Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,777,739 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The benefits are progressive, which is what many Americans want. So, why then won't they agree to the regressive tax systems European countries use to pay for those benefits?
that's not what the article says. It says:

"The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country."

And that is in fact, true. The article cites exactly where the information came from.

Here's another look at it, including comparison charts:

America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. - The Washington Post

I wouldn't mind at all if lower- and middle-income earners were given more benefits and services than they currently get in our country IF we implement a regressive tax system like the European social democracies have. Pay for what you get. Socially liberal Europeans embrace the concept and pay their share, why won't Americans?
I could have sworn you and other "libertarians" claimed giving community college (provided students kept a 2.5 GPA and made progress to degrees) was wrong because it was theft to use taxes that way. Glad to see you don't mind redistribution if you don't pay for it and we do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:26 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,618,642 times
Reputation: 13868
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,777,739 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
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.
Since when is fair spending 10 times more in regards to income when some one making 10 times more spends 10 times less in regards to income?

If we want a truly fair tax system, just replace all taxes with a flat tax both on a national, state and local level. Otherwise someone will get hosed. In this case, the lower income makers get hosed.

And no you can't say that they should increase their marketable skills because that don't always work when making more money because wages are set by what the employer think they can spend on that position. They may get better but if there is a better fit, the marketable skills they improved didn't quite work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:50 PM
 
41,111 posts, read 25,618,642 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Since when is fair spending 10 times more in regards to income when some one making 10 times more spends 10 times less in regards to income?

If we want a truly fair tax system, just replace all taxes with a flat tax both on a national, state and local level. Otherwise someone will get hosed. In this case, the lower income makers get hosed.

And no you can't say that they should increase their marketable skills because that don't always work when making more money because wages are set by what the employer think they can spend on that position. They may get better but if there is a better fit, the marketable skills they improved didn't quite work.
You're trying to hard to justify theft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 03:35 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,681 posts, read 44,444,073 times
Reputation: 13581
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I could have sworn you and other "libertarians" claimed giving community college (provided students kept a 2.5 GPA and made progress to degrees) was wrong because it was theft to use taxes that way.
It is theft until the lower-income and middle class start paying the greater part of the tax burden. Tax regressively like the European countries do, and give people more social program benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,777,739 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It is theft until the lower-income and middle class start paying the greater part of the tax burden. Tax regressively like the European countries do, and give people more social program benefits.
But are libertarians and conservatives actually willing to give them social programs or are they looking just looking at those programs as fraud and waste on the budget? As I mentioned, many on here complained about Obama's community college plan. Many European countries offer that and single-payer healthcare. I never heard libertarians or conservatives looking to bring a regressive tax system to America be in favor of those parts of the issue, it's just the taxes are theft and the rich are being stolen from rhetoric. Are you and other libertarians and conservatives willing to bring about the social programs to actually be like European countries that have regressive taxes or continue to think Europe is socialist and just want the tax benefits of a regressive tax structure?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 04:05 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,681 posts, read 44,444,073 times
Reputation: 13581
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
But are libertarians and conservatives actually willing to give them social programs or are they looking just looking at those programs as fraud and waste on the budget?
I'm a social liberal, so I'd be okay with increasing social program benefits as long as the lower- and middle-income earners bear the brunt of the tax burden, as they do in European countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,075,333 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Since the premise is false, the question is nonsensical.
User fees are way too complex for many to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I think the concept is possibly derived from:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
That may work but there's one, five states with NO sales tax (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon) so they would actually need to set up a division to collect, conduct aduits, seek out fraud because they don't have a statewide tax.....
They have Income Tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
...two, the funneling to the federal government would require an agency to get the revenue even if the state collects it rather than federal government;
Um, that agency is called the Treasury Department....it already exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
... and three would they only be charged with state laws or would there be a federal case against companies that go against the law?
State laws.

The federal government can send an observer to watch the trial if the federal government is so inclined.

