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.
Yes. If not, why legislate anything at all? Government shouldn't care about who the winners are, as long as it doesn't create problems for the people and the nation as a whole. Do corporations fit the scenario you speak of the people? Do interests of corporations and people clash?
"Laws", if truly just, would apply to all and be consented to all. Otherwise some people are reduced to animals. A society should never grow larger than the size of a voluntary association. Once "prisoners", "slaves", "winners", and "losers" must be forced to obey a system, it is no longer truly a civilization, but rather a plantation. That was the beauty of the States before they were defeated by the Centralized State.
Anyway, in simplest terms, if an association cannot reach consensus, they should splinter into smaller groups that can. That is freedom and those smaller associations could then create just laws that were not discriminatory in nature.
As to "corporations", they are an abomination, as are all fictional entities. We are human beings, we are not "corporations", "limited liabilities", "society", or even "government". In my mind, there are no "rich", "poor", "business", or "labor". People are people. Any "law" that makes any reference other than simply people or humans is by its nature discriminatory and unjust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Then the fight for freedom was a failure. We didn't need government, we only needed freedom but WITHOUT this institution based on collectivism called the government. Or founders couldn't have been more wrong. Right?
It obviously was, not to say that we do not still live better because of their initial effort though. We are now, because of the nature of all government, reduced to warring factions fighting over who gets to use the immoral power of force upon their neighbors. Tyrants taking turns oppressing each other, mere cavemen. I think that the founders wanted a government that worked in the exact opposite manner than it does now. I am certainly willing to accept that none would agree with me, and that is fine. I don't care if people hate freedom, or rather fear it, but I only hate those who would initiate force upon me.
Just so that we are clear, collectivism can be just, as long as it is voluntary association among its members. In the same way that I have no problem with any system as long as it does not take prisoners. If any system needs to force association or compliance, it is no longer just, "civilized", or even dare I say "human".
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Freedom doesn't come naturally. In real world, you must achieve it. Corporations fight for it, to be free in anything they want to do. People fight for it, and get blamed for this "collectivism".
The only way to have the freedom you appear to believe in is to find the remotest of island and live there, completely out of society and the "burden" it brings.
That is correct. Humans must be willing to follow one law to maximize freedom for all people. They must not initiate force upon others. As soon as they choose to be tyrants over others, they have acted aggressively and abandoned any pretense of being "noble", "just", or "enlightened". They are merely thugs.
You seem to equate freedom with sole individuals. While that would represent a maximum freedom available within the confines of what nature allows in the absense of others, that is not what I mean by freedom. (And there are far damn too many parasites on the planet for that to be a condition for humans to find anyway. Unless the tech society had collapsed and a few billions starved as a result. )
The freedom I speak of is simply the free association of people in the absense of force. I know it is unimaginable to the tyrant mindset, what must be asked of those who find freedom impossible is why their agenda requires force?
As an example, even though not possible in a nation of tyrants, imagine independent States. (We saw what happened to those who tried to those ideas a while back.) Is there a reason why these States could not form a security force to protect, rather than rule, their common defense? Could these independent States form an alliance based on their few common interests? A kind of liason and arbitrator? It would not make sense to abandon all of their freedoms to be ruled by another entity
And if this other entity began to go beyond its limited role of common defense or "common welfare" and began to impose "particular defense" and
"particular welfare", would it not make sense to leave that "association"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And that is my point. Freedom is not natural. You fight for it. The founders fought for it. The only way to be left "free" is, like I said, you opt to live isolated from a social setting. When you become a part of society, you are bound to give up some of your freedoms. That is natural.
Obviously freedom is not natural as mankind has always embraced the masters and tyrants, or if you prefer centralized governments, "leaders", and "planners". Most humans seem to prefer the comfort of dependence and the security of enslavement. Although it does make the pschology of humans more interesting and depressing
You may say that freedom has to be "fought" for, and that is true, but slightly too generalized. To be free, one has to retaliate against those who initiate force against them. That is a little more specific. Those who initiate force destroy freedom, those who use force only as a retaliatory force expand freedom.
As individuals, we don't have to move to "isolated islands" to be free. We only have to resist initiators of force. We have to only comply with the only real law of freedom. Do not initiate force.
One can simply not do their master's work. Do not support the system which works against your interest. If the economic model is one of theft, simply do not participate when it is not necessary. Make only voluntary deals with your fellow man in the free market, er "black market". Do not "earn" "income". Why would anyone hand the weapon to an aggressor? If you want to be free, simply act freely. Those around you will wonder how you are so successful. You can simply say that you did not take on the extortionists as partners.
Basically, go into the master's field only when it is absolutely necessary and always look for way to reduce your dependence. Form voluntary associations and be peaceful with your neighbors. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors erected by tyrants, thieves, and thugs.
