 1%: 43%




Data Sources: Two liberal think tanks, the Tax Policy Center and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

(This image does not violate copyright law. The Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why the method of inline linking which causes the image to appear in this post does not violate US copyright law.)

You are looking at the 1 percent, add them into the other of the top 5 percent and it would most likely be 40 tops because of the outliers of the one-percent getting huge exorbitant salaries and bonuses.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

You are looking at the 1 percent

You're the one who asserted: "the rich getting taxed at a 35% tax rate, somewhat evens out with local taxes and the gas tax."

Look at the chart I posted. It is indeed the top 1% who's paying a 35% effective federal tax rate.