I just shot down three worthless excuses.

Federalism......it's what your Constitution is about....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 06:00 PM
 
9,877 posts, read 10,787,577 times
Reputation: 3108
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I've read this philosophy from different libertarians who talk about taxes being theft and that they should be illegal because of that. But what I don't understand is why do people want that? Don't people realize what taxes pay for?
  1. Schools, we forget that on the local level schools get their budgets from the state government. What do we do, just have private schools that you have to pay an arm and a leg for? We already have that, it's called college and look at the student loan bubble at about 20K per student shackling them in a way that many cannot move.
  2. Roads, roads are funded by the gas tax. If the gas tax is repealed with other taxes, who would fund the road you drive on your errands? Who will fund the bridge you cross over to go to work?
  3. Public Transportation, similar to roads public transit such as buses, trains, subways and lightrail systems can only run on fare so much, expansion of lines rely on money. Who pays for that?
  4. Defense, if there is no taxes on the federal level who will cover equipment for a war brought upon us by an attack?
Privatization and user fees, except for Defense there isn't anything that the government is doing that cant be done more effectively, efficiently and equitably by the private sector.
The biggest obstacle is getting people to open their minds and try and think outside the box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,298 posts, read 2,337,616 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Of course it is a principle - it is a partisan principle, a corruption of universal principle, specifically to support preferences that you happen to hold, directly in contradiction to other principles, which are the actual universal principles of issue. It isn't surprising that you seek to impose your own personal preferences on your understanding of what is actually universal and grounded in a consistent systems of values that abides the most universal of ethics, reciprocity. That's really where your claptrap falls down: The changes you want to make (because they're changes, rather than anything that already is) are changes you wouldn't make if you were in a different situation, despite your claims to the contrary. And without grounding in reciprocity your changes don't have the legitimacy of the contrary principles that currently prevail and have been the reflection of society's progress over the last three hundred and fifty years.

You are advocating for regression to barbarism. Admit at least that much.
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'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. Simply put, "don't hit and don't steal", which most people tend to agree with EXCEPT when it comes to government. I think that's a problem. To be consistent, you have to apply that universally (unless you think attacking people and taking things without their consent can ever be moral, in which case that's our fundamental disagreement).

Reciprocity is extremely important to me, and I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be. It's essential. People are social beings, and we need to work together and cooperate with each other to achieve things. I simply don't believe we should be FORCING people to do so. I would do everything I could to reason with people, teach people, explain why we should do something, or even "bribe" them for lack of a better term. I don't think force is required to get people to do things for mutual benefit.

Quote:
False. Even the most well-regarded foundation for non-violence says you're wrong:
Ahimsa Paramo Dharma
Dharma himsa tathaiva cha
It means that even violence in the interest of protecting society from those who would otherwise refuse to abide the order of society is moral and a responsibility. You have perverted ethics to rationalize immoral self-centered callous disregard for others.
So there's our fundamental disagreement. I don't want to use violence against peaceful people for any reason. It's BECAUSE I care about others that I don't want them violently controlled. You can say that I'm rationalizing, and I'll say that you're projecting.

Quote:
People have the inviolable right to act on their beliefs and values within the context of their physical BODY.

The expectation that all in society shall abide by society's rules instead of ratifying the anarchic practice of antisocial self-centeredness is completely compatible with that.
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.

Quote:
Within your own body - correct. If something society decides is so offensive to you that you cannot abide it, you should have no concern about it being inflicted on your body, but your expectation that your dereliction of duty to society would be rewarded and not punished is puerile.

A fundamental tenet of principled, non-violent protest is the understanding that you shall and should suffer society's sanction for violating the law. What makes the protest principled is that willingness in the context of hoping that the infliction of the sanction will highlight some perceived injustice in the law and that that will in turn drive society itself to change the law. You don't get to change the law unilaterally but through your sacrifice you may (or may not) motivate society to change it, but the decision about whether the law is right or wrong is society's - not yours.
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? I agree with peacefully protesting, but I would do it in a way that communicated that I don't care what the government or the majority says, it is my human right to do x without being punished. 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.