Fees for services! (Although "flat tax schemes are better then what we have.)
The "fairness" of flat can be seen this way. Imagine going to a store to buy a loaf of bread. While waiting in line to pay you hear the cashier asking people how much money they make. You say to yourself, "That's odd."
You overhear that the gentleman in front saying that he shines shoes for a living and makes only $15,000 a year. The cashier simply says to this man, "the bread is free for you."
Next, is an attractive woman, who explains that she earns $30,000 a year as an employee of the State. The cashier says, "that'll be $2 please."
Now, following the apparent procedure that you have observed, you say, "I made $50,000 last year working construction." The cashier says frowning, "Oh, you are one of them, "That'll be $4 for the likes of you!"
So why is is that some don't pay for their services or products, others pay for what they recieve, and yet others pay for themselves and others? (And many pay for services that they don't even recieve or want!) And what form of collectivist sick humor is it that the slaves who go along with this injustice puff out their chest and praise their freedom?
So there are still masters and slaves in this country. The masters, no matter which group of them you wish to point out, are all the same. They are the ones who recieve not what they pay for, but what is stolen for them by the State from their neighbors. The slaves are the ones who go along with being used as such, as sacrificial animals to the collectivist State.
The dirty little secret is there is no reason for the slaves to obey, nor is there any moral reason to do so, and that they are only being used by those who are evil who know that the slaves are good. The looters or masters, both at the top and bottom of society, simply prey upon the goodness of average people to serve the looter's evil nature.
Voluntary agreement among free people!
Free markets not Government/Business Collusion!
Fees for services!
Live and let live.
Ok, so lets posit a world based on your utopia.
Imagine going to a store to buy a loaf of bread. While waiting in line to pay you hear the cashier asking people how much money they make. You say to yourself, "That's odd."
You overhear that the gentleman in front saying that he shines shoes for a living and makes only $15,000 a year. The cashier simply says to this man "the bread costs $5.00 a loaf". So the man reluctantly pulls out a wad of bills and pays the cashier and then leaves.
Next, is an attractive woman, who explains that she earns $30,000 a year as an employee of the State. The cashier says, "that'll be $5 please." She pulls out a cheap coin purse and pays for the bread a leaves.
Now, following the apparent procedure that you have observed, you say, "I made $500,000 last year working in banking." The cashier says ,"That'll be $5."
You walk out of the store and see the attractive woman on the street corner, flagging down cars, so you go up to her and ask her what she's doing. "Oh," she says, "my husband died two years ago crushed to death in a mining accident and the insurance company your bank owns found a loop hole and refused to pay the idemnity, then your bank repossesed my house during the financial crises and my kid has leukemia. We can't afford health care, so I'm whoring myself out to make ends meet." You walk away shaking your head. As you round the corner, the shoe shine guy steps out and pistol whips you to the ground, as he rifles through your clothing you ask him why he's doing this to you. He replys "I wish I didn't have too, but my parents couldn't afford to put me through school so I didn't get much of an education. But I used to have a good job working a local factory until your bank became the major share holder and decided that they could increase the value of thier stock by $1.50 a share by offshoring the work. Now I live in a cardboard box on the street and bread costs $5.00 a loaf. You look rich, I'm desperate and the system hasn't given me any choice in the matter so I'm taking your money."
Does that sound like a good future for the country? If you like living in a country like that, there a plenty of them in latin and south america. The fact is, there hasn't been one society on earth since the beginning of civilization which hasn't redistributed wealth in some way. I prefer one that promotes the idea that all individuals deserve at least the bare minimum needed to realize there full potential. If that means that those of us who have had the good fortune to do well through the investments society has made in us have to put back more than those who are less fortunate, then that's ok by me. BTW, it takes about 17 years of paying taxes at the average rate for the individual tax payer to pay back the direct benefits he/she recieves from government. That doesn't include indirect benefits like defense, roads and environmental protection.
I don't understand why people are opposed to a flat tax income system.
0-100K =10% income tax (still keep the earned income tax credit for poor)
100K-250K=15% income tax
$250-500K=20%
500K-1 mil =25%
>1 mil =30%
1. Index the taxes for inflation
2. Eliminate all deductions (housing, retirement, business losses/stock losses etc).
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes (obviously don't allow the hedge fund manages to pay only 15% tax on their income like they have been doing).
4. Eliminate all estate taxes
This seems like the fairest way to generate income. The Dems would be happy since the rich can't circumvent taxes by shielding money in trusts etc.
The rich are happy because their capital gains are taxed free (since they can't deduct losses either). Your retirement funds would be tax free (since it's all considered after tax money anyways)
The middle class should be happy since they won't be paying more than 10% income taxes. This will offset most losses they would incur by losing the property tax deduction. Most of all, this all but eliminates the AMT trap many middle class citizens in high property tax states/high state income tax like New Jersey, NY, California face
The poor still get shielded because the earned income tax credit would still be around. Most would have very little tax liability.
