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.
This is a strawman fallacy. I have said no such thing because I do not believe a massive, oppressive central government is required to provide a good quality of life. I think people prosper IN SPITE OF government, and very rarely if ever because of it.
Over 1 out of six americans are food insecure in your hypothetical situation those people would be starving so the government can do good things that benefit society. That is one example many other examples exist of the government doing good things for society.
Capitalists and the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on force and violence,
They would in the absence of a state.
We've had this talk. You think the only way the hungry will eat is if someone who grows food is forced to give food to them
Right because in the absence of that people die this isn't 1800 people can't just grow all there own food in whatever tiny apartment they live in. Urbanization necessitates centralization.
Your central, guiding philosophy is that people must be forced, at gunpoint, to be good boys and girls,
Again you are free to leave this country or vote for politicians that represent your radical individualist beliefs. You want the absolute freedom to do nothing essentially and you also fail to reconize that society itself is set up so people like you are protected. In the absence of that the predatory nature of capitalism is fully realized. I said it before anarcho capitalism what you are espousing is the road to feudalism.
Responses in red.
I'm going to comment on the 2 points I've bolded, above.
1) "Over 1 out of six Americans are food insecure." Well, how about we stop incentivizing the poor to over-breed by giving them extra financial benefits (aka, welfare program benefits) for doing so?
We have a HUGE underclass dependent on means-tested welfare programs, and they're outbreeding those who actually financially support themselves by a rate of 3 to 1. Yes, you read that correctly, 3 to 1. Of course, the more children they bear, the more in means-tested welfare program benefits they collect.
Here are the stats on birth rates when such were tracked and published by the US Census Bureau:
Quote:
"The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women)."
"For the nation, the birth rate for women receiving public assistance was 160 births per 1,000 women, almost three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (56 births per 1,000 women)."
I'm sure you and everyone else can understand that the compounding effect on population growth will make that dependent-class increasingly more impossible to support with freebie welfare handouts. Eventually, the Fed Gov is going to run out of other people's money with which to artificially fund their subsistence. Then what?
2) "Capitalists and the wealthy do not possess a monopoly on force and violence,
They would in the absence of a state."
You realize that even WITH a state, there are areas of Chicago, Baltimore, and numerous other large cities in which the police and EMTs simply won't respond. Why? They're extremely violent. And the violence isn't being committed by roving bands of capitalists and/or the wealthy.
Someone with wealth, property, etc derives more benefit from the fundamental functions of gov't than someone who does not.
In other words, the police, courts, military, public utilties, exist to serve and protect -- but protect what? Property. So it is tautological that the people who own the most property utilize government the most simply by their ownership of various service-using things.
That is called 'negative income tax', and it was Milton Friedman's idea; if I remember correctly it was enacted sometime during the Nixon administration, and was part of welfare reform. The implementation was complex but part of it takes the form of the earned income tax credit.
Also, don't forget that 70% of companies pay no corporate income tax because they take no profits, because they're too busy paying their CEO's huge salaries. We COULD choose to tax revenue instead of profits, for example, so fewer companies got a free ride from Uncle Sugar.
or this ^ highly-informed answer might be more of y'all's speed
Many of these "corporations" are small single-owner businesses that do this in order to get the legal protections offered by incorporation (namely the limit on liability so that the owner is not PERSONALLY responsible for any debt incurred should the business fail) without the necessity of the double taxation imposed on corporate profits. If the corporation shows a profit, then the corporation must pay taxes on that profit, and then when the owner collects that profit as an individual, they must pay taxes AGAIN on the money that they took. Many such single-owners simply pay themselves a sufficient salary so that the corporation shows minimal or no profit. They do pay taxes, on their salary as income, but they do not pay twice. There are limits to this; if a corporation fails to show a profit for a certain number of consecutive years the IRS does impose penalties and/or its corporate status could be in jeopardy.
Even when it's a large corporation doing this, it's not that there is NO taxation of these profits. If a CEO gets a large salary, he/she is certainly going to be taxed on that income.
Many of these "corporations" are small single-owner businesses that do this in order to get the legal protections offered by incorporation (namely the limit on liability so that the owner is not PERSONALLY responsible for any debt incurred should the business fail) without the necessity of the double taxation imposed on corporate profits.
Another benefit our government provides to corporations, which is not in the constitution: limited liability.
Quote:
If the corporation shows a profit, then the corporation must pay taxes on that profit, and then when the owner collects that profit as an individual, they must pay taxes AGAIN on the money that they took. Many such single-owners simply pay themselves a sufficient salary so that the corporation shows minimal or no profit. They do pay taxes, on their salary as income, but they do not pay twice. There are limits to this; if a corporation fails to show a profit for a certain number of consecutive years the IRS does impose penalties and/or its corporate status could be in jeopardy.
Which is why the IRS ought to just tax a corporation's global revenue instead of its profits.
Quote:
Even when it's a large corporation doing this, it's not that there is NO taxation of these profits. If a CEO gets a large salary, he/she is certainly going to be taxed on that income.
No, the CEO is a different legal entity than the corporation.
Taxing the CEO's personal income does not count as taxation of the corporation's profits.
"...the need of the federal government..." What might that be? Flying first class, providing unfounded raises, $35k dining room sets, $5k chairs, cost of golfing for the president, needless trip by Air Force One, unnecessary security, etc. The list is endless.