Quote:
That was covered in the previous paragraph. This paragraph was about family and larger groups. And this really gets to the crux of the issue why your perspective fails: Your "me me me" approach is only internally consistent within the context of your own physical BODY. 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. The only internally consistent application of that kind of "sovereignty" is that which people exert over their own physical BODY. Once the context of the matter goes beyond the skin, shared dominion is the only internally consistent principle.
First, it isn't "me me me" at all. It's "respect my rights and I'll respect yours". To your main point, 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."? I think you have dominion over yourself, and that is all. You can act as equals and come to agreements, but one can't impose their will on another and be acting morally, IMO.

Quote:
And within your own skin you have sovereignty to issue that edict. Outside your skin it isn't up to you. And if you don't like society's determination, which is what I've listed (in this case, the determination of the world society - America's determination is even further from your perspective that the world's determination) you either have to accept that you're not going to like the way things are going to be, or go and hide somewhere where this reality won't affect you. You do not have a right to expect the world to array itself to your personal preferences.
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.

Quote:
Marriage contracts, rules, laws and standards aren't just political scribbles. They are the only means by which an internally consistent system can be defined beyond the context of a person's physical body. Just doing whatever you want in whatever context you want to do it is not internally consistent when there is more than one person in the context.
People can organize to defend themselves against aggressors. You don't need a document stating that it's wrong to steal, for example. You just need disincentives to deter people from doing it, and if they do it anyway you need to protect yourself/your property and have a plan to deal with whoever committed the act of aggression. It can be done without initiating force of any kind.

Quote:
That is childish silliness: The insinuation that the people in government are the actors rather than government acting on behalf of the society as a whole is ridiculous. If you aren't willing to discuss the matter maturely then admit that and I can get back to something more important.
You won't like my answer...

The people may get to choose their masters, but they aren't the masters themselves. I'm sure you're not interested, but there's a video on youtube called "The Story of Your Enslavement" that I'd like to get your take on. It's the one with over 3,000,000 views. The part I'd highlight is 3:48 where he talks about the 4 phases of "human farming".

Quote:
Society owns itself, including its government, its land, its monetary system, its commercial marketplace, its labor marketplace, etc. These things are all furnished for your use by society in accordance with its terms and conditions, which you can either accept or choose to refrain from engaging with. The deed on your land is issued traceable back to the implicit land grant the state claimed from its establishment, and ownership of the land then transferred to individual owners by the state according to the states' terms and conditions, which you do not have the right to unilaterally change. One of those terms and conditions is the obligation to abide by the state's authority, to assess property tax for example. The monetary system is similarly offered for your use subject to terms and conditions. You don't get to set up shop in the commercial or labor marketplace that society established and maintains within abiding by the terms and conditions society set forth. And so on. You are claiming a form of ownership over things that never exists. The only thing you own without conditions is your physical BODY - i.e., self-ownership. There was never anything else you obtained that didn't carry with it when you obtained it legitimate terms and conditions that you shall comply with, and there is no right, natural or granted, that grant you specifically the right to unilaterally change any of those terms and conditions.

You mean it effectively debunks your nonsense and therefore they only way you can engage in a conversation is reject it by fiat that you do not have.
Society is not real. It isn't a person or any type of concrete entity, for the same reason that a corporation isn't a person. Individuals can own things collectively...but saying that society can own anything is just cloudy, murky thinking. Each person owns themselves, but not anyone else. Certain individuals own certain property, but they don't all own each other's property. Extending that logically, no individual has a right to forcibly control another.

I know you disagree, so we should probably move on as this won't go anywhere. 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. If the discussion is over, I'm glad to have had a more in-depth conversation with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top