People have to realize, most "rich or uber rich" people barely pay more than 10-15% "effective tax rates". This would make the rich more accountable for their "fair share." But they would still be happy since they wouldn't be taxed on investment gains.
I believe you would generate even more tax revenue this way. Everyone sees where their true tax bracket it.
While you have made a genuine effort to be both fair and effective, your proposal is not a pure flat tax. If you were truly to propose a flat tax (fixed percentage tax across all income levels), then the answer to your question is: 47% of the people would be opposed because they pay zero now, and 47% of the people is a lot of votes.
Listening to HLN this morning they said that in 2006 (the most recent year they have this data for), more than 50% of taxpayers actually paid no taxes and that 75% of the taxes that were paid, were paid by people making $366,000/year or more.
Listening to HLN this morning they said that in 2006 (the most recent year they have this data for), more than 50% of taxpayers actually paid no taxes and that 75% of the taxes that were paid, were paid by people making $366,000/year or more.
I'd like to see some numbers on that, I know damned well I pay about 20% of my income into taxes. I'm no where near 366 thousand a year.
I'd like to see some numbers on that, I know damned well I pay about 20% of my income into taxes. I'm no where near 366 thousand a year.
There is likely a difference of which taxes you are looking at and whether or not you are looking at "gross income", "adjusted gross income", or "taxable income."
Also, are you including state, sales, estate, personal property, etc...
They show reports on TV that make these sweeping statements about averages and mean. But rarely do these so called "facts" ever have much relevance to ANYTHING but the nation as a whole, the overall picture.
When you try to put this to the test of your individual situation, it never adds up unless your living in the most average place in the country.
Just compare Texas to California, if you look ONLY at income tax, well Texas doesn't have a State income tax, but has a sales tax. But then compare Delaware to Texas, Delaware doesn't have a sales tax, but they have a State income tax. So it isn't directly comparable.
In the end, you have to look at what taxes you are paying as a whole to compare one locale to another, rarely does the new explain this.
It isn't anyone's business if the lady chooses to provide a service in exchange for monetary gain with another. And the shoeshine guy should have been shot in the face when he chose to initiate force.
Contrary to what you may have presumed about my "utopia", which it is not nor is it intended to be, it has nothing to do with "banking" or "business" or any other bogeymen of the collectivists. I am against the existence of "business" as a legal entity. It is arbitrary and preferential law which creates fictional entities. Furthermore, I am against Unconstitutional currency, usury, partial-reserve banking, fiat currency, etc. Personally, I think that the only system that could possibly be fair is a barter system. Alas, people have decided that the benefits of symbolic units of exchange are superior to the drawbacks of actual exchange. And the parasites that profit from its creation, manipulation, and control, have existed since its implementation have loved every moment of it. Who am I to tell others not to use Morgan's Magic Toilet Paper if they want to? If you figure out a better exchange system that the slaves will accept, you will be more widely known that Jesus Christ.
Not sure why you would use what I quoted though. Our system does not embrace any of them. Do you?
irspow -
Thank you for eliminating any lingering doubts I had about your vast intellectual capacity and superior economic comprehension.
OP – People are opposed to a flat tax because it places the burden of taxation on the less fortunate that can least afford to pay. Take a percentage of a sharecropper's income and they starve. Take the same percentage of a plutocrat's wealth and they invest a tiny bit less money. The poor man dies and the rich man is annoyed.
OP – People are opposed to a flat tax because it places the burden of taxation on the less fortunate that can least afford to pay. Take a percentage of a sharecropper's income and they starve. Take the same percentage of a plutocrat's wealth and they invest a tiny bit less money. The poor man dies and the rich man is annoyed.
To reiterate, the plans that have been put forth so far all have an exemption. The lowest is Armey's plan at $36,000. Forbes raised his to $40,000. I don't know what the current bill that Arlen Specter has in commitee has for the exemption. Let's go with Forbes. With a 40,000 dollar exemption, people who make under 40,000 dollars do not pay tax. ZERO, NIL, NADA...period. If you make $40,000 or more, I don't think that you can honestly be classified as "poor" or in "sharecropper" status.
Additionally. if you make say $60,000, because of the $40,000 exemption, guess what? Yes, you only pay the 17% tax on $20,000....not the whole $60,000.
Why are so many people having a tough time grasping this? The "poor" are unaffected by the flat tax.
I also get tired of the idea that people who have achieved are "lucky" or "fortunate". No sir, they worked their butts off to get where they are.
Last edited by Fullback32; 04-09-2010 at 08:52 AM..
I agree with you totally; whatever became of ambition?????????
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.