We now have a corporate run government with revolving door appointees most of whom are the very wealthy people. They are running the show at the cost of the smallest wage earners. I think it is time to turn that around.
Flat tax is fair... it does not look at income, it looks at you as a person being equal to every other person... what ever the flat tax rate is, it should be commensurate with the need of the federal government budget...
In the year 1 AD Rome introduced a wealth tax.
In 1798 Britain introduced a progressive income tax.
And in America the first progressive income tax was established in 1862.
And today all wealthy industrialized countries have progressive tax systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
A 15% Flat Tax would increase the bottom 1/5 of Americans tax payments by 7x and cut the tax payments of the richest 1% of Americans in 1/2. Ben Carson's Flat Tax plan would decrease revenues by $1 trillion dollars every year, Ted Cruz's Flat Tax would decrease revenues by $3.6 trillion over 10 years, and Rand Paul's Flat Tax would decrease revenues by $1.8 trillion over 10 years (and all of those revenue decreases would be added to our deficits and national debt.) https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/11/gop-...ot-add-up.html
How is increasing the bottom 1/5 of Americans tax payments and cutting the richest 1% of Americans tax payments fair? And how would low income Americans survive with higher tax rates?
How is adding trillions of extra dollars to future Americans national debt fair?
And with today's tax system are billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet being taxed so much they can't afford things they want? And with today's tax system do billionaires lack the money needed to invest in new businesses?
In short do billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet really need lower tax rates, and do low income Americans really need a tax increase?
In the year 1 AD Rome introduced a wealth tax.
In 1798 Britain introduced a progressive income tax.
And in America the first progressive income tax was established in 1862.
And today all wealthy industrialized countries have progressive tax systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
A 15% Flat Tax would increase the bottom 1/5 of Americans tax payments by 7x and cut the tax payments of the richest 1% of Americans in 1/2. Ben Carson's Flat Tax plan would decrease revenues by $1 trillion dollars every year, Ted Cruz's Flat Tax would decrease revenues by $3.6 trillion over 10 years, and Rand Paul's Flat Tax would decrease revenues by $1.8 trillion over 10 years (and all of those revenue decreases would be added to our deficits and national debt.) https://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/11/gop-...ot-add-up.html
How is increasing the bottom 1/5 of Americans tax payments and cutting the richest 1% of Americans tax payments fair? And how would low income Americans survive with higher tax rates?
Same way low-income people do in these other developed countries.
I won't bother people who've already seen the data analysis, but this post has the info, why those countries can afford to fund better social program benefits for all, and why their residents don't mind paying very high tax rates:
The purpose of taxation is to get funds to run the government. Not to "care about social mobility". And especially not to get funds to buy the votes of the greatest number for yourself, which is the real reason liberals push progressive income taxes.
As long as you keep enacting a system where some people get more than they pay for, while others get less than they pay for, you will never be able to find agreement that your system is "fair".
What does a person's salary have to do with how much the government does for him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
Why do you want to make poor people poorer?
I've noticed that when someone can't (or doesn't want to) answer a question, they often make up a lie that accuses you of something silly and phrase it as a question.
Back to the subject:
As long as you keep enacting a system where some people get more than they pay for, while others get less than they pay for, you will never be able to find agreement that your system is "fair".
What does a person's salary have to do with how much the government does for him?
The purpose of taxation is to get funds to run the government. Not to "care about social mobility".
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
The two are inherently linked
Only in the vague minds of big-govt liberals, to whom government is all, does all, provides all, and charges huge taxes for it. It is so burdensome that poor people are completely crushed under its weight.
So the big-govt fanatics add theft to their other transgressions, taking even more money from those who earn more and handing it to the poor.
When Big Government "cares about social mobility", that's a sure sign that they are doing too much and charging too much.
Another benefit our government provides to corporations, which is not in the constitution: limited liability.
Which is why the IRS ought to just tax a corporation's global revenue instead of its profits.
No, the CEO is a different legal entity than the corporation.
Taxing the CEO's personal income does not count as taxation of the corporation's profits.
That's true, and I certainly understand the point. The point I was making was that the money that goes to pay the CEO is not untaxed; it is taxed as income for the CEO. It is not DOUBLY taxed, first as corporate profit and then subsequently as the CEO's salary. Why should the same income be taxed twice?
And sure, limited liability is a benefit of incorporation. What I don't understand is why anyone would want it to be otherwise. If you started a business, you invested some of your own money into it, and then borrowed some more money to get it going, you may or may not succeed in your venture. If you did not have limited liability, your borrowers could potentially go after your personal assets, such as your house, should the business fail and be forced into bankruptcy. The level of risk is magnified; people would be quite hesitant to borrow money to build a business. They would rely solely on capital that was already in hand, thereby decreasing the level of available investment capital and resulting in far less economic growth driven by small startups. The corporate giants would be mostly unaffected as they are established, profitable businesses.
That's true, and I certainly understand the point. The point I was making was that the money that goes to pay the CEO is not untaxed; it is taxed as income for the CEO. It is not DOUBLY taxed, first as corporate profit and then subsequently as the CEO's salary. Why should the same income be taxed twice?
that's like saying we can't have all 3 income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes because that's triple taxation. it doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba
And sure, limited liability is a benefit of incorporation. What I don't understand is why anyone would want it to be otherwise.
whether it ought to be or not, is a discussion for another thread as far as i'm concerned. im just pointing out a major benefit conferred by government to corporate entities.
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.
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.
